CWNut77 wrote:PascalB's seed very well may have been higher had I not resigned -- how can this be taken into account? I feel guilty of possibly sabotaging a worthy opponent's placement in Round 2
CWNut77 wrote:PascalB's seed very well may have been higher had I not resigned -- how can this be taken into account? I feel guilty of possibly sabotaging a worthy opponent's placement in Round 2
Dixicrat wrote:I have a proposal for dealing with this and future resignations.
When Lee surrendered to "Unconditional Surrender" Grant, the terms were unexpectedly gracious: men were allowed to return to their homes, officers were allowed to keep their weapons, and those who owned horses were allowed to keep them, as well. Of course, all ordnance was immediately turned over to Federal custody. My proposal is based on this model.
I propose that the victory point value of the surrendering side's artillery be totaled, and added to the Victor's VP total. (However, the men are allowed to return home. ) Naturally, all strategic objectives become controlled by the victor, and so their value is added to the victor, as well. Finally, since the surrendering side has capitulated "unconditionally", the implication is that the will to fight is gone... and so, NM is reduced to "defeat" level. In the case of Shiloh, I believe that's 35.
Daxil wrote:We need an accurate VP count vis a vis everyone else's though so I'm not sure how your idea applies DC. I'd need more of an explanation of what you mean by artillery vp's, etc.. I had no clue they even applied.
I'm inclined to say no0. Just finish the game. Since the scenario's only 8 turns the easiest thing to do is just bang out the turns and not sabotage your opponent.
AndrewKurtz wrote:Don't resign and you wouldn't have to feel guilty
Seriously, a lot can be learned from playing a game to completion.
Dixicrat wrote:Here are the victory points awarded for destroying artillery units. I've also listed the chance of capturing a unit, too. You can summarize the entire table by saying that Heavy Artillery (currently coastal artillery and siege guns) award 3 VP each, while all other ordnance awards 1 VP.
CWNut77 wrote:Fair enough, I agree with this logic.
Guess I am banned from future tournaments
Jim-NC wrote:Daxil,
Hold off on my seeding, as the game ain't over yet (it's still the last turn), and so the final VPs are not determined.
CWNut77 wrote:Heh -- I know my history, my friend...but something has come up (as I reply to this at work) that will take away my hobby-time for a minute. I really meant, in the spirit of the tournament, to finish. So, just wanted to set the record straight and clear my name!
Vegetius wrote:God ! I knew Manstein was a great player but 437 is a non-human score !!!
Let's have a thought for his future opponent...
Vegetius wrote:God ! I knew Manstein was a great player but 437 is a non-human score !!!
Let's have a thought for his future opponent...
Vegetius wrote:God ! I knew Manstein was a great player but 437 is a non-human score !!!
Let's have a thought for his future opponent...
Jim-NC wrote:As I am most likely his opponent (or worse - PhilThib), a nice thought for me would be appreciated (preferably before the massacre) Thanks.
Return to “2nd AACW PBEM Tournament (2009)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests