AGEOD Forums

FINAL SEEDS
1. Manstein 437
2. Vegetius 202
3. Cobra 193
4. Slimey.rock 190
5. Longhairedlout 180
6. Skywest 154
7. Darthmath 109
8. Gustfire (defaulted)
9. PascalB (41, defaulted)
10. Redeemer (defaulted)
11. johnnycai (defaulted)
12. JDT 93
13. Chris D 65
14. Bertram 26
15. Jim-NC 12
16. mvdh -12

[ATTACH]8107[/ATTACH]

Ok, everything has been finalized. Seeds 8-11 were awarded by default (per the original rules) and those players were given the median scores (131.5 in this case) of everyone else. The final 8 will be reshuffled based on their total scores for the first three rounds. Defaults lead to the median score.

You can start your round 2 games as soon as you see this by contacting your opponent and the hosts just like round 1. The next round is Far West using 1.13b again. You will play both sides simultaneously again.

We've also gotten a commitment from Ageod for the player vs staff mini round. The player vs staff round will be a "fun" round to pad scores and whatnot. Players will all only play one side and that side will be the same for each of them (TBD by poll). The "staff" member you play will be completely random.

updated

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

You should finish your games if you can. I know it can be painful, but you should be rooting for our opponent as if he beats everyone else maybe you're second best. I'll update it if you generate a new score.

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

Don't resign and you wouldn't have to feel guilty

Seriously, a lot can be learned from playing a game to completion.

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.

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.

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.

Only counts VP for seedings proposal?

What about the turn where a game is won for NM?

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.

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.

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.

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!

I should be able to host cmdrsam's and Cobra's games still

Manstein wrote:Only counts VP for seedings proposal?

What about the turn where a game is won for NM?

Yes, it's only VP. NM shouldn't apply.

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.

It still doesn't take into account the variables of battle which could occur if someone continues on. In this case I'll reward him the #9 seed as he's the 2nd player who had a default/resignation.

It wouldn't be fair to someone who actually played the scenario through to be bumped down based on a rule created mid-tournament.

Fair enough, I agree with this logic.
Guess I am banned from future tournaments

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:Fair enough, I agree with this logic.
Guess I am banned from future tournaments

No, not at all.

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.

Ok, thanks.

Just being facetious, naturally
I sent first TRN files to cmndrsam & Cobra

Hi

Dont worry about my VP's count, it's really not important for me...

Dont blame CWNut77, Real Life is always the priority.

Fred, I enjoyed very much our games and I'm sorry that U cant go on with this tournament. Feel free to pm me if U want to begin another PBEM later

And thx to Dixicrat for his nice words and his effort to make this tournament as fairest as possible

Ready to wait this preliminary turn's results (and GG Vegetius ... If I go on, I make a pray to avoid you for the upcoming turn )

Regards

Pascal

Thanks PascalB,
and don't worry, there is always a significant piece of luck in tournament and my first objective was to avoid PhilThib (regardless respect i have... ) !

I do not think that seeding you are in really represent your "level" in the tournament, the score between two very good opponents should be very close in my opinion, so that the winner got a "bad" seeding.

Daxil,
My games are official. I won one, and stalemated the other. Total points:

Me - 162
MVDH - 150

So I believe my points are 12, which gives me a very low seeding.

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!

Doesn't real life stink some times?

I know you want to give each game as much time as you think is required to be competitive. And if I had applied that approach, I probably wouldn't have been waxed like I was!!! So take what I said with a grain of salt.

It can stink, yes -- but nothing bad is really going down, just something that is taking priority and making me busier.
We will be in touch soon!

And no worries sir -- no offense taken. I know you well enough by now my friend

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...

Yeah, sorry about that all. This was my first PBEM and I've never played the short scenarios (hence I'm used to being able to make up for my mistakes!). Not to take anything away from Manstein, I'm certain that he'd of beaten me up pretty well even if I hadn't handed him Memphis on a platter. I think (though I could be wrong) that the majority of those points came from me playing as the CSA and Manstein had Memphis on turn 3 (via an amphibious move by Sherman) while the main CSA Army sat in Humboldt....Game over.

I shall endeavor to not make those same mistakes in the next PBEM or tourney I'm in!

BB

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...

As I am most likely his opponent (or worse - PhilThib), a nice thought for me would be appreciated (preferably before the massacre) Thanks.

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.

So be it, Jim ... So be it ...

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.

Fear not Jim-NC! I think you can take either of them my friend.

Mark

Condolences Jim, we all support you !

Congratulations to Cobra6193 in his victories over cmdrsam!

The final scores are:

Cobra (Confederate): 72
cmdrsam (Union): 11

Cobra (Union): 161
cmdrsam (Confederate): 29

It has been my pleasure to host such fine games between these worthy opponents!

Ok, everything has been finalized. Seeds 8-11 were awarded by default (per the original rules) and those players were given the median scores (131.5 in this case) of everyone else. The final 8 will be reshuffled based on their total scores for the first three rounds. Defaults lead to the median score.

You can start your round 2 games as soon as you see this by contacting your opponent and the hosts just like round 1. The next round is Far West using 1.13b again. You will play both sides simultaneously again.

We've also gotten a commitment from Ageod for the player vs staff mini round. The player vs staff round will be a "fun" round to pad scores and whatnot. Players will all only play one side and that side will be the same for each of them (TBD by poll). The "staff" member you play will be completely random.