AGEOD Forums

List of Participants (final): 12

Pool A:
1) Ace (2-0)
2) Guru94 (1-1)
3) Citizen X (0-2)

Pool B:
1) FelixZ (1-0)
2) Highlandcharge (0-1) (Replaced in round two by Seraphim)
3) Havi (sub)

Pool C:
1) Lindi (2-0)
2) Jim-NC (1-1)
3) Pgr (0-2)

Pool D:
1) Skibear (1-1) 2387 VP
2) Moni kerr (1-1) 2169 VP
3) Liberty Bell (1-1) 1578 VP


1st round, Pool Play "The West Campaign": 4 Pools. All players will play two games so that all players play the Union and CSA once and play all pool members once. Total victory points after pool play will determine ranking. A win awards 500 bonus VP. A win by NM awards 1000 VP

Pool A Games:
Guru94 (USA)-- Citizen X (CSA) Host: Lindi (Started) Turn 12: Guru94 358 VP (+33/trn) 32.904 casualties so far, Citizen X 199 VP (+25/trn) 42.858 casualties so far
Citizen X (USA)-- Ace (CSA) Host: Pgr (Started) Final: Citizen X VP:127, 67,021 losses, Ace VP: 473, losses 47,781, NM 151 (NM Victory +1000)
Ace (USA)--Guru94(CSA) Host: Jim-NC (new pair)

Pool B Games:
Planefinder (USA)-- FelixZ (CSA) Host: Havi (new host) ---Game forfeit by Planefinder, Havi takes pool B #3 spot
FelixZ (USA)-- Highlandcharge (CSA) Host: moni kerr Final : FelixZ NM 150 511 vp. Highlandcharge NM 70 328 vp. Win by NM for Union (+1000 for FelixZ)
Highlandcharge (USA)-- Planefinder (CSA) (forfeit Planefinder)

Pool C Games:
Jim-NC (USA)-- Pgr (CSA) Host: Ace (Started) Turn 12: Jim-NC Jim 466 VP (+32/trn), 15.000 casualties. Pgr 355 VP (+26/trn), 12.000 casualties so far
Pgr(USA)-- Lindi (CSA) Host: Pgr/Lindi (Finished) Pgr 724 VP. Lindi 838 VP. Lindi Winner +500
Lindi (USA) -- Jim-NC (CSA) Host: Citizen X (Started) Turn 19: Lindi 644VP (+34/trn), Jim-NC 514VP (+25/trn)

Pool D Games:
Liberty Bell (USA)-- moni kerr (CSA) Host: Planefinder (Started) Turn 14 Liberty Bell VP 397 (+38/trn), 42,235 casualties. Moni Kerr VP 433 (+25/trn), 29,605 casualties.
moni kerr (USA)-- Skibear (CSA) Host: Highlandcharge (started)
Skibear (USA)--Liberty Bell (CSA) Host: FelixZ (Finished) Skibear VP 1417. Liberty Bell VP 128. Skibear Winner +500



2nd round, elimination tournament. A single elimination competitive bracket of 10. Top ranked players will receive a bye into the quarter finals.

Also AGEOD and the The Slitherine Group are offering a prize for this little endeavor. I'm still working on the details with Bart Schouten, but the essential is as follows

[color="#FFFF00"]1st Place: A free copy of a desired upcoming AGEOD title[/color] (They figure you already own Civil War II)
[color="#FFFF00"]2nd and 3rd Place: Discount coupons for the AGEOD store.[/color]


Hosting notes
1: Create a tournament directory in the Saves file and use the following naming procedure: Pool X- Player(USA)-Player(CSA) (example: Pool A-Ace(USA)-Grey Fox(CSA).hst)
2: Zip the Hst file and send it to both players.
3: Players should enter orders and save, but DO NOT PROCESS THE TURN. Ord files are zipped and e-mailed to the host.
4: Host processes the turn and sends the new Hst file to the players.

Settings:
AI: On
Fog of War: On
Delayed Commitment: Max
Foreign Entry: Normal
Historical Attrition: Max
Automated Replacements: Off
Activation Rule: Medium (penalties, but dis-activated can move)
Naval Box Handling: No help (normal rules)
Extended pool: none (far left setting)
Easy Supply: Off


(Oh and hosts should generate replay files....we could make a highlights reel if someone knows how to string the replays together.)

For pool play in the "West" campaign, there will be no tournament house rules. Based on play experience, house rules may be developed for the elimination round.

A PM to all players is being sent out. The tournament will begin when all have confirmed back with me.

Results will be updated as they happen in this thread.

Best of luck to all!

It's about time .
Count me in

I'm in. That sounds fun!

I will try another go. Maybe we bring the smaller scenarios to their rights as well, to cut down time and just do the bigger scenarios at the semi finals. I would definitly prefer April 61 then.

I'd love to get in on a tournament.

Same here, count me in

Count me also

count me in, can´t wait

Hi all!

@PGR if interested, PM me please, I'll give you the email of Marco from Slitherine, he would like to set up a prize for this tournament

What version? Can't go to 1.03 as I am in the middle of several games.

But 1.03 is save compatible if you apply compatibility quickfix on it.

Count me in

PM sent.

bommerrang wrote:What version? Can't go to 1.03 as I am in the middle of several games.

1.03. Had to make a choice....but don't worry, hopefully this concept will take off and we will have many tournaments. (And realistically, we will probably need some replacements for folks who have to drop out due to real life...)

Don't forget.. you can have 2 copies of the game installed, one 1.02 and the other 1.03

I'll have a go at that yep.

re. that house rule suggestion I would think raiders with a cp cost need a leader. i.e. rangers, bushwackers and partisans have no cp cost so need no leader, cav regiments etc do. Easier that trying to define what 'west' is.

Skibear wrote:I'll have a go at that yep.

re. that house rule suggestion I would think raiders with a cp cost need a leader. i.e. rangers, bushwackers and partisans have no cp cost so need no leader, cav regiments etc do. Easier that trying to define what 'west' is.

No need for the old AACW rule for Ldr'ed Cav beyond certain lines (usu. were rivers).

First, Cav are at a premium in CW2; against havi, it's just Feb 63 & I, as the Union, have maybe six Cavs I can build left in the pool. If my oppo wants to waste Cav on raiding, go right ahead. Incidentally, after having two Depots blown from underneath my feet in a well-stacked towns (ha!), I just stumbled upon a Depot protection method against pesky varmints, I believe: a small Cav unit(s) stack on O/*. Seems like they engage and defeat, or drive 'em away.

Second, havi & I have no HRs. Lately, he's been using Sea Mines quite a bit on the Ohio/Mississippi/Tennessee/Cumberland area. They don't seem to be ueberweapons - very annoying, yes, but even with a 1 NM gain, he's slipping - I'm near 110 consistently and more Union victories could get me to 115+ - and I'm still trying to take Nashville. Again, we have no HRs - I think he spent too much on Demos early and is hovering at 50% for Overall Strength. You make choices. I've been landing Card Sailors lately, but he's countered. Neither one of is playing pinochle, if you get what I mean.

Third, I would propose that if two individuals in a tourney game want to have HRs, do so, but the tourney impose none. Pre-game disputes about any HRs submitted to the Director.

Fourth, this is a plea to Play the Game We Have as It Is. Nobody is some overarching Guru of the Game, no one's had it that long or put in that much chair time (well, maybe a couple).

Finally, I want to ask about game length. Is a whole campaign too long? Do we do the previous AACW last Turn = Late June 1863 method, which gets into VPs, which could mean a heavily stacked CSA deck? Even with an NM lead, tough to chip away at an 800 VP CSA lead when you're net-gaining single integers every Turn.

Maybe late sept 63 end for the heats? Be a shame to have to stop half way through summer campaign season I would think.
If you are summing the total of a game played on both sides then the challenge of closing the VP spread should be the same for all.

I would suggest doing two parallel tourneys, one for the smaller scenarios and one for the campaigns. The campaigns emphasize far more resource management and grand strategy than the scenarios, which tend to emphasize operational level movement.

I would do the following in such a notional scenario tourney:

Round 1: Seeing the Elephant - through early April (16 players)
Round 2: Bloody April - through early May (losers and winners bracket)
Round 3: 1862 West - through late May (8 players remaining)
Round 4: Sibley's New Mexico Campaign - through June (4 players remaining)
Round 5: Thunder at the Crossroads - Late June/Early July, timed with Gettysburg anniversary (Finals)

planefinder wrote:I would suggest doing two parallel tourneys, one for the smaller scenarios and one for the campaigns. The campaigns emphasize far more resource management and grand strategy than the scenarios, which tend to emphasize operational level movement.

I would do the following in such a notional scenario tourney:

Round 1: Seeing the Elephant - through early April (16 players)
Round 2: Bloody April - through early May (losers and winners bracket)
Round 3: 1862 West - through late May (8 players remaining)
Round 4: Sibley's New Mexico Campaign - through June (4 players remaining)
Round 5: Thunder at the Crossroads - Late June/Early July, timed with Gettysburg anniversary (Finals)

Not a bad idea.... but I'm still looking for 16!

I'm new, but interested to learn. If it's possible I'm in?

How did you envisioned round robins? With the pools of 4, if everyone plays with every player twice, that would be 6 matches in group stage. That is a lot. Since average PBEM takes more than a month, and very often more than 2 months, the tournament could drag on.

What about the league where everyone plays until he has lost 2 matches, until only 4 players are left. The pairing for each rounds should be to pair players with the same number of losses. It should filtrate opposition rather quickly. Some chess tournaments with large number of participants are played like this. It reduces the number of matches. AACW tournaments usually took more than a year to complete, that is too much and some player give up because of that. The faster the better, last AACW tournament was played with similar rules. Added benefit would be there is no need for the number of players to be divisible with 8. We could start the tournament with 10,12 or 14 players, you name it. Every player would play one match with Union, then with Confederates, and so on... Tournament Director would draw the pairings for each round... The system is much more flexible, and would not depend on victory points for differentiation since there will be NM victories - how do you rate that VP wise?

Then they can play semifinal and final. Such system would be more fault proof against delay. Imagine all round robins complete except one group where the matches are progressing real slow.

About HR. I think no real HR is needed. Raiding (the main worry in AACW) has been nerfed down.

I'm in.

Ace wrote:How did you envisioned round robins? With the pools of 4, if everyone plays with every player twice, that would be 6 matches in group stage. That is a lot. Since average PBEM takes more than a month, and very often more than 2 months, the tournament could drag on.

The idea is groups of 4, with everyone playing everyone ONCE, and playing CSA and USA once.

Example:
Pool A
Ace
PGR
Grey Fox
Jim-NC

Game 1 (Ace USA- Pgr CSA)
Game 2 (Grey Fox USA- Jim-NC CSA)
Game 3 (Pgr USA- Grey Fox CSA)
Game 4 (Jim-NC USA- Ace CSA)

To speed things up games 1 and 3 (or 2 and 4 if you prefer) would be played simultaneously. I'm also kicking around the idea of using "The West" campaign for pool play. The battle campaigns seem too short, while playing too many April 61 games will take too long.

The West is pretty balanced, plays fast, and would be a good choice for some qualifying stats.

Seems ok. In group rankings, if there is a tie in wins, for example if everyone is 1-1, I would filter those that won NM victory first. I do not know how we would evaluate VP for short matches otherwise. Not the most just system, but it always comes to compromise between speed and justness.
If we can form few groups already, there is no need to wait. The matches could start?

The West scenario is a good idea. It would be refreshing to try something different that the good ol' April scenario.
July scenario for quaterfinals would be nice as well.

AFAICS, July start favors Union in MO Loyalty - better Loyalty than in April - same for MD, too, IIRC. Only big difference I can think of at present.

I would be ok with Sibley for quaterfinal matches as well. To keep the April scenarios for the semis and the final.

AI should be on or the Indian and Brits/French get no orders.

pgr wrote:List of Participants (tentative): 12 (registration will close at 16)
[ATTACH]27022[/ATTACH]

If I see this correctly, everyone advances through the round robin?
Usually in tournaments, top two advance from the groups of 4?

Is there still open places? If there is im in.