Treeburst155

Jshandorf is correct. When you buy companies (and larger) you get discounted prices on the elements of the company. You could actually buy an entire American battalion and delete everything but the 81mm spotter and save 10 points on that spotter. This kind of stuff would be cheating in my book too. It would be nice if I could find some middle ground for this problem because I like Adam's argument. The question is, where do you draw the line? When does deleting forces become unscrupulous? It's a tough situation.

I see your point Adam. I think you make a good case for NOT banning partial deletions. Players can negotiate this like everything else if they really don't like it. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say on this subject. Edit: What restrictions on SMG squads are you referring too? Are you talking about the "one force type" restriction? [ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Gentlemen, We have a possible problem that needs to be worked out. I need your opinions. You probably all know that units can be purchased in the editor and partially deleted. For example, the 60mm mortars could be deleted from American companies. Two players have already expressed a desire to have this partial deleting of organic units forbidden. In the interest of realism I agree with them. Also, if too much of this partial deleting occurs it may be very difficult for me to reconstruct your purchases. I would need instructions on how you arrived at that particular combination of units. Is there any player out there who is AGAINST my outlawing this unit cannibalization? F

The Contact List should be in your mailbox now. If you have not received your list let me know. If your list went to an address you would rather not use for this tourney send me a new address for tourney use and I'll correct the list and inform the players. The War has begun. May the best man win! Treeburst155 out.

Tincan, Be advised your game with Mike_D will not count for this tourney as he has dropped out.

I'm with Mlapanzer. No matter who picks the troops the winner of R,P,S should play Germans. No choice. If you're really an ass kicker you should be able to do it from either side. Geez, I hope Duke isn't letting my trophy get dusty.

You're welcome TeAch. My donation is on the way.

I just finished a PBEM with the BER. This is the only way to play guys!

My wife is sponsoring another prize for the tourney! She is going to send $50 cash as a "Sportsmanship Award" to the player who exhibits the best sportsmanship throughout the tourney. How will sportsmanship be determined? You must be elected by the other players. If you vote for yourself you automatically lose. You will send your vote to WineCape near the end of the tourney. We will let you know when it is time to vote. When all votes are in WineCape will announce the winner of the "Sportsmanship Award". This event will mark the end of the tourney. It is entirely possible a runoff election will be necessary, which would be fun. You may be wondering how my wife became a tourney benefactor. It's quite simple really. The $50 will be stolen out of her purse when the time comes. [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Things are moving right along. My big tourney spreadsheet is complete along with 12 of 19 maps. I'll probably send out the Contact Lists within one week. Texas Toast was a BIG help to me this week. He identified and solved a major problem of mine that I didn't even know existed. Although I only need 19 maps for the tourney, all 190 games must be assigned a map in a very specific manner in order for everything to work out so that each player sees each map only one time. Having realized this, Texas Toast somehow created a table for me to use to assign the right maps to the right games. Without this table I would have found myself making a bunch of maps later in the tourney. Thanks Texas Toast! There is more news coming soon that involves yet another prize. I'll announce the details as soon as Winecape and I figure them out. Let me take a moment to discuss everyone's favorite topic, Gamey Tactics. Players should chat with each other about this issue as a part of their game negotiations. Let your opponent know where you stand on gameyness and how you intend to play. Using gamey tactics does not upset people nearly as much when they know they will be up against such tactics. Expected gamey tactics can be prepared for and often defeated. Unexpected gamey tactics will be looked upon with scorn. Flagrant abuse of the few flaws in this amazing game engine could even result in a restart of the game if your opponent can show that you were not honest with him concerning gamey tactics. If there are specific gamey tactics that really bother you, or that you intend to use, make sure your opponent is fully aware of them. Come to an agreement on these specific tactics. A friendly chat about gamey stuff will keep your games enjoyable for both you and your opponents. So, your games can be as gamey as you like so long as your opponent is FULLY aware of this fact before the game begins. However, an officer and a gentleman would not insist on heavy use of gamey tactics if his opponent is against it. Remember, Steve and Charles would make gamey tactics impossible if they could. That's enough on this subject. I've got 16 jeeps loaded with bazookas in a PBEM game I've got to rush forward. It's safe for them now because my hunter/killer crews have wiped out his schrecks and my 8 sharpshooters are keeping me well informed of the enemy's whereabouts. Treeburst155 out. [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

It seems to be a tight race as far as who picks the troops is concerned. For the record I'm sticking with Duke picks and sides determined by R,P,S. Of course, if it goes gamey I'm right at home. Treeburst155 (soon to be AKofM II Champion)

New results just in! Fangorn took out Chuckle 52-31. Fangorn has now won his first two games. Here's the updated standings: 1) Fangorn 127... 2 played... 63.5 per game 2) Chuckle 31 3) Tincan 21 4) The Rest 0 [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

LOL!! Kiwi Joe, you're too much. I hope Tom W kicks your ass. The Always Impartial, Treeburst155

Tom W wrote: "OK now I am going to complain a little. I read some of the posts by MrSpkr regarding SturmKompanies in Recon Games. All four of my games in progress as the Allies are either Recon Rules or Mech rules and I am meeting plenty of Sturmkompanie squads and taking a real beating for it, SURE I would have liked to have a plattoon of Airbourne or Glider forces, you bet I would but I did ALL my Allied buying so far according to the strict CAL rules of "only one Force type" and I would say in my Recon Rules games I am paying for it. Oh well I guess its not a big deal really lets move on -tom w " ********************************************* This is precisely why I added the new rule. Since you seem to play strictly Allies your last four games won't be as rough as your first four. You can get some SMGs now with vehicle support!! It would have been great if Mr. Spkr had come up with this rule change idea BEFORE we started the tourney but it's hard to see these kinds of things in advance. Remember, we're actually beta testing these rules. As a result, your Allies are now better off. (at least in this tourney). Treeburst155 out.

Tom, Since your game with Kiwi Joe has not begun yet I think you should be allowed to restart that game so you can take advantage of the new rule if you so choose. It is my guess that Kiwi Joe will have no problem with this. If you haven't already done so you should write him. Treeburst155 out.

Well Tom, you are right. This was a rule change in the middle of the game. I also agree that doing this sort of thing should be avoided in most circumstances. This is why I did it: 1) It seemed like an excellent way to equalize the SMG problem which is still present in SMALLER battles like our tourney games. The limitation to 3 platoons of the troublesome SMGs isn't much of a limitation when it comes to small battles. This is even stated in the CAL rules at TH, I believe. 2) Since we were (and still are) in the early stages of the tournament I figured the added rule would not be a problem for people. Those most affected in a negative way would be those who had started a bunch of games as the Allies before I made the rule. I doubt anyone had more than three games as Allies started before I made the addition. To those who did have more than a game or two already started as Allies I apologize since you were not able to take advantage of the new rule in those games. Inspite of this negative impact I felt the rule was a very good one and well worth it in the interest of keeping things even. Remember also that MANY players probably have an Allied game or two going that started before they could take advantage of the new rule. Most everybody is probably in the same boat. Another thing to consider is that the CAL rules are actually fairly new. We are the first group, along with the CAL ladder, to use the rules. We are finding the "bugs"and ambiguities in the rules. For examples of this just read this thread and the one for WineCape's Tourney II. I believe the new rule is a definite improvement to the CAL rules when it comes to small battles. I will not make changes or additions to the CAL rules on a whim. I doubt I will change them again during the tournament. Treeburst155 out.

To all, Obviously Mike_D did not like my decision against him in his dispute. I did the best I could and tried to be as fair as possible. Really I did! It is very important to communicate clearly with one another. When you think you have come to an agreement repeat back to your opponent the details (as Chuckle did, and Mike_D did not). This is the only way to be sure you both understand the agreement the same way. Rather than defend my decision further on this thread (which is supposed to be for the fun stuff) I will send the pertinent documents to you privately if you wish to review my decision in this dispute. I feel sure that most of you, if not all, would agree with my decision to let the game stand. Now, since Mike_D has dropped out I have no choice but to declare the game null and void. In other words Chuckle, you are SOL on that whopping 94 points. That's the breaks. There is no other way to keep things fair. Everyone should delete Mike_D from their contact list. There are now nine players in the tourney so you have eight games to play. Actually this is good since you guys aren't exactly flying through these games. As of now we have only one game completed. That game is Fangorn/Tincan. The standings: Fangorn 75 Tincan 21 The Rest 0 The Right Honorable Judge Treeburst155 of The First International Court of Tourney Disputes. (self appointed for life)

Sorry about posting the results while the dispute remained unsettled. I didn't connect the dispute email with the game result email. My mailbox was packed and I was in a hurry. I would like to clear one thing up however. I didn't post a dispute to the forum, just a game result. I then simply advised people not to surrender since every point counts. It was obvious to me that Mike_D surrendered because of the lopsided score. Anyway, I'm sorry for posting the game prematurely. It won't happen again I can assure you. I think it's time to forget the Chuckle/Mike_D game and move on. There was simply an unfortunate misunderstanding which I've ruled on to the best of my ability. There are lots more games to play so lets look to them. The Mike_D/Chuckle dispute teaches one valuable lesson. Never ASSUME anything in negotiating a game. Make sure everything is spelled out clearly. This way you know your opponent understands the agreement. Judge Treeburst155 out. [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Sajer has squeaked out a Minor Victory over KelsieD. The final score was 49-39. Updated standings below. Congrats Sajer!! Kiwi Joe 83 Sajer 49 KelsieD 39 Stalin's Organ 17

Another game result has come in. Chuckle beat MikeD 94-6. This puts Chuckle in first place. Here's the standings: Chuckle 94 Fangorn 75 Tincan 21 MikeD 6 Don't surrender MikeD! Fight to the bloody end, or try to extract your guys and get 'em off the map. The enemy gets more points for captured troops than dead ones, and no points at all for units that run off the map. You might have picked up 20 points or so. Remember guys, every point counts! I think it's kinda fun to attempt extracting guys from a very bad situation. I find myself doing it often in my games.

WineCape emailed me the correct answer to the map question. Although there will be 190 different games played I only need 19 different maps. Mr. Spkr, Thanks for the offer, but I can handle it. I may even have time to improve them some. Besides, I'd hate to have you play a game on a map you are already familiar with. One thing you could do for me is set up a spread sheet with all 190 games on it with columns for results in Microsoft Works. :eek: What's that? Your computer just broke? I understand. Seriously, your offer is appreciated but 19 maps is no problem.

Here is the FINAL list of contestants: 1) Fionn Kelly 2) Martin "Moon" Turewicz 3) Bill Hardenberger 4) SuperTed 5) Michael Dorosh 6) Ari Maenpaa 7) Fuerte 8) Berlichtingen 9) Jshandorf 10) MickOZ 11) Claymore 12) 13) CapitalistDogInChina 14) John Kettler 15) Jarmo 16) Robert Hall 17) Texas Toast 18) Sten 19) Ben Galanti 20) Mr. Spkr Please make sure you are familiar with how the tourney will work. Your invitation letter spells it out in detail. If you have any questions just write me at Mikeman@cablelynx.com for a prompt response. When you get your Contact List with all participants'names and email addresses you should begin arranging games. This will mark the beginning of the tournament. Some of you are listed above using your nickname and some by your real name. I will know you only by the name listed above. When you report game results please use the names listed. That's it for now. Puzzle of the Day: If twenty players are to play one game against each of the other players, and no player is to see the same map twice, how many maps do I need to make? Treeburst155 out. [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The first completed game of this tourney has been reported. Fangorn jumps into first place with 75 points, having beaten Tincan 75-21. I believe there are several games at the "BER" stage so more updates are coming soon. Treeburst155 out.

OK, number twenty has accepted his invitation. Please welcome Mr. Spkr to the tournament!! Mr. Spkr was invited because he promised he would let me have my wife and children back if I invited him. Actually, scouting reports indicate he's not afraid of this lineup so I'm just very curious to see how he does. Welcome aboard, Mr. Spkr!! I've got one more invitation still out there. I'll wait until 2200 hours, Friday, June 22 for a response. Since we already have 20 players no more invitations will go out. There are several tourney related things I will be working on for the next 10-14 days along with maps. I'm entertaining guests right now so I won't be too available until Monday the 25th. Keep an eye on this thread for any late breaking info. I may need your opinions and input on a couple things. Thanks!!

The deadline has passed for the eight invitations that are still out there. I have received word from one of those, bringing us to a total of nineteen players. Allow me to introduce Ben Gelanti!! We enjoy Ben's posts but we also think he needs to broaden his horizons. Scouting reports indicate Ben is strictly a scenario player. He hasn't a clue about unit cost! :eek: This little event should round out his CM skills a bit. Study up, Ben; and Welcome Aboard!! I have one more slot to fill but I'm going to send out two more invites. Why? We can't make up our minds. Besides, if you can play 19 games you can play 20. One or both of them might not be able to participate anyway. I'll be online again in 24 hours. Real life is demanding my attention. Treeburst155 out.