Tournament 1 - Week 2 Information

[KG_Soldier]

Even though I lost, I did enjoy my game against Parker (aka SouthernSteel). My heart was pounding and the tension was incredible.

I admit I've jacked with Parker a bit about rolling up his guns to get the win, but he's the biggest complainer about the use of that tactic, so I couldn't help but prod him a bit on Teamspeak.

I, however, posted not a single word of complaint about our game.

You can count on me to play in every tournament you guys host, no matter what rules are used.

[SouthernSteel]

Whatever you want to believe happened is fine with me, my conscience is clear.
If you think I cheated by all means you should say so. If not whats the point?
Should your opponents ask you if their lines are sufficently in trouble before bringing guns to help hold flanks? or should I have waited till lines are routing before bringing help?
The "Tag Team Round" comment is so lame Parker, would you just like your 2 opponents to
be quiet and let you have your say alone?
What exactly other than us surrendering to you would make you happy?

Nice "Classy" move by "forfeiting" other game.
That really tells alot about how good a sportsman you can be.

I said nothing about cheating - it has been well established there is no such thing. I explained what happened, then when I was called out for whatever reason, I defended myself, hence the point-by-point rebuttal. I don't expect anyone to ask me anything, really I expect to be fairly well ignored on all counts, as usually happens. Still, I'm not resorting to any character attacks, only trying to explain reasoning and show why your jabs at me are unfounded. But I'm classless and whiny...what else is on the list? I've lost track.

I think, in general, guns should never be brought up into one's lines. Artillery was never used that way historically, and physically it would be impossible. I am fine with artillery being behind the lines and falling back to them by retreat, etc. I can't tell that your units are faltering unless there are physical signs of such, so how can I know anything about what you claim to have been the case? You had not moved that unit for the enitre battle (against my units that had neither moved nor rested) and so there was 0 sign of distress from my vantage point. You originally had your guns about 20 yards behind your lines, and brought the guns to your lines, not the other way around. Thinking about it, even if one of your flanks had fallen back, there wouldn't have been time for me to do anything about it anyway.

I waited the first game until my lines were essentially gone before I brought 2 guns up, still behind my lines, but that makes me entirely gamey apparently. Also, exposing my guns to capture, that's quite gamey as well. It just doesn't occur to me to even go that route unless cannistered first.

I called the tag team because that's what it is, you guys are nice and comfortable 2 on 1, and besides, it was a joke, so...why so serious? I didn't ask for any comments to be made against me, but both of you jumped in, so I called it like I saw it. If you find my terminology unacceptable, I don't know what to tell you?

Please don't go into hyperbole trying to make your point, it's a waste of space. I never said anything about anyone surrendering. Snell and I fought each other to a frazzle, and only at the end was there any contestation about guns. I think a battle ought to be hard fought and hard won, not decided entirely by rolling cannon up into the lines, thus outmatching any move infantry can make. There was still plenty of infantry fighting to be done (although I hadn't been watching the timer, so you played to the timer and the points, and the win). Flanking maneuvers, breakthroughs, etc. ought to win the day, not buckets of buckshot, especially (and again all of this in my opinion) when brought forward to the fray, not kept in their more historical place in support and as a last ditch defense.

And keep dubbing everything I do classy. We've already established the KG moral superiority here. And it's doubled in tag team mode! Super extra bonus! I merely said I don't wish to play games that end up being cannister shootouts (which is highly ironic considering you were the leader in making modifications to help stop this sort of thing) - why is it your job to defame my decision to withdraw? I volunteered to play, and I can thus voluntarily withdraw. This was meant to be fun, and it no longer is for me, why prolong it? It's no consolation to me.

I can be a fine sportman when afforded the opportunity. When sportmanship is thrown out the window, well, like I said, I call it like I see it.

I admit I've jacked with Parker a bit about rolling up his guns to get the win, but he's the biggest complainer about the use of that tactic, so I couldn't help but prod him a bit on Teamspeak.

I, however, posted not a single word of complaint about our game.

I may have thin skin at times, but I think Willard may have me beat on staying away due to line cannister (not to drag him into this, but he has been fairly adamant about steering clear of this tactic).

And I think you broke your rule by that opening prod after I wrote up about last night's game. Still, technically not our game.

[KG_Soldier]

Uh. . . well. . . my comment about "staying classy" had absolutely nothing to do with our game.

But remember, it's not being paranoid if they're really out to get you.

[Little Powell]

Would you two be interested in an artillery free grudge match?

[KG_Soldier]

I'd prefer a UFC style grudge match.

[Garnier]

Would you two be interested in an artillery free grudge match?

Right now the only reason to attack is if the enemy gets some early hits with artillery. This happened in my game with Mac which is why I had to use the massive reb regiments to do a massed column charge to get some points. This happened again in my game with Baldwin which is why I surrendered after 10 minutes, since attacking up the alps against a good player is a waste of time.

Without artillery, you'd lose the only chance for either side to have a legitimate reason to attack, so both sides just sit on their hills.

[Neal]

Here's a question: What happens if you were to set canister ammo counts to just 2-0 rounds per gun?

N

[Garnier]

First of all you can't, since cannon ammo is a single number.

Then even if you could, here's what happens:
You let the guns shoot ten rounds each at the start of the game to bring ammo low enough to refill, then roll wagon by and they'll refill to 12 canister rounds apiece.

[SouthernSteel]

Uh. . . well. . . my comment about "staying classy" had absolutely nothing to do with our game.

But remember, it's not being paranoid if they're really out to get you.

Still, technically not our game.

Thanks for coming out B)

If you have to find other ways to get your digs in, that's fine. Puzzling, but fine. The only paranoid I can agree with is the Black Sabbath song. Pretty good song.

Without artillery, you'd lose the only chance for either side to have a legitimate reason to attack, so both sides just sit on their hills.

Actually, both of my games had pretty good infantry fights going. I was attacking uphill in the first which really should've lost me the game, and almost did. The second game, however, was in the midst of a pitched infantry firefight (we both manuevered so that neither was up a hill looking down on the other, probably just luck/coincidence) when the artillery came into play up close - we had both scored a hit or two from distance as we moved, but nothing upsetting, really. I don't know if spoom had lost any infantry units, but our lines were stretched about evenly, none giving that I saw, even though my men I know for sure were exhausted, and I think his had to be pretty fatigued too (fighting in heavy woods). After a time, the arty was a wash as well, but it had already done its damage by the time it was driven off. I kinda wish we'd had another 30 minutes or so to fully play out our forces, as it was we were both still standing, save for the arty, and the fight was not decided at all.

But yes, king of the hill is a real problem, especially without objectives or some such. We actually started on Aps Knob and actually moved off of it (which has never happened before and may never again).

[Baldwin]

First off, I enjoy this game a lot, while it may not be perfect, I realize the heart and soul that went into making it and thoroughly respect all the developers. In Powell's own words he said this first tournament was a beta. We should treat it as thus. I would like to appeal that if not in the finals, in the next tournament infantry use 250 yard rifles and cannons can limber instantly to eliminate the 'canister controversy'. There would also need to be an objective (with no points) to avoid a Mexican standoff. You only win if your the last one on the objective when time expires. We play this way in Garnier's campaign and it seems to cut the arguments to nearly zilch over 'gaminess'. Whether I win or lose in the finals, I will likely not join another tournament unless these rules are implemented. Even if I win, I will not be as satisfied with the result as opposed to a game where tactics play a larger role than canister. In fact, the only game I enjoyed thus far was in the first round, but that was because Neal and I had a gentleman's agreement not to move up our cannons, fire cannons through infantry, retreat cannons, etc.