Tournament 1 - Week 2 Information

KG_Soldier wrote: Stay classy Parker.

It's funny you would even show up to say that. I was classy, didn't have my guns anywhere near my lines but lo and behold, the KGs love their cannister I guess. Please let your friend who actually played show up to make smug comments. Your public bitterness is getting old, especially after you said you accepted the loss (what was that, a week, two weeks ago? If you're going to be bitter, don't proclaim your acceptance and then carry on this blatantly public campaign, especially for other people). I accept my loss, I just want everyone to know what happened. I know the truth isn't fashionable, but I will tell it regardless.

Enjoy your cannister Baldwin, make sure you have your metal teeth in.

Well. . . you won our game by rolling up your guns and using canister. And that was well within the rules and I didn't complain one bit. In fact I congratulated you on your winning tactics. My batteries stayed a full 200 to 300 yards behind my lines in our battle and only used canister when you suicide charged that big regiment behind my lines chasing a very small regiment (and you called me gamey and whined during the game about me running a 125 man regiment away from a charging 400 man regiment). And while that regiment was running around behind my lines, you rolled up your guns and canistered my lines, breaking 4 regiments. I was paying attention to your suicide charge and didn't see you sneak up your guns, well done by you. It worked. You won. I didn't complain.

And now you lose and it's a different story.

And yes, I think it's classless for you to come here and whine and cry about losing. But I'm not surprised.

"If you're going to be bitter, don't proclaim your acceptance and then carry on this blatantly public campaign, especially for other people." -- SouthernSteel

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I commented on your coming here and complaining about losing by saying "Stay classy Parker." I'm not sure how you get from that to me carrying out a public campaign against you.

Who's the bitter one?

I don't know guys, certainly can't blame anyone for taking advantage of the way the tourney is set up, and I can't blame anyone for complaining about it either. But it is silly, let's not take it too seriously.

Mr Parker whining when he lost? how shocking!!!!!!!
I guess your guns werent up on the line trading canister at the end then?
We each had 1 gun left after the canister ended, Guns were canistering guns and Infantry alike.
My guns moved up to secure the flanks of a crumbling Brigade,if you want to stand and eat canister,
fine just take the loss like a man.

You were complaining and making excuses before anyone even played round 1.
Anyone who cant lose gracefully should not take part in competition.

I really didnt want to even have to comment on this but you just wont let go.

KG_Soldier wrote: Well. . . you won our game by rolling up your guns and using canister. And that was well within the rules and I didn't complain one bit. In fact I congratulated you on your winning tactics. My batteries stayed a full 200 to 300 yards behind my lines in our battle and only used canister when you suicide charged that big regiment behind my lines chasing a very small regiment (and you called me gamey and whined during the game about me running a 125 man regiment away from a charging 400 man regiment).

Hey, my guns (a whole 2 howitzers) were well behind what was left of my lines (easily 100 yards). You pushed, the line disintegrated, and you went for my guns. You even took those guns. You show me somewhere in history where a commander gave a "Turn the other cheek, men!" command, and an entire unit cohesively turned on its heel under fire and marched quickly away from the enemy into their own guns, which were able to also fire upon said enemy. It wasn't a suicide charge, it was planned and I wasn't able to stop them. It's become a well known tactic to wait until a unit charge then quickly pull back because the charging unit is essentially stuck. I confess I wasn't aware I could've hit retreat, but that honestly shouldn't even have to be a consideration under real circumstances unless the unit is beat in melee. You were running my charging unit in circles.

KG_Soldier wrote: And while that regiment was running around behind my lines, you rolled up your guns and canistered my lines, breaking 4 regiments. I was paying attention to your suicide charge and didn't see you sneak up your guns, well done by you. It worked. You won. I didn't complain.

That part was definitely not planned at all - I figured my large unit was lost because you were going to suck them into your battery and there was nothing I could do. I decided if you were going to pull me into cannister, the least I could do was protect my faltering units with the same method. Howitzers can't hit anything really anyway, so I figured it was really their only use. You may have congratulated me (the sarcasm was there, just as it was here), but you did a good bit of grumbling, and have made sure to bring it up every single time I have seen you since then.

KG_Soldier wrote: And now you lose and it's a different story.

It actually is. Spoom rolled his guns up blatantly through cohesive units. You kept yours behind your lines, as I did as well. I couldn't do anything as he rolled them straight up through a large infantry unit and was basically entirely shielded from infantry fire. I only rolled mine up, as before, once I started receiving cannister. He said his line was in bad shape, but half my units were literally at 10 or less stamina (several actually at 0) so he was no worse off than I was, to be sure. Both lines of infantry were facing off squarely, and there was no reason at all to do this. Cannon should never be seen rolling up (by hand, not limbered) into an existing firefight (in my opinion). That's what happened, and I got hammered.

KG_Soldier wrote: And yes, I think it's classless for you to come here and whine and cry about losing. But I'm not surprised.

Of course you're not, your moral and personal superiority make you infallible, and you are untouchable in your conduct, as ever. I don't believe I whined at all, but you can take it as you like. I lost to 8 Union guns in the line of infantry firing cannister in a meeting engagement. I think the infantry kills/etc were likely closely matched, but that swayed the points in a big way. I had an opinion (lo and behold!) that I don't care to play a game of tactics where tactics are tossed to the wind. That's all I said. Duck Hunt is a fine game, except for the laughing dog. He mocks me, and throws me into a blind fit of rage, but you wouldn't be surprised by that either.

KG_Soldier wrote: "If you're going to be bitter, don't proclaim your acceptance and then carry on this blatantly public campaign, especially for other people." -- SouthernSteel

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I commented on your coming here and complaining about losing by saying "Stay classy Parker." I'm not sure how you get from that to me carrying out a public campaign against you.

You said you congratulated me, but it was a fairly loaded compliment, and you left right afterwards. I would note as well that it was not without some grumbling as well about me and being gamey and whatnot.
You have, and I am sure others can attest to this, made comments about that game in some way, shape, or form every single time I have even seen you in TS since that time, and certainly in every game. You also come here however long after the fact and make a blatantly sarcastic, snide comment. I've called you on it, and you're holding your hands up, proclaiming to be blameless. You said you were over it, and clearly you're not. All I am asking is not to claim an aire of superiority over me, who supposedly whines about everything ever and is the gamiest of the gamey.

If it's going to come down to this every single game, then I am just saying I don't want any further part in it. It's not whining, it's fact - just because it doesn't make someone look good doesn't make it any less so. I wasn't overly pleased with the way our game turned out, and this last game was even worse. It really just takes all of the fun out of it for me, first these silly tactics then all of these underhanded comments. Saying it's a "good game" may be scripted good sportsmanship, but I don't believe they were good games and as such will not agree to saying so. I think perhaps rules and refs might be a good step for future tournaments, but I don't think I will take part regardless.


UH OH, TAG TEAM ROUND!

kg_sspoom wrote: Mr Parker whining when he lost? how shocking!!!!!!!
I guess your guns werent up on the line trading canister at the end then?

That is precisely it, thank you for making my point. I brought my guns up to "trade" cannister once you had fired maybe 3 rounds per gun into my lines, through your unit. I only even consider bringing my guns anywhere near my lines once I have received cannister from the other player.

kg_sspoom wrote: We each had 1 gun left after the canister ended, Guns were canistering guns and Infantry alike.
My guns moved up to secure the flanks of a crumbling Brigade,if you want to stand and eat canister, fine just take the loss like a man.

If that brigade was crumbling, why didn't I ever see a unit fall back? I wasn't pressing them, they were in their starting position of the fight when you rolled your guns up, forward-like, through them. And I did stand there and eat it, and I didn't lose a single unit, and my muskets are what drove off your guns eventually. My entire line was in tact, but because of your cannister on the offensive, the score was badly slanted.

kg_sspoom wrote: You were complaining and making excuses before anyone even played round 1.
Anyone who cant lose gracefully should not take part in competition.

I really didnt want to even have to comment on this but you just wont let go.

Oh, was I? I don't recall that, so do tell, if you would. I asked about rules, if I recall, and that was all. I did admit some worry about the consciousless, and I have been supremely vindicated on that point. I lost, that was the very first thing I posted, and that would have been all except soldier had to make a snide remark, and I feel fine in defending myself against such things.

What does grace have to do with truth? I explained exactly what happened, and that is in bad taste? Again, I have grace and superiority held over my head as if I am some base, classless jerk. Certainly I don't possess these fine qualities if I call someone out for something!

Perhaps your future opponents can consider it something of a preview of what sort of things they will be facing. But don't worry I've made secret deals with them ahead of time to get some cheese with my whine/super secret spy information ( no smiley with shifty eyes).

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.

nevermind

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.

kg_sspoom wrote: 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.

KG_Soldier wrote: 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.

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.

I'd prefer a UFC style grudge match.

Little Powell wrote: 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.

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

N

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.

KG_Soldier wrote: 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.

SouthernSteel wrote: Still, technically not our game.

Thanks for coming out

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.

Garnier wrote: 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).

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.

Little Powell wrote: And you're in luck with the 250 yard rifles, I already have them in the Championship OOB.

I don't know on the instant limber cannon, that still kind of blows my mind. I always thought the goal was to get closer to realism? I demand 206.35 yard rifles! I do think it will be interesting if (and as I understand, when) 200 yd rifles come about to see how that will affect the balance of gameplay.