|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 20, 2018 21:46:27 GMT
Off topic, but I wasn't sure where else to post this. I saw some lovely 2x2 neoprene mats at the tournament (even got a chance to play on one). Can I ask where I can get one of those, please? If you’re talking about my mats, they came from here: www.tinywargames.co.ukNot cheap, but things of beauty 😎 P |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 21, 2018 14:50:30 GMT
Here is the final ranking once sum of opponent scores have been factored in as tie breaks: - Richard Pulley Nubians I/3 and Libyans I/7a
- Scott Russell Viking and Sub-Roman British
- Martin Myers # I/50 Lydian and I/60b Early Achaeminid Persian (Cyrus)
- Mark Johnson # Early Libyan and Nubian
- Paul Murgatroyd # New Kingdom Egyptian and Hittite Empire
- Phil Johnson II/56 Early Imperial Roman and II/25 Bosporan
- Phil Steele Lombard III/2 and Maurikian Byzantine III/17
- Simon Wilson Khmer III/23a and Malay IV/37a
- Reece Bettison # !!/9a Syracusan and II/32a Later Carthagenian
- Craig Allen # II/6 Bithynian and Pergamene
- John Saunders Post Mongol Russian and Golden Horde
- Graham Fordham Early Achaemenid Persian and Lydian
- Rob Rush II/78a Western Late Roman and II/72c Suevi
- Frank Shaw # Yueh and Warring Staes Chinese
- Baldie Storey # Ancient British and Ancient British
- Tamara Fordham New Kingdon Egyptian and Early Bedouin Midianite Arab
- Christine Rigby III/19a Welsh and III/72 Anglo Danes
- Keith Murphy Lombard and Nikephorian Byzantine
- Andy Wheeldon East Frankish and Italian Lombard
- Nick Wright-Carter II/45c Spartacus and II/49 Marian Roman
# Final rankings decided on sum of opponents scores
Thanks to all for turning up and playing in such good spirit. Also thanks to Alternative Armies for sponsoring the event with prizes, to Richard Pulley for donating a DBA army as a prize and to David Constable for updating the results and managing the Swiss Chess pairings.
I will set up an album on the Yahoo Group in case anyone wants to upload their photos.
Regards,
Simon |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Oct 21, 2018 15:52:11 GMT
Thanks for a great day's gaming everyone.
Special thanks to Simon and David for running the show!
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 21, 2018 16:32:27 GMT
Any photos?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 21, 2018 16:49:52 GMT
As I was playing and organising, I didn'thave time to take many photos but I have put a few on the yahoo site in an album. I am hoping that other plauyers will add their much better efforts! Simon |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 21, 2018 18:53:51 GMT
Just a quickie,
Richard, Mark and Nick. Was your choice of armies (one of them being horde-heavy) influenced by the scoring system? If so, I must admit to a grudging respect to the deviousness of your choices! Presumably you arranged it so you were likely to be using the non-horde army and had devised a technique such that you would be slaughtering hordes all day?
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Oct 21, 2018 19:00:49 GMT
Simon,
Since we had colluded to some extent on the mechanics of the tournament, I do have an interest in some of the finer details. Did anyone use their pair more than four times? I only saw your Khmer/Malay pairing once and the Marian/Slave revolt not at all. But the room was a bit full for free circulation, so perhaps I was just not in the right place at the right time.
Also, the pairing seemed to be pretty easy this time. I was usually paired with the player immediately next to me in the rankings for all rounds except the last. Was this true for most players, or was it just DC's planet sized brain lubricating the process?
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 21, 2018 19:35:47 GMT
I've posted some on the DBA Facebook page ;-) P. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 21, 2018 19:38:28 GMT
Just a quickie, Richard, Mark and Nick. Was your choice of armies (one of them being horde-heavy) influenced by the scoring system? If so, I must admit to a grudging respect to the deviousness of your choices! Presumably you arranged it so you were likely to be using the non-horde army and had devised a technique such that you would be slaughtering hordes all day? Scott I'm yet to be convinced that a point for each Horde (and SCh, should they appear) killed is the right way to go... It seems a good/easy way to wrack up the score in each game. P. |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Oct 21, 2018 19:46:29 GMT
I'm yet to be convinced that a point for each Horde (and SCh, should they appear) killed is the right way to go... It seems a good/easy way to wrack up the score in each game. P. Hornet's nest, I know.....I do not believe elements destroyed should in any way be used in the same order of magnitude as game results for determining tournament results. As a tie-breaker, perhaps. I prefer nett element difference based on scoring for victory ( so ignoring SCh and Hd) and only after sum of opponents' scores... |
|
|
|
Post by rhaksha on Oct 21, 2018 20:14:23 GMT
I played the Marian Romans against the Nick's Slaves once and I believe he had played with them twice previously. I played with my armies three times so I think the system allowed a fair balance of army use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 21, 2018 20:37:08 GMT
Simon, Since we had colluded to some extent on the mechanics of the tournament, I do have an interest in some of the finer details. Did anyone use their pair more than four times? I only saw your Khmer/Malay pairing once and the Marian/Slave revolt not at all. But the room was a bit full for free circulation, so perhaps I was just not in the right place at the right time. Also, the pairing seemed to be pretty easy this time. I was usually paired with the player immediately next to me in the rankings for all rounds except the last. Was this true for most players, or was it just DC's planet sized brain lubricating the process? Scott Hi Scott. It looks as if most people played with their own armies for half the games (13 out of the 19 sheets I have at hand). I am not entirely sure as some army pairs were repeated and it is hard to tell from just the sheets. Next time I will amend the sheets to make it easier for players to state whether they are using their own armies rather than just enter the name of the army. You are right that we did find it easier than usual to apply Swiss Chess and get pairings next to each other. Where there was juggling, it was lower down the table. Perhaps having two initial random pairings from two groups - one the old guard, and the other the newer (to increase cances of meeting and playing different people) had an impact as the top of the table was dominated by old guard. Regards, Simon |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 21, 2018 20:46:43 GMT
Simon, Also, the pairing seemed to be pretty easy this time. I was usually paired with the player immediately next to me in the rankings for all rounds except the last. Was this true for most players, or was it just DC's planet sized brain lubricating the process? Scott Hi Scott. You are right that we did find it easier than usual to apply Swiss Chess and get pairings next to each other. Where there was juggling, it was lower down the table. Perhaps having two initial random pairings from two groups - one the old guard, and the other the newer (to increase cances of meeting and playing different people) had an impact as the top of the table was dominated by old guard. Regards, Simon Overall, I think the effect you created here is very similar to what happens via the seeding system applied at the Northern Cup for the first two rounds. Generally (and this is a generalisation, I know) the 'old guard' are the better tournament players and would be the ones who would appear in the top 10 of the NC seedings, with the 'newbies' forming the bottom half of the seedings. You are then likely, after two rounds, to have the more experienced players at the top playing off against one another from there on in. Overall, I like this effect, as it means you're giving the 'better' players the chance to be fighting it out at the business end of the tournament... P. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 21, 2018 20:48:18 GMT
I played with mine three times.
Once due to a roll off as Reece had also played with his own twice.
Presumably he is still making his way home on foot after beating me on that occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 21, 2018 20:51:46 GMT
I'm yet to be convinced that a point for each Horde (and SCh, should they appear) killed is the right way to go... It seems a good/easy way to wrack up the score in each game. P. Hornet's nest, I know.....I do not believe elements destroyed should in any way be used in the same order of magnitude as game results for determining tournament results. As a tie-breaker, perhaps. I prefer nett element difference based on scoring for victory ( so ignoring SCh and Hd) and only after sum of opponents' scores... Paul and Martin - you are probablly right! I had a totally brilliant game against Richard. He won, and I only killed one elelemnt that counted but I did wipe out most of his hordes and so I did walk away with 7 points as loser. Richard got 8! Hopefully we all still had a good time throwing our dice and pushing the toys around Simon |
|
