American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

It would be interesting to see player rankings. This would allow certain scenarios to be played that favor one side or the other.

Say you have an A player playing a B player in scenario #015. The A player plays the side with the fewer wins.

Alternatively, players are given a handicap based on there ranking.

If an A player plays a B player, the B player is given a 10% point bonus. Or some such thing.

Just a thought!

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

That is an interesting proposal but a very difficult one to implement. About the only 'accurate' stat that we have is how many games have we won/draw/lost and how many turns that we have played. Those stats may show how experienced a player is, but they do not translate into how good or bad any player is.

1) The options used to play a game can have significant impacts upon the game's outcome. For example, a player can be good at turn play but not so good when it comes to phase play, and the same applies to all of the other options (and house rules) that can be selected.

2) The quality of opponents that comprise a won/lost record also has a big impact and can make the won/lost record questionable. We can't even define a quality opponent.

3) The type of scenarios that a player chooses to participate in can also greatly impact their won/lost record. Someone who plays the unbalanced scenarios may have a better record but not be as good of a player as someone who plays tougher scenarios. It also isn't easy to agree on what are the unbalanced scenarios.

4) The length of scenarios played can also impact trying to implement such a proposal. Someone who plays 10 ten turn scenarios might have 10 victories on their record while the player involved in a hundred turn scenario spent more time moving more units and only have 1 victory to show for it.

5) MP games would also complicate the process. Everybody gets credit for the victory or loss, regardless of their contribution.

6) I have always heard that the club was originally founded with the specific intent to not be a ladder club. Rating players would create a ladder which in turn could cause some retention problems. Who wants to be rated, publicly or privately, as one of the worst players in the club, particularly if the rating system wasn't fair?

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Good points--I would counter with just a few observations.

My thinking is that it would help with retention as it would give players better opportunities to gain victories that they would not otherwise have achieved.
This would then lead to more experience and better gameplay.

With regards to laddering, the club already has some characteristics of a ladder.
Ranks achieved by gaining points.
Win/Loss records can be seen by all.

As for how to rank. Perhaps simple is best.

55-100% wins=A
50-54% wins=B
45-49% wins=C
44% and below=D

Anyone with fewer than 10 games completed, would be ranked as D. This will avoid a player winning their first game to be ranked ahead of their experience.
Highly ranked players will have to step up their game and not prey on the lower ranks.
My dad taught me how to play chess by first removing his queen, then a rook, then a bishop, a knight, and finally a pawn.
If my dad had just wanted to beat me, he could have done so every time, then I would have lost interest and eventually stopped playing. Then I would not have subsequently played wargames or designed these ACW games we play today.
This is similar.

For each level of discrepancy, a 10%-point handicap.

10% would be based on the Major Victory # of points needed for the side chosen.
If 1800 points is needed for a Major, then add 180 points to the final score.

BTW, this I believe would allow players more opportunities during the game and cause the game to play longer.

Again, just thinking out loud.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

Some interesting and valid concerns raised by Ned Simms. I too would be adverse to a 'ladder' as it could encourage bad behaviour that is mostly suppressed as things are at present. Specifically:
1. There are very few 'phase' games played so there should be no significant statistical oddity in that respect;
2. This is critical (see other comments below);
3. Yes, impossible to factor in, but it all should 'balance' out in the end [LOL];
4. Agreed, but very few long battles 'go the distance' and a lot are completed before the halfway mark (quite a few well before that point);
5. Agreed, but MP games comprise less than 5% of all games; and
6. Agreed.

However, several years ago I did analysis all those then in the ANV. Based upon battle results I allocated points based upon the level of victory/draw/defeat. I used three separate methods. For example, one allocated points as follows:
Major Victory X 3;
Minor Victory X 2;
Draw X 1;
Minor Defeat X -2; and
Major Defeat X -3.
The other two analyses were variations on the above. What I saw was that anyone who was in positive territory was likely to be a good player and the higher ones were often the better players. The mean for the then ANV using the above rating was approximately 0.33. [I will not publicly release those results (only two others in the Club have seen the full details) but Members could easily examine their own records to see what they get using the above method. The highest was a staggering 260 (fortunately he is still with the CSA bringing us victory after victory) which was far above my own rating.
Part of the reason behind me doing it was to support a discussion with the then Cabinet concerning recruitment and retention (they got the results but with the names removed). As I said at the time:
It would not surprise me in the least that most of those who cease being active within the Club within a couple of years of joining are those who lose vastly more than they win.
The problem is that many new Members to the Club (after they finish their Lieutenant's Cup) then play games against much more experienced players who deal out walloping after walloping to the newcomer. The newcomer gets disillusioned and leaves. One said: "I'm sorry but I need to resign. I cannot beat a human." Others just simply 'disappear'.

A rating system might help identify those who are 'top guns' so the newcomer can avoid them until they get more experience. Ranks are no guide to ability as the higher ranks are only awarded for holding administrative posts.
I suggest that newcomers go the DoR and open the file for any proposed opponent. On the first sheet of their file you will see statistics for win/loss percentages (draws are ignored). That should give you a rough indication of how good the player is although to be sure you should then go to the sheet 'DoR Games'. If that 'winning' person regularly plays against other Members who also have a good win percentage then you can probably assume that your proposed opponent is going to provide you with a very challenging game.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

It was my experience that when I become more active after a several year hiatus, that finding an opponent isn't easy. I had to ask twice after initially waiting several days, perhaps longer. At the time, I didn't care who I played, what rules or what side. I just wanted to get my feet wet again. So, how hard is it for a player, especially a new player to find an opponent that is on the same level? I am guessing, and from my recent experience, it is not easy. The most active players are almost always the best and win the most. Should not these players offer to play a less experienced player and provide a handicap of some VP points.

The former player quote from General Swanson, demonstrates that something is needed. IMHO.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

There is a very big learning curve in this Club. But we also have a very small number of new players joining each year which makes it very hard (sometimes impossible) for greenhorns to find people on the "same level" as they are. I've also seen new members join who are far more advanced than other new members and so simply being new does not guarantee that the members will be on the same level playing field. For newbies, my best advice is to simply play all the games you can, against anyone you can, and learn as much as you can.

When I first joined the Club I got beaten more than I won for sure. I recall getting pummeled (nay embarrassed) by Kennon Whitehead and learning a ton from it. Then I improved and thought I knew it all for a few years until Denny Holt whipped me to a frazzle and I realized I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. But I picked myself up and brushed myself off and learned from both of them by pestering them with questions until I learned what made them so good and I added it to my game. It is true you learn more by losing than you do by winning. When I beat up on "poor" players I learn nothing from the experience and the game is quickly forgotten. But often they ask questions and I share my observations with them (i.e. "you left your flank open, try refusing your flank and covering it with zone of control next game"). They often learn a ton by playing against me which I know they then use in their future games (because often I hear from them down the road with friendly updates or follow-up questions). So while the game might not be a great learning experience for me, for them the game might mean building new critical skills which they will use down the road winning victories.

My own opinion is that if you are new to the Club you should expect to lose a lot. If you can't deal with it then you will probably have a hard time with that learning curve. But people that take their licks and keep getting up and learning from their mistakes will improve exponentially with each passing game. Not everyone will have a 60% or better winning percentage but the hope is that most people win between 45% - 55% of their games after the learning curve flattens out for them. There are a lot of resources in the War Colleges and a lot of good players in the Club who enjoy sharing their experiences and tactics with newer members if asked. Another great way to learn is to team up with a veteran in a MP game and pick their brain each turn and see how they move and how they think. Another great way to learn is to play maneuvers as often people on your own side of the Club are more forthcoming with good advice (but this isn't necessarily true as many veterans are just happy to help anyone). I also advise people to not get bogged down always playing one side or the other. Play both sides as much as you can as you are learning the games because it teaches you what the opposing sides biggest strengths and weaknesses are.

Just my two cents anyways.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012