Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen

I posted a thread about the most one sided scn.
How about a "david and goliath" Tournement.
Those with a certain percentage win against those with a certain percentage loss.
The David can chose scn. House Rules and Options.
Don't know what level to set the win/loss % at, any suggestions.

_________________
Jim Hall
Field Marshall
Commander Anglo-Allied Army

Clifton is your man for suggestions about % losses, based on his tabletop experiences.......in a manner of speaking

Jim that's quite an interesting idea like a golf handicap.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Yeah, OK, so the Engineer in me just cannot resist the opportunity to devise a formula. My initial suggestion for dividing the 'Davids' from the 'Goliaths' would be as follows:

(2 x Major Victories + Minor Victories) / (2 x Major Defeats + Minor Defeats)

If the answer equals 2.0 or higher, the player is a Goliath.
If the answer equals 0.5 or lower, the player is a David.

This basically means that a Goliath gains 2 VPs for every 1 VP he loses.
A David would lose 2 VPs for every 1 VP that he gains.

Now I just have to figure out some kind of modifier that will ensure I can qualify for the 'David' category while keeping Knox and Bardon in the 'Goliath' role.

How about all French players add 20 to the Numerator, and all Coalition players add 20 to the Denomenator?

No need to worry Mark most allied officers would be David's
Just kidding.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Uh-oh. Now you've done it.

...no, wait...I meant...



(Dang Keyboard!)

Andy it has always been my belief that Scott's Bowden Empire table top rules were the forerunner to web play. The French who in most cases commanded larger Armies and better command put his loses at 30% and the French left the field that would be 30% of combine Inf and Cav not Art and ect. His 100,000 man Armies of Cav and Inf if they lost 30,000 men lost the battle. Now the smaller allied force a lost of 40% of their combine Inf and cav left the field. So if the Emperor showed up with 100,000 or more and the Allies showed up with lest say 50,000 combine 30,000 French lost 20,000 Allied lost that's how we played Table top with Empire rules. Also no French unit could be considered fighting attack ready below 30% lost and no Allied unit could be attack ready below 40% .

Colin,

Sounds like an admission that most scenarios are stacked against the Allies. I heartily agree and thank you for your honesty. So refreshing to see the finally French admit that they can only win when the scenario is weighted heavily in their favor. So what have we learned? If you want a challenge joint the Allies cuz when you win you have beaten the odds!!!! Anyone can win as the French (even Muddy's horse).

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

Monsieur s to my way of playing it would be a much better way if the French Goliath were pared with the French David's and they took on the Allied team. Now the wins would determined the David's and Goliath;10 or more wins would be a Goliath and 5 or less the Davids. The Goliath would have to get the Davids to play with them in the Tourn. Here is a list of Goliath's and Davids its by request only if they don't want to play that would be up to them. French D&G teams ;French army G; 10 or more wins paired with French army David’s 5 win or less
Chuck Jensen 15 Paul Pratt 5

Paul Johnson 45 Paul Smith 3

Pete Russo 13 Vincenzo Franchini 0

Patrick Mossier 17 Phillip Driscoll 5

Zbyszek Pietras 19 Nano Capfer 0

Ramon Cipressi 22 Stefan Kostka 0

Ian Travers 21 Alex Bacian 0

Jonathan Thayer 31 Mike Haley 0

John Mitchell 17 Paul Moyal 0

Yann Lamezec 11 Monte Gray 2

Devon Hill 13 Joseph Medeiros 0

Douglas Fuller 25 Zou Yuping 0

Bruce Hall 31 Paul Smith 3

Jeff Bardon 59 Vincenzo Franchini 0

Dejan Zupancic 12 Phillip Driscoll 5

Mike Cox 11 Nano Capfer 0

Theron Lambert 43 Stefan Kostka 0

Christophe Boucheron 15 Alex Bacian 0

Guillaume Ameline 24 Mike Haley 0

Dean Beecham 14 Paul Moyal 0

Francisco Palomo 42 Monte Gray 2

Colin Knox 29 Joseph Medeiros 0

Vincent Gatto 12 Zou Yoping 0
Mark Oakford 11 Tom Simmons 2

Gregor Morgan 15 Beric Kimball 0

Bill Peterson 11 David Earls 4

Marshal Blackburn that was a good repost. Might be time soon for us to cross swords
I doubt you will be up for it though unless i play allieds in some one sided slash up

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Gentlemen

Just thinking aloud:

Using Mark's formula Officers express a wish to participate as a D or G
We need a D and a V to fight a final
Depending on numbers entering leagues of equal numbers of D and V will be formed best D will play best V in final.
In the leagues all D will play all G, games could be concurrent.
Remember D picks scn, options and House Rules.
We perhaps need to restrict scn. to say 30 moves!

_________________
Jim Hall
Field Marshall
Commander Anglo-Allied Army

Sure Colin, you can even play as the Crapauds. (I need to keep the excuse close to hand).

Let me know when you have an opening.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

Greetings officers,

I think the concept of David's vs Goliath's is interesting, on it's face value, however, I also think that in the end, no matter what scenario and rules are chosen by the David, the Goliath will win in the end. It is all but a foregone conclusion, when you have the strongest vs the weakest players facing off against one another. The only time it will prove different is through luck, or the fact that a so-called David is truly a budding Generalissimo who simply doesn't have a win yet, because he is so new.

The real-life David was simply smaller in size than his foe, but proven to be far wiser in his tactical skill. In this proposal, you are basically taking proven weak players and throwing them into the lion's den against the proven superior player. Maybe what we need is a Daniel?
Now, I personally strive to play against superior opponents, because I feel that is the best way to improve one's game (but, it is extremely difficult if your ego cannot handle the strain that such painful lessons can produce).

In this matter of the David's & Goliath's I like the idea put forward by Col Dumas, in which such type-cast players from the same armies are joined together in MP games. This way, the superior player is able to mentor and instruct the junior officer.

Just my thoughts on the subject, and it is awesome to see these conversations flowing between us all, as much as the fine wine and ale from the barkeep.

Regards,

How about you put this twist on it?

The weak player gets an army 2 or 3 times bigger.

Mesi Todd , just like Al to come out and say what he said he use to beat young allied players in 20 turns and since he was a play tester and put together most of these games how can he lose. All he would do is run down the poor David's Artillery and game over. The only safe way is MPG teams of D&G playing with Paco thought me that ,I would put money on my game if Paco or Andy Moss played with me.