World Champs

mepbmlist
#1

Hi guys

Well I have looked through some of the emails and I think this might suit
players.

Scoring System:

3 pts for a Win
1 for a Draw - 52 turns or agreement
1/2 pt for a Surrender which is accepted by the other team
0 pts for a loss

The format of the game is a Challenge cup game - with the most points
declared the winner. Team captains to challenge a team on their team-mates
behalf (via my good self). Swops for choice of team - so far:

German (DS) vs Scandanavians - with the Germans choosing sides (Game 18)
Australia (Rob) (FP) vs UKII - Aussies choosing (Game36)
USA (Ben) (FP) vs (Colin) UKI - USA choosing - 3pts to USA, 1/2 pt to UK.
(Game30)

Loser on points gets the option of Team to play (DS or FP) if there are two
teams with a choice.

A game is brought to a conclusion on the turn where the winning team gets
OVER twice as many active nations as the losing team. So starting with 12
nations that means 5 nations on the losing side will force a concession.

Format ends when either there are no more challenges or you have played each
team once. 5 games yep - can be played consecutively (most of the players
play at least two positions with us) and I cannot see a faster way to play.
One game might be ICQish as an option later on (we might be getting a game
for Christmas at Harlequin HQ as the final tester). (If there is a tie on
points then by number of active nations left totalled throughout the games,
then on least active nations left on your opponents side at the end of the
tourney).

Okay - opinions please?

What I also could do with is confirmation from the respective team captains
that they have a team, (and the team -list - account numbers helpful), and
who they would like to play next. If you haven't got a team captain then
please allocate one for the purposes of chatting to me.

Thanks

Clint

#2

Please note that while I'm in the Aussie team, I'm in no position
to agree to anything. just my individual comments below here :-

Scoring System:

3 pts for a Win

**No Problems

1/2 pt for a Surrender which is accepted by the other team

**Surrendering sounds like "admitting defeat". Why should I surrender
when we have a chance to go for a one ring victory (quite rare in 1650
games) when "surrendering" only gives 1/2 point ?. I say 1 point is
better. This will solve the UKOne-US Debate, 3-1 Option 4 presented
by Colin.

Maybe more teams will "surrender" in this case but remember, it has 2b
accepted by the other side. Teams who hate pro-longed games MAINLY
because it's taxing on the pockets, will find this a viable option too. The
Aussie team has a few die-hards but most of us wouldn't want to cough
up extra dough when we can play more games but a few of us would
really hurt the other side's pockets very badly for we are perfectly capable
to pro-longing the game to T52 at least.

1 for a Draw - 52 turns or agreement

**1 or 1 1/2 is okay. I think 1 is okay, that way, teams wouldn't try to pro-long
a seriously disadvantaged position to force a T52 draw for an additional
1/2 point. Man, say 6 teams on one side times 3.9 for say 12 turns is a
staggering 280.8 pounds, Harlequin be happy, some of us, again probably
the Aussie team will be forced to "surrender" when we are winning because
280.8 pounds is really a lot of money.

**But 1 1/2 is acceptable, after all you should get 1/2 point extra if you
managed to force a draw as compared to a "surrender" situation but my
argument above holds. Just not very fair when you are forced to surrender
when you hold the advantage because the game been "dragged" unnecessarily.

**However my argument loses ground because of this single condition,
"A game is brought to a conclusion on the turn where the winning team gets
OVER twice as many active nations as the losing team. So starting with 12
nations that means 5 nations on the losing side will force a concession."

**Because of this single condition, no team can force a pro-longed game
overly too-long at all if already in a seriously disadvantaged position
(politically
correct term for "losing").

**Conclusion, 1 1/2 points for a draw. Afterall you should get 1/2 of what
you get from a victory (3pts).

**But what do you mean "agreement". You mean, say eg. we the Aussie
team can offer "45 Turns", not over it 45 turns, it's a draw. I think agreement
here means both sides agreeing to the draw. So clarify it, ...

**"By Agreement" - When both sides agrees to a draw proposed by one
side and accepted by the other. (So I'm an asshole for details, sue me, :),
nope, not a lawyer).

0 pts for a loss

**Actually I prefer Negative (-) Two (2) points, it pushes the teams to go
for at least a draw but I guess no one except the Aussie team will agree
to it.

Okay - opinions please?

You got it.

What I also could do with is confirmation from the respective team captains
that they have a team, (and the team -list - account numbers helpful), and
who they would like to play next. If you haven't got a team captain then
please allocate one for the purposes of chatting to me.

Aussie's team leader is in the middle of "collecting" comments from his
team-mates, hold on, this probably gonna take a while, we aren't the
most agreeable sortie except when it comes to kicking ass together, :).

b.e.

P.S.
Pardon the language

#3

Ta - and to all who have commented so far - very useful.

Clint

Please note that while I'm in the Aussie team, I'm in no position
to agree to anything. just my individual comments below here :-

> Scoring System:
>
> 3 pts for a Win

**No Problems

> 1/2 pt for a Surrender which is accepted by the other team

**Surrendering sounds like "admitting defeat". Why should I surrender
when we have a chance to go for a one ring victory (quite rare in 1650
games) when "surrendering" only gives 1/2 point ?. I say 1 point is
better. This will solve the UKOne-US Debate, 3-1 Option 4 presented
by Colin.

Maybe more teams will "surrender" in this case but remember, it has 2b
accepted by the other side. Teams who hate pro-longed games MAINLY
because it's taxing on the pockets, will find this a viable option too.

The

Aussie team has a few die-hards but most of us wouldn't want to cough
up extra dough when we can play more games but a few of us would
really hurt the other side's pockets very badly for we are perfectly

capable

to pro-longing the game to T52 at least.

> 1 for a Draw - 52 turns or agreement

**1 or 1 1/2 is okay. I think 1 is okay, that way, teams wouldn't try to

pro-long

a seriously disadvantaged position to force a T52 draw for an additional
1/2 point. Man, say 6 teams on one side times 3.9 for say 12 turns is a
staggering 280.8 pounds, Harlequin be happy, some of us, again probably
the Aussie team will be forced to "surrender" when we are winning because
280.8 pounds is really a lot of money.

**But 1 1/2 is acceptable, after all you should get 1/2 point extra if you
managed to force a draw as compared to a "surrender" situation but my
argument above holds. Just not very fair when you are forced to surrender
when you hold the advantage because the game been "dragged" unnecessarily.

**However my argument loses ground because of this single condition,
"A game is brought to a conclusion on the turn where the winning team gets
OVER twice as many active nations as the losing team. So starting with 12
nations that means 5 nations on the losing side will force a concession."

**Because of this single condition, no team can force a pro-longed game
overly too-long at all if already in a seriously disadvantaged position
(politically
correct term for "losing").

**Conclusion, 1 1/2 points for a draw. Afterall you should get 1/2 of what
you get from a victory (3pts).

**But what do you mean "agreement". You mean, say eg. we the Aussie
team can offer "45 Turns", not over it 45 turns, it's a draw. I think

agreement

here means both sides agreeing to the draw. So clarify it, ...

**"By Agreement" - When both sides agrees to a draw proposed by one
side and accepted by the other. (So I'm an asshole for details, sue me,

:),

nope, not a lawyer).

> 0 pts for a loss
>
**Actually I prefer Negative (-) Two (2) points, it pushes the teams to go
for at least a draw but I guess no one except the Aussie team will agree
to it.

> Okay - opinions please?
>
You got it.

> What I also could do with is confirmation from the respective team

captains

> that they have a team, (and the team -list - account numbers helpful),

and

> who they would like to play next. If you haven't got a team captain

then

···

> please allocate one for the purposes of chatting to me.
>
Aussie's team leader is in the middle of "collecting" comments from his
team-mates, hold on, this probably gonna take a while, we aren't the
most agreeable sortie except when it comes to kicking ass together, :).

b.e.

P.S.
Pardon the language

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#4

As a neutral observer, might I make a suggestion.

This is Clint's call, but maybe the WC games should be flat fee -- maybe
pay
for a fixed amount of turns regardless of how many any one game goes.
That would remove the monetary incentive for both sides, and allow a
more natural game. If Clint set the fee at the "average" turn length,
everyone comes out ahead.

        jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
http://members.home.net/jasonab/