International Team Challenge - Lisbon - 1/2 Sept 2012

[philqw78]

In a matched up way thats easier to see

Code: Select all

Period 1
1. Graham Unger                       Aztec, 1430 AD US
1. Richard Collins                      Sea People, 1300 BC ANZAC
1. Dave Ruddock                       Urartian, 713 BC GB
1. Carmelo Andrea Lo Moro            Maya, 1100 AD Italy
1. Guy Daubagnan                     Mayan, 1301 AD France
1. Marco Quinta                        Neo-Assyrian Empire, 730 BC Portugal
1. Roberto Puebla                      Neo Assyrian, 730 BC Spain
1. Orlando Almeida                    Philistine, 799 BC Barbarian

Period 2
2. Marco Uloa                             Later Republican Roman, 105 BC US
2. Greg Jennings                        Later Selucid, 133 BC ANZAC
2. Graham Briggs                       Early Achmenid Persian, 464 BC GB
2. Massimiliano Marellacci          Later Selucid, 133 BC Italy
2. Hubert Bretagne                     Later Selucid, 133 BC France
2. Ricardo Simas                        Later Republican Roman (Cassius), 42 BC Portugal
2. Carlos Garcia                         Alexandrian Macedonian, 325 BC Spain
2. Tim Porter                             Later Carthage, Hannibal in Italy, 215 BC Barbarian

Period 3
3. Dan Martz Sr                          Western Turkish (Khazar), 735 AD USA
3. Stephen Ladanyi                     Western Turkish (Khazar), 737 AD ANZAC
3. Phil Powell                              Former Yan Northern Dynasties Chinese, 352 AD GB
3. Stephano D’Addino                 Warring States Qn Chinese, 222 BC Italy
3. Christophe Sciangula               Yi Dynasty Korean, 1389 AD France
3. Joao Espeical                         Western Hunnic, 440 AD Portugal
3. Juan Miguel Morillas Martí       Tartar, Crimean Khanate, 1475 AD Spain 
3. Miguel Mata                           Mongol Conquest, 1250 AD Barbarian

Period 4
4. Dan Martz Jr                          Free Company, 1415 AD USA
4. Simon LeRay-Mayer               Later Medieval German, 1426 ANZAC
4. Ian Stewart                           Ordonnance French, 1481 AD GB
4. Francesco Berucci                  Swiss, 1476 AD Italy
4. Matthieu Abric                      Ordonnance French, 1481 AD France
4. Fernando Sousa                     Free Company, 1444 AD Portugal
4. Benito Martín                         Later Medieval Danish, 1398 AD Spain
4. Nuno Cordeiro                        Medieval German City Leagues, 1490 AD Barbarian

[philqw78]

Can someone go over how the games and the tournament is going to be scored please. Its not the same this year is it?

[dave_r]

Can someone go over how the games and the tournament is going to be scored please. Its not the same this year is it?

Do you never listen?

We are using a 30 point scoring system. This is similar to the normal tournament scoring except that all points due to kills are doubled and there is no five point bonus for breaking your opponents army.

Therefore, say player A loses 4 AP's out of a 12 BG army and Player B loses 6 AP's out of a 12 BG army. This would normally pan out as a 12-8, but with doubling the kills you would get:

Player A: Losing 4 out of 12 = keep 7 points and give 3 points to your opponent
Player B: Losing 6 out of 12 = keep 5 points and give 5 points to your opponent

Therefore Player A get's 7 + (2 x 5) = 17
Player B gets 5 + (2 x 4) = 13

A mutual destruction is still 10-10.

[hazelbark]

Isn't one of the principal reasons the arse bandit's aren't there because you got a good kicking in your last game at the US Teams?

As usual your ignorance of the facts is astounding.

[dave_r]

Isn't one of the principal reasons the arse bandit's aren't there because you got a good kicking in your last game at the US Teams?

As usual your ignorance of the facts is astounding.

If it's usual how can it be astounding?

[madaxeman]

Isn't one of the principal reasons the arse bandit's aren't there because you got a good kicking in your last game at the US Teams?

As usual your ignorance of the facts is astounding.

If it's usual how can it be astounding?

The mere presence of ignorance may be entirely usual, however the sheer scale of it is always astounding ?

[petedalby]

A mutual destruction is still 10-10.

Surely it should be 15-15? Otherwise won't it screw the points up?

[dave_r]

A mutual destruction is still 10-10.

Surely it should be 15-15? Otherwise won't it screw the points up?

Possibly, but it opens the door for collusion. This was discussed at some length!

[iversonjm]

Therefore, say player A loses 4 AP's out of a 12 BG army and Player B loses 6 AP's out of a 12 BG army. This would normally pan out as a 12-8, but with doubling the kills you would get:

Player A: Losing 4 out of 12 = keep 7 points and give 3 points to your opponent
Player B: Losing 6 out of 12 = keep 5 points and give 5 points to your opponent

Therefore Player A get's 7 + (2 x 5) = 17
Player B gets 5 + (2 x 4) = 13

Er, wouldn't that be Player B gets 5 + (2x3) = 11? Or did I miss something?

[philqw78]

Therefore, say player A loses 4 AP's out of a 12 BG army and Player B loses 6 AP's out of a 12 BG army. This would normally pan out as a 12-8, but with doubling the kills you would get:

Player A: Losing 4 out of 12 = keep 7 points and give 3 points to your opponent
Player B: Losing 6 out of 12 = keep 5 points and give 5 points to your opponent

Therefore Player A get's 7 + (2 x 5) = 17
Player B gets 5 + (2 x 4) = 13

Er, wouldn't that be Player B gets 5 + (2x3) = 11? Or did I miss something?

Thats possibly why I still don't understand it. Same as a mutual destruction should be 20-20. Each takes ten off their opponent which is doubled.
Or perhaps Dave doesn't understand it and we do.

[dave_r]

Therefore, say player A loses 4 AP's out of a 12 BG army and Player B loses 6 AP's out of a 12 BG army. This would normally pan out as a 12-8, but with doubling the kills you would get:

Player A: Losing 4 out of 12 = keep 7 points and give 3 points to your opponent
Player B: Losing 6 out of 12 = keep 5 points and give 5 points to your opponent

Therefore Player A get's 7 + (2 x 5) = 17
Player B gets 5 + (2 x 4) = 13

Er, wouldn't that be Player B gets 5 + (2x3) = 11? Or did I miss something?

Thats possibly why I still don't understand it. Same as a mutual destruction should be 20-20. Each takes ten off their opponent which is doubled.
Or perhaps Dave doesn't understand it and we do.

We are all still trying to persuade Phil it's a good idea to look at his opponents army list prior to the game starting.

What chance do I have?

[timmy1]

I am aware that the ITC has a fine tradition of 'trash-talking' but it is usually reserved for ones potential opponents, not members of one's own team (how any team can accomodate both Powell and dave_r is beyond me but that is by-the-by)...

Are we seeing the establishment of a new tradition here?

[philqw78]

No we in team, just me, ta.

[zoltan]

So Mr Ladanyi, let me remember this. Those Khazar lancers, do they get off their horses just like German ones?

Sorry about the delay in replying Phil but I'm just emerging from a rose tinted haze of Rioja and sherry in Spain (cue Olé olé olé olé etc). Yep Danni Snr and I will be dismounting big time against you!E

[dave_r]

I am aware that the ITC has a fine tradition of 'trash-talking' but it is usually reserved for ones potential opponents, not members of one's own team (how any team can accomodate both Powell and dave_r is beyond me but that is by-the-by)...

Are we seeing the establishment of a new tradition here?

Watch it mallett or you'll be next. We have lots of ammunition.

[hazelbark]

I am aware that the ITC has a fine tradition of 'trash-talking' but it is usually reserved for ones potential opponents, not members of one's own team (how any team can accomodate both Powell and dave_r is beyond me but that is by-the-by)...

Are we seeing the establishment of a new tradition here?

Given last year where Dave Rubbish sulked off to sleep early form the bar because he needed to be rested. I think there is very little loyalty among GB.

[hazelbark]

30-0 as described that gives double points for enemy losses and no +5 for army break.

This was what was voted on.

so yes a 20-20 is possible.

[hazelbark]

Note all Captains have been emailed the score sheet. I will upload the scoresheet to the yahoo list.

[philqw78]

I am aware that the ITC has a fine tradition of 'trash-talking' but it is usually reserved for ones potential opponents, not members of one's own team (how any team can accomodate both Powell and dave_r is beyond me but that is by-the-by)...

Are we seeing the establishment of a new tradition here?

Well I've already been called a bloody Pommie by Richard Collins today.

I always thought he was of dubious paternity. Now confirmed as he is in the ANZAC team.

[philqw78]

Danni Snr and I will be dismounting big time against you!E

I already have a cunning plan. It involves more beer, a flank march, a difficult river and a piece of impassable terrain.