Slitherine

stockwellpete wrote:

hidde wrote:Well, no challenge has been made in either game
What do you all think, should we put an end to this and call Companions Cup VI incomplete and void?

How about giving them another 7 days to start - if they don't then adjudicate at that point? If both players are equally to blame then it could either be adjudicated as a draw or as a void game.

But how many void, or adjucated, games can a small tourny like this suffer without the end result becomming badly distorted...a mockery?
Three rounds of one game per player taking four months to finish is one thing, crazy at it is, but several unplayed games at the end of it...I'm skeptical.

hidde wrote: But how many void, or adjucated, games can a small tourny like this suffer without the end result becomming badly distorted...a mockery?
Three rounds of one game per player taking four months to finish is one thing, crazy at it is, but several unplayed games at the end of it...I'm skeptical.

Well, the two games that have not started are in separate matches (NA v E and ROW v BI) so at least the "damage" is spread out a bit. You will still be able to get a match score (even though there has also been a resignation in one of the matches). But at least the players who have completed their games will have the benefit of seeing final tables and competition winners etc. Not to finish at all might be more damaging than doing your best to finish things up. It would seem that the competition needs a few new players for next time now.

My vote is to finish the matches and then adjudicate any incomplete games. I think Pete is right about wrapping things up. We just have to live and learn from the experience. Also we could ask another player from their teams to step in if they desire. More chance for glory!

Cheers,

Steve

May be teams should have a reserve or two, in case someone is hit by a bus "I swear officer I had no idea I was playing him at FOG"

friends...as a north america team member, i have to say, the campaign ended 2 months ago! (when the LOEG started up) or so i was told by the creator...ericdoman?? and thus i haven't been involved until someone mentioned that they have a game waiting for me. i am at a loss, and sorry but don't see the point of coming back into it at this point. i'd suggest a redo or new one after the dust settles on LOEG //thoughts?

Klay

klayeckles wrote: and sorry but don't see the point of coming back into it at this point ...

Well, I for one have invested some time and feelings into playing these games, and trying to win along my team. So I'd be quite disappointed if we didn't bring any closure to this competition, especially if somebody would just opt out like you suggest I hope we can finish this, instead of ditching the effort some generals have put into it, especially the commanders in chief. And that should be more important, in my opinion, than the time constraints for now. For sure, we'd have to set up some hard rules in the next iteration, to avoid having these kind of issues. Or, as Steve suggested, have some other team member step up, maybe also incurring a penalty such as 5p, 10p, or losing initiative
But for now, I think it would be better if we could finish whatever games possible, and then find a way to deal with the rest (adjudicate/fast play etc).

Maharg I thought you had to challenge but whatever challenge up to finish this thing password Comp Cup

Are there not clear rules as to which side should make the challenge (this would make any necessary adjudication a doddle)?
I think reserve players is a good idea, for completeness' sake.

Anyway, I have posted a challenge, pw: Ahasuerus

It always used to be that the home team was responsible for issuing the challenge. If this has been omitted/lost from the rules then I'd recommend that it should be added for the next game.

Ok, lets see...
I belive a majority would like to see a conclusion to this cup, after all.
At this point I feel time constraints hardly have any practical use. Prefer to avoid adjucation when there are so few games. Replacing more than one player in a team also feels wrong to me.
iversonjm can't start his game before June 10.
My suggestion is that batesmotel try to find a substitute for iversonjm to step in after June 10 if iversonjm can't play.
I hope klayeckles can find time to play the last game. There's no hurry as you can see
I also hope maharg is still avaiable. The British team already have one player replaced and one quitting. Hope it stops at that. If necessary perhaps one of you guys that's still in the team can take the game?

Morbio wrote:It always used to be that the home team was responsible for issuing the challenge. If this has been omitted/lost from the rules then I'd recommend that it should be added for the next game.

It's still in the rules. Personally I can't see why it's a good thing?
I mixed up the teams (RotW & BI) when I revealed the games for round 3. As a result rex waited on mahargs challenge for ~10 days. Any player can make the challenge in LOEG, why not in CC?

It's just faster (if kept clear), I think, otherwise both players may wait for the other.
Also, you could argue that knowing that a game will be adjudicated against you if you don't make the challenge can help motivate us!
Admittedly, it doesn't seem to have helped much this time

I think it's useful to specify who is responsible for issuing the challenge to just to avoid anyone assuming that the other player will do it. On the other hand it could be clarified that it is OK for the non-home team player to issue the challenge if they want to.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:I think it's useful to specify who is responsible for issuing the challenge to just to avoid anyone assuming that the other player will do it. On the other hand it could be clarified that it is OK for the non-home team player to issue the challenge if they want to.

Chris

I totally agree. I didn't mean only the home player can issue the challenge, indeed it is beneficial if either issues it. However, to avoid the situation of both waiting then the responsibility is for the first player to issue the challenge.

ok, i guess i'm back in....i had to look up to see what army i am, as i haven't played in this since early april. tiavals the syrcusans are coming.

klayeckles wrote:ok, i guess i'm back in....i had to look up to see what army i am, as i haven't played in this since early april. tiavals the syrcusans are coming.

Good on you Klay

Steve

Morbio wrote:

batesmotel wrote:I think it's useful to specify who is responsible for issuing the challenge to just to avoid anyone assuming that the other player will do it. On the other hand it could be clarified that it is OK for the non-home team player to issue the challenge if they want to.

Chris

I totally agree. I didn't mean only the home player can issue the challenge, indeed it is beneficial if either issues it. However, to avoid the situation of both waiting then the responsibility is for the first player to issue the challenge.

Jolly good! Then I'm on board, wholeheartedly.

Just a quick update on the game between my Egyptians and Clay's Athenians.

The Egyptians deployed between a lake and the edge of the map with the cavalry, archers and skirmishers out front, closely followed by a solid line of defensive spearmen and hoplite reserve. I thought that the Athenian army would be at least the same size as mine and would try to capture the oasis and broken hills with its MF and armoured cavalry so I placed my archers accordingly.
The Athenian army was quite small however, and Clay immediately took a defensive position using the hills and a large gully to anchor his lines. I guess it will be up to me to do the attacking in this game!



With archers peppering the hill and right flank of the Athenian line my army slowing starts its envelopment. My cavalry charged the hill to try to dislodge some LF archer but were repulsed with minor casualties on both sides. Soon Clay's neat orderly hoplite line will have to start making impetuosity tests. Lets see how long he can keep his defensive position airtight..

Status

TGM vs. Sharkall: almost done
deeter vs Lysimachos: some turns done
iversonjm vs Aristides: postponed until June 10
klayeckles vs. Tiavals: started yesterday, 29/5

rexhurley vs maharg25: challenge posted
claymore vs ianiow: turn 3

Good gravy, missed a whole lot of "stuff" by staying off the boards for a few months

Kudos to those sticking by to see this Cup to completion.

I see Sharkall has posted that our game is almost done which mean I have likly lost another 20 BPS's since our last turn , doh!

I will never play with Persians again, bunch of wet noodled sissies