MT20 Epic scenarios

Round 7 EPIC04 Aspern-Essling (21 May 1809)

mk20336 (Austrian): 16 banners, 53 blocks lost
malty666 (French): 9 banners, 54 blocks lost

Played in two sessions. Main action was around Aspern - very bloody skirmish with Austrian in the end prevailing (although that was not obvious for long time). The dice was with me today - two leader check were successful for me. Essling and neighborhood did not see much action.

Thanks to Justin for flexible game arrangement!

So there is one game outstanding, which has no bearing on the Semi-Finals, and 3 forfeit games, which I gave the Allied players full banner score based on a forfeit result. I did experiment with giving those player the average score of the other Allied results, but there are difficulties with that.

Bit awkward having unfinished matches that determine the results, and I'm not convinced this is the best way, and there are 4 Allied players that could claim a place in the Semi-Finals. So if another method exists, please let me know.

Hah! Not certain I have the stamina to play up to 4 more, so not horribly sad I missed the cut! That said, the six battles I did play were a blast and enjoyed the competition. Thanks Mark for herding the cats and everyone for the fun times! Good luck to the lucky 4!

I offer my services for VIRIDOVILAS who dropped out of the game , i think it will be more honest to conduct a battle and get a result .Write to me by mail when you can conduct a battle, if you agree with my proposal .
andrej.smorodnikov@mail.ru
RedCurrrenT

A couple of ideas occur to me in the search for a more satisfying method...

1) Some sort of elimination play-off, if it can be fairly reduced to 1 game between each of the affected players.

or

2) Completely remove the games with the retiring player, at least amongst the players who benefitted / lost out, and use that result instead.

Mark

RiverWanderer wrote: 2) Completely remove the games with the retiring player, at least amongst the players who benefitted / lost out, and use that result instead.

I like the approach - the issue is that the games which will be taken out are to different amount of points. So we would need to take here not SUM of VPs but % of banners scored out of the ones possible. This is unusual tie-breaker, but I think one of the most fair.

The perfect play would be of course to play those games - but it would prolong the tournament significantly.

@Mark McG - I notice an error crept into the table with my Mockern result. I achieved 1 banner less: 13 banners in that game, not 14.

Mark

I can act as a stand in as well if you want Mark. Andre can take one, and I can take the other and we can go from there. Maybe the 3rd game isn't even needed due to the point spread. It would certainly speed things up

substitutes might be the way to go

there are probably just 2 matches required
Riverwanderer (Aspern-Essling)
Mark McG (Busacco)
Greg already indicated he was happy to pass, and his match wouldn't be needed if either Mark or I reach 87 Banners

so Mark, do you want Andre or Chris? both at GMT +9
or maybe I should ask that the other way round..

OK by me. Toss a virtual coin for which champion each of us faces off to?