French Win at Waterloo!
Three-Player Tournament, October 19-21, 2007
I approached the fifth Waterloo mini-con with dread, expecting
it to be the last in the series. With few pre-registrations in
hand and only five hotel rooms booked for the weekend, it appeared
that Waterloo would be following our D-Day mini-con down the path
of cancellation due to lack of participation. Much to my surprise
we had a nearly perfect field of 28 enthusiasts walk in the door,
pay the higher walk-on rate, and book hotel rooms. They took quite
a chance on the last score as this hotel often sells out during
our weekend events and their hotel stays came too late to effect
our meeting space rental costs, but they were a welcome sight
nonetheless!
The majority of players were on-hand by 1 PM and numerous Open
Gaming opportunities ensued with Nappy games dominating as the
one shared passion of all on hand. At the 6 PM official starting
time, and with the last arrivals, the Greenville, SC contingent
safely entrenched, we drew lots and began play in earnest with
nine 3-player games starting in unison. They would be the first
volley in a weekend orgy of Napoleonic warfare which would tally
53 official tournament games encompasing 124 turns. And that excludes
a host of pickup games that followed on Sunday and those which
preceded the official start of play. Everyone played at least
four official games, and most of those on the lower scale of games
played were due to being involved in 5-turn marathon games. Scott
Fenn played the most games with nine official matches in the books,
buoyed primarily by five 1-turn games on the first night! Game
length varied as follows:
15 One-Turn Games
17 Two-Turn Games
8 Three-Turn Games
9 Four-Turn Games
3 Five-Turn Games
|
Kevin Sudy and Ed Rothenheber
watch as Ken Gutermuth rolls some buckets of dice in the Championship
game.
|
Due to the inderterminate length of Nappy games which can be
over in one turn or take as many as five, formal rounds are not
practical since players don't want to waste the deadtime between
rounds waiting for a marathon game to end. Consequently, the emphasis
is on playing as many preliminary games as you can manage with
new players as they become available. With a large field, it's
usually not long before another game finishes and you can start
again with different players. This year, we tweaked the format
somewhat away from the Greenville version which rewarded large
wins (usally at the expense of less experienced players) and which
relied on winning games with each nationality - which tended to
cause bottlenecks with players wanting to play only the side with
which they had yet to record their needed win to advance to the
Final. Instead, we instituted a scoring system which emphasized
quality of wins over quantity of wins and the nation with which
they were accomplished. Players earned points for each win and
a lesser amount for each second, but more importantly, they gained
a point for each win of an opponent they had defeated. And these
points were retroactive - which gave new sincerity to wishing
one's opponents well after beating them! You could lose your next
game and watch your score rise on the backs of your former defeated
opponents' recent success.
This scoring system encouraged players to seek out new opponents
rather than getting in a clique of repeated play against the same
players since beating the same opponent more than once earned
you no additional points for their wins. There was also a disincentive
to dodge playing the leaders because those are the ones you wanted
to beat to score the most points. To offset, the disadvantage
of being in a long game, players were awarded a point for every
failed Victory roll - making the longer games ostensibly worth
more points. This had some interesting side effects. In one long
game, a player finished second after leading for three turns,
thus resulting in him outscoring the winner of the game 4-2. Of
course, the bonus points for opponent's wins will usually make
the win still more advantageous than finishing second. But more
importantly, this scoring system did away with the wrangling over
what side you would play. Because the French usually have an advantage
in gaining the first Victory roll opportunity, the French would
be the favored side to gain at least one Victory Point per game
and be the optimum selection. Allowing players to choose their
side for the next game in reverse order of their current score,
ostensibly addressed balance issues both from the aspect of getting
to play the "favored" side and allowing those behind
in the standings an increased chance to gain on the leaders with
the favored side.
Statistics backed this up not only from a viewpoint of bonus
points for failed Victory rolls, but also in outright wins with
the French prevailing in 24 games, while the Austro-Russians managed
17 wins, and the British but 12.
In a game as loaded with chaos as Napoleonic Wars is,
there are always amazing stories of derring do and outrageous
fortune so you can well imagine how many such yarns could be spun
after so many games played between skilled players. This weekend
was no exception and we had our share such as the full Army under
Napoleon defeated by a lone Austrian or the capture, albeit temporary,
of both Moscow and St Petersburg by the mighty Danes. Suffice
it to say that there were many such vicarious feats which will
remain untold save for the cardboard history books as we move
on to the end of our report. So when the haze of battle lifted
on Sunday morning, the top ten standings looked thus:
27 Ken Gutermuth
27 Ed Rothenheber
25 Kevin Sudy
23 AJ Sudy
21 Fred Schachter
21 Rich Shipley
19 Melvin Casselberry
18 Henry Russell
15 Joseph Woolschlegger
14 Scott Fenn
This advanced the top three to the Final with a combined ten
wins and the rest of our combatants immediately broke into 4-
and 5-player games for more Nappy in another version. Our finalists
certainly deserved their spot at the championship table, but with
different advancement criteria strong cases could be made for
Henry Russell with the most victories (5), or Fred Schachter who
won four out of five games, or even Melvin Casselberry, Scott
Moll, or Rich Shipley who won three each. But the most deserving
of a "I wuz robbed" award would be AJ sudy who won all
four of his games - but had the misfortune of being unable to
end any of them early. The tie for 5th was broken in favor of
Fred over Rich by virtue of his two British wins.
Our finalists rolled for sides with Ed getting the first choice
and he immediately threw all the stats out the window by taking
the British despite their decidedly third-best performance in
the preliminaries. Ken, with the second choice, also shunned the
Emperor and opted for the Austro-Russians, leaving Kevin to be
gifted with the French in an exact reversal of what most onlookers
and the stats of the tournament would have considered to be the
likely order of selection. Both Ken and Ed would soon regret their
decisions.
As the game got underway, it became increasingly evident that
our co-leaders had turned down the "hand of providence"
as Kevin unleashed an impressive selection of cards and backed
it with equally hot dice. He turned east immediately, vaporizing
both Frederick at Linz and Charles in Venice and broke bread in
Vienna before the Allies even had a move. Austria was conquered
in Turn 1 and it looked bleak for the Coalition. But these allies
were made of sterner stuff and they weren't about to concede defeat.
As Ed later revealed, given the quality of the opposition, he
chose the British because he expected a long game and cooperation
with the Russians - whoever that might be - and he was correct
as the two blended their efforts well to avoid a total collapse.
Ken pacted Turkey while Ed grabbed the Swedes to offset the huge
French card advantage with Austria on the sidelines. Despite their
lessened hands, both spent cards to prevent a French victory roll
and when the French started Turn 2 with a mulligan and were hit
by Malet's Conspiracy it appeared as though they might yet pull
back from the brink as they continued to play events to help each
other.
Despite these setbacks and having to deal with a British Army
in Spain, Napoleon and three armies were poised on the Russian
border and this onlooker was hoping to watch the invasion of Russia
unfold in a manner reminiscient of history. The Russians had managed
to form two large Army Groups for the protection of their capitals
at Gomel and Smolensk. After taking Grodno, the French advanced
to Borisov. The Russians, running out of cards, moved Kutuzov
to Polorsk to cover Kiev, trusting to intercept threats from both
Russian Army Groups to protect Smolensk. At this point, Kevin
- truly blessed to this point with both dice and cards - proved
he was worthy of being the repeat champion by playing Turning
Movement to split the Russian Army Groups and move Napoleon through
Smolensk to Borodino, This left him with 5 CPs in the form of
his last card play with the Imperial Guard which he played to
take Moscow from its token defenders and then force marched three
spaces to St Petersburg - taking double attrition in the last
two spaces and arriving only with Napoleon himself to battle the
token garrison. In a two-day battle, the city fell and Napoleon,
after surviving yet another Attrition roll had conquered Russia
for an automatic victory.
And the critics say it's not possible to duplicate history
in this game. Not only is it possible, but this year's finalists
proved it can be done at the highest levels of play without relying
on incompetent play or errors. It was a very enjoyable game to
watch ... I almost got the sense of watching a movie or historical
vignette. Well done!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Champion 2006-07
Kevin Sudy, VA
|
3rd & Best French
Ken Gutermuth, TX
|
4th & Best Austro-Russia
AJ Sudy, VA
|
Best British
Scott Fenn, MD
|
|
|
|
|
2nd
Ed Rothenheber, MD
|
5th
Fred Schachter, NC
|
6th
Rich Shipley
|
|
Rounding out our awards for the weekend were the presentation
of the Best Country awards which were based on having achieved
multiple wins with that country while defeating players with the
most total games won. Ken Gutermuth edged Melvin Casselberry for
Best French and is probably still kicking himself for not choosing
to play them in the Final. Both Ken and Melvin went 2-0 with the
French, but Ken's victims in those two games won one more game
than Melvin's did; 7 vs 6. The Best British wood went to Scott
Fenn who was 2-1 with the lobsterbacks. His competition was Lane
Hess who also went 2-1 and Fred Schacter who was 2-0, but Scott's
victims in those two wins generated eight wins on their own while
Lane's musted only five and Fred's four. AJ Sudy took top honors
with the Austro-Russians with his 2-0 record over opponents with
nine wins - topping Henry Russell's 3-0 slate over opponents who
could total only five wins.
Lessons Learned: While the new system seemed to be embraced
by most, there were some shortcomings which require tweaking going
forward. First, the failed Victory Roll system seems inadequate
compensation for being involved in longer games since there are
generally more scoring opportunities to be gained in playing several
shorter games. Consequently, I'm inclined to award the extra point
simply for having the lead at the end of each turn rather than
requiring a Victory roll opportunity - thus making each game automatically
generate an additional point for someone for every turn played.
Also, to eliminate any incentive for not playing against the leader,
I'm inclined to eliminate the point awarded for finishing second
so that there are essentially points awarded only for winning
or leading for a turn. Lastly, to further diminish the difference
betwen being involved in one long game rather than several short
ones, I'm inclined to deduct one point for each game lost so a
person who goes 2-7 is less likely to fare well point-wise with
someone who goes 3-0.
The second fix isn't really a change to the system, but rather
an increased emphasis on what constitutes a concession. To prevent
a player with a big lead from nursing a game along without actually
winning it so as to keep gaining points for Victory rolls, players
were allowed to concede if the two TRAILING players agreed. The
leading player should have no say in this decision. Untortunately,
we had instances where one player wanted to concede, but another
didn't. This usually happens when France is battered beyond reasonable
hope of recovery. However, until the VC are actually achieved,
it can be very unfair to the third player when the French concede
the game prematurely, since the lead could well change hands if
played to conclusion. Consequnetly, I'm inclined to impose a penalty
point on any game conceded against the wishes of one of the trailing
players to lessen the incentive to rush off to play in another
game rather than play out the current one to its conclusion.
At least one person wasn't happy with the strength of schedule
points, but I am firmly convinced that any format that has some
players playing more than twice as many games than others due
to their wide duration disparity and which allows players to more
or less select their own opponents based on availability at the
time, must provide an incentive not to dodge the better players.
Going 3-0 against winless opponents is not better than going 2-1
against the creme of the field. The current system reflects that
well and has been battle tested as a qualifying device at both
D-Day and all the Grognard WBC Free Form events. Waterloo essentially
uses Free Form scheduling of preliminary games to qualify finalists
for the championship.
|
Designer Mark McLaughlin was on hand and managed
to win twice himself in between playtest games of Kutuzov.
|
|