I had to respond to the exact same gripe from kduke's brother

First of all, you didn't 'have' to do anything. You chose to be offended when no offense was offered.

You took it personally and flew off the handle with your sanctimonious diatribe of why you have selected to run the league this way. Your league, that's fine.

Secondly, it wasn't a gripe, it was an observation about how fun a lop-sided scenario was to play again. Some scenarios are much less so.

Had you just left it at 'this is the way I want to run things and it's my league so nah nah", I'd be fine with it. Offering a different opinion of things is also great and certainly a discussion of why you believe the league should match games that way is fitting as well.

But instead, you have to explain why your way is the ONLY way, the righteous way, and is REALITY. I strongly disagree with most of your premise.

The numerous other CCA tournaments and leagues which have been more popular in terms of numbers of players and games played around the world play it differently than you do.

You've heard me say on several occasions what Mr. Borg has said regarding 'swapping sides' and doing total banner count. You will have none of that. Fine.

Your sand box, your toys, you set up the tourney any way you want and I either accept it as a player--as I have for three years--or I don't. And it certainly can't be sour grapes from my perspective as I've done well despite the way your league is set up. Great, what better spokesman to let you know your way is not the only way, and not even the only good way? I just really like playing CCA, Bruce.

And you continue to miss the point that the impact of a random draw of lop sided scenarios in a limited run playoff system--say best of 3-- is what we are talking about. In a 30+ game season, you'd hope you would end up with a balance of even scenarios.

How about I pick the scenario and we play it 10 times as the same side? If I don't win 9 out of 10, not the much more even result that you suggest, I'll eat my hat.

So I don't agree with your rationale or your thought process. I just like playing CCA and won't allow your narrow view of 'reality' to spoil the fun.

I also can't allow that same view to cloud the amazing and wonderful things you and you alone have done for the online gaming community and for wargaming in general. My hat is off to you for your countless hours of nearly thankless work.

Personally, I like the challenge. Beat the cards, beat the dice, beat my opponents, and beat the way the league on wargameroom is set up. Sweet!

And whatever gets me able to play more CCA with good guys from around the world is a fine thing.

But instead, you have to explain why your way is the ONLY way, the righteous way, and is REALITY.

I went back and re-read what I posted, and I don't see what I wrote that could be interpreted that way. It most certainly was not my intent.

Bruce, it was in the emails that you sent in response to my session report comment about wanting to swap sides, and later when Steve Newhouse asked if you'd consider a 'mulligan' in the playoffs.

It was not a direct response to what you have posted here.

My point is that a league that excludes certain scenarios rewards the players who never play those scenarios for fun (compared to the players who like to play all of them regardless of balance).

What? What?

Never mind.

Meanwhile, the league Championship between Gary and Steve continues, the score now tied at two games apiece! Here's Steve's summary of the two games:

-----------------------

In two heated matches of amazingly balanced scenarios, Gary and Duke split games tonight, tying the series at 2-2.

In Jaxartes River, Gary's Macedonians with Alexander the Great defeated Duke's Scythe 5-4. It was a close one, aided by some excellent shooting by Scythe. Alexander was also killed which should be a morale victory! The last couple of turns had us both shooting for that last block and it could have gone either way.

In the next game, Duke's Persians defeated Gary's Greece at Marathon, 6-2. This one also has a lot of light units on one side, with a fordable river. Learning my lesson from the first game--not falling back enough, I tried to fall back and lure Gary into a kill zone. I had some good cards and as we both maneuvered and did ranged combat, a vicious melee broke out in the low center of my side of the map. A fateful double time--one of the most powerful cards if used properly, helped me launch ahead on banners and Gary's heavy inf with leader wasn't able to punch a big enough hole in my line before my counterattack eliminated the heavy in return.

All in all, two very good and tense games, tying the series as you might expect at 2-2.

What will happen next?? Stay tuned to find out.

A heated debate. Obviously everyone has finished stickering. their Spartan expansion!

I hope the decider isn't Dertosa. I call Romans!

What we really need to calm us all down is an expansion, or at least some C3i scenarios, balanced or not.

In the preliminary rounds we play single scenarios but all players in each pod play the same side of each scenario and are competing for banner totals against each other, not their opponents in the other pod. This means that unbalanced scenarios can be used fairly, which I really appreciate, because often performing on the disadvantaged side is the real test of skill.

Brent, I agree. That is an excellent format for a tournament and deals with unbalanced scenarios in a very good way.

Played Plataea from Exp. 1 eight times switching sides back and forth. I lost the first seven games and finally won the eighth game as the Greeks. It took me eight games! Oh, the humanity...

Just goes to show that persistence pays off.

I just signed beck to Bruce's CCA league. About the heated scenario selection:

In the regular league I like to always have random scenarios & sides. That allows sometimes "weaker" players to get good victories. Also the switching is hard, since you are not guaranteed to have 2nd game against same opponent. What if he is on a business trip and receives a bye for the round? Anyway it doesn't seem to have any effect on which players are in the playoffs.

In the playoffs I'm ok with either way. And so far Bruce's leagues have allowed all optionals agreed by both sides. Check 2008 league playoffs. They were played with switched sides. Its is however kind of peculiar that all other leagues have switching as a default in playoffs, but CCA does not.

Its is however kind of peculiar that all other leagues have switching as a default in playoffs, but CCA does not.

My playoff approach to scenario based games like C&C is different than the one I use when it's a game that essentially the same scenario. The Up Front league doesn't use side swaps either.

Ken Vandruff and I have been friends and war gaming colleagues for over thirty years.

He had very unconventional war gaming tastes. His favorite games included:

The old WAR OF THE WORLD game that was published by Task Force Games.

FORTRESS AMERICA

HANNIBAL

The BYZANTIUM game that appeared in ISSUE 183 of S&T

And his all time favorite C&C: ANCIENTS.

He loved elephant scenarios. We must have played ZAMA over 100 times.

He had a sense of humor that he would on occasion unleash on the more serious members of our hobby. Many years ago when we were playing WAR OF THE WORLDS at a game shop, a gamer came up and claimed that some of the game mechanics were unrealistic. Ken's response, "Oh No!!! What are we to do? A game about Martians attacking London in 1910 is unrealistic."

Ken had a serious heart condition and was bed ridden for the last few years. He could not play because of failing vision and loss of motor skills. He could not see well enough to read the cards or move the pieces. Instead of playing games I used to read to him stories from ANALOG, the Sci-Fi magazine.

My friend passed away last night. I will miss him dearly.

Sorry on your loss, looks like he had a great friend in you. I'm sure he's waiting with the board all set up.

Steven, I am very sorry for your loss. From this and some of your earlier postings, it sounds like you were a great friend, and must have been a great comfort. My prayers are with you, Kenneth and his family.

Kevin

Steven, Very sorry for your loss.

A life filled with great stories and a wonderful perspective.

And he had a great friend,

Steven, I'm very sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. I'm glad both of you could share great times over such fun games!

Steven, I am sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. I too have a gaming buddy that I have been playing against weekly for over thirty years. We get into some hellacious rules arguments sometimes and really piss each other off, but to lose him would be a great loss, as is the loss of your friend. Good friends are hard to come by and good face-to-face wargame friends are even more rare.

Dave

Steven, my deepest condolences to you for the loss of your great friend.

I can only imagine the laughter of the elephant scenarios that must have been shared between the two of you.

Steven, I'm very sorry to hear of the loss of your friend. Hang in there!

Ken's humor strikes back from the grave.

Ken's memorial service was last Saturday. He was cremated.

Pursuant to his request on his wooden urn were two metal plaques that had the following quotes:

"Baked, not fried"

"If you brought marshmallows, you're late."