Ace wrote:If I may notice, I 've been erased from the pool A instead of Gray Fox
But this is not the reason for my post. I wanted to suggest a change in the group stage pairings. So far, these are the players that have shown up to the tournament (if I interpreted the above posts correctly, so no Gray Fox, Jagdfluger, dobbins1, Ski bear).
Since the purpose of the group stage is to fill out playoff spots, here is my proposal. Why don't we put all remaining 12 players to one group, with the players who have not started their matches pairing against each other. Out of this group, top 8 could advance to the quarters. All previous AACW tournaments have been plagued by long duration. This would shorten it a bit.
charlesonmission wrote:Will there be status reports like last time?
Citizen X wrote:In both my games I had developments that, so I presume and guess, would have been going in another fashion, had it not been for the battle reports being posted here. I wouldn't yell at anybody posting reults and such here but go figure if really need be. Maybe without pictures and names of generals? Just two sentences of the overall standing?
Guru94 wrote:I guess you mean your preparations of an attack on Nasville I revealed that Lindi also reported about in his little AAR. I can assure you that I did not consider that as an option for the South because of the AAR. I played quite a few pbem games in the old AACW and know a lot of options for the Confederates in the west that of course work in CW2 also.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest