First all the best to Mike, what ever he is up against. (what can be more important than AWD...?) Sorry to see you leave
O.K. I have some comments on the resolution since it kind of sets a precedent. I have to mention that both MrQuiet and I are affected by the outcome so we both may not entirely be 100% neutral but I tried to keep the argumentation for the most part valid for any game, regardless who is involved.
We all know this is a long tourney (3 months and still in round one). Therefore there should be more incentives for existing players who loose a partner to stay in or for new players who replace others to come on board IF the team is supposed to be allowed to stay in the tourney. To start at 0 ist not a great incentive. After all this is meant to be a tournament . IMHO it would be greatly unfair to punish the remaining player for the disappearance of his Ally. Agreed, it the team completely drops out there is no other choice than count it as game lost but it is sad to cut off half-and almost finished games IF there were a replacement allowed. I would reconsider writing AARs if I cannot see may game being finished and the work somehow being worth the effort.
As MrQuiet pointed out that for future situations a replacement player may be brought in, even in mid-game. I would like to claim the same right for myself, BTW.
The rationale for calling one game an AV and another a draw is not consistent nor does it give any incentive for the remaining players to finish the game with a new partner. In the current case, it was not exclusively in the hands of Mike and myself why we are "only " in 1943 in game 1 and there are other games which are not over yet as well. The other game (2) is a clear Axis victory IMO. I did not learn from Mike dropping out until yesterday and he did not know he should look for a replacement either.
The (undesired) alternative: all games where a player drops out are forfeit regardless of game year and game situation, the Allied side continues into the stock East vs West scenario. The team will be excluded from the tourney which in light of the duration will leave the winning trophy not to the best team but to the team that has two players who held out the longest.
My suggestion as a rule is: Allow a team which looses a member to find a replacement in a reasonable time. Say - 3 weeks? That player will take over not only the nation but also the points gained or lost from the currently active games. It might seem unfair to inherit points other players laid the foundation for but IMO that is the only way to keep the tournament consitent, i.e. reflecting actual victories on the battlefields. Games which can be finished with replacements should be closed out instead of a forfeit. After all we want to play and explore the East vs. West scenario other than the stock version don't we?
As an additional rule I suggest that players MUST inform all the other players either through Email or through a post on the AAR that they played their turn AND sent it to the next in line. We had several weeks pass by because it was unclear who had the turn or if it was actually SENT after being played. I am sure it happened to others, too. If a player does not show a sign of life within 2 weeks without PRIOR excuse he should be kicked out as well, or at least there should be a significant penalty for him (e.g. one shift down the victory calculation - a DV becomes a Subst.V for that player ONLY). The sudden sickness might happen once but the other times there should be no problem to send out a quick "sorry guys, I am out on vacation or otherwise unable to play for X days." MrQuiet and rjh1971 demonstrated well how this actually WORKS.
MrQ, you run the show. However I would appreciate other player's opinion on the situation since looking at the one-on-one tourney drop-outs sadly DO happen more than once.
< Message edited by Marshall Art -- 6/28/2007 1:24:38 AM >