Have people enter, and then get a board of top rated players to judge each player, from then creating pairs that are as fair as possible. They then create the brackets. Players would work in 2-man teams in 2 on 2 games. The winner continues on, the loser goes to the loser bracket, but if you lose in there, you are out. Then the top two losing teams face off to see who gets to see the winners champion. Then the winner and loser champions face each other to see who wins there. For playing different games: games like Bulge, D-Day, and Guadal are worth the lowest points for Ws and Ls, while 1940 and Anniversary are worth more points for both winners and losers. To prevent cheating, there will be a judge at each game who will officiate, but will not punish players if they screw up, but will disqualify them if they do things like roll the dice again, or pick their tech, etc.,intentional cheating like that in which there is evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Everyone should have fun, as it is a double then play for fun elimination circut. If your are knocked out of the losing bracket, you then join the other pairs(1/4 of total players at first possible chance), and play for fun, not to advance, as you are knocked out of the tournament. Where and when will the convention be held because I will try to get there if it is in the US.
Greatest Generals
-
Over the course of the years there have been many great generals, but who is the best?
-
I personally had to vote eisenhower because i am a ww2 fanatic and for all the great plans and such for the allies in ww2. he is perhaps a little overrated but never the less important
-
Rommel…
-
It seems, that it’s the best American General.
But my favorite would have to General Patton or Stonewall Jackson (they knew how to move).Rommel
As for Rommel, he wasn’t that great of a general.
-
Jackson, No doubt!
-
@TG:
It seems, that it’s the best American General.
But my favorite would have to General Patton or Stonewall Jackson (they knew how to move).Rommel
As for Rommel, he wasn’t that great of a general.
What do you define as general?
-
Field Marshall - General, take your pick.
-
I would go old school (really old) and say someone like a Roman General (Ceaser, for example) perhaps Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, I think the best generals are from the old days, though there are some very good ones who are more recent
-
In terms of land area conquered, Genghis Khan is the all-time leader, I believe, but he conquered most of Asia which besides India and China was not that occupied. I would probably also go with him. I like Napoleon, but he attacked Russia in the winter-really!
As far as US Generals go, I’d have to go with Sherman.
-
Id have to vote for Alexander the Great. For US Generals, it depends in what regard. For instance, there were tacticians, and there were leaders. I would classify Jackson as one of the best leaders (thats Stonewall) but not necessarily best tactician. As to that, I cant really say, as Im not a Military history buff, and dont really know who various tacticians were, some werent well known. But my vote (as of now) would be Lee
-
as far as military genius, I would have to say Gehngis… Leader, most likely Stonwall… all around although not the best, Rommel… Tactician Zhukov…
-
Yeah, I think we should distinguish between tacticans and leaders.
For instance… Longstreet, brilliant tactican (way ahead of his time) but not that brilliant of a leader.Then you also have to seperate between generals. What type of generals are we talking about here? Frontline ones? Or overall operational generals? Again, big difference between Eisenhower and Patton.
-
exactly. and i would disagree with you GG, about genghis. he did conquer more of the world than anyone else, but there were factors more important than his skills as a general (the quality of his mongolian soldiers, the intimidation factor, the large-scale disunity of much of the world at the time, and the inferiority of many of the enemy armies.)
-
exactly. and i would disagree with you GG, about genghis. he did conquer more of the world than anyone else, but there were factors more important than his skills as a general (the quality of his mongolian soldiers, the intimidation factor, the large-scale disunity of much of the world at the time, and the inferiority of many of the enemy armies.)
True… but he still get’s my vote because he was the first to use Blitzkreig type tactics… that is why I called him a military geinus
-
General Daniel Morgan of the American Revolution. Won the battle of Cowpens, which turned the war in the south around for the Americans and eventually led to the siege at Yorktown.
-
Hannibal, the inventor of the pocket battle.
-
I would not necessarily disagree with Hannibal, Falk (strange, I know). But please elaborate on pocket battle
-
Don’t mind if I step in here……I think the pocket battles F_alk is referring to is when one army encircles another trapping it in a “pocket”
-
True… but he still get’s my vote because he was the first to use Blitzkreig type tactics… that is why I called him a military geinus
What! Genghis Kahn had mechanized infantry and armor with close tactical air support in small independent armies that avoided attacking enemy strongpoints head on, instead, passing them by, encircling them, then letting the regular infantry reduce these pockets and driving deep into enemy territory to attack lines of communication and supply, causing mass confusion along the way? :lol:
-
not quite :wink: …his calvary units attacked swiftly, overwhelmed there enemy, then stole what they needed to get to the next village… Blitzkrieg means lightning war… remember the germans are not the only intelligent ones on military tactics :wink: (I can say that… I’m part German…)