quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Perhaps it would be the easiest way to create a world championship like tourney, with a group stage and folowing k.o. system. The ranking of the first tourney could be used to setup the groups. This way the numbers of games could be limited to 6 (3 during group stage, 3 k.o.), and no difficult calculations had to be made. The sides of each game could be decided by a dice roll. A victory of any kind would be worth 3 points, a loss 0, and a draw 1; the eight best players would proceed to the quarter finale, the best 4 to semi-, and the 2 best to the finale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason

BPINisBACK,
You all are in the next round. The one I will run.
Any comments about the tentative rules?

quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason

All,
Near final rules update:

We have two games going right now. And Llv34Mika is looking for someone to play.

I will use the ELO Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system. I found a simple system to use here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/98469/elo-generator. I plan to start with the results of the last tournament. See above.
Note the ELO system is continuous. So it shows who is at top all the time. So we could keep this going after mods and/or say the addition of the Pacific Theater. We the community just have to agree. - I'm okay with continuing with your existing ELO rankings, though others may wish it to be reset. However it should be kept to the basic game IMO, no mods or new scenarios, as these may have a different game balance

The ELO system allows us to play as many games at the same time as we want. But, you don't have to play more than one game at a time.

Not sure how to handle challenges that are not accepted. Ideas? Theoretically if you win enough games and Sugar doesn't play any games you point score will surpass him. Practically if you don't play and win against Sugar it would take a lot of games. Maybe we should have something like you must complete two games every six months to remain an active player. Inactive players are not considered in the standings but can resume any time. Your thoughts??? - A system that hides inactive players is a good idea. Whether their Elo rating should be reset, is another matter, I'm fine with it, but others may disagree

House rules are allowed as long as both players agree. - I would disagree, as it is effectively like a mod in that respect

I like Mika's suggestion of rewarding quick defeats and possibly rewarding longer games (players who stick with it to the bitter end.) There was a lot of discussion on this so right now don't plan on doing this. - Could be doable, as number of turns are tracked in PBEM

I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other. The two games can be simultaneous, sequential, skipped after another opponent, or not at all. Thoughts??? - Wouldn't the Elo system reward more play anyway. Not sure if this is needed, unless you make it compulsory, so as to ensure a fairer game balance

I plan on some system that rewards decisive, major, and minor victories. Thoughts? - Again, no objections to that

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Anything other than a decisive victory (for either side) is extremely unlikely to occur.

Major and minor victories require survival to the end date which is sometime in 1947 iirc.