After reading a number of peoples posts and I know we have the Hall of Victory but who is the Greatest player that ever lived? now I obviously think its me but seriously who is the best, how would it be scored. Now you can discuss to your hearts content here but I will do some research and compile the evidence.

If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else PM Me with your claim to fame. When I have compiled the data I will let you all know and then you can fight it out.

On a side note however.... Who is the worst?

Lekker belangrijk.

lol. I do totally agree with that remark.

I hate IN jokes, especially coming from that Traitor

Well it was a lot easier than I thought, based on games won only then the following stand out.

Not sure what the Forum character names are or if they are still around but they are as follows

Charles G Clark with 5 Wins
Christian Schmitter with 4
Sander Anneveldt with 4

The following have 3 wins

Bill Vognsen
Brian Goehrig
Dale Richie
Ken Rozhan
Richard Carins
Richard Reece
Steve Graves

Can anyone put some character names to these or know if they are still playing in current games?

Just something to pass the time while V89 gets started.

Now working out the worst is a little more tricky, has anyone lost as many games as me or am I the worst player ever.

What about the survivors?

Well we have...

Ken Rozhon with 14 games taken to the end.

Then we have a big gap but in the following order we have

Richard Reece on 8

Loads on 7 such as...

Charles G Clark
Donald Link
Doug Link
Peter Schmitter
Steve Graves
Tim Alcorn

Then on 6 we have...

Doug Maier
Michale Jayne

and below that lots of 5s and 4s

Winning the Game is not always a realistic way to measure success. I suggest you use your statistical prowess for the worthy challenge of findng the players with the greatest record of achieving the various ranks of Best Nations. Perhaps 1 pt for 10th place and 10 points for 1st place and see which players rise to the top of the heap. Thats just 400 data points to play with. Have fun!

Excellent Idea, I will get back you in say 5 years.

Realistically it would take too long but if individual players would like to work out there own points and submit them via a PM I will compile the list. It would also have the advantage of being current with players still active.

I have never seen a better TEAM than the Schmitters and Sander Anneveldt. I got to play as an ally and an enemy of theirs in 2 games which they won both. They are great players and nice people as well.

- Andy Brogan

It is diffucult to nominate a "Best Team" since few of us have played with all possible candidates but I would nominate any team with Nfbeerse and CD Ernst.
In playing with them and against them I find their analytic and cartography prowess to be unmatched.

Strange how you rate those two players when they have not been mentioned before, I guess Sponges list is flawed.

Ok....I am curious and I have a larger than average ego.

Given the scoring system described above, I have 46 points.

Thats the opening bid, do I hear some higher bids????


Steve Graves

Finally someone who has the stones to score his skill. I worked mine out and on the Spongebob Scale I scored.... None, Zero, Ziltch, Naff, Nadda. Not hard to be beat me guys come on, work out your scores. Its something to do between world domination and the wait for 89

I nominate Des Feeney as the best!
It's hard to really quantify the best player because of differences in style. For example, myself, I am generally not as concerned about me winning as I am enjoying the game and helping/working my allies. Normally, I join the game solo and find allies when I get there. As a result, I have never 'won' any of the games I've been in. I do not consider myself a great player by any means, but slightly above average. Surviving is a very important factor in determining 'quality'. Even the best player will be knocked out with 2 to 1 or more odds, when fighting quality or at least coordinated opponents if help doesn't arrive soon. The good player may last longer, but the end is usually the same.
That being said, I'm game, and I'll use your rating system. Be back.

30 points.

You never won a game, but had the game high score twice, correct?

Just worked out the score for Ken Rozhon, the guy who has completed 14 games. Using the scoreing system as described, 10pts for first 1pt for 10th any 11th and beyond gets no score.

This means Kens Score is 55 pts. I am going to do a few more as I have nothing better to do awaitinng the results of 88 and the start of 89. Yes I know its Sad but if anyone wants to do there own do it and see if your score is better than the 55 Ken has scored.

Christian Schmitter - 37
Sander Anneveldt - 23
Charles G. Clark - 55
Dale Richie - 7
Michael Burchard - 9
Richard Reece - 29
Donald Link - 29

A few more scored, it seems 55 is joint top between Ken and Charles

Ken.... Buddy.... want to be my friend in 89? Pleeeeeeezzzee

Yes, that is correct. 'Lost' because of alliance structure.

Actually, there ought to be a 'weighted' score since some nations are harder to survive than others, while some are 'easier'. Sooo, just to make things even more complicated, I would suggest the following.
1st place = 200 points/# of survivors
2nd place = 190 points/# of survivors
...
10th place = 110 points/# of survivors
....
20th place = 10 points/# of survivors

This means the normal 'high score' would be 20 instead of 10, and gives points to anybody who survives a game.
For example, Guido von Stebut would receive 28.6 points for his 1st place finish in France (200 pts/7 survivors) one of the harder nations to survive, while Raymond Adams would only receive 11.1 points for his first place finish in Northern Russia (200 pts/18 survivors)

Thoughts? comments?

Any system assigning "points" to a player has drawbacks. What score to count?
As I can see the most succesfull player ever was Raymond Andrews in game #23.
But even that score could have been achieved by weak opposition.

If a player plays conservatively over 20 games in a row He or she could rack up a whole lot of points despite being only a mediocre player.
I rembember Dutch game 2, 6 and 8, but the elvel of competition in those gaes was far lower as in game #87. They had a lot of n00bs, the average player in #87 seems to now at least what he is doing. So attaining a high score in those games was probably not so much of an achievement.

Reputation however is often based on expert opinion of experienced and respected players. When we started in game #87 my TA's and I were warned that a certain Kurassier was playing in hte middle East too. We were advised to ally with him. We were also warned against Des Feeney. So far both of their reputations seem to be based on fact.

I think the points system as it stands now is okay, no point in over complicating things. Ken in 14 survivals scored the same as Charles in his 5 wins. Seems to me fair. There is never going to be a perfect system but it seems to me to be weighted as good as it can be.

Charles is on the face of it the better player. If you want it more accurate then you divide the points by the number of games joined but that information is not available on the RTG website.

Leave as is an if anyone wants to post there scores then let it be. When enough have posted then a league table can be drawn up and updated say once a year.

I need to win the next 6 games in a row as the best nation to take my rightful place as the best. but if i divide it by the number of games joined then I will still be a low ranking player.

I don't think Ken EVER reads the forum...so that might be a good tip for you Sponge...focus on the game instead of the BS that everybody spreads around here

on the otherhand i personally would find that very boring...

Whats your score Mario? put a name to the face

I played in 23 until turn 60. In the days when games were started monthly, people dropped when things started to go even a little bad. There were few players left turn 60 and only 3 at the end obviously. In game 5 our team was all that was left by turn 37. Same almost in game 11. No point in playing the computer for 30+ turns although our scores could have been really nice.

I see problems with any system as each game, country, and player has its unique characteristics. To me, there are two players of all the folks I have seen that I would not want to go one on one with. Charles G Clark and Sietse Van Der Wal. I never faced Des Feeney I must admit though.

Sorry. Just remembered I contributed some air power to Des' demise in 80. Doesn't really count though as Algeria was between us.

He is WAY too paranoid and Rossmango kicked his butt in 83 with 3 to 1 odds against him. I nominated you Tim!

There were some early players that were awesome players and do not play anymore. It is hard to count when some of the great players do not play anymore and players that play alot can add up more points by just playing more

I agree that Tim is a most worthy nominee.
Another player worthy of consideration is Peter Schmitter.
In Game 65 he played N. Russia.
At the end of the Game, our group was locked in a life-and-death struggle with him in SPAIN!
A tremendous achievement.

Again, in Game 73 he played Italy.
Early on, he was ambushed by 3 countries who kicked the sh.t out of him.
Ten Turns later, they were in headlong retreat and he advanced into Turkey
where our group fought against him in battles that I will never forget.

Cheers

I think the toughest opponent that I have faced is Russ when we had a team game and RTG had their own team. Actually that might be a good way to resolve this debate is to have another team game. Even cooler would be to have the final game of Victory an invitational for the top players of the last 88 games. You could start by inviting the winners of all 88 games and throw in Russ and Pete, then move down to 2nd, 3rd place etc if you needed more to fill it. Also use random setups so that some of the groups that always enter games together actually have to do some diplomacy.

Howdy,
This is the first time for me to participate in the forum and may be the last. However, since my name is appearing on this topic, I thought it appropriate to chime in. Yes, I have five wins and if anyone is feeling generous you could give me a 1/2 win for game 38. I had to leave late in the game due to personal reasons and Ken Tewell finished it with Russ listing both of us as best Ireland. I have never lost a one on one fight. Have taken on two opponents at the same time on several occasions and twice defeated three enemies at the same time. So, I might be one of the better players, but in my opinion:

Peter Schmitter is by far the best player to ever have participated in Victory. He won five games during an eleven game stretch between game 63 and 73. In 63 as part of a 4 man team, 64 in a 5 man team, 65 in a 3 man team, 73 in a 2 man team and 66 as an individual. I haven't seen him since, so apparently he has moved on to more challenging pursuits. He came in out of nowhere and kicked our butts.

Honorable mention should go to David Ashpaugh for winning game 73 as an individual. In the current era of mega alliances, I don't think we will ever see another individual winner.

The best ally, by far is Ken Rozhon. He is loyal, unselfish and a good team player. If ever you have the opportunity to join up with him in a game, do so. You will not regret it.

The toughest opponent I have faced is Des Feneny. He is tenacious, elusive, cunning and just down right good. I know that he wants another crack at me, as probably many others of you do. Especially those who have been unmercifully run over by my armies.

However, I have been thinking about leaving Victory. Currently I am only in game 82 as Hungary. I may wait to see what Victory II has to offer, before deciding to retire.

Good Hunting
Charles G. Clark

Howdy to you too!

I see how tough he is then, just declared war on him in V87. I'll see if I can confirm this in a couple of months.

I've started victory again after more then 10 years, I must say it is still a nice challenge. But I remember spending a lot more time on my orders those days. Shame I threw everything away. Had some nice positions, but the dutch games were a lot easier, people dropped quite fast.

Be a shame if you dropped, challenging opponents are always appreciated.

Cheers
Falco

What impresses me the most about that stretch is that 4 of those games are in a row.

Just to note,

Well I started the topic and so I have the final say.

I'm The Greatest - End of Story

All you have to do to Kurrasier is gang up on him with no hope of his allies coming to help him and then prepare for the eternal sieges of the good stuff. Oh yeah. Don't forget the Rangers.....always with the Rangers...we need to have an option of bombing his version of Fort Benning to slow Ranger production....

As for Des, that guy is tenacious. Not too shabby at game play either. I hate it when he is so polite, though. If either he or K were buttheads, it sure would make hating them possible.

Alas, you have to just kill them the old fashioned way - bombs, bullets and broadsides...

S

thats the whole idea of being anonymous... after game 89 you know my name:-)

but i have one survival, second place and some shitty 5th place on the country specific list so I would not make it to the top...yet....

So Boys and Girls,

What is this all about!!! One of the biggest players, TA, Friend, Buddy etc. I want to mention just three, just three: me, myself and I.
And wo needs TA to be a good player...you need enemies you have to defeat, enemies give you the points not TA's. This is a wargame not a peace game or can I be your TA-friend game.
Maybe I did not won a game yet....that is whay I am so, so.

Any way if I would play I would enlarge my beloved home territory, my lovely Bornholm in an empire.

Greetings Rednas Ruler of Greater France in game...I forgot but who cares any way.

Toodles my loved ones.