Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Dear CCC colleagues:

At the urging of Sergeant Mallory, and a note or two from others who want me to publish some "results" before discussing statistics any further, this is a draft of a snapshot from 2003 (Games Started) until September 2005 (Games Ended).

I should point out that I am really MUCH more interested in analyzing scenarios. And after considerable discussion with CCC members, and considerable consideration on my point, I will from now on focus on SCENARIO data (with no player names attached).

However, it is QUITE challenging to analyze the scenarios themselves, and I have not found a good way of presenting the results yet. It was much easier to provide comparative statistics between players/combatants.

I have only summarized British & American combatants.

I have excluded ALL combatants who have fought fewer t han 5 battles since 2003. So there will be some who don't appear on the list.
It should be emphasized that it is MUCH easier to have a high
rating with fewer battles than with dozens of battles!

Some have switched armies, and I have excluded those (or have tried to). And some "retired" or "inactive" members will probably appear on the list. I have also removed the scores of one or two CCC members who have expressed misgivings about my entire effort...
and a few others for various other reasons.

Here's a first draft of some comparable statistics for
60+ combatants (British & American).

The percentage point scores were calculated by making losses equal to -1 and wins equal to +1 (draws = 0), adding up all game points, and then dividing the total score by the number of games.


Combatant: # Battles // Pts Ratio Score
British-Goodwin, Tim: 6 // 83%
British-Wadding, Adam: 5 // 80%
British-Counselman, K: 44 // 59%
British-McDonald, J: 11 // 55%
British-Natta, Phil: 146 // 53%
British-Kosyanenko, A: 22 // 50%
British-Walter, D.S.: 148 // 50%
British-Boggon, Gordon: 21 // 48%
British-White, Richard: 28 // 43%
British-Launchbury, R: 11 // 36%
British-McGillivray, A: 15 // 33%
American-Burke, Cecil: 10 // 30%
British-Pinkham, Vern: 7 // 29%
American-Maines, Tim: 37 // 27%
British-Hargreaves, G: 32 // 25%
British-Braddock, Bill: 5 // 20%
British-Bonachia, Ric: 11 // 18%
American-Berli, Ola: 12 // 17%
British-Nelms, Mark: 12 // 17%
British-Keller, Pete: 7 // 14%
American-Herman, T: 24 // 13%
British-Smith, Mike: 18 // 11%
British-Renna, Eugene: 19 // 11%
British-Burke, Andy: 23 // 9%
American-Driscoll, P: 18 // 0%
British-Borling, Thom: 11 // 0%
British-Hipkins, Jack: 15 // 0%
British-Kreuels, Oli: 6 // 0%
British-Reuter, Stef: 14 // 0%
British-Zuelsdorff, B: 25 // 0%
British-Kitchen, Steve: 30 // -3%
British-Morrison, Matt: 21 // -5%
British-Mullen, Pat: 33 // -6%
American-Cox, Mike: 16 // -6%
British-Bangma, Jeff: 11 // -9%
British-Smith, Paul: 16 // -13%
British-Beecham, Dean: 23 // -13%
British-Gaskell, Colin: 7 // -14%
British-Henderson, N: 7 // -14%
British-Lastowicka, D: 7 // -14%
American-Pfluecke, Jim: 6 // -17%
British-Davis, Larry: 24 // -17%
British-Jenssen, Alte: 6 // -17%
British-Rietveld, Marc: 12 // -17%
American-Amos, Al: 78 // -18%
American-Karcher, Eric: 5 // -20%
British-Boe, Christian: 5 // -20%
American-Davies, Mike: 37 // -24%
American-Wilson, Phil: 34 // -26%
American-Murphy, P: 7 // -29%
British-Ludwig, Scott: 7 // -29%
American-McClellan, G: 47 // -30%
American-Callmeyer, T: 26 // -31%
American-Rogers, Doug: 8 // -38%
American-Brown, Larry: 18 // -39%
British-Butler, Nik: 15 // -40%
American-VanCanegem, K: 17 // -41%
British-Alberti, Joe: 29 // -45%
American-Thorvaldsson: 17 // -47%
American-Caudill, Jim: 6 // -50%
American-Davenport, S: 16 // -50%
British-Hummel, Pascal: 6 // -50%


As I said above, I don't think I need to do this kind of analysis again. And I will work on how to analyze scenario data so that the hard work invested in each person's battle doesn't get "buried" under "leader points".

If we are helping to relive history, I personally would like to see how each combatant's hard work becomes a meaningful part of the history of that scenario, and can contribute materially to summarizing the relative strengths of the OOB and terrain for that scenario.

Naturally, this kind of analysis requires the relative strengths of the combatants who battle the scenario. And that's why the scores above had to be calculated first. But this kind of analysis can be completed without having NAMES of combatants (just their weighted scores).

Regards,

George Brooks