complete
2017 League General Discussion Thread
-
The only real issue I have with the system is the disincentive for those at the top to play more, even amongst themselves. That’s why I’ve suggested adding 1 (or a smaller number if you like) to the number of games in the denominator for the PPG.
I’m only one voice, but the big disincentive for playing those at the top for me is the time and effort involved, nothing to do with my score. Just look at how long the playoff games of the top 8 take. That’s the other thing - if you’re in the top 8 playoffs every year, you get 1-3 games against top players right there.
-
Gamerman01, how do you figure out the equilibrium for these scores?
At any given times, there’s potential for player’s scores to drive each other’s. I bet there are more than one solution to the rankings, given how the games were played.
E.g., player A and player B would both move up a tier if the other one moves up a tier?
-
^ There’s a starting point based on last year’s rank or Tier 3 if there wasn’t one.
-
Gamerman01, how do you figure out the equilibrium for these scores?
One of the great mysteries of the universe :wink:
How did I do it when there was no last year, Simon? :wink:Each player’s score is derived from the current tier of their opponents, and yet each score can be accurately calculated at any given point in time. It’s like perpetual motion or something!
Whether there is another possible outcome for the same games and the same system is really irrelevant. Any difference would be trivial. You can look at any player’s score and re-calculate it exactly, according to the opponents that they have played.
-
I guess there’s a stopping point when your refresh this. I agree that the differences would be trivial, but the scores are never truly converged, other than by the results of new games coming in.
E.g., Player A has tier 1, if changing the tier of Player A increases the tiers of opponents in such a way that Player A becomes tier E, then that’s the converged answer.
Eventually a chain reaction such as the one that Simon33 created cleans it up though.
-
:-) You’re 6-0! Planning a playoff run this year, Professor?
-
:-) You’re 6-0! Planning a playoff run this year, Professor?
It’s probably the only year I could ever qualify for the playoffs. Actually playing is a different story. If the playoffs are BM3, then I have virtually no chance.
And if I qualified, I would likely play a third game against ME1945, you know what that means :lol:
-
How did I do it when there was no last year, Simon? :wink:
Everyone started as tier 3 then, I guess. Or tier 4 if that still existed. Unless there was a special rule.
-
I think people that are “new” to the league should come with a “bonus point” for their first game, and for the opponent who plays them first.
Or that there is atleast some small incentive to recruit new people. That’s worth something!
-
Rules question: Philippines is japan controlled and sz 35 has a Japanese sub in it, the US combat moves into the sz with a transport and a destroyer. He ignores the sub and unloads to Philippines. Question is can I use my kamikazes to kill the dd and if I do can the transport still unload? Thanks
-
If the DD is destroyed then your sub blocks the assault. That’s why Japanese subs in Kami zones are pretty good at deterring the Allies from taking the island.
-
Thanks Adam that’s what I thought, just needed confirmation.
-
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.90
No, actually, Krieghund explained that kamikaze strikes don’t create a battle. The sub can be ignored, the kamikazes can attack the destroyer, but that attack does not constitute combat in the zone. The kamikaze strike on the destroyer is independent - it does not involve the sub or the transport. The sub is still ignored. In other words, kamikazes don’t pull ignored subs into battle - they can’t undo the ignoring (that occurred during the combat movement phase)
See reply #2340 in the Q&A thread linked above
-
Strange that a battle does not trigger combat in a sz, but its Kreig so its gotta be true! Not sure I agree with the premise that the sub stays ignored when there are no ships there to ignore it. Thanks for the clarification though gamerman!
-
Sure thing, and I can explain it:
Don’t think of the kamikazes as a “battle”, but rather an “attack” or a special attack, at that. It is a unique rule.
The sub was ignored in the combat movement phase when there was an attacking destroyer to ignore it. Kamikazes happen at the beginning of the conduct combat phase, which is after the combat movement phase is entirely complete.
-
Strange that a battle does not trigger combat in a sz, but its Kreig so its gotta be true! Not sure I agree with the premise that the sub stays ignored when there are no ships there to ignore it. Thanks for the clarification though gamerman!Â
You can also look at page 156 and the next couple of pages in the Q&A for a similar discussion. I struggled with the logic there for a while
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.2325
-
Wow that’s an obscure rule, my apologies.
-
Interesting, thanks Gamerman.
“In other words, kamikazes don’t pull ignored subs into battle”
I am curious: Do scramble battles pull ignored subs into battle?
Assuming German sub in sz113, US goes there with DD, TT and 3 air, unloading to Norway ignoring the sub.
The Germans scramble 3 planes, the German planes die, but so does the DD.–> Can the TT now unload or does the sub prevent it?
-
Oh, and of course, does the sub fight in the sea battle? I guess yes, correct?
-
Oh, and of course, does the sub fight in the sea battle? I guess yes, correct?
Yes, again, kamikazes are unique. They are a separate attack that takes place at the beginning of the conduct combat phase.
Scrambles of aircraft (actual plastic pieces on the board as opposed to kamikaze tokens) are regular, conventional battles that create combat in the seazone (kamikazes do not), bringing the subs into the battle.
Suggested Topics
