Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 1 infantry, 1 marine and 3 transports; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Politics - Japanese Japanese takes Political Action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and British from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and UK_Pacific from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and ANZAC from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Dutch from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and French from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Germans and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Italians and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and British from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and UK_Pacific from Concordant to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and French from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and ANZAC from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for British and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for UK_Pacific and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for ANZAC and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and French from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Allies from Neutrality to Friendly_Neutral Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Axis from Neutrality to Unfriendly_Neutral Combat Move - Japanese Trigger Japanese Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Japanese 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 34 Sea Zone to 27 Sea Zone 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 7 Sea Zone to 27 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from Caroline Islands to 34 Sea Zone 1 cruiser and 1 marine moved from 34 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from 33 Sea Zone to Gilbert Islands 1 infantry moved from Iwo Jima to 7 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Hokkaido to 7 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 7 Sea Zone to 32 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 32 Sea Zone to Wake Island 1 cruiser moved from 21 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Formosa to 132 Sea Zone 2 bombers moved from Japan to 132 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Siam to French Indo China Japanese take French Indo China from French 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangsi to Yunnan 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Fukien to Kwangtung 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsu to Kwangtung 1 infantry moved from Fukien to 21 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Formosa to 21 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 21 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Japan to 7 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 7 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Southern Manchuria to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Okinawa to 20 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Chahar Japanese take Chahar from Chinese 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Shansi 1 battleship and 1 destroyer moved from 7 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 20 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 1 mech_infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Shansi 1 tactical_bomber moved from Southern Manchuria to Shansi 1 fighter moved from Korea to Shansi 1 fighter moved from Southern Manchuria to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe Japanese take Anhwe from Chinese 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi Japanese take Kiangsi from Chinese Combat - Japanese Battle in Wake Island Battle in Gilbert Islands Battle in Shansi Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Wake Island from Americans, taking Gilbert Islands from UK_Pacific, taking Shansi from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Chinese: 1 infantry Battle in 27 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 destroyer, 3 fighters, 1 submarine and 3 tactical_bombers Americans defend with 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine and 1 transport Japanese win, taking 27 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 destroyer, 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 25 Casualties for Japanese: 1 submarine Casualties for Americans: 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 submarine and 1 transport Battle in Kwangtung Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber British defend with 2 infantry; UK_Pacific defend with 1 harbour 1 fighter owned by the Japanese retreated UK_Pacific win with 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is -17 Casualties for Japanese: 1 artillery, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Casualties for British: 1 infantry Battle in Yunnan Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 4 infantry Japanese win, taking Yunnan from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 4 infantry Battle in 36 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 submarine and 3 transports Americans defend with 1 destroyer and 1 submarine Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Japanese Japanese win with 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 submarine and 3 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 14 Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer and 1 submarine Battle in Davao Japanese attack with 2 artilleries and 4 infantry Americans defend with 1 airfield, 1 fighter, 1 harbour and 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Davao from Americans with 2 artilleries and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7 Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 fighter and 1 infantry Battle in 132 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 bombers, 1 cruiser and 1 fighter British defend with 1 battleship Japanese win with 2 bombers and 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7 Casualties for Japanese: 1 cruiser Casualties for British: 1 battleship Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Yunnan to Siam 1 fighter moved from 132 Sea Zone to Siam 2 bombers moved from 132 Sea Zone to Siam 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 1 fighter moved from Shansi to Jehol 1 tactical_bomber moved from Shansi to Shantung 3 infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Jehol 1 aaGun moved from Northern Manchuria to Southern Manchuria 1 infantry moved from Korea to Northern Manchuria 2 infantry moved from Korea to Southern Manchuria 1 fighter moved from Kwangtung to Formosa 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from Japan to Kyushu 1 artillery moved from Japan to Kyushu 1 infantry moved from Japan to Kyushu 2 carriers moved from 7 Sea Zone to 32 Sea Zone 1 carrier and 1 destroyer moved from 34 Sea Zone to 32 Sea Zone 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers moved from 27 Sea Zone to 32 Sea Zone 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Japan to Caroline Islands 1 fighter moved from 36 Sea Zone to Paulau Place Units - Japanese 1 infantry and 1 marine placed in Japan 3 transports placed in 7 Sea Zone Japanese undo move 2. 3 transports placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Japanese collect 35 PUs; end with 36 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 39 PUs Objective Japanese 7 Vital Forward Bases: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 44 PUsLeague General Discussion Thread
-
I think @trulpen proposal is a good idea. It is a significant weakness with todays system that high rank players can not play low rank players without going down in ranking. You don’t become a worse player by playing a non ranked or so called bad player if you are tier E or M.
I think administration of todays system is easy, it gives good indication on how good a player is. It is the same players every year who dominate the league/rankings and hence todays system is working. Maybe the elo rating system would generate more league games and maybe you would play other players that you dont play today.
I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it. Without any such information todays system will stand as it is not a bad system even though not perfect
-
Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.
-
@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.
That is very true, yet more league games means more fun. There’s usually a quality difference between competitive and casual play.
-
@Adam514 accept for a minus in your points if you loose or win.
-
@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:
I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it.
Thanks for the input. I’ll try and look into it.
-
I have one already set up from a few years back when we were doing the TripleA tournament. What is really cool is with Gamer’s rankings we could set people with an initial rating during the provisional rating process. I’m not saying we should do this, just that it’s possible.
I have the whole process in an Access database. It was a modified ELO – chess ratings are based on 0% luck, of course A&A is more than 0% luck and should be adjusted accordingly.
-
I think it is a good idea to make sure that people don’t have too much trouble finding opponents to play. That is both in the interests of some players individually but it is also in our collective interest. If some players, and especially new players, have difficulty finding opponents, than we will have trouble keeping people in the league and getting new people to join.
I don’t think mismatched games are necessarily a problem. It may be less interesting for the better players but it is a good learning experience for newer players and helps them become more competitive in the long run.
At the same time, I don’t want to add to the work of those who manage the league. So I would support an ELO system if it can be implemented in a way that doesn’t add to Gamerman’s work.
If that is too complicated, another option is just to score tier 3 the same way as tier 2. M and some E ranked players would still lose score in those games, but they would lose less, and everyone else would still go up.
Also, its worth noting, with new players at least, that losses to E and M players increase their average. There is a very good chance that players who start out at tier 3 will end up at tier 1 or 2 by the end of the year, and the more losses they have to E and M ranked players the more likely that is. So there is less of a disincentive than might appear at first.
-
@farmboy yeah, but that goes along with (like you said) keeping new players. Would help to make your support donation goal. i don’t think it met last year.
i no i’m not a good player. but i’ve paid for years and i have played maybe 2 games with the top players. wouldn’t mind a couple more just for the experience. would more top players play new players and not so good of players if they were not worried to drop in they’re rankimgs? -
I’m definitely on board with a change to the scoring system. The current system creates a large barrier to entry for new players and fragments an already small community.
I actually brought this up about 9 months ago with one potential solution. (hopefully links work as they are mid thread)
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/314
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/319As a potential simpler solution, my suggestion was to allow games to be scored as a Tier 1 vs Tier 1 game if the players choose to play with a standardized handicap bid. (on top of the normal bid for choosing sides)
This would allow higher tier players to maintain their tier while playing against tier 2/3 players if they maintain a high enough win rate. The handicap bid going to the lower tier player would also help shrink the skill gap and hopefully make the game more interesting for the higher tier player.
Most importantly, this could be completely ignored by anyone who wants to just stick with the way things are and only applies to people who choose to play with the handicap. We want to encourage new players but not alienate people who are enjoying the league as it is now.
I’m not attempting to compete with the ELO system as an option, I’d be fine with that if it’s easy to implement. I’m just thinking this would be a less disruptive bolt-on to the existing system.
-
@farmboy I have never been one to care about my ranking. I know what my skill level is. It may not necessarily be that the upper tier players care about a ranking as well, there is something to be said about taking on a challenging game. It does take time and effort to play this game even online and if the competition does not challenge you it may be a deterrent to picking up some games. Do you think Lebron James really wants to play you in one on one and enjoy it?
All that being said I do think the upper tier players owe it to the league to play some lower tier players and coach them up somewhat. I have always tried to play newer players and help them out a little bit. As a group its in our best interest to have as many good payers as possible to keep competition alive. I have slimmed my games down for a time but I would be willing to open 1 or 2 slots for a new or lower tier player. PM me if you want a game.
-
That’s very true. Majik was the first to welcome me to the league by accepting games, and was very patient with me. That’s a good mind-set. Still I believe ranking might matter more to others. Also remember when I got my butt kicked by koala who only played one game last season and therefore counted as tier 3 while clrarly being atleast E. Didn’t feel right. 🙃
-
I think I could give Lebron a competitive game one on one. We are talking Axis & Allies right? :)
I do tend to prioritize higher ranked players (tier 1 and above). Its partly because I want challenging games and the more challenging players are typically higher ranked but it is also that I’d like to make it to the final 8 playoff and the way scoring works discourages me from playing players below tier 1 if I’m anywhere on the edge. I’m not sure if the issue is solved by a scoring change, but I’m open to the ideas other here have posted. Right now, I’m happy to play players in tier 3 or 2, but as we get closer to the start of the next playoffs, with the existing scoring, I will start to focus on players in tier 1 and up to improve my chances of making it.
-
I think it was mentioned by @farmboy to award 5 points to wins against tier 3. I think that is a good suggestion. Also you could remove the 3 game cap, so you have a rating after 1 game, it also means you would earn 5 points if you beat an unranked player:
A win against an unranked, tier 3 or tier 2 is awarded with 5 points. By removing the 3 game rule before you are ranked you also make it easier for new players to find opponents and also the player welcoming the new player is awarded with points (if he wins) in case the new player just leaves.
It means especially tier 1 and tier E will have an easier time maintaining their ranking, but does that really matter? There will also be more tier 1 and tier E players which in turn will benefit tier M players as well
-
@oysteilo i like that idea
-
The only problem I see with that is that it offsets the balance. And, although it might be a good thing, it benefits more games played. Two players who only play tier 3 and both win 50 % will differ in ranking. Perhaps no biggie, but it’s not very elegant.
-
@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:
The only problem I see with that is that it offsets the balance. And, although it might be a good thing, it benefits more games played. Two players who only play tier 3 and both win 50 % will differ in ranking. Perhaps no biggie, but it’s not very elegant.
the point is to make it easier to accept new players. If they decide to play many games, ratings will avaerage out. If they leave after 1 or 2 games, the player accepting the challenge will not lose rating/he will gain something from the recruitment effort.
Now, if the new player decides not to play… noone is losing, at least not the person trying to recruit. In any case you are not allowed to participate in top 8 playoffs before you have 8 games. Lower level play offs require 3 games, so it might alter the rating here though. Is it a big deal?
-
@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:
@farmboy I have never been one to care about my ranking. I know what my skill level is. It may not necessarily be that the upper tier players care about a ranking as well, there is something to be said about taking on a challenging game. It does take time and effort to play this game even online and if the competition does not challenge you it may be a deterrent to picking up some games. Do you think Lebron James really wants to play you in one on one and enjoy it?
All that being said I do think the upper tier players owe it to the league to play some lower tier players and coach them up somewhat. I have always tried to play newer players and help them out a little bit. As a group its in our best interest to have as many good payers as possible to keep competition alive. I have slimmed my games down for a time but I would be willing to open 1 or 2 slots for a new or lower tier player. PM me if you want a game.
-
@Adam514 I was advised to ask you for a rule question. Thank you in advance!
A fighter has 1 move point left and would require an AC to land on after combat. The AC can only intercept the fighter in a hostile SZ. What is required of the attacking player regarding the movement of the AC in respect to combat/noncombat phases. I can clarify if needed? -
@Pejon_88 I’ll give it a try. If the only available landing spot is the hostile sea zone you also have to attack that sea zone. But you need not to have a realistic chance of winning that battle. However, if you do win, the AC has to pick up the fighter
-
@Pejon_88 As oysteilo said, you need to have a chance of picking up the fighter after combat, or else the move is illegal. So you need to sent at least 1 combat unit against the hostile sea zone to be able to send out that fighter.
Suggested Topics
