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
-
While others pick up the stones to build Rome, I sit back with my laptop and tally them.
Hey, we need to know how many more stones we’ll need, and I could save other laborer’s backs -
In this metaphor I am the one who analyzed the current bureaucracy and optimized it in a way so that the city manages itself with minimal maintenance interference from workers and citizens?
Did I just create the deep state?
-
@MrRoboto NOOOO!
You are humble enough to govern by consent of the polis. Without the consent and appreciation of the polis you would just be rearranging 1 and 0 for a handful of troglodytes or neophytes.
-
@MrRoboto said in League General Discussion Thread:
Did I just create the deep state?
You ARE the deep state lol
Unelected behind the scenes government workers who have lots of power that no one sees, who can’t be ousted
-
max334 just signed up for PtV playoffs!!
Which reminds me that it is TIME to sign up for the 2023 PLAYOFFS
6 games for BM, 3 games OOB, or 3 games PtV are required to participate in the 2023 playoffs
Seeding will be done with the rankings spreadsheet we’ve always had, because that was set by the 2023 league rules 1 year ago.
All you have to do is PM me and I will add you to the list (which is a new sheet on the spreadsheet)
Do it before Jan 1 if you can so the playoffs can start promptly after 12/31/2023
And get ready to kiss good-bye to the year 2023
-
Balanced Mod 4 is the default in the Balanced Mod tournament
Meaning, both players would have to agree to BM3, otherwise it must be BM4
-
2024 League rules will be rolled out soon, probably 1/15 or earlier.
The biggest change will be the ELO ranking system being ushered in.
That is, the average PPG system will be discontinued after 12/31.If you’ve been fighting in Siberia or New Guinea lately and cut off from world news, the link is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Larckt6iOuBZtZ-AVzDPv-HEofZJdeN8ptXXotun0Og/edit#gid=0
The 2024 playoffs (that begin 1/1/25, a year from now) will be seeded by ELO as of 12/31/24. You will still need to complete 6 games BM, or 3 OOB, or 3 PtV to participate in the respective playoff.
This means life-time reputation will be a factor, but the more games you play in 2024 the more that your 2024 games will be a factor.
For many years, playoff seeding/start positions have been determined by that year’s performance only.
There are alternatives (to my favored course of action), but my (cough) authoritative decision is to simply go by 12/31 ELOs. I can change course on this if many players have a better idea.Will remain that everyone who wants to participate in playoffs will be given a seat. Only requirement is to meet minimum # of games.
-
The 2024 league rules have been updated and posted as a sticky thread. The previous one has been kept in case changes want to be analyzed, but unstickied.
Mostly shortening up redundant language that has lingered from a previous moderator,
Eliminated the limitations on playing the same player over and over
And much shorter ranking rules because the system doesn’t need to be explained. -
I may be a bit late, but wanna share these two thoughts:
-
Matches in our League take much more time than in other sports. So there occurs a difference, if new ELO ratings base on the values at the time when game started or when it ends. Because most matches are called by surrender before given victory conditions are met I suggest to from tomorrow on compare ELO as it was when game was started. This way deliberations about benefits by delaying resign are avoided.
-
Triggered by the issue @oysteilo had brought I wonder if the K-factor serves us well truly. At least in terms of transparency new players who wanna boost their ELO should be advised to play low rated League players first. For my part I prefer to see ELO of new players with even more reservation until they at all got possibility to join playoffs. Without doubt formula is even more simple without K-factor.
-
-
I.e. formula needs a K-factor but it does not have to vary with numbers of games played.
-
Might it be viable to implement a fixed game value for matches against new players (like 25) UNTIL his or her first win? With the first win the new player is considered to have started that game with his/her opponent’s ELO
Example (with an overall K-factor of 50)
A new guy looses two games, then wins the third against a 1500 ELO player. His ELO from here would be
1500 +25 (for last win) -25*2 = 1475It is just an idea I just got. Only if it appears of interest I want to elaborate on it.
-
I also considered the timing of games starting and ending, but thought that it’s OK to just let it come out on average.
If someone delays a resignation because they want to wait for somebody else’s result to come in first, I think it’s just another minor inherent flaw of the ELO system being used for our super long brainy and dicey games.
But I admit I didn’t think about it very long and welcome discussion.
I think the vast majority of players will continue to resign when they feel suffocated, and over all on average that works out.I remind myself that this is not a science - we are not measuring the temperature of the air, where there is only one correct number. Every system will have weaknesses, we just want one that’s going to do a really good job at reporting to us the information that we want.
I don’t like the idea where a new guy doesn’t get a deduction from his 1500 ELO until after he wins one…
I love the idea of looking harder at the k factors and not having more different ranges than necessary. I confess I should have invested more thought energy into that sooner, but I’ll do that now.
As Mr Roboto said, those factors are definitely not set in stone. He put them out as a starting point, and I tweaked them a couple times and then quit. -
I agree with @pacifiersboard in the request for the ELO to be based on the beginning status of the 2 players, not just for the effect of timing on the gain/loss on purpose. The effect of timing for not on purpose.
Not so hypothetical: A game last 6 months. We judge ELO affect based on when games ends.
Player Axis simultaneously plays and finishes 10 games while player Allies only finishes 4 other games, the ELO affect for both players on the game is largely different than when they started. For those of you trying to improve your ELO, you are probably, just as before, going to choose you opponents and the attention given to games for maximum effect. Or at least give it some weight. Hard to do that when the ELO maybe very different when its scored than the current information would predict.
By only scoring at the end, when the game itself can go for months while ELO scores on both sides are changing, seems a bit like making a bet on a football game when the spread is allowed to change between the time the bet is placed and the end of the game.
I am no mathematician, but I think that the variable K factor would compound this problem for experienced established players going up against an unknown new to league player.
I have no skin in this game. I am unsure if I will ever go for play-offs, where this matters, as my life quite often prevents me from playing consistently, and that’s not fair to my opponents or the league at large at the play off level. But I do have this weird thing for general fairness. Which, to me, also includes knowing as much as is reasonable to predict what you sign up for when you sign for it.
My 2 cents. Well, that’s probably 5 with current inflation.
-
Wait, BombsAway is back in 2023 after last game in league before was November 10, 2015?! That’s newsworthy
I’m doing some tests on BombsAway and Booper who are new to BM this year and played 5 or 6 games to see if the sensitivity is enough to apparently give them a fair shot at a fair seed in the playoffs.
-
I’ll read Mainah’s post in a minute. I’m in the middle of looking at k factors
110 for games 1-3
90 for games 4-6We currently have 3 game minimum for OOB and PTV, and 6 for BM, is the reason for these ranges.
Looking at Booper and Bombs Away, who had 5 or 6 games of BM completed this year, their ending ELO looks appropriate to me based on who they played.
Interestingly, BOTH played our beloved Dawg, TWICE, FIRST. Getting the rust off, getting the feel of the game, it would seem.
@BombsAway, a veteran of the game but maybe not with BM, rips off 3 more wins and loses to MrRoboto. 2 of the wins were very impressive, Me1945 and Wizmark.
His ELO today is a little lower than Me1945 and Wizmark. Appropriate because he’s only played 6 games, and he did lose to MrRoboto at the end.
He’ll get a seat at the table, the chance to win the 2023 championship game, if 2-3 more players above him don’t participate. Let that sink in. He can enter the top playoff, albeit a low seed, after 2 impressive wins. Seems the ELO k factors are definitely sufficiently sensitive. IMO he shouldn’t be as high as Wizmark and Me1945 even though he beat them. He only played 6 games and he lost one. 2 of the wins were against good ol’ Dawg.@Booper , After warming up TWICE on good ol’ Dawg (our grizzled, veteran trainer), beat Simon twice and learned a lesson or two from @GeneralDisarray. 5 games is not enough to qualify for the playoffs, so a 6th would give more information. (And this is a good example of why 6 are required) He has an ELO today of 1536, slightly above average. Seems right to me.
I eliminated range 6-10 games and just made 6+ to 50 sensitivity as it was for 11+ before. Little change, just everyone in the top 25 that I looked at dropped a couple points and there were a couple minor position changes for players who were already close, as would be expected. So I’m thinking 50 k factor for games 7+, about the right size that you get a noticeable bump up or down for a win or loss, but not too much.
These factors can be changed in future years. We’re just rolling it out now, I really don’t think we need to fine-tune k factors perfectly right now, it can be done later too, all the data is in there.
-
I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.
However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01
-
@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:
I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.
However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01
I knew someone could say it better than me, thank you for that.
I am also a little bit concerned with game results that come in on the same day. I don’t know which the system calculates first, and that’s one for programmer MrRoboto
Players ranking counts for all forfeits, same as before, if I understand you correctly. Issue is the order of the calculations, AFAIK
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Wait, BombsAway is back in 2023 after last game in league before was November 10, 2015?! That’s newsworthy
I’m doing some tests on BombsAway and Booper who are new to BM this year and played 5 or 6 games to see if the sensitivity is enough to apparently give them a fair shot at a fair seed in the playoffs.
Unfortunately I’m not going to be able to participate in playoffs this year. Been busier than anticipated, and have not been able to play much this latter part of the year.
-
@mainah a lot of interesting thoughts and points. I’ll just leave one with you, off the top of my head.
Especially if you’re not talking about veteran players, your opponent may actually be improving over the 6 months that you are playing him. He is learning things from his other games, and you may be actually playing an increasingly good player over the months that you are playing him! So there is a weakness to counting ELO’s at game start, as well.
This is not intended as a complete answer, but one thought that I think may be another thought to consider. I like your post.
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:
I think elo should be based on ranking when game result is posted. Using the start date of the game is just an extra complicating factor that in most cases will have very little impact. I could write much more but this is the bottom line.
However, I only see one problem and that is with the case of mass forfeits. How is that handled? One player decides to forfeit six (or many) games in the same day. In this situation the players ranking should count for all forfeits, right? @MrRoboto @gamerman01
I knew someone could say it better than me, thank you for that.
I am also a little bit concerned with game results that come in on the same day. I don’t know which the system calculates first, and that’s one for programmer MrRoboto
Players ranking counts for all forfeits, same as before, if I understand you correctly. Issue is the order of the calculations, AFAIK
Yes, its the order of calculation i am refering too when multiple forfeits are posted the same day





