2011 League Discussion

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

Would it be too much of an adv or too complicated if the player requesting the game stated his preferred game?

NO, this adheres to the KISS principle. I am OK with this as our process.

@DarthMaximus:

Of course the League rules would state all bids are full placement (so a 4 bid could be an rt, 1 inf + 1 ipc, or 4 ipc cash) and standard placement rules apply.  You are bidding in cash, but this bid can then be translated to units just like any normal blind bid.

This is PERFECT. It is simple and easy to understand.

@DarthMaximus:

For other rules
Shut off Tech as an option and simply make all games:
NO’s - Yes
Tech - No.
I’m fine if people still want to choose to play tech.
The only negotiable rule would then be tech.  Which is the same as last year.

Again perfect

@DarthMaximus:

I don’t think we need the other optionals,

AGREED

@Funcioneta:

I’ll give my opinion. Bid system used in Revised was nice, I think we need two simple changes for AA50:

• Players will bid for allies in both scenarios (negative bids mean axis side can place the bid in axis units)
• Again for both scenarios, bids must be restricted to India and China (for negative bids, axis can place where they want). As a note, China could receive only inf and figs or could receive any type of units (boats only in case we delete movement limitations)

This way we prevent the balanced side (Europe) getting the allied bids (and thus we also prevent a mayority of KGF games), while we send the bid where is really needed (Asia)

I continue suggesting we should remove chinese limitation of movements for all the games (the infamous ACME wall  :wink: )

At this point I’m not sure what will be the proper bid for 1941 scenario with both modifications, but probably will be, at least, on par with Classic leves (if I’m right, it was on 20s). For 1942, the minimal will be 9 and I guess probably 13 if we let China get artillery in the bid (I thought it would be lesser but a opening someone showed me last month made me change my mind)

I prefer a 1942 league anyway, but I’ll play at least some 1941 games if allies get a unit bid, even unrestricted

Func the above changes might possibly make the game better or at the very least eliminate any advantage one side has over the other. However, IMO, these suggestions don’t adhere to the KISS principle and therefore I would have to disagree w/their implementation for the 2010 league.

[Funcioneta]

Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler

The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis

[666]

@Funcioneta:

Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler

Personally, I am against telling players what to bid, where they have to place bids etc… but I will leave it to the powers that be and if they want to go in this direction then I will go along with it.

@Funcioneta:

The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis

I could agree to this. It’s not much different than what has been discussed w/the exception that, I think they would rather not have to leave this site to sort out the bid.

[DarthMaximus]

@Funcioneta:

Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler

My concern about Asia specific bids or restricted placement is those bids tend to be higher than what might really be needed.  My personal view is for the bids to be as low as possible.

I understand your point about China and your opinion on the initial setup of China/Asia is well documented, but I’m not sure bidding something to China (say 12 ipcs) is better than just giving the Allies one more inf (3 ipc) for Egy.

I would think different type of bidding philosophies would eventually develop for the Allies just like they have for the Axis in previous versions.  I assume we’ll see a Power Europe bid where players will try to beef up Russia, a Power Afr Bid where players will add units to Egy and then we will probably see a combo of a Power India or Power Asia bid.  India is self explanatory, but for an Asia bid, why bid Chinese units when you can bid Russian, they can move into help defend China and they can move out.

Now I don’t think all these bids will be equal and 1-2 may be stronger than others but again I think we should leave that up to the players rather then essentially force a Power Asia play from the Allies.

I know I haven’t played a ton of AA50 games but the bigger inital threat to the Allies is still Germany/Italy.  There is no doubt Japan becomes a monster and can’t be left unchecked, but it still takes 7-8 turns to get to Russia and close to the same to make a credible threat on the West coast of the US, but Germany can immediately threaten 2 Russian ICs and potentially work a can opener with Italy to take Moscow long before Japan really even gets in the game.

To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Persian bid for the Allies, here you can add an inf or 2 but you can essentailly go to all theatres.  Sort of a wait and see approach, to see how Germany/Japan’s dice go then shift your extra units to the most needed area.  Maybe a straight Egy or Ind bid would be better, but I think it is worth trying in a few games.

[Funcioneta]

@JWW:

@Funcioneta:

The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis

I could agree to this. It’s not much different than what has been discussed w/the exception that, I think they would rather not have to leave this site to sort out the bid.

I agree with with this, daak or frood proved being good places for bidding

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

There is no doubt Japan becomes a monster and can’t be left unchecked, but it still takes 7-8 turns to get to Russia and close to the same to make a credible threat on the West coast of the US, but Germany can immediately threaten 2 Russian ICs and potentially work a can opener with Italy to take Moscow long before Japan really even gets in the game.

To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Persian bid for the Allies, here you can add an inf or 2 but you can essentailly go to all theatres.  Sort of a wait and see approach, to see how Germany/Japan’s dice go then shift your extra units to the most needed area.  Maybe a straight Egy or Ind bid would be better, but I think it is worth trying in a few games.

OK, for Japan, they can menace USSR pretty quickly, eating siberian income or sending bombers to SBR ICs. If totally ignored, they can menace a early taking of WUSA (round 2-3) because they start with 5 trannies

But I see your point with a Persia bid, it’s a interesting idea. Anyway, in 1942 scenario, in long run the minimal will be 3 inf to India, because there is a way for Japan to make India unable to hold after round 1, and a India IC surviving is a need for allies

The main idea with the forced power Asia bid (I like that name you given) is ensure we don’t get a new rebirth of KGF fanmania. Power Europe or Power Africa bids can revert us to that era

No damage starting with full open bids, at least if a door is open to limit them  later if proves needed

[Funcioneta]

@DarthMaximus:

for an Asia bid, why bid Chinese units when you can bid Russian, they can move into help defend China and they can move out.

Well, we should delete ACME wall for once, but any case soviet units cannot defend the chinese fighter

[Zhukov44]

The simplest policy is usually the best.  Play with bids and allow free placement–the same as in Revised.  This allows bid strategies to develop freely and in conjunction with how the game is played on other venues like TripleA.  The bid for both 41 and 42 is actually remarkably similar to Revised (around 8-9 for both scenarios), it’s just reversed.  Requiring bids to Asia won’t change the basic game dyanmics or make a scenario like 41 favorable to KJF.  It will just delay Japan a bit more.  In 41, single unit bids to Egypt and Karelia are all that are needed for a balanced contest.

[axis_roll]

@Funcioneta:

Anyway, in 1942 scenario, in long run the minimal will be 3 inf to India, because there is a way for Japan to make India unable to hold after round 1, and a India IC surviving is a need for allies

In our 1942 games, Germany is the power to worry about, not Japan (so much)

[Funcioneta]

That is true, axisroll, unless Japan makes the India crush move. Then you will have two monsters to worry, and not only one. The India crush in fact converts 1942 in another 1941 but with allies in a slighty better postion

For 1941, I don’t see how 2-3 inf at Egypt (or USST) can save allies. Agreed that 3 inf can be enough to a Egypt IC survive (and that is a big boost), but that still leaves UK BB killed and India and China easy prey for Japan. Add a couple more of infs to India or China and maybe you can save them, but a 15-18 bid will probably go to USSR instead, making KGF a too good option and reverting to old Revised KGF mania: you will have two unbalanced theaters instead of one. That’s my point, and my fear

For 1942, maybe unrestricted bid is not a so big problem: it’s pretty posible the right level is 12-15 (because of India crush), but even if someone send all of this to USSR, USSR is far less powerfull than in 1941 and I don’t think is enough to make KGF viable

That stinky icecap at Perry Channel is making a big mess: without that, I’d don’t fear KGF mania :oops:

Well, I think the best solution anyway if many prefer unrestricted bid is making the league mixed: let the players choose scenario and both scenarios count for results  :-)

[souL]

IC in Egy isn’t the issue, it’s turn 1 survivability.  A 6 IPC bid means EGY likely does not even lose its ftr on turn 1.  That’s a +7 IPC collection.  The amount of units surviving in Egy + sov support, +7 IPC collection on turn 1 gives Ind a much more viable survival rate.  I think 6-8 IPC is a pretty reasonable bid for 1941.

[DarthMaximus]

Okay just about ready to go.

Here’s what we have so far,

AA50-41 League
AA50-42 League

With a champion of each and then a combined overall champ (major and minor leagues).
Based on win %, games played.
Will consider a Superheavy weight champ if we continue to see people playing 20, 25 games a year.

Rules
NOs - Yes
Tech - optional

Bid for Allies

Still up in the air:
Actual bidding method

1 - blind bid (offsite)
2 - allow player to openly state their bid (bid will be in cash, but can then be spent on units for full placement once sides agree on amount) in their game request and allow auction bidding (either via PM or in find opponents thread) from that point.

I like option 2 b/c we don’t need to go offsite. Are people okay with this?

[U-505]

@DarthMaximus:

Okay just about ready to go.

Here’s what we have so far,

AA50-41 League
AA50-42 League

Rules
NOs - Yes
Tech - optional

Bid for Allies

I agree with everything here.

With a champion of each and then a combined overall champ (major and minor leagues).
Based on win %, games played.
Will consider a Superheavy weight champ if we continue to see people playing 20, 25 games a year.

I would prefer a playoff series to determine the overall champion but I can wait until we see how 2 separate Leagues work out first.

Still up in the air:
Actual bidding method

1 - blind bid (offsite)
2 - allow player to openly state their bid (bid will be in cash, but can then be spent on units for full placement once sides agree on amount) in their game request and allow auction bidding (either via PM or in find opponents thread) from that point.

I like option 2 b/c we don’t need to go offsite. Are people okay with this?

I vote number 2. I think the bid should always be negotiable and also stay onsite.

[DarthMaximus]

@U-505:

With a champion of each and then a combined overall champ (major and minor leagues).
Based on win %, games played.
Will consider a Superheavy weight champ if we continue to see people playing 20, 25 games a year.

I would prefer a playoff series to determine the overall champion but I can wait until we see how 2 separate Leagues work out first.

Oh yeah, forgot about this.

Here are some concerns of mine:
1)  Time - I’d like to make sure we finish by 12/31.  I want to avoid any carry over from year to year.
Even if we cut the regular season at Thanksgiving or Nov. 15, what do the rest of the league players do?  Would we start the next years league early?
This year I kind of slacked off but this would mean for 90+% of the League players couldn’t (or wouldn’t) be allowed to play games that count for at least all of Dec.  To ensure all games were completed by Thanksgiving we’d probably have to push up the “no new league games” rule to Oct 1.  Even if you had a few games going you could in theory finish them up by mid to late Oct. which means you are sitting on the sidelines for 2+ months.

2)  Potential for Tie breakers - If we go top 2 (or 4), what if the 3rd (or 5th) player have the same win % as the player above them?  Who advances to the tourney?  What if they never played head to head or were tied in head to head play?

All that being said I like the idea of league type play then playoffs, but I don’t think we can pull it off for 2010.  Maybe we can come up with something during the year.  I’ve always liked a World Cup format (set divisions with pool play then single elim tourney etc.) but have had a hard time trying to think it through to make it work where we have players who can join any time.  Maybe it is something we can do in addition to what we do now.  But I do think it requires more thought.

[U-505]

I was thinking that the League playoffs would be played in the tournament area.

The season could end on the last day in November and the playoffs could start as soon as the results are posted.

I don’t see why the League can’t start on Jan. 1 while the playoffs are still going on. It would only be a few people playing and it would probably only last about 1 or 2 months into the new season, anyway.

We could go with most wins for a tiebreaker. Or my personal favorite: Points per game.

For example, in a 20 person League it would be:  total win points (inverted scale e.g. 1st place=20 points, last=1 point) minus total loss points (normal scale, 1st place= -1 point, last= -20 points) divided by number of games played=points per game.

I agree with you that we should probably wait until we see how it works out with 2 separate Leagues playing but, I think a playoff series is doable in the future.

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

1)  Time - I’d like to make sure we finish by 12/31.

I’ve given this some thought (scary, I know) and wondered why we couldn’t simply have a ten month league (this year), w/playoffs begining on 10/1/10. All recorded “W’s” & “L’s” would be tabulated on 10/1 and a playoff would commense. However, the 2011 League would also begin on 10/1/10 and any W’s or L’s register after 10/1 would count towards 2011 League and so on. In this manner there wouldn’t have to be an end to playing. It wouldn’t matter when a game started the only thing that mattered would be when the game ended.

For instance, a marathon 24 turn game which began on Sept 1 2010 might end on Feb 1 2011. This game’s results would be added to the 2011 scoreboard.

I can’t imaging that the rules that we choose to govern the 2010 League would differ so dramactically from the 2011 league rules that it would create a problem. Just a suggestion.

[Funcioneta]

I prefer blind bid, just for time issues. Anyway, we can let the players choose blind bid or the other system, maybe with one of them as default if they cannot decide

Playoffs seem OK. For tie-breakers, players with most games played must win, and if tie continues, see if one of them won the other

I’ll join 1942 league  :-)

[DarthMaximus]

Okay, the idea of a playoff has sort of grown on me and some of these ideas are pretty good, but I think we should keep it simple for this first year.

@U-505:

We could go with most wins for a tiebreaker. Or my personal favorite: Points per game.
For example, in a 20 person League it would be:  total win points (inverted scale e.g. 1st place=20 points, last=1 point) minus total loss points (normal scale, 1st place= -1 point, last= -20 points) divided by number of games played=points per game.

I think we should probably hold off on this in year 1.  My suggested tie-breakers would be:
1 - head to head
2 - wins (ex 24-12 vs. 12-6 - the 24 win person would advance)
3 - a wild card rd between player 2 and 3 if they finished with the exact same record.  If 3 people are tied with the same record (in this case head to head will not apply except for potential seeding) then we just do a 4 person playoff.

So I think we should only take the top 2 in each league (unless player 3, 4, 5 etc. have the same record).

Example 1

Player 1 - 18-2
Player 2 - 16-4
Player 3 - 15-5
Player 4 - 12-10

Here player 1 and player 2 will play for the title.

Example 2

Player 1 - 18-2
Player 2 - 16-4
Player 3 - 16-4
Player 4 - 12-10

Here player 2 and player 3 will play (assuming no tie-breakers applied) for the right to play player 1.

Example 3

Player 1 - 18-2
Player 2 - 16-4
Player 3 - 16-4
Player 4 - 16-4
Player 5 - 13-7

Here players 1,2,3, and 4 all advance to the playoffs.

Does this make sense?

I also don’t think the 41 winner should play the 42 winner.  It may be possible where the champion of one league may not have played any games in the other.

Any combined champion will be based off standard “old” league rules, best win% for all their games combined assuming they have played the minimum requirement in each league.  This will be sort of the Iron man award.

@JWW:

@DarthMaximus:

1)  Time - I’d like to make sure we finish by 12/31.

I’ve given this some thought (scary, I know) and wondered why we couldn’t simply have a ten month league (this year), w/playoffs begining on 10/1/10. All recorded “W’s” & “L’s” would be tabulated on 10/1 and a playoff would commense. However, the 2011 League would also begin on 10/1/10 and any W’s or L’s register after 10/1 would count towards 2011 League and so on. In this manner there wouldn’t have to be an end to playing. It wouldn’t matter when a game started the only thing that mattered would be when the game ended.

For instance, a marathon 24 turn game which began on Sept 1 2010 might end on Feb 1 2011. This game’s results would be added to the 2011 scoreboard.

I can’t imaging that the rules that we choose to govern the 2010 League would differ so dramactically from the 2011 league rules that it would create a problem. Just a suggestion.

I think this can work, but I think we can stick with a Thanksgiving or Dec. 1 deadline, b/c the playoffs would be for only the top 2 in each league to play and they’d only need about a month.

As for carry over games, it shouldn’t be too much of an issue but we should be certain on the rules.  So using both blind bidding or the alt bidding method should be allowed, that will cover us no matter how the bids end up at the end of the year.

Does this all look good?

[DarthMaximus]

Also, I don’t think we should hold playoffs for the minor league.  I don’t think it is needed, and I think we should leave the option open for a super major league or whatever (20 games or more).  I think if we have 5 or more players with over 20 games played then that opens up a new divison of super heavy weights.  And the top 2 in the divison could play for a title as well.

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

Does this make sense?

yes

@DarthMaximus:

I also don’t think the 41 winner should play the 42 winner.  It may be possible where the champion of one league may not have played any games in the other.

I agree.

So when do we begin? Will a new consititution or rule page be written and posted?