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
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.
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)
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 :-)
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.
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?
Okay just about ready to go.
Here’s what we have so far,
AA50-41 League
AA50-42 LeagueRules
NOs - Yes
Tech - optionalBid 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 method1 - 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.
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.
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.
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 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 :-)
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.
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:
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?
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.
Does this make sense?
yes
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?
I suggest immediately. Unsticky this thread, make a summary thread with the rules, and a second and third thread for looking for opponents in each respective league. I’m starting right here.
1st league:
Anyone up for a '41 game? I’ll play Allies with a 9 IPC bid.
2nd league
Anyone up for a '42 game? I’ll play Allies with a 7 IPC bid.
2nd league
Anyone up for a '42 game? I’ll play Allies with a 7 IPC bid.
Why not? You can get allies with that bid. I take axis. Deploy your bid and if DM agrees, we can start
By the way, I prefer tech :wink:
Start her up! I’ll take 1 inf Cau 1 inf Egy 1 IPC to United Kingdom
Tech is fine. We can start now. If it isn’t okay, we’ll just stop. If it is, then we’re good to go ;)
If you guys can wait a few minutes, I’ll get the rules thread up.
Also JWW will be helping out with the League(s) in an official capacity.
@JWW:
Does this make sense?
yes
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?
I’ll just copy and paste the rules from last year into a new thread and update a couple things.
Roger, DM. I’ll wait a bit :-)
Alright, we’ll just use this thread for overall league discussion.
Rules and other threads are up.
So good luck to everyone and Game On!!!
