2011 League Discussion

[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?

[cts17]

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.

[Funcioneta]

@cts17:

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:

[cts17]

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 ;)

[DarthMaximus]

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:

@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?

I’ll just copy and paste the rules from last year into a new thread and update a couple things.

[Funcioneta]

Roger, DM. I’ll wait a bit  :-)

[DarthMaximus]

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!!!

[a44bigdog]

This is in response to cts17 in the looking for games thread.

As far as Japan being set to be a monster, I don’t really see it. Japan has what looks to be a pretty normal J1, and has even left open a chink or two in their armor. If the game is tech, the  US can invest in tech and hope for long range. The failure of Japan to capture Fukien allows the US some options at the Japanese ships in seazone 50. While this is a low outcome scenario, I think it is something to be aware of. Yes the US will loose whatever it lands in Fukien such as the W. US bomber, but Japan has to set aside the assets to kill it. I also think you have made a mistake with the Russians. If there was so much as one Russian infantry in Buryatia the Russians could liberate Manchuria on R2. Will the Japanese take it back? Yes of course, but again they must task units to do so, preventing the units from increasing the lands under Japanese control. It also prevents Japan from building an IC in Manchuria on J2. While all of these are small things they do help slow Japan. The worst mistake in my opinion is to leave Japan alone in '41.

As far as the European side of the map, I would not mind seeing this disposition of forces at all as an Allied player. Karelia is deadzoned. Germany can take it G2 and loose it R2. Germany is open for a free (no AA shot) SBR by England UK1. Germany is also poorly poised for an attempt at the eastern front NO G2 and they did not achieve it G1, which is 7 IPCs more they could have made. Germany is also low on infantry and ground units for G2 and subsequent turns on the eastern front.

In other words my advice is don’t panic. Germany appears to have a less than optimal disposition of forces and Japan’s is about normal. Also keep in mind that in global Axis and Allies games it has traditionally been harder to develop Allied strategies. That mostly stems form 90% of Axis strategies being to take out Russia, while Allied strategies have more variance, ie KJF, KGF, KIF. You might also want to look at how other players especially the ones that are not bidding for the Allies or are bidding low are playing the Allies.

[hobo]

When should new faq rules take place?  I guess they should be applied to new starting games instead of retroactive to ongoing games?

[666]

@hobo:

When should new faq rules take place?  I guess they should be applied to new starting games instead of retroactive to ongoing games?

What new FAQ rules have just come out?

And yes they should be applied to the new games starting now.

[hobo]

It was on the a&a official site.  Pretty significant changes if you ask me, namely heavy bombers got tuned, and subs can defend against amphibious assaults.

[Yoshi]

@hobo:

subs can defend against amphibious assaults.

Could you point out what make you think so ?

I read the FAQ, but did not catch this information…

I just saw changes on heavy bombers and paratroopers…

@JWW:

What new FAQ rules have just come out?

It is here :

http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

[hobo]

Unless I read it wrong, subs can no longer be ignored for amphibious assaults, if they choose not to submerge. It’s a good change, since it would be stupid to think a sub would sit idle as a lone transport decides to invade the coast.