Looks like I need to start channeling Michelle Yeoh more often. She’s great luck!
2011 League Discussion
-
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 - 12-10Here 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 - 12-10Here 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 - 13-7Here 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!!!
-
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.
-
When should new faq rules take place? I guess they should be applied to new starting games instead of retroactive to ongoing games?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :
-
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.
-
For league games, If you’ve already been playing a game and both you and your opponent played under a certain pretense then complete the game as is.
But just be aware of the FAQ for new games.
I’m not going to go through games and retroactively rule anything. For example if a FAQ came out tomorrow and made blitzing illegal I don’t expect games that have had tons of blitzing to suddenly stop mid game, but in a new game if you blitz, your opponent will probably call you out then refer to the FAQ and the blitzing would be disallowed (whether you knew the rule or not when you started the game).
-
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.
I asked there to be sure :
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16872.msg565356#msg565356
(I think that the sentence quoted there is the one what make you say that)
Yoshi
-
I have a thought, but I’d like to get a ruling on it. I know that for a regular (non-League) game, that this would be fine, but how about for League matches?
Easier techs - If both players agreed before playing the game, that if single dice were rolled for technology, and the tech die roll missed, but the Chart 1/Chart 2 die was a six, that the rolls would be counted as being reversed, so the 6 on Chart 1/Chart 2 would count as hitting a technology, and the first die rolled for tech would then count towards whichever chart had been specified as being the tech acquired. Another option would be if multiple dice were rolled for technology, and the added up total of the dice equaled to 6, then it would be counted as having rolled a 6, and therefore acquiring a tech. (Example: 3 tech dice were rolled: a 1, a 2, and a 3, since the total of the 3 dice adds up to 6, then it woulb be counted as having rolled a 6.
Designated techs - Again, if both players agreed before playing the game, that a power could acquire a specific tech for x number of researchers. (Probably this would be limited to Round 1 only.) Example: 2 players want to explore a German naval strategy, so they agree that Germany could spend 5 IPCs for 1 researcher, and could then automatically acquire Advanced Shipyards/Super Subs/etc… on Germany’s first turn. To balance this, then perhaps the Allies would also be allowed 1 5-IPC tech on Turn 1, maybe Mechanized Infantry for the US or something. Maybe players would like to explore a Japan and US first turn Long Range Aircraft for 5 IPCs scenario or many, many other such scenarios.
Once again, this would only be allowed if both players agreed to this before the game began.
So, could either or both of these ideas possibly be allowed for League games?
I’m not trying to change the League, but I’m just asking a question, so I don’t need criticism of this idea, just an answer. :wink:
Suggested Topics
