League General Discussion Thread

[gamerman01]

It added a new dimension (or two) to the bidding process, that was great.

I was a lot more comfortable giving him a 42 bid when I knew what he was doing with it and it no longer scared me.

This is not a default league rule as you all know, so a player can always refuse. It’s putting your cards out on the table, each of you, so a downside is everyone knows what you like to bid, although you can be very unpredictable like some of us are,
But the upsides are huge, and one of those upsides is I think it is a great solution to the problem you’re describing

[Stucifer]

Why I love PtV -

For anyone that hasn’t tried it out yet, let me give you a couple examples that wouldn’t be possible in regular OOB or BM (and certainly not any version that does not have airbases). The addition of scrambling fighters to defend sea zones was a huge improvement on the formula in my opinion. PtV allows airbases to scramble to adjacent land battles, and carriers to scramble just like an airbase up to 3 from each sea zone. That makes a split setup like this possible. Any individual Japanese fleet could possibly be crushed by the US air force, but with carrier scramble the odds are terrible. Even clearing more than one of the blockers in the second setup will be difficult.

[FlyingBadger]

Totally agree. PtV is a great.

The vast majority of the units, rules and mechanics are BM, but the additional mechanics and new map make it a really interesting change. I’d recommend anyone to give it a try.

I’m one of the worst PtV players and I enjoy it.

[Ghostglider]

@FlyingBadger: Don’t be hard on yourself. You did win against me…

I believe that the extra scramble options in PtV from both carriers and airbases - including the possibility to defend you blockers - adds a lot of nice possibilities to an already great game.

[FlyingBadger]

@Ghostglider said in League General Discussion Thread:

@FlyingBadger: Don’t be hard on yourself. You did win against me…

Thanks, but I have no idea how that happened.
I suppose - with enough help from MARTI - every dog can have his day!

---

I believe that the extra scramble options in PtV from both carriers and airbases - including the possibility to defend you blockers - adds a lot of nice possibilities to an already great game.

Yeah. The carrier scamble gives a nice alternative to the usual OOB/BM fleet positioning, with the possibility of multple smaller fleets supporting each other and providing air cover for blockers. Makes a nice change to those mid/late game doom stacks.

Also, the Pacific sea zones are very different, with key islands often be sited on the boundary of sea zones rather than within one, which does affect how these key points are contested.

[gamerman01]

I think some of you may appreciate if we

Create a separate stickied thread for each of the 3 playoffs

Then you can talk about your playoff without gumming up the league discussion thread or cross-talk. I’m wondering if there would be some level of discussion by version, then.

Or perhaps it would be good if there was just a permanent sticked thread for each of the 3 versions for players to talk that version, for not only the playoffs but whatever else.

Any positive feedback to that one? We do have a lot of stickied threads and if some of you like to see the most recent games on the first page of the league, you wouldn’t be able to see as many…

[Stucifer]

I realize it is a big part of the history of the forum, but you might consider unsticky-ing the League Standings thread. I don’t know that a new thread for Playoff discussion is necessary. Most of the strategy threads for each of the games are pretty quiet.

[simon33]

Since its the time in the year for reviewing rules, can I suggest we change this one to allow land units on empty territories, really only an issue for New Guinea.

• The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

Reason for change is that pretty much every player accepts the bid and so does Triple-A.So why not make the standard rules what is normally practised?

[mikawagunichi]

Hello everyone, with the new year and a new support drive beginning, @Stucifer and I have decided to sweeten the pot a bit and generate some interest for our favorite league game variant. For any player who has never played PTV or whose most recent PTV league game was completed in 2023 or earlier, we will pay for a Gold badge for any player who completes 3 PTV games this year. For players who pay for their own badge, we will still make an equivalent dollar amount donation to the forum. Limited to the first 5 sign ups, please DM if interested, thank you!

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Reason for change is that pretty much every player accepts the bid and so does Triple-A.So why not make the standard rules what is normally practised?

I have never accepted this Bid.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@simon33 I have never accepted this bid.

[simon33]

Well I think it should be either enforced or removed.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Well I think it should be either enforced or removed.

Why? The default Bid is the standard of how to Bid and is the default if the parties cannot agree on a Bidding process. However, as stated in the rules, ANY Bid arrangements or rule arrangements that both parties agree too can be implemented. Why say it has to be done one way or the other as long as the two parties can agree? The default is only needed when they cannot agree.

[simon33]

@AndrewAAGamer I wouldn’t be a fan of having to discuss this one before starting bidding.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@simon33 you don’t have to discuss NG infantry. Just deny the placement if they want to put a troop there and hadn’t requested that exception prior to bidding. Rules are clearly posted on the forum and their job to know they have to ask for exceptions.

[Stucifer]

@mikawagunichi said in League General Discussion Thread:

Hello everyone, with the new year and a new support drive beginning, @Stucifer and I have decided to sweeten the pot a bit and generate some interest for our favorite league game variant. For any player who has never played PTV or whose most recent PTV league game was completed in 2023 or earlier, we will pay for a Gold badge for any player who completes 3 PTV games this year. For players who pay for their own badge, we will still make an equivalent dollar amount donation to the forum. Limited to the first 5 sign ups, please DM if interested, thank you!

[Stucifer]

Please take advantage of us! 😉

@surfer incentive to complete 3 games 🤓

[simon33]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 you don’t have to discuss NG infantry. Just deny the placement if they want to put a troop there and hadn’t requested that exception prior to bidding. Rules are clearly posted on the forum and their job to know they have to ask for exceptions.

Guess so but if they then don’t want to play is it a loss? We would need @gamerman01 for that one.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

If nobody has made a move in the game, it would be a bit rude to claim a win for a League match. Call it a “no-contest” and move on to an opponent who is capable of reading the rules.

I have certainly had many times where my opponent pointed out rules that I did not fully understand. Sometimes they showed me the statement in the rulebook. Sometimes it was ambiguous and a mod had to make a determination. In all cases, I was able to resolve the interpretation differences and continue playing the match (like most grown-ups are capable of).

[simon33]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris Guess that’s a reasonable viewpoint. It would make me frustrated to go through the whole bidding process and then not actually have a game though.