2012 League Discussion

[gamerman01]

And US can grab Balkans after Italy, giving Axis no chance to stop the big NO
Yes, big difference between 1941 and 1942 scenarios.  I would think people would want to play 1942 for a change.

[DarthMaximus]

@Gamerman01:

@DarthMaximus:

I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.

If you haven’t really played 1942, then you don’t really know AA50 that well.  But there is a big problem as to why I don’t like to go back and forth playing '41 and '42.  It’s because the turn order is flip-flopped between Japan and Germany.  That makes it confusing for me to go back and forth.

I am 50-9-1 playing 1942
I am 19-4 playing 1941

Half of those 1941 games were from playing this year

What I don’t understand is everyone saying 1941 is more popular, when nobody’s even really tried 1942 very much.  As you can see, I’ve played waaaaay more 1942, but I’ve played both a lot.  And I say 1941 is a novelty, for people who are tired of Classic and Revised starting in 1942

This is porbably true, the novelty part.  But with G40 being out, I’m pretty sure people would play an Axis and Allies 1938 game or A&A 1935 etc (lol!) too.  :-D

I think the Anniversary edition was a good idea, but should have been the replacement for Revised and not just a limited edition.  You could have an initial release of limited edition (special box, pieces, etc), but then keep going with Anniversay because now if you want to play the '42 scenerio you can just play Revised (which was fairly balanced - bids of 8 to 11) or now you can play Spring '42.  I haven’t played that yet, but IMO that should have fixed all the balance issues of Revised, so in theory it should be the best '42 version out there especially since they had 4 yrs of on-line play of Revised to lean on for balance issues.

I just think there might be too many games in general (and released in such a short time frame).  AA50 and G40 get tons of play here, and I’m pretty sure Spring 42 gets play on Triple A and is the starter version for new board game players.  My gut tells me AA50-42 might have missed its window to gain heavy on-line play.  Unless it is played heavily on DAAK or AAMC or one of the other clubs.

I’d probably lean towards pushing Spr 42 over AA50-42 just because at least you can go out and buy Spr 42.  That’s assuming Spr 42 is better than Revised.  I’m not against AA50-42, but just think it lost some impact witht he release of Spr 42.

[gamerman01]

The “window” for AA50-42 was the same as for 1941.
You need to check out Spring 1942.  It’s better than Revised mainly because it has the new AA50 rules (except for NO’s).
It is not as good as AA50-42 by a long shot, because it doesn’t have tech (you can of course play tech online), and doesn’t have NO’s.  It’s Revised with AA50 rules (minus NO’s and tech) pretty much.  The Anniversary map has a lot more territories (most notably in China), which helps a LOT to reduce JTDTM, which was one of the biggest achievements of Anniversary.

AA50-42 is not redundant.  It’s better than AA50-41 IMO, and as you noted, AA50-41 gets a lot of play.  You don’t need to buy the game to play it online.  There are guys playing AA50 daily online who have never bought the game.

IMO AA50-41 and AA50-42 are the overall best A&A games ever made, and I HAVE played Spring 1942, Pacific 1940, Europe 1940, Global 1940, Classic, and Revised.

A lot of people (like you) just didn’t give AA50-42 a try for more than a game or two.  A shame.
In 2009 and 2010 I played 1942 almost exclusively on this site, and there were at least half a dozen regular players to play with.

[DarthMaximus]

But with the window, 41 offered the novelty you mentioned.

Perhaps I fall into the category of I play 41 b/c that is what everyone else was playing.  I was hesitant to give up on Revised.  I played that up thru '09 to 2010.  And only had a few AA50 games in 09 (that would have included both 41 and 42 scenerios).

@Gamerman01:

AA50-42 is not redundant.  It’s better than AA50-41 IMO, and as you noted, AA50-41 gets a lot of play.  You don’t need to buy the game to play it online.  There are guys playing AA50 daily online who have never bought the game.

That includes me.  All I own is Classic.  lol!

@Gamerman01:

A lot of people (like you) just didn’t give AA50-42 a try for more than a game or two.  A shame.
In 2009 and 2010 I played 1942 almost exclusively on this site, and there were at least half a dozen regular players to play with.

Unfortunately there is only so much time to play and I was still playing Revised in '09 with a few anniversary games mixed in.  I certainly didn’t play enough to pick a version.  It was only once, in '07 where I’ve topped 20 games in a year.  Infact, I didn’t play much of anything in '10 and the first part of '11.  I don’t think I played any A&A games from maybe summer of 2010 until late spring of '11.  I don’t think I started my league games last year until maybe May.  I was playing a lot of Civilization.  :-D 
And based on my start to the league last, I was very rusty.  :-)

[Zhukov44]

I could see 42 becoming popular as people tire of 41.

It seems alot of people gave up playing it because they found 42 unbalanced.  Which is silly, since all you really need to balance it is an appropriate bid.

Back in the day there were some people on TripleA specializing in 42 but they ran into the same problem as those playing here–people couldn’t figure out good Allied strategies.  To this day I can’t say there is a good Allied strat for 42 except demand a big bid and hope for good tech and dice–then play off your opponent’s errors.  I wouldn’t take Allies (in dice/nt) for less than 12 though.

There have been 2 42 tourneys (dice/tech) at aamc and they will probably do it again next year.

I finally got myself a copy of 1940 Europe this weekend.  With TripleA releasing an OOB version (global in the works), I’m looking forward to learning it.  It’s a feast for a history buff and looks like a blast to play.  Hopefully it will still be fun after a few dozen games!

[gamerman01]

That’s another game that never got off the ground. 
Of course everyone went global as soon as Europe 1940 came out, but I think we’re missing something there.  E40 would be a blast.  I’d play it if I could get an opponent and if I had the time.

[gamerman01]

Zhuk, I’m still waiting on you to tell me whether your sub will submerge or fight.  At least open our game thread and look, please.  It’s the league championship!

[Guest]

@Gamerman01:

That’s another game that never got off the ground. 
Of course everyone went global as soon as Europe 1940 came out, but I think we’re missing something there.  E40 would be a blast.  I’d play it if I could get an opponent and if I had the time.

I tried Global, but it seems to me to be more suited for multiplayer than individual…AA50 is more fun as an individual, though I agree with your E40 comment.

[Guest]

@DarthMaximus:

I think the Anniversary edition was a good idea, but should have been the replacement for Revised and not just a limited edition.  You could have an initial release of limited edition (special box, pieces, etc), but then keep going with Anniversay because now if you want to play the '42 scenerio you can just play Revised (which was fairly balanced - bids of 8 to 11) or now you can play Spring '42.Â

I agree! What in the world were they thinking in just limiting the release??? They certainly are not making the insane $400+ it is selling for online now  :roll:

[DarthMaximus]

I tried G40 briefly, but found it to be a bit too much.  Considering my gaming time is limited, I figured I’ll stick to anniversary as long as people still play that.  I also didn’t like the various rule updates of G40.  Alpha 2 or 3 etc.  I like updates/clarifications/balancing but to continue doing them just made me say I’ll wait until a “standard” is determined and then maybe get into it.

[gamerman01]

@Ol’:

I agree! What in the world were they thinking in just limiting the release??? They certainly are not making the insane $400+ it is selling for online now  :roll:

:-) Insane because it’s more than 10X the cost of Spring 1942, but not insane in the sense that that is where supply is meeting demand.  I’m not even willing to sell my copy for $400, and I’m broke.

[gamerman01]

@DarthMaximus:

I tried G40 briefly, but found it to be a bit too much.  Considering my gaming time is limited, I figured I’ll stick to anniversary as long as people still play that.  I also didn’t like the various rule updates of G40.  Alpha 2 or 3 etc.  I like updates/clarifications/balancing but to continue doing them just made me say I’ll wait until a “standard” is determined and then maybe get into it.

EXACTLY

I was really excited about it as P40 (played several games) and then E40 (Global) came out.  It was really exciting to play at first, and I weathered Alpha1 and Alpha2.  But after that, it got to be too much.
A normal G40 turn can take hours, if you’re playing seriously.  Compared to a normal AA50 turn of maybe 10-30 minutes.  (Hours only if you’re in a single elimination late-round tournament game)
This is why AA50 is still the premier Axis and Allies game (at least for individuals, as OBG said).  Global IS a fun team game - I immensely enjoyed a few games of 4 player Global (pre-Alpha2).

Global is not a substitute for AA50 the way AA50 was for Revised, which was for Classic.  It’s a little like comparing 3D chess or 4-way chess to regular chess, I think.

[Cow]

I don’t take an hour to do a turn playing seriously. At first sure because of the rules and everything was new. Now I just automatically know what to do and roll the dice.

japan takes some getting used to so you figure out your buys and stuff. generally speaking Europe going good -> expansion. germany going bad -> rush for VCs and attempt pacific victory around round 8.

[boldfresh]

cow, i can’t tell - do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

[gamerman01]

Since 1940 and AA50 leagues are going on in the same league area, I think the subject of this thread should be edited to specify that this is AA50 discussion

[Nix]

i just wanna say hello to everyone that have played against me in the past.  And i hope to beat everyone of you this year =)

[DarthMaximus]

@JWW:

2012 League standings to date

Amazing Tyzoq & Yoshi, or should that be Yoshi & Tyzoq? Our top four could be set for the playoffs unless someone can take down DarthMaximus or Gamerman.

| Player | W-L | Pct |
| Tyzoq | 7-0 | 100% |
| Yoshi | 6-0 | 100% |
| NIX | 1-0 | 100% |
| CdnRanger | 1-0 | 100% |
| Darth Maximus | 10 -2 | 83% |
| Gamerman | 5-1 | 83% |
| DizzKneeLand33 | 3-1 | 75% |
| souL | 5-2 | 71% |
| Blood & Guts | 15-9 | 63% |
| JWW | 6-4 | 60% |
| U-505 | 3-3 | 50% |
| BoldFresh | 4-7 | 36% |
| Mojo | 1-2 | 33% |
| Lucky Lindy | 4-9 | 31% |
| djensen | 3-7 | 30% |
| Extra Billy | 3-10 | 23% |
| Amon Sul | 1-4 | 20% |
| Karl7 | 0-1 | 0% |
| Zhukov44 | 0-1 | 0% |
| BattlingMaxo | 0-1 | 0% |
| Gargantua | 0-1 | 0% |
| Cmdr Jenn | 0-1 | 0% |
| cts17 | 0-3 | 0% |
| Botider | 0-3 | 0% |
| Desert Journalist | 0-6 | 0% |

Don’t forget we are potentially doing a “major” league this year.  I expect to get to 14+ games, but I think we said we’d need 4 or more to do a major league playoffs.  I think we will probably get there.  At this point I’d include OBG, but he did leave the site so if we had another 4 I’d have no problem going with that 4 rather than giving an opponent an atuo-bye to “play” OBG in rd 1.

[gamerman01]

I hope there isn’t a major playoff, because that takes 4 top players away from the “regular” playoff, and BOTH playoffs would be diluted.  :|
14 is a lot of games!
Just my 2 cents -  I don’t make the rules of course

[DarthMaximus]

@Gamerman01:

I hope there isn’t a major playoff, because that takes 4 top players away from the “regular” playoff, and BOTH playoffs would be diluted.  :|
14 is a lot of games!
Just my 2 cents -  I don’t make the rules of course

Well, its in the rules so we can’t really change it now.  It may have influenced how people played their season.  We also didn’t put restrictions on it (or a min. win % needed), so we may have players with losing records in the major playoffs. 
However, I disagree that it will dilute the minor league.  They can be considered separate skills.  Its is one thing to be 8-2, it is another to be 16-4.  It is also a reward for those that play a lot of games, which is what we want to encourge.  I don’t want players to get to 9-1 or 8-2 and then stop playing because they are holding out for a playoff spot.  I think someone who goes 16-8 is a very good player, but there is no way that person would get into a playoff with a 8 game minimum.  Too many people will be between the 0-3 loss range, for example a 9-4 person would get the slot over a 16-8.  So why would the 9-4 player play another game and risk a loss that puts them behind the 16-8 player?
I want to discourage that.  Now the 9-4 player can play another game and if the lose still probably qualify for the major league even at 9-5.

All that said, it only applies if we have at least 4 players with 14 games or more.

We always want to encourage games to be played, we also want to give some hope to players that might start off 0-2 or 0-3, maybe hit some tough dice in a couple games.  What incentive would you have to continue playing if you are 1-4 in April?  The past few years you’ve needed 3 losses or less the get into the playoffs.  But with a major league maybe you get to 9-5 and qualify.

I’d certainly be open to tweaks for next year.  JWW and I have already discussed some things.  One thing we are looking at are ways to speed up the post season.  We are crowning champions waaaaay too late.  The intention was to create games the community would “watch” and take notice of.  While some may, it is hard to stay interested if the playoffs are essentially running 9-10+ months.  By the time we have winners the result is obselete because we have a new crop of league players positioning themselves for the current playoffs.

This is a different issue, but just wanted it known that we continue to look for ways to improve the league.

[gamerman01]

Thanks for letting us in on your thoughts, DM

First, the long playoff season.  This could be totally avoided if you apply the same time limits as you have for regular games.  Now I know, you don’t want to force a forfeit, but you’ll think of something.

Zhukov’s maybe been really busy, but I’ve usually posted VERY timely to our game to try and keep it going, but he has had multiple week or two week delays.  I’m not trying to pick on Zhukov - it hasn’t bothered me much although it would have been nice to have been crowned months ago with my first league championship, but I’m just saying if there is no enforcement on time limits on moves then you might continue to get this result.