2013 - AAG 40 League

[Fortress]

@Karl7:

Cmd Jen

Can we change the playoff rules to allow the top 4 players?  Just the top two doesn’t make for a very exciting end to the league.

Agreed. Last year there weren’t that many players who reached enough games to qualify. That doesn’t look like an issue this year – there seems to be plenty of players. It’s the 2013 league and we’re only like 10-15% through the league year and there are already 7 guys who’ve finished 4 games, with many more in progress. This is a very competitive league.

I’m with Karl7. Let’s expand to the top 4 players.

[boldfresh]

looking for a game for a player whose name starts with “jeff” or “fort”… any takers?

[Fortress]

I’ve got 5 going and 3 more in the queue, presently…

I’ll definitely put you in the next spot, though  :-D

[boldfresh]

@Fortress:

I’ve got 5 going and 3 more in the queue, presently…

I’ll definitely put you in the next spot, though  :-D

Thanks.

[Odonis]

Looking for a game - PM if interested - G40L

[boldfresh]

looking for a game with a no loss or one loss opponent.  PM me if interested.  no tech.

[Eqqman]

I think the rules need to be changed so that there are no negative bids.  If the current opinion is that the Allies are the underdogs, then you should just be bidding on the Allies with decreasing positive values.

The point of bidding is for each successive bid to make the next bidder worse off until they drop out as the figurative cost is too high.  In auctions, we bid up since rising money values increase the cost for each subsequent bid.  Axis & Allies is more problematic since we need to use decreasing numbers in order to make sure that the subsequent bids are giving the bidding player more of a challenge.  That system breaks down if you allow bids to go negative.  If I bid Axis -5, one of the next lower numbers is Axis -9, but that will put the next bidder in a better, not worse, position.  The most logical thing is for bids under that rule is to count up and stop at zero, otherwise, if they are allowed to continue to swing upwards, then the bids are still working in the opposite fashion than they should.  But if you are stopping at zero, then there is no need for them to ever have been negative in the first place.

Pick who the underdog is and have positive, decreasing, bids, with the first one willing to go to zero taking the bid by default.  If you see too many wins for that side, change it next season.

[Odonis]

Need a league ruling guys. I started a game with Mistergreen and he hasn’t responded in over a month to my requests to move and to multiple bumps. Does this count as a win?

[Jeff28]

I agree Eqqman. Should just be a positive bid for the allies.

I think you bump it 4 times and declare a win Odonis. Check the league rules.

[Major Major]

I think you have to make the bid for axis or allies and keep it consistent.  The problem isn’t negative numbers, its bidding for two different things.  Since the majority feel that the Allies are in need of help it makes sense for the League to make the bid, a For Allies Bid.  Now if that goes into the negative it is still a bid for the allies, but it’s no race for zer0 which could become problematic.

[gamerman01]

@Odonis:

Need a league ruling guys. I started a game with Mistergreen and he hasn’t responded in over a month to my requests to move and to multiple bumps. Does this count as a win?

Like Jeff said, you don’t need a ruling.  It’s after about 3 bumps that each must be after 72 hours of no response (basically) that you can declare yourself the winner.  Read the league rules to make sure you’ve met the conditions, and then declare victory.

There’s no league rules on this, but IMO I would choose not to declare myself the winner if the game had barely started, or if it’s very unlikely that I would win if the absent opponent was present.  You only played through UK1.  But like I said, there’s no league rule specifying minimum game length, so it’s up to your own conscience.

[gamerman01]

I don’t see any problem with negative bids.

Let’s say 2 players are bidding for Allies for the reason that it is the league rule, and in reality, each would be willing to bid below 0 (in other words, they both think the Axis need a bid, and are unwilling to play the Axis without extra units)

Say Player 1 is willing to take Axis +6 and Player 2, Axis +3

So they start bidding for Allies, and the bid keeps dropping, because neither is willing to give the other player the Allies with a bonus.  It drops to 0, but the other player (who did not bid 0) is not willing to take the Axis at +0.  So the bid goes negative, meaning they are willing to take the Allies even if it means the Axis get starting units.

If Player 1 bids -3 or less, then Player 2 would stop and award the Allies to Player 1, and then apply the bid which is now an Axis bid.

For example, Player 1 bids -3.  Player 2 is not willing to take the Allies when giving up more than 3 to the Axis, so he says “you win”.  A -3 bid for Allies means that the AXIS player would choose the bid (an infantry somewhere or 3 IPC’s to any combination of treasuries).

Eqqman, you are mistaken when you say that bidding a bigger negative puts you in a better position.
If Player 2 were to bid -6, that means he is willing to take the Allies, giving up SIX IPC’s of units, which is a raise of Player 1’s offer to give up THREE IPC’s of units.

There is no problem with negative bids, and no need for a rule to outlaw them.  If you outlaw them, and both players want to take the Allies even if it means giving IPC’s to the Axis at start, then whoever bids first could bid zero, and the other one is SOL.

[Jeff28]

Dont people just remove a couple axis AA guns on a negative bid? It doesn’t get given to the allies.

[gamerman01]

@Jeff28:

Dont people just remove a couple axis AA guns on a negative bid? It doesn’t get given to the allies.

?  I thought we were operating under the assumption that it was an Allied bid.  If you’re going to take away AA guns, wouldn’t it be ALLIED AA guns?

Some people very well might do it that way, but it doesn’t make sense to me.
If no one has a problem with bids of Allies +10 and the Allied player chooses 10 IPC’s worth of units to place on the map, why would you subtract AA guns if the bid was Allies -5?  Then a -5 bid is a lesser magnitude than a +5 bid, because you could just take off some AA gun that will probably have little to no effect.

Think about what I said.  If both players think there’s an Allied advantage and the bid goes to -6, doesn’t it make sense that the Axis player then gets to choose a couple infantry or a sub or something, to place?  Certainly makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the problem is that bidding is very confusing, especially when it gets to negative.  A negative bid just means that both players actually think the OTHER side has the advantage, or they really want to play it, and they are willing to let the other player add units, which is exactly what you’re doing with a POSITIVE bid.

Explain why negative bids, in the manner I’ve described, don’t work.  Because I don’t understand the consternation.

Re-reading your post…… I see where I might have not expressed myself clearly.  When I said in the second to last paragraph earlier, that the Allies are “giving up” six IPC’s of units or three IPC’s of units, I didn’t mean the removal of Allied units.  I meant they were allowing the Axis to place units.  If you read the whole thing carefully, this is clear.

[gamerman01]

@Jeff28:

Dont people just remove a couple axis AA guns on a negative bid? It doesn’t get given to the allies.

Why would you remove Axis units on a negative bid?  A negative bid is saying that both players actually think the AXIS need help, while a positive bid means the ALLIES need help.  No wonder Eqqman is confused.

Why remove AA guns?

[Major Major]

I like ducks.

[Ziggurat]

@Jeff28:

Dont people just remove a couple axis AA guns on a negative bid? It doesn’t get given to the allies.

I view negative bids more as a bribe. If I say “Axis -5” I mean “I want to play as the axis and I will give you 5 IPC to make that happen.” The number then goes up from there until someone accepts. I personally prefer negative bids because it keeps the absolute value of the numbers lower. If people are bidding up, the person who values playing the axis less will crack first and there will be fewer units added. If one player thinks the allies need 5 and the other 15, bidding up will set the bid at 6 and bidding down will set it at 14.

[gamerman01]

But really it doesn’t matter how you handle negative bids, as long as you and your opponent agree on how to handle things if the that situation ever arises.  If you and your opponent both believe the Allies need a bid, and it sounds like people are saying that’s pretty common, then you’ll never even run into negative bids.  Right?

[Jeff28]

Can you just say I’ll give your one, 2, etc. and start up on it…

–Jeff

[gamerman01]

@Jeff28:

Can you just say I’ll give your one, 2, etc. and start up on it…

–Jeff

Do you mean when it gets past zero?

If I understand you correctly, that is exactly what “negative bidding” is.  If you want to think of a -5 bid as a +5 bid, just for the other side, that’s fine.  That’s what it is.  You’re bidding back “up”, but for the other side.