2013 - AAG 40 League

[Zhukov44]

@Cow:

The league rules need to be adjusted to keep up with the times. 1 unit per territory, come on.

I agree 1 unit per territory is best, though so far it hasn’t been an issue.

There was a moment in AA50 competition when I agreed to a 12 bid vrs. Dutchman (I figured I didn’t want to be Allies against him) and he put 4 inf on Egy!  Gulp.  Fortunately the dice saved me in that one.

It’s not clear yet if bidding several units per territory is a problem but I can see Alexandria or Yunnan stack bids potentially becoming issues when you have 10+ bids.

[gamerman01]

So bid them lower
After all, if you win the bid you can do the same thing.  Fair for everyone

[Eqqman]

@Zhukov44:

It’s not clear yet if bidding several units per territory is a problem but I can see Alexandria or Yunnan stack bids potentially becoming issues when you have 10+ bids.

I could probably be convinced either way.  The Europe map is balanced enough that the limit feels fair, but the Pacific map is so out of whack that you need to allow it, otherwise the same amount of bid won’t be as effective.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

So bid them lower
After all, if you win the bid you can do the same thing.  Fair for everyone

Yeah I’m just used to the 1 unit limit and many TripleA players have the same habituation and likely the same resultant bias.

On the other hand, we have plenty of time to react and think in this format.  In addition, 3 inf to Yunnan or Alexandria might be fine when we consider that strengthening either China or UK Egypt could add to historical realism.

The worry is that if the 3 inf to Yunnan is superior to other 9 bids, it could potentially lead to a rut where the first person to bid 9 always gets Allies.  But I’ve never encountered this bid so I can’t comment on how good it is.

I’m guessing that the original justification for the 1 bid per territory limit was likely to facilitate better live games, where the bid doesn’t change the game so much that the Axis player has to think for 20 minutes about how to react to the bid.

[Zhukov44]

had a brainfart in my 3rd paragraph above

it could potentially lead to a rut where the first person to bid 9 always gets Allies

What I meant to say is…it potentially leads to a rut where either one person gets 9 and is perceived to have the advantage, or the other gets 8 and is perceived to have the disadvantage.

That is pure speculation of course, since it’s unproven whether 3 inf to Yunnan is superior to other 9 bids or would be much better than a destroyer bid somewhere important.

[Cow]

I do not believe in china bids, they have limited buys to begin with.

[Cow]

No China bid is another entire issue in which I know i am in the minority.

[Eqqman]

@Cow:

No China bid is another entire issue in which I know i am in the minority.

The Pacific map is so unbalanced in Japan’s favor it surprises me that anything the Allies can do there with a bid would be considered too cheesy.

[Cow]

The pacific is fine. I played plenty of pacific 1940 alone. It is fine.

[boldfresh]

@Cow:

The pacific is fine. I played plenty of pacific 1940 alone. It is fine.

i agree with cow again.  a sure sign of the apocalypse.

[Karl7]

Either of you two check out the Pac40 forum?  Apparently there is a sure win strategy for Japan to take out the US.

Even Krieghund was stumped.

:-P

[Eqqman]

@Cow:

The pacific is fine. I played plenty of pacific 1940 alone. It is fine.

@Boldfresh:

i agree with cow again.  a sure sign of the apocalypse.

Karl has basically beaten me to it, but yes- if anyone sharing that opinion cares to back it up, then I cordially invite you to challenge vonLettowVorbeck1914 to a Pacific 40 game where you play the Allies with no bid.  If you then want to come out and say well, it really is fine, then you just need a bid`, then you still proved the point that the Pacific is still unbalanced, a problem made worse by the nerfing of the USA in the Global version.  The current Allied bids are too low to support splitting it between Europe and the Pacific in order to cover the problems on the Pacific map.

[Cow]

Either of you two check out the Pac40 forum?  Apparently there is a sure win strategy for Japan to take out the US.

Even Krieghund was stumped.

The flaw of USA starting with only 17 ipc a turn. Yes it can get owned.

[Cow]

Only two people for the playoffs?

[Cow]

Guess there is no real point in playing league unless you got time to do at least 50 games.

[gamerman01]

@Cow:

Only two people for the playoffs?

There was an explosion in interest in G40 soon after the league rules came out.  They were going by past interest in leagues when coming up with such things as the 8 game minimum.  In the 2012 league there were only a couple of players who qualified.

[gamerman01]

@Cow:

Guess there is no real point in playing league unless you got time to do at least 50 games.

That is so crass.

[Cow]

Well so far there are many players with 10-20 games under their belt already… by Nov I suspect they will have around 50.

I am not sure I want to play 50 games of global and if I were going for quantity of games / wins, I would likely vc rush or bust. I noticed I can do many games if they are 6-10 rounds. The 15-20 rounders are time sinks and income strategies should be avoided by the axis, best to play for VC wins.

[gamerman01]

You didn’t read the league rules, did you.

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

9 - Scoring/Playoffs
The top two players, with the best winning scores (Must complete at least 4 games, agianst at least 3 different opponents) will advance to the playoffs.  
If there is a tie between any players then the tie will be broken by:
1 - head to head play
2 - Total wins

---

Any suggestions or alterations you seem are warranted, please post them now for discussion and possible inclusion.  Discussion ends on 28 October, 2012 and any posted rules are finalized then.  After 28, October, any rules are final and there will be no negotiating.

OK, I see why you’re confused.
Jenn did not define “winning scores”

I guess I don’t know for sure, but I thought it was winning percentage.
A minimum of 4 games seemed appropriate at the time, but like I said, interest exploded after the rules were done.

As Cow has observed, some players could hit 50 games played at the pace they’re on.

Jennifer, I hope you’re reading this….
The playoff rules should definitely be clarified at a minimum, and probably should be modified.

If you can just play 4 games and win them all and have a 1.00 win percent, then you are guaranteed a playoff spot.
With the current rules you could have a guy go 49 and 1 and not make the playoffs.

Eh, whatever, the playoffs and champion crowning don’t mean anything to me - it’s just the principle of the thing.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY SCORING/SCORES??