2013 - AAG 40 League

[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??

[gamerman01]

Also, 2 players playing one game does not a “playoff” make.

If it does, then college football has playoffs because #1 plays #2 for one game for the national championship.  That’s basically what you have here - a 1 game championship between two 4-0 players.  Meanwhile, you will probably have a bunch of guys who’ve played 20+ games for the year with impressive win percentages vs. a wide variety of opponents who will be standing by watching a couple of 4-0 or 6-0 or whatever players playing for the championship?

Please fix.

[Zhukov44]

The (well-known and much-discussed) problem with the league is the classification is determined by win %, which means that the players who get the most wins or who play the toughest opposition don’t necessarily come out on top.  Consequently, the top players are in no hurry to play each other and typically won’t meet till the play-offs.  However, so far no one seems to have come up with a solution that is sufficiently simple.  Hopefully Gamerman’s ranking project will guide us toward a better ranking system.

It reminds me of the sport of boxing where money rules and therefore sometimes there isn’t sufficient incentive for the best to fight the best.  Just like in boxing…. playing lesser opposition is useful for honing strats and building confidence…but…losses teach us alot more than wins.

One idea worth pondering (in lieu of a tournament) is a round-robin competition.  Basically, we get a group of 6 or so, and we play each other (5 games apiece).  In this format, luck of the draw plays no role and lucky dice are less likely to effect the overall result.

[gamerman01]

I think one possibility is to not have a playoff and to not have a champion.
I mean, all we have right now anyway is a huge, great regular season with 1 cheesy game at the end between 2 of the many good players (and as Zhukov and I are both saying - it’s probably not the best 2 anyway).
I mean, hundreds and hundreds of games will be played by the end of this season (A&A gods be praised), and there’s going to be 1 at the end between 2 of the players with the highest win % who have played a minimum of 4 games?  That will be an interesting side-show.

Zhuk, I appreciate your point about the best players avoiding each other to prevent their win % from tanking, but let’s step back and think about it.  Is it really that glorious to play in a high-pressure championship game and be called the league champion, when you can’t really brag about it later anyway and everyone forgets and most people don’t care?  Is that worth depriving yourself of good competitive fun games against other top players during the year for fear your win % will drop?  I certainly don’t think so.

With all humility, I think the excitement for the vast majority of the players (besides the actual game play, which should be the greatest fun and excitement) is seeing how they stack up in the rankings and trying to advance up the rankings, and watching other players rise and fall.

In short, I think the journey is WAY more fun than the destination, and in the case of the cheesy 1 game “playoff” at the end of hundreds of games between dozens of players, missing the “goal” of making the “playoff” is really nothing to worry about.

Let me ask this.  Who really wants to make the playoff, and why?  :-)

[gamerman01]

I’m playing the formidable Allweneedislove in a revenge game where he is hell-bent on beating me, and that is very likely to cost me my 100% win percentage, which means that one single game, even if I play dozens during the year, may very well cost me a playoff berth.

So I’m saying, screw it, I think the purpose of the league is to have an organized way with uniform rules and moderators to get as many players together as possible to have a great time playing A&A together.  :-)