2013 - AAG 40 League

[boldfresh]

hmmm now that cow is not in desperation mode due to impending loss to bolddutch, he’s making a lot more sense.  :wink:

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

Honestly, until this morning, a Round 1 attack on Russia by Germany wasn’t even in my thought processes.� Yes, a fighter, tactical bomber and a Chinese built AA Gun or hell, even a couple Chinese infantry would make that attack significantly harder.� Of course, I would be kicking Germany in the balls so hard he’d never have kids if he opened me up to that kind of hell in a game. lol.

On G2?  You mean kicking Russia.  A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.

Jenn, I’m pretty sure you have no idea how powerful the Yunnan bid is.  If China and UK can hold their own, that frees up America to go to Europe more, and the Allies don’t have to worry much about a Japan victory, which is absolutely huge.  That said, as I said, you really don’t need to change the rule because players just shouldn’t allow bids of 6+ to the Allies.  They shouldn’t be anyway.  And yes I know what I’m talking about because I’m currently 10-1 with the Allies in the 2013 league  :-P

The reason, I suspect, that bids have been around 10, is because few players realize the power of a 3-4 infantry bid to Yunnan.

We can discuss a 1 unit per territory/sea zone restriction for 2014 or even the tournament.� I feel it is far too late in 2013 to impose new restrictions.� I only mentioned China being allowed other units because I did not think anyone else had thought of it and I saw nothing, as written NOW, that prevented it.� I am more than willing to bar said units for next year’s league.�

It is absolutely inappropriate to change the bid rule mid-year.  I think you can get away with the China bomber and tank nonsense because it was a clarification, not a change or addition (the league rules were silent on the issue).  I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of support for 1 unit per territory bids, so that’s probably a good change for 2014.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.

I didn’t mean required, I meant anticipated.

[Jennifer]

@Cmdr:

3 - You must play at least 4 games against 3 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.
Amended: You must play at least 8 games against 6 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.

3a (Major League) - If 4 or more players end up playing 14 games (in the league) or more then a separate grouping and playoff schedule will be created for these players.
Minor League (8 to 13 games played)
Major League (14+ games played)
Amended: 8 players to replace 4 or more players.

Since this was the rule, in 2012, would there be issue in restoring it for 2013?  It is in answer to the 20 game +/- 5 that was suggested earlier.

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

@Gamerman01:

A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.

I didn’t mean required, I meant anticipated.

Yes, but I’m interested in seeing this game I am in with a Round 1 German invasion of Russia.  It’s been my experience that they usually focus on hitting Europe round 1, and attack round 2 - and by doing so, negate any Russia air cover for China!  (Thus destroying the need for a 1 unit per territory bid.)  Perhaps this is in part why the axis want to limit the amount of units bid, because their strategy is sub-optimal?

I am neither saying that is why, or that is not why.  However, the question was raised in my mind.  Is the 1 unit per territory (and sea zone) necessary, or is it because of some flaw in Axis strategy that is better suited to having the strategy amended?

[boldfresh]

Jenn, I strongly feel - like many other veteran players - that a 1 unit per
territory rule should be instated immediately, not in 2014.  Trust me, it’s much better for the game.  As stated before, the yunnan bid caps the amount that should EVER be given to the allies at 8 effectively.

cheers

[Jennifer]

@Boldfresh:

Jenn, I strongly feel - like many other veteran players - that a 1 unit per
territory rule should be instated immediately, not in 2014.  Trust me, it’s much better for the game.  As stated before, the yunnan bid caps the amount that should EVER be given to the allies at 8 effectively.

cheers

Why do we need a 1 unit per territory rule?  Is only because if a chain of events happens, Japan’s attack on Yunnan is too costly?  It seems to be the only issue being raised currently.

Why does Germany have to go to war with Russia round 1?  They get money if they don’t.  They get time to prepare a proper invasion if they don’t. Russia is denied reinforcing China if they don’t.  Without reinforcing China, how do your numbers play out for a Japanese attack on Yunnan if there are 2 units bid there (say infantry units since I’m pretty much decided the rules are going to include Infantry/Artillery units for China only, or perhaps a moratorium of any units for China.)

Is this a matter of game play, or is this an issue of bad strategy?  That’s what I am getting at.  Would 2 infantry in Egypt be such an issue?  What about 2 infantry in Belarus or 2 Artillery in Buryatia?  Are these of equal importance, or is it only a concern about Yunnan?  As far as I can see, Yunnan is easily solved by Germany holding back for one round.  Is this holding back a round going to cause significant damage to the Axis?  Perhaps the bid is too high, maybe you need to consider lowering it to prevent a Yunnan disaster?

[Jennifer]

Essentially:

Is the problem Yunnan, or is the problem bad German strategy?

I see Yunnan with the following:

+2 Infantry for China from bid gives them 6 Infantry
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, Tactical Bomber and 2 Strategic Bombers from Japan can attack.

I think that’s everything:

3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Fighters, Tactical Bomber, 2 Strategic Bombers vs 6 Defending Infantry gives me 99.8% odds of success for Japan.

Therefore, 2 infantry in Yunnan isn’t going to make a huge difference to the battle.

Now, if Germany does something, personally I think isn’t a great idea, and goes to war with Russia early, and Russia decides to risk their aircraft it becomes:

3 Inf, Art, 2 Fig, 1 Tac, 2 Strat vs 6 Inf, 1 Tac, 1 Fig
84.1% odds for Japan and Russia’s down 67% of it’s aircover.

What’s the hullabaloo?

[wheatbeer]

Cmdr Jen,

1. Germany does not need to attack the Soviets for the Soviets to land planes in China. The Soviets can declare war against Japan independently.

2. Japan doesn’t have 2 fighters in range of Yunnan for J1.

3. No one is complaining about a 2 inf bid to Yunnan. People are complaining about a 3 or 4 inf bid to Yunnan.

[Jennifer]

I could see 3 or 4 more infantry in Yunnan being a royal pain for Japan.  Especially now that you’ve reminded me Russia can declare on Japan at will.

Isn’t the solution to that making sure your opponent doesn’t get a 9-12 IPC bid?

Do we really need to implement a rule, halfway through the season, limiting where you can put your bonus units?  Or can it wait for next season?  I mean, if it has to be done now, and there’s enough anecdotal evidence to support it, then we can do it now (although I would submit limit 2 units bid per territory instead as a compromise.)

Try and keep in mind, I’ve been in and out of the hospital for the past 3 to 4 months.  I have not seen the progression of strategies that has unfolded and am willing to be persuaded as to the necessary nature of the request - I would just like to see some evidence as to it’s need first.  It’s not like I can go look at the number of games and say “yup, a lot more activity, why don’t I just grant the request to allow more games against the same two opponents and increase the size of the playoffs?”  You see where I am coming from, I hope?

I am not saying ‘No’  I am saying ‘Why.’  If I am satisfied with the answer to ‘why’ then I’ll say ‘yes’ and if I am not satisfied, then I will say ‘no’ or at least ‘not this year.’  I also don’t want to get a lot of mean emails flaming me for making this change “arbitrarily” or “dictatorially” because two or three league members made a request and I did not investigate enough to make an informed decision.

[wheatbeer]

While I would welcome a limit, personally I am fine with waiting until next season. I can always negotiate such a limit independently with my potential opponents.

I’m not sure how often the Yunnan stack (+ R1 air relief) is being used. I have had it done to me once by Boldfresh, and I’m in the middle of a game where I did it to snake11eyes. In both cases, it let the Allies cripple Japan prematurely.

Anyone else have any experience with this?

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

Isn’t the solution to that making sure your opponent doesn’t get a 9-12 IPC bid?

YES
That is my position as well.  You don’t want to see 3 or 4 infantry placed in Yunnan?  You can guarantee that they aren’t.  Bid him down to 8.

The rules are the same for both players.  If he gives you a 9 or 12 bid, then go right ahead and put your 3-4 infantry on Yunnan, fly your Russian planes away where they can’t get all the way back for 2 turns, and cripple Japan - more power to you.

Nobody can force you to allow a 9 or 12 bid, period.

[gamerman01]

This reminds me of the dreaded bomber bid of AA50.

Oh heaven forbid that you would allow a bid of 12, because the other player would pounce on the opportunity to put a Russian bomber in Far east that had a 57% chance of sinking a Japanese destroyer and 2 transports!

Same thing - if Russia and the Allies want to spend their entire bid that way and go for a dicey round 1 move, go right ahead.  It doesn’t scare me.  If it does, I just bid you low enough that you can’t do it.

[wheatbeer]

If a bid’s pegged to a single potential cheese placement, then bids might no longer serve their purpose, to balance the game.

I believe the Allies need more than 8, though I grant plenty of other player likely disagree with me  :|

[gamerman01]

I think the primary and most important purpose of bids is to help decide who takes who and both players should always be happy with the side they’re playing

[gamerman01]

Also, as you said, if a bid is pegged to a single Chinese placement, then there is some number that you would agree also balances the game.

You’re saying the allies need help and that too many infantry to Yunnan help too much.

No problem - determine what that number is and then you know what to bid.

[wheatbeer]

With stacking in China allowed (and an opponent of equal strength) 9 is too high to give, and 8 is too low to take. Does that make sense?

[wheatbeer]

My solution will just be to negotiate extra bidding terms before play, which is what I have been doing most of the time anyways  :-D

[Jennifer]

There is no rule saying you cannot negotiate other terms in your bid, like where you may and may not place units and how many you may or may not place in a territory - as long as you don’t violate any of the rules that is.

However, we are not talking about what YOU may negotiate between the two players playing the game, we are talking about what the community wants ME to declare is the rule for all games in the league.

[gamerman01]

Ah, brilliant - that should make everybody happy.

If you can get your opponent to agree before bidding that it will be max 1 unit per TT, then go right ahead.  Everybody’s happy.  For an hour, at least.