2013 - AAG 40 League

[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.

[666]

As I have been following these conversations a few thoughts have come to me. Jenn, Gman, the community, you can do whatever you want with these thoughts of mine.

1. I am not sure how far back this goes and I don’t think it was ever written in our league rules but at some point we/I/DM thought if a game didn’t reach T2 then it shouldn’t be counted in the standings. Perhaps it was a “gentlemanly” thing to do, but most full time players don’t abandon games prematurely and if a newbie doesn’t continue a game into T2 it wasn’t acknowledged as a “W”.

2. W/respect to the bidding, it has always been an open, no restrictions on stacking, placement. If a 12 IPC stack really altered the game and then became the norm, players seemed to adjust, either the bid, the game-play etc…There never seemed to be a need for a rule to govern this. That is not to say there isn’t a need now but as someone stated earlier, players seem to be able to work these things out themselves.

3. As Jenn writes above, getting diced to the extreme, as what she described happening to jsp can discourage play and discourage some of “our love” for the game. Wheatbeer, to his credit saw the consternation this caused me in one game and he offered, quite graciously I might add, a redo, a dice re-roll, using LL rules. Since then, we have occasionally offered each other this option, as a one for one agreement when a player chooses. I think this might be a helpful way to incorporate a rule that could take some of the dicing out of the game? Perhaps, each player gets one LL re-roll. If used your opponent gets to use one as well. The same player once using one LL re-roll can’t utilize another until his/her opponent uses theirs? Just a thought. As stated, Wheatbeer is seemingly offering this to his opponents, or at least to me. And it is a nice card to be able to play when 80% of your air is knocked out by a freak AA dicing…

Just some of my thoughts…GL everyone.

[Jennifer]

Hmm, but what if Germany gets hit really hard in round 1?  The British navy and Parisian defenders do really well against them and they quit playing right after the combat phase of the game?

I guess it could be a T2 requirement, but if an opponent thinks his opponent did something underhanded they could PM me to investigate to prevent that from happening.  I generally don’t go into the game threads unless invited to do so, I feel all of our contestants are adults or mature children (as the case may be) and can handle their own situations to the point of “calling” me in to make a ruling.  Not to say I don’t ever go into the threads, I do, I just don’t go into EVERY thread, I sort of spot check.

---

As for bidding, I’d like to see the players keep control - personally.  Perhaps if it was decreed that only 1 unit in a territory could be bid for that specific game, then they may want to increase the amount bid for that game?  Perhaps they are generally happy with 6 IPC bids because they can get 2 infantry in XYZ territory, but since they can only put 1 in there, they change their bid and want 24 IPC to get them to the same footing (in their mind) as before?

For example:

• Player A wants 14 IPC so he can put a destroyer and a submarine in SZ 111.
• Player B wants 1 unit per territory maximum for bids.
• Player A comes back with 18 IPC so he can put a fighter in Scotland and a destroyer in SZ 111

Just to demonstrate how requiring a 1 unit maximum could effect how much you need to bid to get the same footing.  Player A still, effectively, bid 2 units for SZ 111 since the extra Scottish fighter can still scramble to defend there.  It just cost more to do it.

---

As for player concessions.  If you allow your player one, then it is the sportsmanlike thing to do to reciprocate later.  If you don’t want give your opponent a reroll using LL, or a reroll, or a redo, etc, then don’t accept one if offered by your opponent.

Also, per league rules, there is no going back multiple turns to fix an error.  If it was not caught by your opponent on his turn and the start of your next turn, then it’s there to stay.  Please check your maps!  I know it’s harder to check TripleA than Abattlemap, you have to scroll A LOT more, but check them for errors!  Yes, TripleA allows errors still!  Far less than Battlemap did (since Battlemap allowed human error) but it does still happen!  And on your turn, check your previous map, make sure you remembered all your NCMs from last time and bring it up to your opponent BEFORE starting your next turn and give HIM the option to change things before adjusting the previous NCM and your opponent can, and maybe will, allow minor adjustments like “I forgot to move the fighters from New Zealand to Queensland last time, it’s Russia’s turn now, but do you mind editing the map so I can have that move?”    Etc.  I see those as more errors, and less gaming the system after the fact.

[gamerman01]

Thanks for the input, JWW, especially since you backed me up on a point or two  :-D
@Cmdr:

Hmm, but what if Germany gets hit really hard in round 1?  The British navy and Parisian defenders do really well against them and they quit playing right after the combat phase of the game?

There were two games (could have been more - I don’t look at every one either) that didn’t get past G1 or Russia1, so I didn’t count them in my spreadsheet (but I did note them at the bottom).  This was my personal preference, and I explained that my decision had no bearing on official league rankings.
I looked at both games and noted that there was no extraordinary dicing.  One player who left the game was Tyzoq, and he was simply taking a break from A&A.  He never even moved Russia - all he did was give a scramble decision for UK.  IIRC there were no really unusual dice.
The other was against a noob who had 0 game results previously and hasn’t been seen since.  Obviously he was just trying out the league and A&A.org and decided it wasn’t for him.  Again, he never even made a single attack in the game and G1 dice were nothing extraordinary.
Now I will say that in my humble opinion neither of these should be counted officially either, but since there were no rules about claiming wins of barely started games, perhaps you can’t really do that.
Something to consider for next year.
There are very few wins claimed that come before G2, so there is little time required for investigating the circumstances and making an official ruling on whether it will count.

[atease]

I think the extreme bad dice re-roll could be made a rule. I mean sometimes you lose a battle so badly that it basically means that you lose the game as in before it was winnable. I’m talking about mathematical improbabilities, like happened to me in the Pacific as US attacking with 20 boats/planes and hitting 3/20. it was a 50-50 battle, and Japan ended up losing 2 of their boats. Easy win in the Pacific for Japan after that.

Anywho, all the players I have played have been gentlemen and I’m sure that allowing one battle to be re-rolled in circumstances where it is commonly acknowledged that there was outrageously bad dice, where the results of the battle single-handedly alters the predicted results of the game significantly.

[Karl7]

Ruling Request:

Mr.Yogen and I have come to an impasse.

I, the Japanese, attacked the Allied fleet off the Carolines and won in 3 rounds – a major victory.  I asked for OOL R1 of the battle, and at the end of R1 we both had lost all our submarines.  I attacked two more rounds and killed the Allied fleet.  I did not ask for OOLs R2 and R3 because I was going for broke and thus kept the strongest Allied units defending.

Mr.Yogen is requesting as a matter of absolute right an entre reroll of the battle for my failure to ask for OOLs R2 and R3.  I respond that OOLs were after R1 irrelevant, unless Mr.Yogen wanted to keep weaker defending units over stronger units, which would have only encouraged me to continue to the fight and would have resulted in fewer defending hits anyway.  As I say, OOLs would have made no difference after R1 but to increase my margine of victory.

So can MrYogen get a reroll for the entire battle for my failure to ask for OOL R2 and R3?

Anyhow – here is the battle as I pulled it off from the TrippleA history:

Combat
            Battle in 33 Sea Zone
                Japanese attack with 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers, 4 fighters, 2 submarines and 4 tactical_bombers
                Americans defend with 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 submarines in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  1/2 hits
                Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans
                    Americans roll dice for 2 submarines in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  0/2 hits
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers, 4 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  11/18 hits
                Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 1 :  7/17 hits
                Units damaged: 2 battleships owned by the Japanese
                    2 submarines owned by the Americans , 2 destroyers owned by the Americans , 3 carriers owned by the Americans , 3 destroyers owned by the Japanese and 2 submarines owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 4 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 2 :  9/15 hits
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 5 fighters, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 2 :  7/12 hits
                    4 fighters owned by the Americans , 1 destroyer owned by the Americans , 2 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese , 3 cruisers owned by the Americans , 1 carrier owned by the Japanese , 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese , 1 tactical_bomber owned by the Americans and 2 fighters owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers in 33 Sea Zone, round 3 :  4/10 hits
                    Americans roll dice for 2 battleships, 1 fighter and 2 transports in 33 Sea Zone, round 3 :  1/3 hits
                    1 fighter owned by the Americans , 2 battleships owned by the Americans , 1 transport owned by the Americans and 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese lost in 33 Sea Zone
                    1 transport owned by the Americans lost in 33 Sea Zone
                Japanese win with 2 battleships, 2 bombers, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 125
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 carrier, 5 destroyers, 2 fighters, 2 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers
                Casualties for Americans: 2 battleships, 3 carriers, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 5 fighters, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports

[Karl7]

Correction:

Mr.Yogen is only requesting rerolls for R2 and R3.

[Karl7]

If Mr. Yogen is entitled to any rerolls, I assume it would be his defensive roll on R2 and then all of R3 if, IF, he gets more hits than he did R2.  If he gets less or the same R2, my roll R3 should stand.

Correct?

[mryogen]

I withdraw my claim.  The victory will be just that much sweeter despite not picking my OOL and the luck factor…

[Cow]

If someone kills my carriers off and keeps my cruisers without asking and continues the battle to the end and the end result is me losing anyway… I am OK with that.

[gamerman01]

I don’t know why you’d have a problem with a guy giving you indisputable maximum defense.  Since you have no units surviving and got maximum defense, I don’t think you have a complaint.

If I give a guy maximum defense and don’t ask for casualty choices, then I always give him the right to pick his survivors after the fact.  You had no survivors and you got maximum defense.  What’s the problem?

[Cow]

He withdrew his claim so there is no problem!

[Karl7]

Everything is cool.

[Jennifer]

Please check your OOLs with your opponents before rolling, if you think there is any question.  However, if you are okay with leaving the best possible defenders and then having your opponent change his casualties after the battle because you did not ask him, feel free to go that route.

For instance, had mryogen been left with a couple damaged battleships and a cruiser, I would have allowed him to replace the cruiser with an aircraft carrier as he was not asked before hand.  (This is not the situation, the defender lost everything, I believe, and Karl did have 73% odds of victory.)

[Jennifer]

You know, the more I read the China rules, the more I am inclined to say that China can bid any units it wants too, for next year as well.

For instance, I said this before, the fighter that China gets is really an American fighter that can never get replaced when destroyed.  However, it’s used by China as if it was a Chinese unit, and it is restricted to the same territories that China is.
Also, any Artillery that China is allowed to “buy” are also American Artillery units, but they are used by China and are restricted like Chinese units…

Every time I look at these rules, it implies to me that there should be no restriction on what units China may or may not get in the bidding process.  I know it’s unpopular, and I know that some even say it’s a tactical blunder to do so, but I’m just not seeing any reason NOT to let someone bid for tanks and more planes for China.  Especially if we institute a policy of 1 unit max per territory, or even 1 unit max per nation.

[gamerman01]

FWIW I agree, and keep in mind it’s not necessarily unpopular.  You’ve probably heard from all the dissenters.  Do you really know how many people are fine with it or like it?

Good point on the artillery.  I had forgotten before that even the artillery units are borrowed from the USA box, so the argument that there aren’t Chinese tanks or bombers in the box really holds no water whatsoever.