2015 League General Discussion Thread

[gamerman01]

The fact that the tier labels do make it more fun for most of us, and the fact that it really facilitates the matchup process (I’m looking to play a tier 1, for example), is gravy, but the whole purpose of points and tiers is to give some reflection of strength of schedule and avoid rewarding players inordinately for preying on weak and inexperienced competition.  Period.

[gamerman01]

Now a byproduct also of the system, is we’ve found that it is actually helping to produce very accurate rankings.  That is, you could practically bet money on games using these rankings and almost always win, betting against someone who has no access to these rankings.  Upsets are relatively uncommon.

So I would say that these rankings have actually turned out to be far more reliable than what you see in sports many times.  For example, the USA college football rankings  :-) where everybody doesn’t play everybody, much like our league.

Results from forfeitures are a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but I’m all for continuous improvement, so again, the issue of forfeited games and points derived from them will be addressed.

[axis-dominion]

Well, as soon as you started calling the higher tiers “elite” and “master” you brought this prestige awareness upon us…you lured our ego into a trap. When they were just numbers we were all so innocent and mathematical about them.  :lol: :lol:

@Gamerman01:

Alright, I just thought of something I need to make clear.

A lot of you guys, including and especially Axis-dominion, have demonstrated a misunderstanding of the purpose of the tiers.

They are not status symbols.

They are a tool I use to rank players considering the strength or weakness of your opposition.� It was never meant to be an exact science.� The tier system was developed to be superior to straight win-loss records.� Win-loss records alone strongly encourage everyone to play weaker players, but obviously everyone can’t play weaker players.

Naturally, over time that is forgotten and lost, and players will naturally start gauging their progress and perhaps set personal goals based on PPG and tiers, but that was never the purpose or intent for them.� The purpose of the tiers and the points is so that you don’t get the same credit for beating the best player in the league as you get for beating a newbie.

Bmnielsen is right, it’s about the ranking #, not the PPG or tier.� The PPG and tier are means to an end.� So all this hoopla about losing tier E status…… well, think about it in light of what I just said, please.� :-)� :-)

[gamerman01]

That’s right, it’s all my fault

[axis-dominion]

bruce, if i recall correctly, the league rules state that for every 10 games played as axis, you are required to play one as allies. i mean, EVEN Juan has a game in as the allies lol

i’m feeling the need to stir the pot some more. sorry, i am bored as all my opponents are so slow at this time…and i need to give poor gamer a break.

[axis-dominion]

soo, if mass german bombers is considered a dark skies strategy, would that make a mass japanese bombers strategy a bright skies one?

[axis-dominion]

i can’t wait to see the meltdown when all-axis elites start facing each other in the playoffs…i imagine the allied bids will sky rocket to 40+  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

if it comes down to this:

bmnielsen (axis) vs JuanSpain (allies +49)

[axis-dominion]

interesting statistic:

Juan is the only undefeated ranked player in the league. he also happens to be the most checked out player, with the last posted turn being on the 29th of July…. :lol:

[MakeMaps]

I am humbled by the players of this league. So many lessons to be learned.
I think in the future I’ll play one game at a time, maybe two at the most.

[gamerman01]

Watching is free!

[MakeMaps]

@Gamerman01:

Watching is free!

True. The only reason I’m playing so many games at once right now is to become eligible for the regular league playoffs. I plan to do quite a bit of watching about what all the Elite players have done to win their matches.

[gamerman01]

Well, welcome to the league and make sure you have tons of fun!

[Karl7]

@DizzKneeLand33:

I’m truly not sure a bid ever balances this game out.  Almost all of the other Axis and Allies games can be balanced out, but this one just doesn’t look like it can be – is that what we are seeing?  I mean, there comes a point where a bid just simply overpowers an area of the board, and I think why the bids are in the 20-30 range is because any more than that and one of the game theaters becomes almost completely broken.

Just to throw out an example, in 3rd edition (CD play), 21 was probably the most even bid.  However, because someone could plant 7 units in Ukraine (“Power Europe”), it imbalanced the game to such an extent that two things happened.  One, bids over 18 were rarely given (sometimes 20, which was still just 6 land units) – therefore at the top level the Allies always had a slight superiority that could not be completely balanced out (but unlike with Global, that was like a 52/48 advantage, so very slight iirc).  But this type of bidding also allowed things like Power Africa or Power Asia – in essence, an entire game theater had to be changed to balance out the game.

Now, here is the difference with our league.  Because the Axis only have to win on one board, I’m not sure the bid can balance everything out – Axis can just go “where they ain’t” so to speak.  I don’t remember this problem with AA50 because the winning conditions were for the entire board.  And this is true of all of the other Axis and Allies games that I can think of.  So, instead of being able to get it close (such as a 52/48 spread), we will never be able to get it that close without having bidding parameters on both boards or other things that will just make the entire bidding process cumbersome.

Too bad we can play good ol’ AA50 in league anymore lol.

On another (and probably better) note, there is really an easy way of balancing out who bids last, and so forth.  You do it blind.  Did anyone here ever play 2nd edition PBEM at AAMC?  You would submit your bid to the bunker without knowing your opponent’s bid, and the low bid “wins” Allies (back then the bid was for Axis).  In the case of a tie, a virtual coin would be flipped for who gets what side.  Would it be that hard for someone to program this process?  I doubt it.  But this would only be if everyone is on board.  The true purpose is that you only get to bid once (so make it good!) per game, so no bidding down your opponent back and forth (which I find kind of annoying anyway).

To summarize, blind bidding via a “bunker” and having better bidding parameters are my suggestions for improvement.  Changing the entire layout of the board and other rules just seems to be too much for a “league”, since again the purpose of league is to play a standardized game (imho, which is not shared by all).

You maybe right.  The position of the Axis is just too strong often.  I’ve wondered if juicing-up, changing the USA NO’s to just a +5 round 1 regardless if at war, increasing a +5 per turn.  So by R10 USA is pulling down 100ish.  That’d put the pressure on the Axis.

[Seador]

I feel that the discussion about game balance often blur when they are probably multiple thread issues.

first, when talking about a bid the statements I usually read are like, “to balance the game, or to make both players happy they have an equal chance.”

a bid only balances the game between equal opponents  The small amount bid, closing around 20 right now isn’t enough to allow a weak player to beat a strong one, because the game has so much money and so many starting units.  Given equal opponents, the bid amount to the Allies takes some of the randomness out of the first round battles, giving the Allied player a better judge of how the board will look after round 1.

second, the fundamental game balance for a single play dice game OOB rules, 5+ human players a few beer and a dish of pretzels vs the online chess version played here is different.  Dizzy and Karl have both raised, obliquely perhaps, the key difference between AnA Global and all other versions I have seen.  (1)  The Allies are on the clock, not the Axis and (2)  The Axis have two ways of winning, completely independent of each other.

Three ideas:
Not taking away from the bid to fine tune a game, but from a poor players perspective, I’d like to allow the Allies to add +1 VC to the conditions on one board.  This would give the Allied player more time to bring their financial power to play and reduce the urgency on one front.

Bid onto both boards, with a separate amount.

Give the Allied player an income bid, awarded to any power of their choice at the end of France’s move.

I dunno, everyone has ideas, I just feel that thinking bid as “game balance” isn’t the same thing and deserves a separate solution

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

So I would say that these rankings have actually turned out to be far more reliable than what you see in sports many times.  For example, the USA college football rankings  :-) where everybody doesn’t play everybody, much like our league.

Today in USA college football, #25 destroyed #3, 38-10.  It was 25-0 at the half.  I guess it doesn’t take much to be more reliable than the college football rankings.  :-P  Now way #25 would decisively beat #3 in my rankings  :-D

[gamerman01]

That would be Calvinhobbesliker killing Zhukov…… Not happenin’  :-)

Also, #1 and #2 barely beat teams that are not even in the top 25… I tell you what, who makes these rankings?  :-)

[Shin-Ji]

Apparently football is a dicey game?

[variance]

@PGMatt:

The Allies are on the clock, not the Axis

That’s the whole problem right there.  Ironically the intention was for it to be the other way around.

[gamerman01]

@Shin:

Apparently football is a dicey game?

Yes, it is.  If you fumble the ball, it kills you.  It’s the worst thing that can happen to you, and it’s often luck when it happens.  Also, the football is shaped very strange so it bounces unpredictably.

But still, 25-0 at the half…. The #3 team in the nation couldn’t score a point for a half?  That’s bad ranking right there.

[gamerman01]

@variance:

@PGMatt:

The Allies are on the clock, not the Axis

That’s the whole problem right there.  Ironically the intention was for it to be the other way around.

Well, Larry isn’t always the genius that we assume he is.  He over-reacted to the Allied advantage of the early version.  One thing he did was moved the NO’s of the USA out to islands and territories to the east and to the west that the Axis can now harass.  In doing so, he probably should have boosted the homeland NO, but instead he left it the same in total but distributed it out so that you can snipe part of it just taking the Aleutians.

That’s just one example - there are several others.  Giving Germany a major in Berlin and putting a minor in Ukraine without any other balancing factors….  Now Germany can’t really be stopped.  Too much money in the middle east (Make Persia and Iraq worth 1 IPC, maybe make the oil NO’s 1 IPC each)… I could go on