@Adam514 scramble and submerge orders for 6?
2015 League General Discussion Thread
-
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.
-
Well, welcome to the league and make sure you have tons of fun!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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? :-)
-
Apparently football is a dicey game?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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
-
gamer, would you consider a bonus system to reward those players who are more active in the league?
perhaps something like this:
1. 1 bonus point for completing the first 10 games
2. 3 bonus points after completing 20 games
3. 5 after 30
4. 7 after 50or something like that…
you have to admit, those who play a lot more games are exposing themselves to more chances for errors or dicing, and furthermore, their ranking becomes more sensitive to the kinds of avalanche or cascade effects we’ve been seeing. there are too many good players who are restricting themselves to only a handful of games against other elites, so that their ranking stays nice and safe. and something like 6 out of the 8 who are about to qualify for playoffs (including you) got the bare minimum of 8 games, and one of those who didn’t get the bare minimum got 10 (i.e. only adam really put himself out there with over 3x as many games as the minimum!)
please consider!
-
Cascade effect works both ways. People rise a tier as often as they fall a tier, and they have equal and opposite effects.
-
Games between top players take a ton of time and energy. You are having more fun than anyone else. I think that’s compensation enough. These chess matches between top players, where every little bad luck swing is excruciating, is as much stress and work as fun.
I think you would have more fun being the #1 seed in the 2nd playoff. Remember, in any playoff system everyone’s season ends with a loss except one’s…… Don’t make it all about points and rankings and championships - the fun is in the journey
-
Seriously, you have 1 win over a tier E and you’re trying to tell me that I’m in trouble in the championship game?
you keep mentioning how i have only one win against a tier E. well a closer look at the stats tells us that a win against a tier E is actually quite rare (i’m only considering the E tier players here):
1. bmnielsen: 1 win
2. juan: 1 win
3. zhuk: 2 wins
4. jdow: 2 wins
5. gamer: 1 win
6. adam: 2 wins (but out of 29 wins)
7. ghost: 0 wins
8. alex: 0 winsthere are a few tier 1 players who have scored wins against tier Es.
no one has 3 tier E wins tho, at least not yet.
-
You’ve played over 50 games
-
And you have 5 losses against them
Look, I get it, it hurts your pride that I called you out after all your whining about losing tier E status that you had for awhile. I did my best to explain, and all I did was give you a lot of material to criticize.
I’m not interested in engaging your endless arguments about how awesome you are - please leave me alone.
-
Disclaimer: this is not a comment on the content of any of the recent discussions, as I have no interest in taking sides or getting involved.
But am I the only one who is sick of all the bickering that’s been going on here recently?
We’re all here to have fun, guys, let’s try to focus on that a bit more. If you feel like someone is trolling you, engaging them is just throwing fuel onto the fire.
I would hate to see this overwhelmingly-positive community go on a downward spiral, we’ve probably all experienced what internet gaming communities can be at their worst.
-
I know I fed a troll. He’s been baiting me about as much as he can, and it’s hard to resist.
Adam and Dominion have really been stirring pots lately, and I also do not appreciate it. I don’t see how it makes sense to irritate the guy who’s making it all happen and has spent hours and hours recording everyone’s scores, and ensuring a league rule set each year that the majority, including himself, really enjoy.
-
Gamerman, I know I am not alone in saying I’ve got noting but love for ya baby!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJEbfeG2oAE
Seriously!
-
Adam and Dominion may have been vocal recently, but on the whole I would say they have initiated discussions with respect. All participants share the blame in where it ends up after that, in my opinion.
I don’t see how it makes sense to irritate the guy who’s making it all happen and has spent hours and hours recording everyone’s scores, and ensuring a league rule set each year that the majority, including himself, really enjoy.
I can understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think there’s a connection here. As I see it, Dominion is reacting to the things you are saying, not to your position of authority in the league. He certainly didn’t initiate anything with the sole purpose of “irritating the guy who’s making it all happen” - he has legitimate points to discuss.
We all really appreciate how much work you put into maintaining the rankings and moderating the league. Speaking for myself, any comments or suggestions I make about the rules or ranking system are solely in the interest of making them even better; I’m not saying that the current system, or your moderation, is poor. I believe that’s where everyone else is coming from as well, but then I’m an optimistic kind of guy :)
Suggested Topics
