G40 Tourney Discussion/question(s)

Whats Battlemap?

The best way to learn game play is to find a game thread in the “Play Games” forum and read it.  The command line for throwing dice is:

;aaa 2@1 4@2 3@3 1@4;

where the ; is replaced with :
where the number before the @ is how many dice you want to throw
where the number after the @ is the target number (four or less for instance)

The system will then bold your hits and count the number for you (as you can see in the game threads.)

Here is a link to a game I am playing with Mollari: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23867.345;topicseen so you can get a gist of what some of us expect to see.

A note:  EM devised a system of naming the game files so that they show up in a folder in order:
01Agermany
01Brussia
01Cjapan
01Dallies
01Eitaly
01Zfrance (z predessor was actually my idea, ffrance looked too funny to me so I got silly and used a z once, and it stuck)
02Agermany
…

denotes round

A-Z denotes country order
country name is self explanatory

@ViribusUnitis:

Whats Battlemap?

Abattlemap.exe

It is a very basic program that will display the game board and has “tiles” that represent the pieces.  The graphics have gotten slightly better over the years, but the program is very basic still.  There are links in the “software” section of this site and some troubleshooting steps in the same area, should you need them. (Usually do on MACs as far as I know, but that was a while ago, the MACs might have imporved since.)

The program is free to the public, as are the mapping utilities for each of the games.  The program supports more than just Axis and Allies, also Fortress America, World at War, Chess, Chinese Checkers, Risk, etc, etc, etc.  I would HIGHLY recommend that you purchase a copy of the game before using the Abattlemap utility.  For one, the the utility is a utility and the rules are the rules.  For another, it is often easier to track an entire board on a table than scrolling around the mapping utility to get a picture of what is happening.  (This is the main reason I quit using MapView back in the days, despite the graphics being a lot prettier, you could only see 20% of the board at a time, Abattlemap lets you see about 85% at a time, the game board itself lets you see 100% at a time.)

TMTN (or TMTM?) is probably the guy you want to PM with questions about his latest map files for the program, as he designed the module.

@Cmdr:

The program supports more than just Axis and Allies, also Fortress America, World at War, Chess, Chinese Checkers, Risk, etc, etc, etc.

Nice! I didn’t know about Fortress America, I love this game. Do you know if (and where) they play it by forum?

@BigBadBruce:

@Cmdr:

The program supports more than just Axis and Allies, also Fortress America, World at War, Chess, Chinese Checkers, Risk, etc, etc, etc.

Nice! I didn’t know about Fortress America, I love this game. Do you know if (and where) they play it by forum?

To be honest, I have the boardgame and the module, but I never play either anymore.  (I did marry the pieces into the classic version of Axis and Allies and invented Helicopter, Jets, Hover Tanks and Mechanized Infantry technologies into it though.)

So this bid for G40 A+2  when we PM you is that the only chance for a bid or is it similar to other bids where we keep trying to get the  lower bid until someone stops. So pretty much PMing you back and forward for a lower bid?

There will only be one bid, the lower one will win so bid carefully!

Thank you for hosting this tournament.

As we have never played each other, please do not take this question the wrong way.

I was curious if previous bids will be posted by player after the round completes, prior to the next round. Since a moderator is participating in the Tournament, access to such information could provide a competitive advantage when bidding(especially after a couple of rounds to see if a pattern exists).

I am in no way accusing or stating that this is likely. In fact,I suspect it would be unlikely that you would review previous bids before bidding. This situation does exist however and I was wondering if there is a remedy. The bid also includes location and type of units expected, which may also tip the hat as to what part of the board players will likely focus or which strategy will likely be exercised.

Obviously, it won’t matter if the Moderator does not advance beyond round 1.

A couple of remedies off the top of my head if you would like suggestions.

1. A third party receives all bids.
2. All bids along with their bidder are posted for public view after the round begins- (could be posted first in each game thread)
   note:      To avoid telegraphing intention, public and privately posted bids could be just an IPC amount.
3. The moderator’s bid is randomly selected from a list of all previous bids after round 1 using a post with the random die result the third party moderator would then determine sides based on the list they received prior to rolling.
   note:      This is a big disadvantage and could weaken play if style does not match bid.
4. The moderator could let round 2 or later opponents select a side.
   note:      This is also a big disadvantage if the game is waited to one side.
5. Moderator games have side randomly selected using a forum 2 sided-die post, with 1 being the allies, and 2 being the axis.
6. No remedy, hosting the tournament is like a casino-odds favor the house (host) :)
   7) The Moderator could send all of his/her previous bids to his/her current opponent prior to the opponent sending his/her bid to the third party moderator. This addresses the competitive advantage as each player is aware of the others prior bids and a third party is still involved with awarding sides. This also does not tip the hands of other competitors during the tournament. Nor does it put an undo workload on a third party.

Number 7 seems a good compromise, that would not affect other players or the tournaments current structure.

Again, I mean no disrespect. This is just an issue I perceived that could affect outcome slightly. This may have already been addressed in other tournaments, as I am new to forum play and tournaments, please forgive any oversights.

As stated, DM is handling any bids for games I may be participating in.  As for everyone else’s bids, it would be public knowledge based on the opening posts in each game.

Notes:

1)  Convoys due to the increased damage from German u-boats will have to be configured manually, unless someone can enlighten me on how to make Abattlemap calculate it correctly. (As far as I can see, it can handle the standard 2 for a submarine or 1 for a surface ship, but not 3 for the U-boat.)

2)  tournament starts in about 3 weeks.

What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?

@TheDefinitiveS:

What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?

As you said, most battles are straight forward… but, if I see strategy could be involve in OOL then I roll just my dice (taking I’m the attacker) and wait for defender to state is losses. When I log back, I roll defender dice and take my losses. (If defender post his rolls it’s fine too, same difference). And then go to second round and, again, if strategy involve I’ll wait.

By rulebook, attacker has this advantage to see defender’s looses before attacker annonces  his hits. Even worst defender has to assign hits before rolling his dice.

@BigBadBruce:

@TheDefinitiveS:

What is the etiquette on rolling dice. It is common practice in the forums to just roll both attacking and defending dice at the same time as this saves time and the majority of battles are straight forward. My question is, is the correct sequence of combat, the attacker rolls dice and the defender removes casualties, then the defender rolls and the attacker removes casualties. If this is the order, would this give the attacker the advantage of OOL as he has seen what the defender has removed or is this not even worth thinking about. This also stops the defender from seeing how many hits they have made against the attacker and then guessing what the OOL could be. Im just thinking about this as some major air and naval battles can be deciders and I would like to know if this is correct or not. Also are there any other rules regarding OOL if any. To sum up is OOL and order of dice meant to favour the attacker and if so should this be taken advantage of. Thoughts?

As you said, most battles are straight forward… but, if I see strategy could be involve in OOL then I roll just my dice (taking I’m the attacker) and wait for defender to state is losses. When I log back, I roll defender dice and take my losses. (If defender post his rolls it’s fine too, same difference). And then go to second round and, again, if strategy involve I’ll wait.

By rulebook, attacker has this advantage to see defender’s looses before attacker annonces  his hits. Even worst defender has to assign hits before rolling his dice.

Correct.  In situations where casualties may not be straight forward, it is appropriate to inquire as to the OOL or roll the attacker dice and wait for the defender to select casualties (and roll his or her defensive dice as would happen in a face to face game.)  Yes, this gives the attacker an advantage, but then, it is the rules.

Excellent answers thank you. I was pretty confident I was on the right track so I thoguht I would ask it here so that everyone could see they have the option.
Cheers.

This just in from Larry’s site:

“I’m about ready to post Alpha+ 3. Probably next week. If I find myself without electricity for 4 or 5 days, as some are predicting, I’ll be a bit longer posting it.”

Larry

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6024

He was talking about Hurricane Irene.  Since Alpha+3 will come in this week or next week at the latest, I suggest we postpone the tourney til September 15th or something.

As I said in the other thread, I am hesitant to implement new rules without signifcant play testing my the community.  The first time I played Alpha 2 I remember someone sacking England and India simultaniously (ie, Germany and Japan in the same game round) because I failed to notice a naval base.  (For the record, I have never failed to notice a naval base on Hainan since!)

I am willing to entertain the idea of allowing particiapants to change to the Alpha 3 ruleset starting on round 2 (which should give players 1-2 months to get familiar with them) if and only if the following:

1)  Both players agree.
2)  There is a battlemap module along the lines of the TMTM one for Alpha 2 that includes the NOs, etc on them.
3)  Both players agree.

Did I mention, both players would have to agree?

What I am worried about:

A) Players not having time to get familiar with the new rules/placements.
B)  Some unforseen strategy that is a game ender or feels like a game ender (Sea Lion falls into this latter category, so does American Pac-Strat).
C)  Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)
D)  How do you bid?  If you have no experience, your bids might not be appropriate for the new situation.

@Cmdr:

As I said in the other thread, I am hesitant to implement new rules without signifcant play testing my the community.  The first time I played Alpha 2 I remember someone sacking England and India simultaniously (ie, Germany and Japan in the same game round) because I failed to notice a naval base.  (For the record, I have never failed to notice a naval base on Hainan since!)

I am willing to entertain the idea of allowing particiapants to change to the Alpha 3 ruleset starting on round 2 (which should give players 1-2 months to get familiar with them) if and only if the following:

1)  Both players agree.
2)  There is a battlemap module along the lines of the TMTM one for Alpha 2 that includes the NOs, etc on them.
3)  Both players agree.

Did I mention, both players would have to agree?

What I am worried about:

A) Players not having time to get familiar with the new rules/placements.
B)  Some unforseen strategy that is a game ender or feels like a game ender (Sea Lion falls into this latter category, so does American Pac-Strat).
C)  Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)
D)  How do you bid?  If you have no experience, your bids might not be appropriate for the new situation.

Ok, I understand, count me out then, I will only play Alpha+3 and I don’t want to deal with the others that don’t.  Thanks.

@Cmdr:

C)  Players who signed up for Alpha 2 that do not want to play Alpha 3. (Functionetta likes to play OOB for instance, I doubt he would be interested in playing Alpha 3 since he does not want to play Alpha 2.)

Yep, I have not much interest in alpha3 unless is totally and utterly balanced (improbable) is the last and definitive version (even less probable)

For the record, I have played my first game of alpha2 a couple of weeks ago, just because it was a FTF, and Axis seem having too much power (11 guys AND a big IC at East Germany, and 6 inf at South Italy? come on … !) It reminds me the AA50 unbalance, with Germany taking Leningrad too early (and that’s awful). We played 4 turns and we have to end the game yet but still… and as I anticipated, the consecutive allied turns are too tiring to be fun (but I had fun with uber French turns … I called them Obelix turns …  :-P). One to one alpha2 seems horrible, and FTF multi could be semi-ok if Germany had less power … just first impression

I understand Functionetta, I only brought you up because you are someone I know feels this way.

For the record, I would not be entirely surprised if Alpha 3 is less balanced than Alpha 2.  However, I will be ecstatic if the Americans are not forced into the Pacific like in Alpha 2.

I have the brackets assigned, I am attempting to make it “pretty” right now.  If someone wants to “pretty” it up for me because you are way more skilled at graphics let me know.  Otherwise, you might be stuck with a Mathematician’s vision of beauty.

Just read the new G40 thread. So if we spot an opponents mistake (that only hinders them) there is no Gentlemans rule to correct them. We may take advantage? I spose this replicates mistakes made on the battlefield by Generals and the like. Also with the -3 sub interiction you will have to add the extra 1 on manually as the auto convoy rule still only does 2 automatically. Would this require the Axis player only to pay attention to this and the Allied player to take advantage if this is missed. As the rules state all players are responsible for convoy raiding.