League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

You’re paying 5 IPC’s per die.  If you roll one or more sixes, you get 1 tech.  If you roll no sixes, you have nothing.
Tokens were only used in AA50 (if you roll no sixes, you get to roll again next turn for each token and you can even buy more), but then Larry inexplicably went away from tokens.  And neutered some techs.

is LRA +1 or +2 now?

Long-Range Aircraft - All of your air units’ ranges are increased by 1 space.

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

@variance:

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

I love it but good luck getting ANYONE ELSE to agree that its a good idea.  Especially alexgreat.  :wink:

@variance:

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

You can always agree prior to the first game to do a rematch under the same conditions. Once agreed upon beforehand they can’t pull out. However this goes both ways. I did this with several players. In my opinion it only seems fair that you get a rematch under the same terms, whether you win or lose of course.

Good point, Soulblighter.
Vance, if you want to assure a rematch opportunity with same bid, you need to get your opponent to agree to it beforehand.  We’re not going to mandate this on everybody involuntarily, though.

@allweneedislove:

[…}
possible wording could look like the following.

Determining sides.

When setting up a game both players ‘Player A’ and ‘Player B’ declare their preference to play as the Axis or Allies.
If the players both want to play opposite sides the game begins.
If both players want the same side an auction begins.

The Auction
‘Player A’ offers ‘Player B’ the side that he/she does not want and adds a bid to entice ‘Player B’ to accept.
‘Player B’ has two options decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer and the game commences.
If ‘Player B’ declines the offer and increases the bid it is now up to ‘Player A’ to decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer. The bidding goes back and forth until both player are happy with their side.
[/quote]

I really like that idea, it is just perfect with one flaw: One would need to make the side choice blind. Like both players put an envelope on the table with the preferred side on it.
The only idea how to handle this in the forum is imo to make this via PM to a special administrator account or so. I would say it is not even a super big deal, there are not too many games starting per day and all the Admin would need to do is the following:

1. Create the thread
2. Roll a dice about which player has to make the first offer

This is a bit formal and not super handy, so the players can of course easily just agree on whatever they want. However this process should be the fallback solution for a very competitive game or if one player insists on it. This would require that players who prefer this process would ge flamed for it:)

@PGMatt:

The issue I see here is that it could be gamed pretty easy without a way to make a blind, simultanious proposal. “Oh, you want Allies do you? Well, so do I, so if you want me to play Axis it will cost you” Even if all along the othe rplayer wanted to play Axis anyways.

First of all, one could argue it is a mind game and every player could bluff, however this could lead to a game theoretical problem comparable to the prisoners dilemma: I simply do not post first, I’ll just wait till eternity, he might give up earlier, if not, we don’t play.

So as I said a PM to a trustworthy source could solve the simulation of a blind and simultaneous proposal. If only used for important and competitive games, the sample size should be small and the overhead managable.

Cheers,
Tobias

If anyone wants to choose sides this way, I am willing to take the blind side preferences by PM for you and then tell you if you chose the same side or not.

@Cmdr:

So far we have 1 supporter for LL, 1 “I don’t care either way” (me) and a few opposed.  Unless something drastic changes, I’d say consensus is no LL next year.

1 more supporter for LL here. :evil:

I am completely against LL being allowed in the same league as regular dice.
If people want to play LL, they can, but it shouldn’t count in the league unless enough players existed to justify the forming of a second LL league.

That’s my opinion at least.

@arathorn:

I am completely against LL being allowed in the same league as regular dice.
If people want to play LL, they can, but it shouldn’t count in the league unless enough players existed to justify the forming of a second LL league.

That’s my opinion at least.

Hiya, I am surprised you hate to see LL in the league so strongly. What I am saying is that just like tech or no tech, rematch or no rematch,  LL re-roll or no LL re-roll, etc, it is just one more option for players to choose from. And it will attract more players into the league, which I think you will be happy to see. It’s only between 2 players and I don’t see any need for consensus of the majority. No one is forced to play any LL game.

@MagicQ:

@arathorn:

I am completely against LL being allowed in the same league as regular dice.
If people want to play LL, they can, but it shouldn’t count in the league unless enough players existed to justify the forming of a second LL league.

That’s my opinion at least.

Hiya, I am surprised you hate to see LL in the league so strongly. What I am saying is that just like tech or no tech, rematch or no rematch,  LL re-roll or no LL re-roll, etc, it is just one more option for players to choose from. And it will attract more players into the league, which I think you will be happy to see. It’s only between 2 players and I don’t see any need for consensus of the majority. No one is forced to play any LL game.

How will it attract more players into the league?

LL is a completley different game - therefore it can’t be compared to a dice game, thus it should not be included in the same league. We can’t have a league of both apples and oranges in the same. That would be the same as having one single league for both rugby and American Football or Cricket and Baseball. Though there are many similarities, the game is fundamentally different in its execution, and strategies change as a result of it.

If there are enough people to have their own LL league, then that’s totally fine - but I will not play in a league that allows both as a default rule. LL-rerolls in limited application is not something I see as a problem, as that is simply used to avoid the whackiest of dice, if both players have agreed up front.

@arathorn:

How will it attract more players into the league?

LL is a completley different game - therefore it can’t be compared to a dice game, thus it should not be included in the same league. We can’t have a league of both apples and oranges in the same. That would be the same as having one single league for both rugby and American Football or Cricket and Baseball. Though there are many similarities, the game is fundamentally different in its execution, and strategies change as a result of it.

As a guy who has actually never played a full LL game, I’d like to try to answer some of these comments.

It attracts more players because the option will appeal to a group of players who like LL.

Your second point is a bit harder to reply to.  It starts as a logic chain that if you disagree with any part of it breaks.  For example, you say LL is a compleatly different game.  I’d disagree.  Most of the game is exactly the same.  Purchase, repair, combat moves, non-combat moves, placement, collecting income and so forth do not change one bit, only one part of the game (combat resolution) does.

Having tech/no tech dice/low luck to me is more like golden vs delicious vs granny smith than apples and oranges.

Everyone knows up front what the game rules default too, but I believe that the two players should be able to mutually agree to pretty much anything.  Afterall, the only function the league plays beyond letting players play in a structured enviroment is to determine seeding for playoff rounds.

Well while you’re correct about the fact that LL does not change the game entirely, I don’t agree 100% with you PGMatt.

Yes, the majority of the game remains the same. But the option “LL or regular” is altering the game much more than the option of “tech or no tech”.

So yes, it will attract more people because there are MANY people who like LL games. On the other hand there will be some few, who will quit the league. Overall, I expect to see a rise in players, although that’s just speculation.

I’d not go as far as arathorn, staying out of the league if LL is allowed. But I’d vote against it, if my opinion is of any worth.

@MrRoboto:

Well while you’re correct about the fact that LL does not change the game entirely, I don’t agree 100% with you PGMatt.

Yes, the majority of the game remains the same. But the option “LL or regular” is altering the game much more than the option of “tech or no tech”.

So yes, it will attract more people because there are MANY people who like LL games. On the other hand there will be some few, who will quit the league. Overall, I expect to see a rise in players, although that’s just speculation.

I’d not go as far as arathorn, staying out of the league if LL is allowed. But I’d vote against it, if my opinion is of any worth.

I think that ultimately it doesn’t matter. If say player X and Y decide to play a game at low luck. How does that affect your enjoyment of the game. Also ultimately it doesn’t really matter. Fact of the matter is that there will be enough players to do both ways.

LL will continue to NOT be the default
However, LL will be allowed in the 2014 league if both players want to play it.
This means that no player will EVER be forced to play LL against their will, so as Soulblighter said, it will not affect any current “ADS” or “regular dice” player’s enjoyment or experience in the league.

I do agree with Arathorn that it is apples and oranges.  I do not see much benefit in banning low luck from the league, though.

I think the ELO system could work looking at the 2013 statistics.  I’m not sure why some feel that we do have enough games played per person on average to accurately measure strength.  If you’re in the single digits played, then no, it’s probably not an accurate reflection, but most people on the list for 2013 have around 20 games played.  That’s plenty to get a decent idea of relative strengths.

I played another online game, Laser Squad Nemesis that was all PVP and used the ELO ranking.  It was turned based PBEM, wait for your opponent to play, etc.  Using ELO for turned out to be a fairly accurate measurement of a player.  You would gravitate up or down the ladder according to your skill.
Why I believe it works:  Yes, you could play only low-level players or players new to the board to try and gain points, but it only gets you so far.

1. Playing vs. new people to the ranking will only get you so far.  Assuming you win them all, you will get diminishing returns and will be forced to play higher-ranked players to advance.
2. If a player shoots to the top of the ladder through several quick victories, it was either well deserved, or they will start to lose and slide down.  Taking it easy and only playing lower-ranked players would give you little gain for great risk, and you wouldn’t advance your score as much as another top player playing vs. other similarly-ranked opponents.
3. It’s all based on math, without decisions being made on who should be in what tier; that’s all in your ranking number.
4. It would eliminate picking and choosing for the playoffs.  Four players were removed from the top to get down to the top 8.  Using ELO, they never would have been at the top.  It’s about score, not win %.  A
   Everyone started out with 1000 points.  Playing an equally pointed player would either give you +10 for a victory, or -10 for a loss.  As the points difference increased, you would get +8 for a win -12 for a loss for playing lower-ranked, and vice versa, up to a +20 -0 or +0 -20, which no one would ever do. 
   In sum, I believe there are a lot of false perceptions about how the ELO would not work in the context of A & A.  I feel it would do well for us and provide an accurate reflection of a player’s ability.

Now, because I’m new to the thread that is 10-pages long, I apologize if this system would be close enough to the proposed retro-active tier revisions.  Either way, I think the league will survive.  I also don’t want to propose a new system when someone else is doing all of the leg-work for free. (Thanks, Gamer!)