League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

Bit late to this conversation I suppose, but I’d throw these thoughts in.

The way I have read this thread, most of the comments are directed toward the league rules.  I think there should be discusion about what people want the league to look at, rather than the actual details of the rules.  Come up with a philosophy and then let Jen and Gamer draft a rule set.

For me, the attraction of online league play is the ability to play a pile of games in a short time and try all kinds of crazy stuff I wouldn’t want to try in a 2 or 3 times a year get together ftf.

So, I’d like to see a league framework that is wide open, rather than detailed, to make it as inclusive as possible.

Tech, tech tokens, LL, bids for tech.  All of these have had opinions given on.  Totally agree that we need a base line, but after that everything permitted in the rules should be fair game for two willing players.

This year has seen an explosion of players; it would be a real shame to chase away new people just because their prefered style of play isn’t an option.

what i meant by objective allweneed is that there is an actual cutoff for each tier.  what that cutoff IS is subjective yes, but the cutoff itself is objective.

@allweneedislove:

@alexgreat:

@Seth: I can see why tiers are practical, but do they dont feel very objective…who is tier 2, who is tier 3, who draws the borders and where, which exceptions should apply etc. If tiers are necessary to decide how much a win is worth, then there should at least be an objective way to create them, easy to understand for all players.
Surely not easy to find a better system than the one we have, though, and I dont claim I have one. More sophisticated systems also would likely need much more work from the ones doing the rankings, and you cannot ask more from them with the current commitment so high already. Using the current ranks of both players as modifiers of base points and bonus points for beating the qualifying positions surely sounds like a lot of work, for example.

@Boldfresh:

gamer draws the lines very clearly between tiers - so that is objective no?

no, gamerman�s opinion is the opposite of objective, it is subjective.

@Gamerman01:

The purpose of retroactive points is to correct for earlier inaccurate ratings.  I understand the downside is that you could be getting “free” points by the fact that a guy you beat earlier has improved.  As far as losing points because your past opponent later did something stupid or got diced - I say that will work itself out.  If he’s really tier 1 quality and dipped to tier 2, then he will win and get back to tier 1 and you will get your points back.  This is one of the reasons I am slow to change tiers on somebody, like when Bold was tier 1 all year but reported some losses and got all the way down to about 3.3.  Again, this is where human beats computer.  I figured he would win some games and get back to tier 1, and also he told me he was winning some games.  He is already up to 3.43.,

gamerman�s knowledge of history of players is a great asset.

@Boldfresh:

i think that once a player is a known quantity to gamer he can assign a tier value to that player.  if gamer has a record to go on for the previous year, he can feel pretty comfortable making that determination.  I think a good compromise would be to make 5 tiers.  give new players tier 1 status for the first 5 games, then have gamer adjust the tier as appropriate.  no retroactive changes in points after the new tier change.  then if there is further improvement over the next 5 games the player could be moved up again…

i also have faith in gamerman�s assessments
@Boldfresh:

…remember, the goal for all of this is to give the best approximation of skill levels in the league so good matches can be found and a rightful champion can be crowned right?

i agree

@Boldfresh:

if someone thinks gamer would make changes in tiers without good reason, i challenge them to show me once that it happens.

i dont think anyone could challenge gamerman’s ethics as he has always shown to do the right thing.

gamerman has done yeoman’s work in creating and maintaining the rankings.

gamerman, i think you have done an excellent job assigning tiers and no one can challenge this as it appears you do it without bias and are always accurate over time.

despite the accuracy of gamerman i think we should move to a tier system based on ppg.
this would

1. alleviate any new player�s concerns that do not know gamerman
2. be easier on gamerman
3. allow the league to continue in gamerman�s absence. gamerman might not always be around. i know he has been a fixture for many years but we never know if/when he has to take an extended break from the league for personal reasons, loses interest, or just does not have enough time.
4. transparency for all
5. becomes objective(not necessarily better than subjective for the reasons we have pointed out above)

assuming we still use gamerman�s point per game system i would suggest

tier 4 is 0-1.49ppg
tier 3 is 1.5-2.49ppg
tier 2 is 2.5-3.49ppg
tier 1 is 3.5+ppg

i am interested to hear everyone�s opinion on this but have particular interest in what gamerman has to say.

gamerman would you feel like this makes things easier on you? would you feel like some of your power and influence has been taken away?

forgive me allweneed - but i don’t understand what change to gamer’s current system you are proposing?  i had proposed a change by making 5 tiers rather than 4 so that a new player could be assigned to middle tier upon entry.

Now, with philosophy stated, I’d like to throw my 2 cents in for base line league play

Bid Allies, no unit removal, below zero bids go to Axis.  (IE:  I’ll give you axis with +3)
Full unit placement, so only save 1 or 2 IPC.
1 unit per space, land or sea.
Must have a unit present, and only units of the same nationalit(ies) in the space permitted.  (I bid Russian Inf France!!)
Tech off

@Boldfresh:

forgive me allweneed - but i don’t understand what change to gamer’s current system you are proposing?  i had proposed a change by making 5 tiers rather than 4 so that a new player could be assigned to middle tier upon entry.

no need to appologize, it was a very long post with many quotes and the suggestion was slipped in near the end and not emphasized.

i suggest that the tiers should be based solely on points per game and not based on gamerman’s knowledge.

@Boldfresh:

what i meant by objective allweneed is that there is an actual cutoff for each tier.  what that cutoff IS is subjective yes, but the cutoff itself is objective.

currently there are not actual cutoffs for each tier, they are assessed by gamerman. if you check the rankings as of right now there are some players with higher point per games in lower tiers than others ranked members.

@PGMatt:

For me, the attraction of online league play is the ability to play a pile of games in a short time and try all kinds of crazy stuff I wouldn’t want to try in a 2 or 3 times a year get together ftf.

thanks for sharing. it is interesting to hear how others want/use the league. this is my main source of axis and allies these days, so i try to use my best strategies.

@PGMatt:

So, I’d like to see a league framework that is wide open, rather than detailed, to make it as inclusive as possible.

Tech, tech tokens, LL, bids for tech. � All of these have had opinions given on. � Totally agree that we need a base line, but after that everything permitted in the rules should be fair game for two willing players.

This year has seen an explosion of players; it would be a real shame to chase away new people just because their prefered style of play isn’t an option.

i definitely agree that we should have a base line and then allow for many other options to be more inclusive and have more diverse gameplay.

i think the baseline should be regular dice, selection of sides with an ipc bid, and no tech.
but allow league members to have more diverse game play with tech, tech tokens, lowluck, different style bids.

@Cmdr:

A.� You are bidding for units to be placed at the start of the game.
B.� Bids are for the allies, negative bids are not allowed.
C.� You must place as much of the IPC awarded to you for winning the bid on the board prior to the start of the game.� (ie, you may ONLY retain 1 or 2 IPC to be spent during your first round’s purchases.)

NEW:
D.� You may not bid units for China (therefore no risk of stacking Yunnan, no question on if you can bid a second fighter, etc.� Don’t even have to worry about if they can bid for tanks or artillery or flying foo-foo pink bunnies with huge teeth and thus Japan won’t need Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch to win.� This is humor of course!)
E.� You are limited to 3 units in any specific territory or sea zone from your bid.� (Regardless of what is present already, you may only add up to three more) and these units can only be placed in a territory or sea zone that you control and start with at least one unit in at the start of the game.
F.� No bid units in Victory Cities (there, problem of stacking France, etcetera fixed.)

Showing up late to the discussion, but-

Most of these seem like solutions looking for problems.  If the rules allow for players to do some things that seem odd, but the records show they aren’t actually doing these things, then there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to add extra rules to prohibit the nonexistent behavior.  Ideally we want the fewest rules as possible to keep the league enjoyable, and I am seldom in favor of rules that prohibit a lot of good moves just to prohibit a minority of bad moves.  Or in other words, why do I have to get banned from placing a UK INF/ART combo in Alexandria to attack Tobruk just because somebody else is worried over having 3 Chinese INF in Yunnan?

My version of these proposed changes would probably be-
A: Same.
B: Same, unless you want to add that instead of going negative you’re now just doing increasing positive bids for the other side.
C: Not needed.
D: Not needed, but since China is inherently made weird by the game rules, I could support limiting them to units they could actually build, INF/ART.
E: The 3-unit cap is not needed, the rest is sensible and makes things more consistent between land/naval bid placements (even though this kills the ANZAC New Guinea move).
F: Not needed.  Note that this rule would also prevent bid units being placed in London and Cairo, which I haven’t heard anybody complaining about as a problem- a good example of the toss the baby out with the bathwater issue that can come up when you try too hard to fix things.

@allweneedislove:

currently there are not actual cutoffs for each tier, they are assessed by gamerman. if you check the rankings as of right now there are some players with higher point per games in lower tiers than others ranked members.

I thought there was a clear breakpoint for each tier, and if there are any players then in the wrong tier, it’s because Gamerman is expecting them to end up in the right one after a few more games are posted.

Eggman!!!  Long time no see

Right, there are actual cutoffs for tiers.  1.50, 2.50, and 3.50.  You have great points about it needing to be uniform in case I disappear.
Eggman is right.  The exceptions are because I do retroactive changes, and because I am waiting to see if the dip or spike is temporary.  Also, players with less than 4 games may be assigned, temporarily, a different tier than their PPG.  Retroactive tier changes and points corrects for these temporary judgment calls.

@PGMatt:

Bit late to this conversation I suppose, but I’d throw these thoughts in…
Bid Allies, no unit removal, below zero bids go to Axis. � (IE: � I’ll give you axis with +3)
Full unit placement, so only save 1 or 2 IPC.
1 unit per space, land or sea.
Must have a unit present, and only units of the same nationalit(ies) in the space permitted. � (I bid Russian Inf France!!)
Tech off

@Eggman:

Showing up late to the discussion, but-

Most of these seem like solutions looking for problems.  If the rules allow for players to do some things that seem odd, but the records show they aren’t actually doing these things, then there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to add extra rules to prohibit the nonexistent behavior.  Ideally we want the fewest rules as possible to keep the league enjoyable, and I am seldom in favor of rules that prohibit a lot of good moves just to prohibit a minority of bad moves.  Or in other words, why do I have to get banned from placing a UK INF/ART combo in Alexandria to attack Tobruk just because somebody else is worried over having 3 Chinese INF in Yunnan?

My version of these proposed changes would probably be-
A: Same.
B: Same, unless you want to add that instead of going negative you’re now just doing increasing positive bids for the other side.
C: Not needed.
D: Not needed, but since China is inherently made weird by the game rules, I could support limiting them to units they could actually build, INF/ART.
E: The 3-unit cap is not needed, the rest is sensible and makes things more consistent between land/naval bid placements (even though this kills the ANZAC New Guinea move).
F: Not needed.  Note that this rule would also prevent bid units being placed in London and Cairo, which I haven’t heard anybody complaining about as a problem- a good example of the toss the baby out with the bathwater issue that can come up when you try too hard to fix things.

eggman and pgmatt, i know you guys say you are showing up a bit late. what do you think about the following template for determining sides.
i think it is clear for even beginners to the league to understand what this whole “bid thing” is and how it works.

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.

Bids
Bids are an IPC amount that is added at game setup.
The player that received the bid can divide up the bid IPCs among the powers that he/she controls as they see fit.
The player can use the bid IPCs to purchase units pregame or add to the powers existing IPCs.
Purchased units can only be placed in territories or sea zones that currently have units from that power.
***No more than one bid unit can be added to any one territory or sea zone.***i am not sure if this should be standard but there seems to be support for this

Optional bid rules if both players agree to the option.

Players can add restrictions to bids such as but not limited to;
no bid IPCs can be added to a specific power, such as China,
all IPCs must be used to purchase units pregame and not allowed to be added to a powers existing IPCs,
certain territories or sea zones may not have units added to them,
No more than one unit purchased with bid IPCs can be added to any one territory or sea zone.

Players can add optional styles to the bids such as but not limited to;
adding a specific technology breakthrough to a power,
adding a specific unit to a specific territory, such as a Soviet bomber to start in Moscow,
a certain power will/will not declare war on specific turn.
units purchased with bid IPCs can be placed in territories that you control that do not already have existing units,
units purchased with bid IPCs can be added to friendly powers territories,
units purchased with bid IPCs can be added to any sea zone.

Bids that alter rules of the game manual are not allowed.

In my (limited) experience the side preference usually depends on the bid though, e.g. I’ll play allies if I get at least +10, otherwise I’d rather play axis.

@bmnielsen:

In my (limited) experience the side preference usually depends on the bid though, e.g. I’ll play allies if I get at least +10, otherwise I’d rather play axis.

I’d agree with this.  I’m not looking to play a side because I think it has an advantage, but just for an even game.

Allweneed seems to me to be proposing an extra step, that the bid process assumes.  Since the perception is that Axis are favored, the bid process starts with the assumption that both players want to maximize their change to win and will therefore default to Axis.

Under Allweneed’s proposal, he’s allowing players’ to bypass this and just say, “I want to play A or B”.

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.

I don’t see why we need to change the system anyway.

Positive bids for Axis happen very rarely and I don’t see why it should be forbidden.
Bid stacking in one territory doesn’t seem to happen either. Most players use the one-unit-per-territory rule anyway. And imho it should stay this way.

One could argue about allowing two units per territory. Maybe as long as it isn’t Yunnan or France. But, as Eggman, I think complicating the rules is not necessary. The game map can be balanced quite easily with 1 unit / terr.

The only thing I personally think is worth discussing is, if we allow units on land without existing units present (suriname or guinea mostly). I don’t have a problem with that, but that’s just my opinion.

Good point, PG

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto

I believe Jenn and I agree that land bids will continue to be allowed on empty territories, while naval bids will require a unit present

I am in favor of 1 unit/territory/sea zone because I don’t believe bidding is supposed to be a strategic way to win the game.  I don’t think you should be able to surprise your opponent with a 15 bid by plopping 5 infantry on France or Yunnan or something.
I wouldn’t mandate 1 unit/area, but I think it should be set as the league default.  Like unless the players agree to something different.

The whole purpose of bidding is to make both players happy with their side and starting setup.

I’ll throw in my 2 cents to give the perspective of a new league player.

I agree that there should be a well-defined set of “default” bidding rules, but nothing needs to be disallowed completely. This allows us to bid in shorthand (“Allies +12”) and know what that means, but also be able to agree on other bidding rules if desired.

The current ranking system works, so I don’t see any reason to invest a lot of time coming up with something that (at best) would only be incrementally better. If anyone is seriously unhappy with the current system, there’s nothing stopping them from creating a new one and plugging all of the data into it. The majority of the discussion of alternate systems is speculation, so some hard evidence would help the cause of anyone promoting a change.

One suggestion I have for Gamerman is to just add a small “legend” table with the points awarded for wins/losses against the various tiers on the spreadsheet. Right now if you don’t know what they are, you either have to dig through a discussion thread or reverse engineer the awarded points to figure it out.

Low luck is kind of a tricky one, because it really depends on how different you consider the two games. Obviously if the games really are as different as football and soccer, it doesn’t make sense to mix the two in the same league, but this feels like a stretch to me. I’ve only experimented a little with LL, but I’d presume that the overall “game IQ” and tactics are similar, it’s really just the math of grinding the odds that is changing. So maybe it’s more akin to American football vs. Canadian football, to further abuse the professional sports analogy :)

Anyway, since it’s all speculation right now with no games actually played, I’d rather we just allow it initially and come back to it later if it starts becoming a “problem” in some way. Obviously it needs to be made clear that dice is the default, will likely be what is played in the playoffs, etc. If people are worried that a good LL player will rise to the top of the rankings without playing dice, there are ways of mitigating that - limits on what % of games may be LL, adding a ladder-type challenge system to the league so you can challenge players above you in the rankings, etc. But I really think we shouldn’t assume there will be problems with it until it actually happens.

Someone mentioned triplea bugs. Are there any bugs that are particularly annoying for the league? I’m not familiar with the code base but I do Java programming for a living, so I might be able to submit a patch or two.

Finally, thanks to everyone putting in the time to run the league, it’s very appreciated!

Thanks for the thoughtful input, nielsen
Yes there are a slew of Triple A bugs

Here is the link to my list
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cS3hFwoBP0rWr3208jw1LAtCvHYa9Ji9uU8PwbCMIwM/edit?pli=1

Many of them are important.  We should include a link to this list with the league rules post at the beginning of the league year so that everyone reading the league rules will also be alerted to all of these issues.