2015 League General Discussion Thread

With league growing, maybe we should talk about the league rules.

I’d suggest changing the language in Rule 5 from a 72 hour turn time to a 96 hour turn time.  I might resent it if I was bumped after 72 hours but probably less after 96 hours.  5 days (120) might also be worth discussing.

Thorny issue.  72 hours is plenty for a France/Anzac turn but inadequate for a USA/China/UK turn.

@Zhukov44:

With league growing, maybe we should talk about the league rules.

I’d suggest changing the language in Rule 5 from a 72 hour turn time to a 96 hour turn time.  I might resent it if I was bumped after 72 hours but probably less after 96 hours.  5 days (120) might also be worth discussing.

Thorny issue.  72 hours is plenty for a France/Anzac turn but inadequate for a USA/China/UK turn.

Obvious answer is different times for different powers.

Maybe 72 hours for Russia/Italy/Franceanzac.  120 hours for Germany, Japan, USA/China/UK.

Problem with that is sometimes Russia and Italy turns require long-term planning.  So I might want 96 hours on those too.

Good suggestion, Zhukov, and we will re-consider every line of the league rules at the end of the league year.
I am not aware of any complaints from anyone who’s been bumped to a loss.  In my observations, when people give 72 hour bumps they are usually warranted.  Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

But that said, I think the official limits deserve another look.  Myself, I’m not sure about the 9 day rule.  4 bumps takes 12 days.  I think the single absence bump should be like 14 days.  Anybody else have thoughts on the subject?

@Gamerman01:

Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

That is, in the event their bumped opponent returns and wishes to continue playing.

No one likes to be bumped, or bumped to a loss, if they wanted to play and just weren’t able or whatever, so we are very sensitive to this issue and would listen to protests.  On the other hand, of course, the bump rule is there to protect us all against abuses.

No one ever claims a win due to a single 9 day absence anyway.  Many players wait about 3-4 weeks of absence before claiming a win.

A question about the rules, it isn’t allowed not to place your purchased units when you can right?

Right.  And if you accidentally bought more units than you can place, you are refunded your money for the excess units.

Do you have access to the rulebook?  I can provide it for you if you don’t.

No its just that my opponent suddenly places units he bought in previous rounds. He didnt place thema cause they would have been killer easily

Yeah, you can’t do that
I actually don’t see it stated in the rulebook, but Krieghund, the rulebook in the flesh, has said you must place all units that you can place.

I see also the rulebook says complexes are never destroyed, but this isn’t true.  Any time a complex in China is captured by the Allies, it is destroyed.

It IS pretty clear from the rulebook that there can’t be carryover of units from round to round, however, as it mandates the refund of excess units purchased.

@Gamerman01:

It IS pretty clear from the rulebook that there can’t be carryover of units from round to round, however, as it mandates the refund of excess units purchased.

There is a TripA bug that if you purchase a facility upgrade that can’t be placed, it wont refund the cost either, for what it’s worth.  I know this one from experience, I was playing at a different resolution and clipped the upgrade major rather than buy minor and got hung up.

@Gamerman01:

@Gamerman01:

Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

No one ever claims a win due to a single 9 day absence anyway.  Many players wait about 3-4 weeks of absence before claiming a win.

Thanks for mentioning this. New people such as myself who don’t know the unspoken etiquette around here might think bumping after an opponent’s nine day absence is acceptable.

Maps, it is acceptable to claim a win after a 9 day absence. 
If your opponent comes back on day 10 and begs to continue, technically you don’t have to, but I’m pretty sure almost everyone would let them continue in normal circumstances (if he has been jerking you around all game)

And there’s the rub.  There’s a real chasm between what the rules allow and what will get you snarked at around here.  It’s confusing.  If we all agreed to play by certain rules, why the constant bickering over them?

Here’s what I’ve noticed, and it’s pretty consistent.  The worse your position in the game, the longer your moves take.  I do this myself, even, and I pride myself on playing fast.  Perhaps the rules should take that into consideration?

At the very least, we need some sort of clause that prevents someone posting in their other games, while simply pretending that the game they are losing doesn’t exist.

I don’t want to legislate sportsmanship, but I hear you

Bump rules are sufficient.  72 hour and 9 day rule will be re-visited

@Gamerman01:

Maps, it is acceptable to claim a win after a 9 day absence. 
If your opponent comes back on day 10 and begs to continue, technically you don’t have to, but I’m pretty sure almost everyone would let them continue in normal circumstances (if he has been jerking you around all game)

for what it is worth, I have never heard of a player being bumped to a loss complaining that the system is somehow unfair or that their opponent as Gamerman suggested, didn’t allow a continuation.

I have observed nearly all players allowing liberal continuations for vacations or any sort of stated needs for an extended absence. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against tightening our rules!

As an FYI…when the Bump rules were first introduced it was basically incorporated as a tool to keep end of year games moving along for players who wanted/needed to get that last win in for the playoffs etc… and as Shin Ji correctly stated, players, myself included, seem to slow down when things look hopeless…and with that said Zhukov, if our game isn’t completed as we near the end of the season I intend to capitulate as you clearly have the much stronger hand in our game…

@Gamerman01:

I am not aware of any complaints from anyone who’s been bumped to a loss.  In my observations, when people give 72 hour bumps they are usually warranted.  Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

But that said, I think the official limits deserve another look.  Myself, I’m not sure about the 9 day rule.  4 bumps takes 12 days.  I think the single absence bump should be like 14 days.  Anybody else have thoughts on the subject?

Yeah we’re lucky in that generally there is exceptional sportsmanship in this community and when there’s a bump it’s well warranted.

The league rules should reflect our norms and the practices we consider sportsmanlike, so in case a player arrives and starts bumping after 72 hours every time his/her opponent is absent, and then appeals to the rules as justification, then there won’t be a conflict.  I think 96 hours or 120 hours would be closer to the kind of time most of us feel we should give opponents before thinking about bumping the thread.

@JWW:

As an FYI…when the Bump rules were first introduced it was basically incorporated as a tool to keep end of year games moving along for players who wanted/needed to get that last win in for the playoffs etc… and as Shin Ji correctly stated, players, myself included, seem to slow down when things look hopeless…and with that said Zhukov, if our game isn’t completed as we near the end of the season I intend to capitulate as you clearly have the much stronger hand in our game…

I certainly slow down when I’m at a disadvantage so I can understand that.  Frankly, my average USA/China/Uk turn (whether I’m winning or losing) tends to take longer than 72 hours, so I probably wouldn’t like it if I was bumped after 72 hours when I’m deliberating on a major turn like that.

I’m not worried about our game JWW take all the time you need.

I wonder if it might be useful to have a sort of opt-in speedfreak clause?  Something where people who enjoy quick turnarounds like myself can be easily identified as such?  Because for me, to wait days for each turn is just … honestly I’d almost rather not play at that point.  So clearly we want to have room for different playstyles.

Of course, no one would be held to the turnaround times they self-report, it’s just a general guideline so that people find the best matches and such.