@Amon-Sul GL&HF
scramble?
ddc3c7fc-0b2f-4c55-80d6-0229dae97cd7-image.png
2017 League General Discussion Thread
-
-
WOW guys think I just had the most successful G1 in League history against Mallery! HOW DO I BOTTLE THIS?
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40897.0
Combat - Germans
Battle in Yugoslavia
Germans roll 5/13 hits
Neutral_Allies roll dice for 5 infantry in Yugoslavia, round 2 : 0/5 hits
5 infantry owned by the Neutral_Allies lost in Yugoslavia
Germans win, Battle score for attacker is 15
Casualties for Neutral_Allies: 5 infantry
No German CasualtiesBattle in 111 Sea Zone
Germans attack with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 1 fighter, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber
British defend with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and 1 fighter
Germans roll dice for 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber in 111 Sea Zone, round 2 : 4/4 hits
British roll dice for 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and 1 fighter in 111 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/4 hits
Battle score for attacker is 40
Casualties for British: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer
No German CasualtiesBattle in 110 Sea Zone
Germans attack with 1 bomber, 3 fighters, 2 submarines and 3 tactical_bombers
French defend with 1 cruiser; British defend with 1 battleship and 1 cruiser
Germans roll dice for 2 submarines in 110 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/2 hits
Germans roll dice for 1 bomber, 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers in 110 Sea Zone, round 2 : 4/7 hits
British roll dice for 1 battleship and 2 cruisers in 110 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/3 hits
1 battleship owned by the British, 1 submarine owned by the Germans, 1 cruiser owned by the British and 1 cruiser
owned by the French lost in 110 Sea Zone
Germans win with 1 bomber, 3 fighters, 1 submarine and 3 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 38
Casualties for French: 1 cruiser
Casualties for Germans: 1 submarine
Casualties for British: 1 battleship and 1 cruiserBattle in Normandy Bordeaux
Germans win, taking Normandy Bordeaux from French with 1 armour and 1 artillery remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4
Casualties for French: 1 artillery and 1 infantry
Casualties for Germans: 1 infantryBattle in 106 Sea Zone
Germans win, taking 106 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 submarine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 9
Casualties for Germans: 1 submarine
Casualties for British: 1 destroyer and 1 transportBattle in France
Germans win, taking France from French with 5 armour, 2 artilleries, 5 infantry and 4 mech_infantrys remaining. Battle score for attacker is 50
Casualties for French: 1 aaGun, 1 armour, 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 6 infantry
Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry
Casualties for British: 1 armour and 1 artilleryTOTAL GERMAN CASUALTIES: 2 submarines, 2 infantry = 18 IPC’s
TOTAL ALLIED CASUALTIES: 12 infantry, 3 artillery, 1 AAA, 2 armor, 1 fgt, 1 transport 2 destroyers, 1 fighter, 3 Cruisers, 2 Battleships 184 IPC’sThis has to be some kind of record! Poor Mallery!
For all the people crying about ‘when france goes bad’ or ‘should Germany get a Mulligan’ The allies deserve one here man.
-
Wow. You even sent an extra sub to 106! I never risk that anymore.
-
Poor Mallery.
Must be a record though. -
Like you said, you should probably give Mallery a mulligan :-)
Never mind all the other results, I have never heard of anyone taking France and losing less than 4 infantry. And you only lost 1.
-
-
the new version 7398 works for me now. Just a bit annoying that the battle calculator runs just 200 calculations by default now.
-
the new version 7398 works for me now. Just a bit annoying that the battle calculator runs just 200 calculations by default now.
Relying on calculators instead of your GUT? Pfftp; and I thought you were somebody JDOW! ;)
-
How do you fix the dice issue after installing the new program? I have been using internal, but need it fixed….
-
@wittmann:
Poor Mallery.
Must be a record though.France=Wolf359
At least I got some good insults on his mother before I died!!!
-
I guess I’m the only one who upvotes Trek references :lol:
On an unrelated note, quick question: are playoff games meant to count towards league standings?
-
On an unrelated note, quick question: are playoff games meant to count towards league standings?
Yes. That was the clear popular opinion at the time it was debated.
-
Similar to the ANZAC DOW loophole, there seems to be “feature” in the rules that if USA DOWs at the collect income phase of its third turn it can similarly block Japanese transports from loading. Is that correct? Pretty sure it is.
-
Similar to the ANZAC DOW loophole, there seems to be “feature” in the rules that if USA DOWs at the collect income phase of its third turn it can similarly block Japanese transports from loading. Is that correct? Pretty sure it is.
Technically yes, but with a massive caveat.
This could only work with Japanese land units on German or Italian territory, because before it’s at war the US can’t end the movement of sea units in SZs adjacent to Japanese-controlled territory.
-
Similar to the ANZAC DOW loophole, there seems to be “feature” in the rules that if USA DOWs at the collect income phase of its third turn it can similarly block Japanese transports from loading. Is that correct? Pretty sure it is.
Technically yes, but with a massive caveat.
This could only work with Japanese land units on German or Italian territory, because before it’s at war the US can’t end the movement of sea units in SZs adjacent to Japanese-controlled territory.
Yeah, just realised that.
-
Does anyone else find it odd that the top two tiers now have more ranked players than the other three combined?
Is there any thought to increase the PPG required to go up a tier, like another 0.5PPG? i.e. 6 for M, 5 for E etc. That would make it much harder to get into M & E.
Hope I haven’t posted this before.
-
If every tier had a 0.5 PPG higher threshold than now, that might cause a chain reaction that leaving no players at all in tier M (admittedly, I’m not sure and I’m also too lazy to try to prove it :lol:)
-
-
Interesting - I just received a message from a guy who copied this system for their group, and he said they add .01 to the requirement of the bottom of the tier (in other words, 3.5 or 2.5 stays in the lower tier). Right now we just have 2 players with a combined 12 games (at 5.5, 4.5), so not sure a little tweak like that would make much difference for us. I will evaluate the rankings when forming the rules for the next league year - I’m certainly not going to change horses mid-stream.
Simon you know full well you just raised a tier and caused a huge chain reaction with your extreme 75 games, and this is a big reason why as of today there are 17 players with 8+ games finished that are in tier M or E while only 13 in #1-3 :lol:
Consider this - “ranked” players are those with 8+ games finished. Players who play more games are more likely to be the more skilled players because they have more experience, and because the better you are at the game, the more you want to play it.
Just look at yourself, Mr. 75 games :) You’ve been improving the more you play the game, and have now risen to tier 1. So it stands to reason that people who have 8+ games for the year would on average be ranked higher - they’re better players on the whole.
-
Actually, I think it’s great that we have 17 “ranked” players in M and E and very few tier 3.
Is there some reason it’s desirable to have an even distribution through the tiers?
I do understand interest in making “M” and “E” rarer, so that it’s a more elite club. After all, if everybody’s getting an “A” in the class, then getting an “A” in the class doesn’t mean anything. If everybody’s a millionaire, then being a millionaire doesn’t mean much.But I’ll put it to you this way - who in the “Master” tier do you believe is not a master of the game, and who in the elite tier do you believe is not really an elite player? I don’t know of any :-)
Suggested Topics
