Game History
Round: 8 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 2 artilleries, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 9 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 1 transport moved from 21 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shantung to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Jehol to 20 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 fighters, 1 infantry, 1 submarine, 2 tactical_bombers and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 36 Sea Zone to Paulau 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 6 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Shantung to Kiangsi 1 artillery and 5 infantry moved from Anhwe to Kiangsi 3 artilleries, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangtung to Kiangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to Kiangsi 1 marine moved from Kwangtung to 21 Sea Zone 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 marine and 5 transports moved from 21 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 8 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 8 infantry and 1 marine moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 fighter moved from Japan to 22 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Japan to 36 Sea Zone Combat - Japanese Battle in 22 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport Japanese win with 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Japanese: 1 submarine Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer and 1 transport Battle in Kiangsi Japanese attack with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 9 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Chinese defend with 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Japanese win, taking Kiangsi from Chinese with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 25 Casualties for Japanese: 6 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Battle in 36 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports Americans defend with 1 destroyer Japanese win with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer Battle in Paulau Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Americans defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Paulau from Americans with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry Battle in Korea Japanese attack with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine Russians defend with 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Korea from Russians with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 aaGun moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 aaGun moved from Anhwe to Shantung 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 1 infantry, 1 marine and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Paulau to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to 6 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 22 Sea Zone to Davao Place Units - Japanese 3 infantry placed in Shantung 2 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry placed in Japan 1 destroyer placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 1 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 42 Sea Zone. Rolls: 1 Japanese collect 44 PUs (1 lost to blockades); end with 44 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 47 PUs Objective Japanese 4 Control Dutch East Indies: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 52 PUsLeague General Discussion Thread
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
point being, there are ways to not make the champion of a small pond look equal to the champion of the ocean
Well its not so much about that. Rather, I think playoffs generate excitement, in part, because people want the singular title of “league champion.” One big, end of year event for the entire community. Rather than balkanized proceedings.
-
@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
point being, there are ways to not make the champion of a small pond look equal to the champion of the ocean
Well its not so much about that. Rather, I think playoffs generate excitement, in part, because people want the singular title of “league champion.” One big, end of year event for the entire community. Rather than balkanized proceedings.
Unfortunately you would have to read through a couple hundred posts to get a picture of the entire argument. The new proposal does its best to include every potential player’s desires whereas what you are saying (similar to what we have now) excludes some preferences. If we just changed to BM default, then that would exclude people who prefer OOB (even if thats a small number in this community, it still excludes them).
-
Is the initial maximum games allowed vs one opponent still 3 with these playoff-qualification tweaks?
-
I see what you mean.
@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:
@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
point being, there are ways to not make the champion of a small pond look equal to the champion of the ocean
Well its not so much about that. Rather, I think playoffs generate excitement, in part, because people want the singular title of “league champion.” One big, end of year event for the entire community. Rather than balkanized proceedings.
Unfortunately you would have to read through a couple hundred posts to get a picture of the entire argument. The new proposal does its best to include every potential player’s desires whereas what you are saying (similar to what we have now) excludes some preferences. If we just changed to BM default, then that would exclude people who prefer OOB (even if thats a small number in this community, it still excludes them).
-
Good discussion. One that needed to be had. But on a side note the more playoffs there are the longer it will take to crown a champ. The playoffs already take quite some time. And being crowned a 2021 champion when its almost 2023 loses a little something in my book.
-
@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:
Good discussion. One that needed to be had. But on a side note the more playoffs there are the longer it will take to crown a champ. The playoffs already take quite some time. And being crowned a 2021 champion when its almost 2023 loses a little something in my book.
Dont think that makes any sense. Still a best of 8 which is no change from what we have now. Playoffs are usually over by middle of the year (3 games).
-
@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:
Is there really enough interest to support separate playoffs for all three? I doubt it. Keeping the playoffs unified with a default map (probably the most played map from that year) prevents fracturing and ensures a robust pool of players. Also maintains the prestige of a single title of “league champion” rather than a bunch of mini titles that were contested by only a smattering of people.
Each game is different, but as others have state, the skillset you use to win is largely transferable between them–justifying a single title.
For this reason I support Gamerman’s proposal. Three separate standings. One end-of-year tourney.
3 standings, 1 play off?
then why do u need 3 standings at all?
-
@amon-sul 3 standings, 3 playoffs
-
@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:
@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:
Good discussion. One that needed to be had. But on a side note the more playoffs there are the longer it will take to crown a champ. The playoffs already take quite some time. And being crowned a 2021 champion when its almost 2023 loses a little something in my book.
Dont think that makes any sense. Still a best of 8 which is no change from what we have now. Playoffs are usually over by middle of the year (3 games).
yeah, even if u participate in 2 or 3 play offs, u play ur games at the same time, and more or less with the same pace. so no time problem here
-
-
For the record, I am supportive of the idea of allowing a lower number of games played for OOB than BM. In the event that BM or P2V fall out of favour through the year they may need differing minimum numbers of relevant games played. We also need to clarify the default rule as BM4 (I would presume) for that playoff. P2V may change through the year so we probably need to decide how to handle that potential issue. OOB with a bid for allies is clear enough at present.
The idea that I do disagree with is OOB games counting toward your BM minimum and all ways around.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas Thanks!
-
I really enjoy reading this discussion and am a huge fan of it. We are going in the right direction and it is neccessary to make a change. But i am also a fan of K.I.S.S., Keep It Simple as Someonewhowantstoplayget’stoplayit.
I would also recommend to Design a League badge wich is for free but makes the Player recognizable about his prefrence he has in game versions he plays.
Infantry man for OoB, Mech for BM and Arty for PtV. Also a Tank for a multi Player who plays all three versions.
This makes it easier to find the peoole with the same game style and also helps maybe Gamerman01 to distinguish us in our preferences.
My few cents on All that for now. -
@aequitas-et-veritas Cool idea with the badges :)
-
If we use badges to represent our interest, then we need to have badge for each possible combination. For example, some players (including myself) might be interested in BM and PoV but not OoB. My recommendation would be:
Infantry = OoB
Arty = BM
Tank = PtV
Sub = OoB + BM
DD = OoB + PtV
CA = BM + PtV
BB = OoB + BM + PtV -
@artofwar1947 said in League General Discussion Thread:
If we use badges to represent our interest, then we need to have badge for each possible combination.
Think that brings on unnecessary many combinations.
I’d prefer AqeV’s suggestion where for instance a tank represents all three variants. For those who prefer only two versions it’s ok to have two badges.
-
That works.
-
Saw a post about bombers costing 14 points somewhere back in this thread I think. Is this official? Where is it posted and what is its status? Is it BM or PTV?
-
@fmerwinrommel it’s the latest BM3 update
-
Good news - rankings updated by version for 2021!
Overall combined ranking sheet still to be set up later - it’s not needed yet anyway.
The changes will be formalized in the league rules at some point. Until then, if you have any questions just PM me or ask on the boards and someone who’s read my posts may be able to help you.I will use the same method as before, for establishing early rankings. That is, if you didn’t finish 3 games last year, I will find your most recent “firm” ranking (year where you had 3 games completed) and subtract 1 tier. If you completed 3 games last year, your tier carries over to this year. If you’ve never completed 3 games in a year or you were tier 3 last year, you start this year tier 3.
When you reach 3 games in a version in 2021, your tier will change to reflect your 2021 PPG rather than your previous year’s tier. There are a few exceptions, where I make a judgment call that does not follow these rules, in the spirit of making the rankings more accurate (generally when a player is clearly better than tier 3 but according to these rules because of few games played would otherwise be assigned tier 3)





