League General Discussion Thread

@gamerman01 we need one more to sign up. Karl7 posted above to join as well.

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@aequitas-et-veritas said in League General Discussion Thread:

@gamerman01 we need one more to sign up. Karl7 posted above to join as well.

Good catch, but Karl private messaged with me today and isn’t interested in the 2nd playoff.

Yeah, sorry guys. Normally I would but work work work is my game these days. If I had made the top 8, I’d try to make it work…

Things should calm down by Spring and I will get back into it Karl7 Style… Kill Kill Kill!

But for now I am trying to wind down my games. AV is catching me short right and left in our current game!

Are there established bid rules for league games?

I always thought bid rules were

1. Can place units in territories that you (the power that is placing units i.e. russia, uk, etc.) control and occupy. e.g russia cant place units in territories that arent controlled by Russia. e.g. Anzac inf NG.

2. Can place units in friendly sea zones where you already have units. e.g. Russia cant place a sub in z21.

Maybe this is somewhere else but hard to find since you cant search in the league thread.

@ksmckay this is what the rules say:

4b Bidding - Bidding is normally used to ensure that both players are satisfied with the side they are playing. Bidding is not required - whatever the players agree to, for mutually satisfactory rules and starting conditions, is allowed.

Default settings for bidding:

Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone.
The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.
China is limited to bid units of: Infantry, Artillery and/or Fighters (the units China is legally able to purchase or start the game with.) These units are still limited to movement/placement restrictions of Chinese units.

Based on that, there are situations where you could place a bid unit in land territories that you don’t control but in which you have units. That is limited to France, Egypt, and Malaya I think. But there aren’t many of those. As these are default rules, it also depends on what is mutually agreeable to the two players.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

Are there established bid rules for league games?

I always thought bid rules were

1. Can place units in territories that you (the power that is placing units i.e. russia, uk, etc.) control and occupy. e.g russia cant place units in territories that arent controlled by Russia. e.g. Anzac inf NG.

2. Can place units in friendly sea zones where you already have units. e.g. Russia cant place a sub in z21.

Maybe this is somewhere else but hard to find since you cant search in the league thread.

sorry meaning that Anzac inf NG is not an allowable placement.

ok great.

Mainly thinking about anzac inf NG which I think is a common bid but according to the rules is not allowed.

But if both players agree to it than its fine.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

ok great.

Mainly thinking about anzac inf NG which I think is a common bid but according to the rules is not allowed.

But if both players agree to it than its fine.

Yeah. I’ve seen that a number of times and haven’t thought much about it but it does look like one can argue against it and insist on default bidding rules. I’m newish to the league so there may be others that have a better sense of whether the rules were adjusted to allow for that.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

sorry meaning that Anzac inf NG is not an allowable placement.

I think this should be enforced for the playoffs.

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

Mutual agreement is key. If both players agree upon a diversion from the rules, of any kind within the general rules, it’s of course ok.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

I think they’re actually quite clear and straight-forward. A player can always push for the default rules to be active.

Distinction: League rules and game rules (general above).

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

I think they’re actually quite clear and straight-forward. A player can always push for the default rules to be active.

I meant I am fine with adjusting things. The existing rule is not unclear. But if it needs to be changed (or players want it changed), then it should be changed. And I think the beginning of the year is an appropriate time for such a discussion.

Years and years ago, bidding was wide open, players could place anything, anywhere they wanted, which led to multiple units being stacked or placed in strategic locations. That was changed to the one unit only, being allowed to be placed in territories which already had a unit of that country…
I for one, wouldn’t mind go back to a wide open bid placement, w/BM, bids are much less, so stacking would be minimized anyway…

@666 Took me a second to find it, but one of the reasons I was reminded of this was a discussion you and JDOW had in

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33804/jdow-vs-jww-666-allies-6-game-2/271

JDOW tried to bid inf NG, and you rejected it.

A ton of games include this as a bid and I just think if the community is ok with it then change the rules or something (even if just for playoffs). I just dont see the point in having a rule that is only followed when convenient. Either its the rule or it isn’t.

Its just a game of course but I didnt want to bid a certain way and then find out my bid is illegal and have second thoughts about my bid.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

@666 Took me a second to find it, but one of the reasons I was reminded of this was a discussion you and JDOW had in

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33804/jdow-vs-jww-666-allies-6-game-2/271

JDOW tried to bid inf NG, and you rejected it.

A ton of games include this as a bid and I just think if the community is ok with it then change the rules or something (even if just for playoffs). I just dont see the point in having a rule that is only followed when convenient. Either its the rule or it isn’t.

Its just a game of course but I didnt want to bid a certain way and then find out my bid is illegal and have second thoughts about my bid.

the current rule set basically says if the two players agree then go for it, that works for me too…

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

While I agree that it doesn’t break the game, I would say that it is a negative for gameplay. Just makes it too easy for ANZAC to collect its objectives.

More generally, I think the rule is correct the way it is and shouldn’t be changed. Just needs greater enforcement. However, if people feel differently, I guess it could be changed.

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.

While I agree that it doesn’t break the game, I would say that it is a negative for gameplay. Just makes it too easy for ANZAC to collect its objectives.

More generally, I think the rule is correct the way it is and shouldn’t be changed. Just needs greater enforcement. However, if people feel differently, I guess it could be changed.

That’s not different from using a sub in sz98 to destroy the Italian fleet easier.