Game History
Round: 3 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 3 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Politics - Americans Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Western United States Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Western United States Combat Move - Americans Trigger Americans Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Americans 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima Combat - Americans Battle in Iwo Jima Non Combat Move - Americans 1 artillery, 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima 2 carriers and 4 fighters moved from 7 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Western United States to 10 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 10 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands 1 fighter moved from Aleutian Islands to Siberia 2 bombers moved from Alaska to Siberia 1 bomber moved from Western United States to Siberia 1 armour moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Gibraltar 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 86 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 86 Sea Zone to Brazil Americans take Brazil from Neutral_Allies 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone Place Units - Americans 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone 1 transport placed in 10 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 infantry placed in Western United States Turn Complete - Americans Americans collect 53 PUs; end with 53 PUs Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 63 PUs Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 68 PUs Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 73 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed Chinese buy 2 infantry; Remaining resources: 2 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter and 11 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar Chinese take Chahar from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar 1 fighter moved from Chahar to Suiyuyan Combat - Chinese Non Combat Move - Chinese Place Units - Chinese 2 infantry placed in Suiyuyan Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 8 PUs; end with 10 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers and 2 fighters moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Egypt to 97 Sea Zone 2 destroyers moved from 81 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Tobruk to Libya British take Libya from Italians 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Egypt to 98 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Trans-Jordan to 98 Sea Zone 2 artilleries, 2 infantry and 2 transports moved from 98 Sea Zone to 76 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from 76 Sea Zone to Ethiopia 1 battleship moved from 76 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Egypt to Ethiopia Combat - British Battle in 97 Sea Zone British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers, 3 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber Italians defend with 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports British win, taking 97 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is 55 Casualties for British: 1 tactical_bomber Casualties for Italians: 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports Battle in Ethiopia British attack with 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Italians defend with 1 artillery and 3 infantry 1 armour owned by the British retreated to Anglo Egyptian Sudan Italians win with 1 artillery and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is -8 Casualties for British: 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Casualties for Italians: 2 infantry Non Combat Move - British 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 2 fighters moved from West India to 80 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from 97 Sea Zone to Egypt 1 fighter moved from 97 Sea Zone to Malta 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to Egypt 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to United Kingdom 1 artillery and 4 infantry moved from Iraq to Persia 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Iraq 3 aaGuns, 1 armour, 1 artillery, 9 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to Eastern Persia Place Units - British 1 carrier and 1 destroyer placed in 80 Sea Zone 1 infantry placed in Persia 2 infantry placed in Egypt Turn Complete - British British collect 33 PUs; end with 33 PUs Turn Complete - UK_PacificLeague 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.
-
Brilliant points -
I am liking the idea of a different threshhold of games required for the “league champion” for each version, with it remaining at 8 for BM, and to be evaluated later in the year (like July 1 plus or minus a couple months) for OOB and P2V. It might be 5 for those, but will be much easier to set an appropriate threshhold after months of results.
Don’t forget, the threshhold for participating in playoffs is only 3 games - you just can’t compete in the top, official championship one.
In other words, I don’t want it so that someone could play, say, 3 games of OOB, 3 games of P2V, and 3 games of BM and then compete in all 3 of the “main” or “1st tier” or “official” playoff at the top. But that player could compete in the 2nd level playoffs in all 3 games. I’m putting my thoughts out there because you can change my mind, but I’m telling you what I’m leaning towards now.
I know some of you don’t want to miss out on anything, but I don’t like the idea of a low threshhold for getting into the main playoffs. I can be convinced to go down to 5, especially for OOB, depending on how many games we see played in the coming months, but I would resist going any lower than that. The low requirement of 3 games per version for participating in playoffs, but not eligible for the top one in each version, will definitely remain.
-
@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.
I think you are misinterpretting things. Nobody is advocating for what you are saying . Thats basically what we have now and is a big problem.
-
@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.
Actually, I think we do have the players and the interest to support a separate playoff by version, which is what I’m strongly leaning towards. The least amount of games would probably be OOB, but I think there will be more games of OOB played in league than in years because it will be separated out for 2021. We will assess the # of games completed in each version mid-way through the year before setting main playoff requirements
-
@ksmckay perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the problem was that the “default” game of for the playoffs was out of line with what a majority of people prefer to play (which is solved by making the default game the one that most people play). What I’m saying is that one championship is preferable to three, even if you maintain separate statistics for each version of the game.
-
@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:
@ksmckay perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the problem was that the “default” game of for the playoffs was out of line with what a majority of people prefer to play (which is solved by making the default game the one that most people play). What I’m saying is that one championship is preferable to three, even if you maintain separate statistics for each version of the game.
I agree one championship is preferable, and we’ve stuck to that for years, but 2021 needs to be the year of 3 championships. I can keep the prestige - perhaps I could note in the annals how many ranked players there were during the year for that version, or how many games total were played by version, near the champion’s name. That’s just off the top of my head - point being, there are ways to not make the champion of a small pond look equal to the champion of the ocean
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Actually, I think we do have the players and the interest to support a separate playoff by version
I gotcha. Well as the keeper of the books, you’'d probably be in a better position to judge that sort of thing. I have my doubts.
-
@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:
@ksmckay perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the problem was that the “default” game of for the playoffs was out of line with what a majority of people prefer to play (which is solved by making the default game the one that most people play). What I’m saying is that one championship is preferable to three, even if you maintain separate statistics for each version of the game.
Its been a long discussion and while I personally agree with that approach, there are dissenting arguments with merit and so the latest proposal by gamerman is a compromise.
-
@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!
Suggested Topics
