My prior comments were to the effect that with a bid system it may be more difficult to analyze results with different bids being in place. That said it may be more suitable to play the games in pairs, one axis one allied so no one can cheat the title. I know from this site that AAR bids are in the 6-9 range Classic bids are higher but these came from trial and error. I’m not sure if this has been worked out for AA50. Analyzing results from a non bid scenario may do this.
My prior comments were to the effect that with a bid system it may be more difficult to analyze results with different bids being in place. That said it may be more suitable to play the games in pairs, one axis one allied so no one can cheat the title. I know from this site that AAR bids are in the 6-9 range Classic bids are higher but these came from trial and error. I’m not sure if this has been worked out for AA50. Analyzing results from a non bid scenario may do this.
I understand, for analytical purposes your suggestion make sense.
I don’t know if the purpose of the league is to come to a definitive conclusion on this matter however? I am quite sure some players will figure it out much earlier than others and like discovering any new strategy and/or the most advantageous bid placement some players will use this knowledge to beat their opponents.
There are quite a few places on this site to play and if players want to sort things out, try new strats, bids or placements then perhaps they should play more games in the other sections? My feeling is that the League is to test your skill set, strats etc… and hope the dice work out. The bid, placement etc….will be another means to distinguish the strongest players.
That is just MY opinion…
@JWW:
w/respect to the playoff system, it sounds great but……when would the league regular season end and the playoffs begin? I don’t think anyone wants the 2010 League ending in Sept 2011?
Well, 2009’s League season was supposed to end on Dec 14. I don’t see why we can’t push it forward to the last day in November. That way we can start the playoffs on the 1st of December.
If the top 2 players from each League go to the playoffs it’s 2 rounds with a 1 game Super Bowl or 3 rounds with a best-of-3 Championship series.
If the top 4 players from each league go to the playoffs it’s 3 rounds with a 1 game Super Bowl or 4 rounds with a best-of-3 Championship series.
Assuming 1 month per round and the playoffs will last between 2 and 4 months.
2 rounds=End of January
3 rounds=End of February
4 rounds=End of March
My prior comments were to the effect that with a bid system it may be more difficult to analyze results with different bids being in place. That said it may be more suitable to play the games in pairs, one axis one allied so no one can cheat the title. I know from this site that AAR bids are in the 6-9 range Classic bids are higher but these came from trial and error. I’m not sure if this has been worked out for AA50. Analyzing results from a non bid scenario may do this.
You can’t tell what the bid range should be by analyzing straight up results. Analyzing straight up results only tells you if a bid is needed or not. I don’t know if Darth has been tabulating win rate for each side, but it shouldn’t be too hard to find out what they are.
@JWW:
I am quite sure some players will figure it out much earlier than others and like discovering any new strategy and/or the most advantageous bid placement some players will use this knowledge to beat their opponents.
Yes, but only initially. Eventually the rest of the pack will begin to figure out what the quick learners are doing, what they are bidding, and where they are placing those bids. I’m thinking the quick learners are going to dominate for, at most, this year’s Leagues and maybe even for as little as the first few months before the bids begin to stabilize and the majority of players fall into their bid comfort zones.
I just went through the '09 results (excluding JWW’s last game) so I’ll definitely get the final standings up this week, but here was the final total on games, I didn’t distiguish betweeen defaults, Tech, NO’s, or Bid. I just wrote down which side won, there were also 2 or 3 games with no links, so I didn’t bother to hunt those down. Anyway…
Games = 230
Allied Wins = 96 (42%)
Axis Wins = 134 (58%)
Slightly high on the Axis side, but not terrible considering many early games were played with an Axis bid. I think most of the second half of the year games were played straight up. Also Tech was involved.
So if people can live with the slight Axis Adv, we can continue as is, if not we’ll have to adjust the bidding. My guess is if we play straight up the Axis might come out with a 53-55 win%.
I think any bid is going to be relatively small whichever side you bid for given the worst case results as bidding for the Axis you have a 58% chance to win. Seeing some of the results 58% won’t win you the Title, so it is still going to come down to who plays better.
I think any full placement bid is going to fluctuate between 1 Allied Inf for Egy, or one Axis inf for Lib.
I’ll have to think about this a little more. Keep the ideas coming…
I’m all for a head to head playoff style finish for the league if we can work the process out.
I would hate to incorporate a 24 hour move rule however but also would hate to have the 2010 League end in mid 2011.
I just had a 24 round game and although this isn’t the norm it could happen at any time and this fact would certainly effect the length of any league or tourney and should be considered.
I don’t see why there isn’t an allied bid. I think it’s proof enough in 58% that at least a slight bid is needed. It probably shouldn’t really ever exceed 3-5 IPC. Repelling in Egy another 10-15% of the time = 7 more British IPC 10-15% of the time collecting on UK1 = more balance. An extra attacking piece for USSR is big too, considering how bereft of them they are to start the game. Also keep in mind, some people still played with a bid in the league anyhow. I know I’ll request an allied bid for every opponent I have in '41.
I don’t see why there isn’t an allied bid. I think it’s proof enough in 58% that at least a slight bid is needed. It probably shouldn’t really ever exceed 3-5 IPC. Repelling in Egy another 10-15% of the time = 7 more British IPC 10-15% of the time collecting on UK1 = more balance. An extra attacking piece for USSR is big too, considering how bereft of them they are to start the game. Also keep in mind, some people still played with a bid in the league anyhow. I know I’ll request an allied bid for every opponent I have in '41.
The 58% may be artifactual as some of the games had axis bids. Maybe we should check the tally of the no bid games to see if an allied bid is needed.
@JWW:
with respect to 41 & bidding I was contemplating something that was suggested in the past and perhaps can meet everyone’s needs for 2010? …
we can let each player state which side they would prefer to play and if they both want to play the axis for instance, then one player states “I will play the allies with a six bid” player two might say go ahead or state I’ll play the allies with a 5 bid and so on…. If both players state they will play the allies w/a 5 bid then dice will determine which side gets the allies w/a 5 bid. The same scenario can work if both players wish to play the allies.
If this process is incorporated then the “axis have an advantage” & the “allies have an advantage” camps should both be satisfied. Eventually, as with Revised, a consensus will occur on this subject but until then this might resolve the bid question.
IMO forcing players to play one side or the other w/out a bid process will keep players like FUNC (although I certainly am not authorized to speak for him) on the side lines.
Lastly, I would argue that most games would be played without any side even choosing to bid but this would give an option for bidding if it was required.
I really like this system. Definitely KISS
And it achieves the goal of balancing a game between two participants.
The only other thing I would see that needed to be clarified is:
Should there be a one unit per territory limit or not (if bids exceed 5)
The benefit of this restriction would be to open up even higher bids than 5 and
not have them so overwhelming in the allies favor.
I don’t see why there isn’t an allied bid. I think it’s proof enough in 58% that at least a slight bid is needed. It probably shouldn’t really ever exceed 3-5 IPC. Repelling in Egy another 10-15% of the time = 7 more British IPC 10-15% of the time collecting on UK1 = more balance. An extra attacking piece for USSR is big too, considering how bereft of them they are to start the game. Also keep in mind, some people still played with a bid in the league anyhow. I know I’ll request an allied bid for every opponent I have in '41.
The 58% may be artifactual as some of the games had axis bids. Maybe we should check the tally of the no bid games to see if an allied bid is needed.
yes, remove bids for either side to get the best ‘base’
I have no problem with switching to an Allied bid, but like JWW and U-505 have mentioned, I’d like to try and keep the side choosing to an in-house method. That would make it hard do the straight blind bid since in the past we’ve used DAAK or Frood.
I’m open to JWW’s method of a player requesting a certain side but also adding in maybe U-505’s suggestion of just auctioning the bid down until both players agree.
Would it be too much of an adv or too complicated if the player requesting the game stated his preferred game?
For example:
Game 1 - Looking for a game, will play Allies with 3 extra ipc…
or
Game 2 - Looking for a game, want to play Axis, willing to give the Allies a 4 bid…
At this point either someone would agree to play under those conditions or negoitate a bid down or up.
Do people like this and would this work?
Of course the League rules would state all bids are full placement (so a 4 bid could be an rt, 1 inf + 1 ipc, or 4 ipc cash) and standard placement rules apply. You are bidding in cash, but this bid can then be translated to units just like any normal blind bid.
For other rules
My personal preference would be to shut off Tech as an option and simply make all games:
NO’s - Yes
Tech - No.
But I’m fine if people still want to choose to play tech.
The only negotiable rule would then be tech. Which is the same as last year.
I don’t think we need the other optionals, particularly if we change to Allied bidding or even let the players state their bids. Eventually we’ll start seeing most games being played with certain bids (+/- an ipc or two).
EDIT
yes, remove bids for either side to get the best ‘base’
This is also an option, all games no-bid, in-house dice roll for sides.
I’ll give my opinion. Bid system used in Revised was nice, I think we need two simple changes for AA50:
This way we prevent the balanced side (Europe) getting the allied bids (and thus we also prevent a mayority of KGF games), while we send the bid where is really needed (Asia)
I continue suggesting we should remove chinese limitation of movements for all the games (the infamous ACME wall :wink: )
At this point I’m not sure what will be the proper bid for 1941 scenario with both modifications, but probably will be, at least, on par with Classic leves (if I’m right, it was on 20s). For 1942, the minimal will be 9 and I guess probably 13 if we let China get artillery in the bid (I thought it would be lesser but a opening someone showed me last month made me change my mind)
I prefer a 1942 league anyway, but I’ll play at least some 1941 games if allies get a unit bid, even unrestricted
Would it be too much of an adv or too complicated if the player requesting the game stated his preferred game?
NO, this adheres to the KISS principle. I am OK with this as our process.
Of course the League rules would state all bids are full placement (so a 4 bid could be an rt, 1 inf + 1 ipc, or 4 ipc cash) and standard placement rules apply. You are bidding in cash, but this bid can then be translated to units just like any normal blind bid.
This is PERFECT. It is simple and easy to understand.
For other rules
Shut off Tech as an option and simply make all games:
NO’s - Yes
Tech - No.
I’m fine if people still want to choose to play tech.
The only negotiable rule would then be tech. Which is the same as last year.
Again perfect
I don’t think we need the other optionals,
AGREED
I’ll give my opinion. Bid system used in Revised was nice, I think we need two simple changes for AA50:
- Players will bid for allies in both scenarios (negative bids mean axis side can place the bid in axis units)
- Again for both scenarios, bids must be restricted to India and China (for negative bids, axis can place where they want). As a note, China could receive only inf and figs or could receive any type of units (boats only in case we delete movement limitations)
This way we prevent the balanced side (Europe) getting the allied bids (and thus we also prevent a mayority of KGF games), while we send the bid where is really needed (Asia)
I continue suggesting we should remove chinese limitation of movements for all the games (the infamous ACME wall :wink: )
At this point I’m not sure what will be the proper bid for 1941 scenario with both modifications, but probably will be, at least, on par with Classic leves (if I’m right, it was on 20s). For 1942, the minimal will be 9 and I guess probably 13 if we let China get artillery in the bid (I thought it would be lesser but a opening someone showed me last month made me change my mind)
I prefer a 1942 league anyway, but I’ll play at least some 1941 games if allies get a unit bid, even unrestricted
Func the above changes might possibly make the game better or at the very least eliminate any advantage one side has over the other. However, IMO, these suggestions don’t adhere to the KISS principle and therefore I would have to disagree w/their implementation for the 2010 league.
Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler
The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis
Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler
Personally, I am against telling players what to bid, where they have to place bids etc… but I will leave it to the powers that be and if they want to go in this direction then I will go along with it.
The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis
I could agree to this. It’s not much different than what has been discussed w/the exception that, I think they would rather not have to leave this site to sort out the bid.
Well, limit for China and India only bid is not much different from one unit for territory limit, and is pretty simple. You can say “limit bids only for asian mainland” if you prefer simpler
My concern about Asia specific bids or restricted placement is those bids tend to be higher than what might really be needed. My personal view is for the bids to be as low as possible.
I understand your point about China and your opinion on the initial setup of China/Asia is well documented, but I’m not sure bidding something to China (say 12 ipcs) is better than just giving the Allies one more inf (3 ipc) for Egy.
I would think different type of bidding philosophies would eventually develop for the Allies just like they have for the Axis in previous versions. I assume we’ll see a Power Europe bid where players will try to beef up Russia, a Power Afr Bid where players will add units to Egy and then we will probably see a combo of a Power India or Power Asia bid. India is self explanatory, but for an Asia bid, why bid Chinese units when you can bid Russian, they can move into help defend China and they can move out.
Now I don’t think all these bids will be equal and 1-2 may be stronger than others but again I think we should leave that up to the players rather then essentially force a Power Asia play from the Allies.
I know I haven’t played a ton of AA50 games but the bigger inital threat to the Allies is still Germany/Italy. There is no doubt Japan becomes a monster and can’t be left unchecked, but it still takes 7-8 turns to get to Russia and close to the same to make a credible threat on the West coast of the US, but Germany can immediately threaten 2 Russian ICs and potentially work a can opener with Italy to take Moscow long before Japan really even gets in the game.
To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Persian bid for the Allies, here you can add an inf or 2 but you can essentailly go to all theatres. Sort of a wait and see approach, to see how Germany/Japan’s dice go then shift your extra units to the most needed area. Maybe a straight Egy or Ind bid would be better, but I think it is worth trying in a few games.
@JWW:
The other change is even more simple: just use revised system but bid for allies instead of bid for axis
I could agree to this. It’s not much different than what has been discussed w/the exception that, I think they would rather not have to leave this site to sort out the bid.
I agree with with this, daak or frood proved being good places for bidding
There is no doubt Japan becomes a monster and can’t be left unchecked, but it still takes 7-8 turns to get to Russia and close to the same to make a credible threat on the West coast of the US, but Germany can immediately threaten 2 Russian ICs and potentially work a can opener with Italy to take Moscow long before Japan really even gets in the game.
To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a Persian bid for the Allies, here you can add an inf or 2 but you can essentailly go to all theatres. Sort of a wait and see approach, to see how Germany/Japan’s dice go then shift your extra units to the most needed area. Maybe a straight Egy or Ind bid would be better, but I think it is worth trying in a few games.
OK, for Japan, they can menace USSR pretty quickly, eating siberian income or sending bombers to SBR ICs. If totally ignored, they can menace a early taking of WUSA (round 2-3) because they start with 5 trannies
But I see your point with a Persia bid, it’s a interesting idea. Anyway, in 1942 scenario, in long run the minimal will be 3 inf to India, because there is a way for Japan to make India unable to hold after round 1, and a India IC surviving is a need for allies
The main idea with the forced power Asia bid (I like that name you given) is ensure we don’t get a new rebirth of KGF fanmania. Power Europe or Power Africa bids can revert us to that era
No damage starting with full open bids, at least if a door is open to limit them later if proves needed
for an Asia bid, why bid Chinese units when you can bid Russian, they can move into help defend China and they can move out.
Well, we should delete ACME wall for once, but any case soviet units cannot defend the chinese fighter
The simplest policy is usually the best. Play with bids and allow free placement–the same as in Revised. This allows bid strategies to develop freely and in conjunction with how the game is played on other venues like TripleA. The bid for both 41 and 42 is actually remarkably similar to Revised (around 8-9 for both scenarios), it’s just reversed. Requiring bids to Asia won’t change the basic game dyanmics or make a scenario like 41 favorable to KJF. It will just delay Japan a bit more. In 41, single unit bids to Egypt and Karelia are all that are needed for a balanced contest.
