Best posts made by Amon-Sul

BM3 is the dominant version. I think it should be the version played, unless both players agree to play some other version.

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

It is definately a problem that the rules dont reflect the majority of the games. I think it should be changed. But not sure to what.

I think most likely it has to be:

1. BM only.
2. All 3 versions, OOB, BM, PTV

Actually, the issue looks more to be whether there should be a set hierarchy, i e default. I think there is today, and that is OOB.

Imo the most proper relation would be:

1. BM3
2. OOB
3. P2V (since it’s still under construction)

This would mean that if there’s a conflict regarding version, BM3 takes precedence over OOB and P2V as the main standard of the league.

I concur, except I think P2V should have its own tournament, and probably its own league too.

For example, it may well be possible that someone might want to play in both leagues, and participate in both championship tournaments.

I agree.

In 2021 we should have 2 leagues, 1 for BM, 1 for PTV cus its a new game.

Its like tennis, U have single matches and league, and u have the doubles one.

If somebody thinks it will be hard to enter both playoffs, we can reduce the number of games played to get to play off, from 8 to less, especially in PTV; maybe 5

@WindowWasher said in League General Discussion Thread:

We need more players if we’re going to create two or three different leagues. I believe that it is the proper solution to the issue, yet it wont be as fun if there are only 5 OOB players/10-15 P2V players. I suggest advertising the league/s in the Facebook groups

Well,

Thats the problem of OOB.

As for PTV with time it will have more people playing it. I expect a lot of people participating in both BM and PTV leagues.

@666 said in League General Discussion Thread:

My two cents, been doing this a LONG time here, seen a few playoff, year end, and league changes.

Any games played in the league thread count in the standings, BM, OOB, P2V. People who choose to play here agree to their opponent and which version is played. Simple.

For year end tourney or playoffs, players can agree to the version of the game played, and if they can’t decide a standard is selected at the beginning of the year, let’s say the most popular version played the previous season, as an example BM.

That’s it. One league thread, One league standings, let’s keep it simple.

Is @gamerman01 still around? is he still maintaining the league standings doc? If so has he chimed in?

I agree, under one notion.

As long as BM is the dominant version. (or in future PTV as dominant).

What shall we do if in a year or two we have BM and PTV equally popular?

Or there is one option.

We can give a rule that the higher ranked or lower ranked player chooses the game if there is no mutual agreement.

@aequitas-et-veritas said in Post League Game Results Here:

Looks like we need someone who can fix/change that for us so we can play test it, ha ha.

The Tech mechanic would work like this:
If you choose for the 1st bracket ( the random one), it will stay untill yiu discovered one.

Id you choose the one wich is only related to your nation i.E. Germany is researching the Mech Tec. .
It will research only this until it is dicovered.

Does anybody know how we can playtest it like this?
Or even better, program it for us like this?

We can simplify it, by determining the fixex cost of tech investment. And then we just edit in the game. And for the future it can be a part of the program.

Or we can make each tech upgrade cost different ammount of money, but i think it complicates things too much.

The only thing that would be maybe logical to make a difference in cost is the sheets.

Naval tech upgrades could cost more or less then the land one for example, but they could cost the same too.

I think it would be also cool to play in a way that each nation chooses 1 tech from each board. And starts the game that way.

And every 5 rounds we give another tech bonus to choose.

I am just brainstorming here, feel free to criticize

@aequitas-et-veritas

I find ur version of half tech fixed for all + half tech specified by each nation cool.

I would make some adjusments though. I think this is not the right place for it. So i ll move the Discussion to a proper place.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

That’s the starting gun!

Great going! Thanks for your eminent efforts!

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Reminder that players must agree on version to play, and default is 2nd edition G40, which means if you can’t agree on a version, it has to be 2nd edition G40.

Default needs to be changed to BM3. Seriously. Reflecting likely more than 95 % of the league games. Heck, even P2V is played more and it’s not even finalized yet.

Being forced into playing OOB is simply not interesting for me (and seemed it’s the same quite many more fellows), so if this league rule will not be revised for atleast L21, I don’t think I’ll continue to struggle in the league. Perhaps not much of a loss for the herd, but anyway.

But we started under this rulz.

Next year we can put bm as default.

But almost nobody plays 2nd ed ition so dont worry

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Awesome. Glad you have come around @gamerman01. So one league but 3 standings.

OOB is less popular so may need playoffs decided based on top 4? Perhaps a rider to allow that to be decided at the end of the year? Will it still be 8 game minimum in all games? Probably fine in BM and P2V. Should it be BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard? House rules can blur the lines but I guess it is pretty unlikely that it won’t be clear what the nearest game is.

i think boms cost 14 should be standard to prevent bomber spam. but it is a democracy, we BM dudes can vote.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard

It is already, and still called BM3 (designer’s decree). ;)

BM 3.1 :tongue:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@amon-sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

i suggest we patch OOB with BM, but if the OOB guys want their own league, fine by me.

Problem there is that then no problem is solved. :) We would be in the same situation of having to define a default for the playoffs being unfair to atleast someone.

I think the division into 3 standings and playoffs is as simple as great idea.

well thats for the OOB dudes to decide. I think that OOB league and play off will be of little interest,

but if they wish to have it ,

i dont have anything against it.

it is the most democratic idea.

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

I have to disagree with you on that one though. If you play 8 games of BM and 3 of P2V, I can’t see why that should qualify you to be the league champion (potentially) for P2V or even OOB.

If you only really care about getting into the finals, play 8 games of one version then move to another if it is feasible you will have time in the year to complete that.

Well, we can put 8 games total as the condition to play in any play off, and 5 games per game version for that specific play off, so somebody who plays 8 PTV games and nothing else, cant compete in other play offs.

And playing 5 + 5 games gets u in 2 play offs (BM and PTV will be the usual combo).

10 games in a season is ok, and even if u finish 8 only (or we can decrease it even more) u play in at least one play off.

I totally like the idea of 2-3 play offs, it will be so much fun.

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@amon-sul I would say just one rule, 8 games of that version.

ok, we disagree.

let s hear what other folks think, and Gamerman should have the last word as some kind of mediator.

i am for some compromise which would be something that the majority of people wishes.

@pejon_88 said in L21 Amon-Sul (Axis) vs Pejon_88 (Allies + 16):

@amon-sul I really like your experimentation. I actually thought loosely on something similiar once, but never put much thought to it :)

Well the game is played primarily for fun. I am enjoying it, I am happy U re too :)

Really interesting

@pejon_88 said in L21 Amon-Sul (Axis) vs Pejon_88 (Allies + 16):

@Amon-Sul Really cool game, however it ends ;)

Playing Soviets is also way different than usual.

For me this is a double weird game. I am an allied player. I dont like playing axis and i play them rarely.

and the other weird thing is the early neutrals crush of course

italy wins with 1 art remaining

@pejon_88

sorry i forgot to attack portugal

i ll dice it here

i noticed algeria is empty,

u pulled the tank back to morocco

so i ll take empty algeria too

i ll post a new map

Totally different, unusual, unpredictible, competitive, good and even game.

I really enjoy it.

cheers

@pejon_88 said in L21 Amon-Sul (Axis) vs Pejon_88 (Allies + 16):

@amon-sul Of course. I expect the NCM to be alright, but I meant it is good we didn’t end up in a situation where you had already played Japan and this came up. Was a no brainer really, but I moved my ships wrongly. You’ll understand when you look at the map.

yeah, if i ve played Japan already it would be nasty situation.

But I think we would probably see it before Japan s turn if Ur odds at Sumatra are that bad (havent looked)

the uk guys in sz 110 are on 4 usa trannies