@redrum Now that I think about it, that’s actually very close to what I’ve tried doing in MS Excel. The 3 and 4 player versions were easy enough, but 5 is giving me a hard time.
Just for some interest, here’s a snapshot of part of the “solved” bracket for the 4 player, 13 participant version.
@cwo-marc Thanks for the excellent thoughts. You always give good insight.
Something I should have mentioned that might make this sound a bit more reasonable is that this tournament bracket isn’t being made for Axis and Allies. It’s just a five player game in which turn order plays a big role (going first vs going last is drastically different, almost like playing a different nation in A&A). Also, the game is “free-for-all,” meaning players can legitimately team up and matches can be easily lost because an amateur “threw” the game—this is why it’s so important that participants only face each other once.
The “21” model was created simply because it’s the smallest possible bracket for a five-player game that could offer a player a chance to go first, second, third, fourth, and last–AND only see each opponent once.
You might be wondering why “only seeing an opponent once” is so important to me. In this game, there are five competing players that strive to eliminate opponent’s pieces. It is very well possible for someone to be eliminated entirely in the first few rounds of the game. As you gentleman might remember, I entertain a bunch of goofy kids and am practically still one myself. It’s not uncommon for an experienced veteran to get “bullied” by even just 1 silly opponent who goes out of his way to destroy the threat of a skilled player early on by focusing only on him (much to the harm of both players).
The “21” model is the smallest logical number (for a 5-player game) that is “fair” in my group. The extra stipulations are there to give everyone an even chance without too much luck being involved.
While hosting small tournaments, I’ve come across an issue in creating the actual match-ups. Here are the stats and requirements that I’m working with:
It’s a five player game in which turn order matters!!!
Every person plays five games, one as player 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (you can think of this as playing 5 Pacific 1940 games, one as China, one as Japan, USA, UK, and ANZAC…)
It’s supposed to be a round robin tournament, so each person plays against every other player; however, as an extra stipulation, each player will only see every other player once.
Now according to what I just mentioned, there will have to be 21 people total (because if every player plays five games and there are four opponents in each game and every opponent will only be seen once, there will have to be 20 other people to fill those spots; this also means 21 games total will be played).
If you’re not confused already, also remember, one of the other stipulations is that of the 5 games that everybody plays, each one has to be a different position in the turn order (in A&A terms, think of it as a different country). So there cannot be someone who plays as player #2 in more than one game, because he has to have a game as each different player position.
-*-
To make this a little clearer, here’s a much simpler breakdown I created for hosting a 3 player game with the same rules:
There are 7 players and 7 games being played. The players are listed as “1,” “2,” “3,” etc. The player listed at the top of the list goes first (he is the nation that moves first) the player at the bottom of the list goes last (he is the nation that moves last).
Game 1. Game 2. Game 3. Game 4. Game 5. Game 6 Game 7.
----1---------4---------6---------2----------7----------3---------5
----2---------1---------7---------5----------4----------6---------3
----3---------5---------1---------6----------2----------4---------7
At first glance, this just looks like a bunch of numbers. But it’s actually a carefully constructed round robin tournament. Notice how it meets all the requirements I mentioned earlier:
Now, if you are making any sense of what I’m saying, perhaps you can help me. I have successfully created a tourney bracket like this for 4 player games, and there is actually more than one way to “solve” the match-ups so that everything is just as I said. But I’m making these through trial and error, and I’ll spare you from the headache of seeing the actual 4-player-games bracket.
But what I really need right now is a bracket for 5 player games (the twenty-one-participant model I spoke of earlier). But with 21 different games to set up and all the stipulations I mentioned about turn order and only seeing every opponent once, I haven’t been able to manually figure out the bracket.
Is there some sort of algorithm, formula, or something I can use other than the excruciating task off trial and error to create a list like the one I showed for the 3 player game? And yes, I am aware that many round-robin generators exist, but I’ve never found one that has support for games that have multiple players and takes into account the importance of turn order (in a game like Axis and Allies where you’re not just “white” or “the player who moves first,” where you are in the turn order makes a huge difference, as that is the nation you are playing.)
If any of you intellectuals understand what I’m talking about, please let me know if you have a solution. My simple model for the 3 player game version is a good start, but I’m wondering if it’s even possible for the 5 player version I’m talking about? Maybe the math just doesn’t cooperate.
PLEASE HELP!
This must have been answered at some point, but I haven’t played in a while and forgot the rule
When mobilizing a pro-Allied neutral that is adjacent to another pro-Allied neutral (Persia is really the only OOB example), is a player allowed to use a tank or mechanized infantry on the noncombat movement phase and activate two territories, must the unit stop after activating the first one?
For example,
If Russia is at war and has a mechanized infantry in Turkmenistan, can that unit (on the noncombat movement phase) move into and activate both Eastern Persia and Persia (central)?
@General-Veers I like the idea of reducing the facilities cost as well. But I have been wondering if perhaps airbases should cost more than naval bases. I feel like the scramble potential of airbases is more powerful than the repairing abilities of naval bases (while the move extension seems obviously on equal terms). I think a 12 or 13 IPC naval base sounds good, but I’d personally want air bases to be more, maybe about 14 IPCs. One of the reasons why I think airbases need a higher cost is their relevance to aircraft carriers. Why build a carrier for 16 when you can scramble 3 fighters for 15 (or as you and I propose 12/13).
I’d love to see more facility building, as this is something that’s very rare in my group’s games. It would be hard to find the perfect cost, but I think your 12 IPCs is a good place to begin testing, perhaps going as low as 11 for sea bases and as high as 14 for air bases. I’d like to try it.
@Imperious-Leader I was only thinking about 1940, but I’m curious now about 1942. Do you like cruisers at 12 and battleships at 20 for 1942?
@Imperious-Leader I’m referring to Global 1940 aircraft carriers that are capital ships which take two hits to sink and cost 16 IPCs.
Some units just don’t get purchased very often because they’re a little too expensive for their abilities (such as AA guns and cruisers, and to a lesser degree, battleships and tactical bombers). On the other hand, some units are accused of being too good or “broken” due to their wide range of uses and influence (such as strategic bombers and mechanized infantry).
My proposition is this: alter the IPC cost to make better balance but don’t do anything else. If you were to tweak only the price, what would you do? Here’s my take:
No change:
Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8
My changes:
AA Guns: 4
Cruisers: 11
Battleships: 19
Up for debate:
Tactical Bombers: 10 (11)
Strategic Bombers: 13 (12)
Aircraft Carriers: 15 (16)
I think infantry, artillery, tanks, submarines, transports, destroyers, and fighters are all very good units that should not be touched. Mechanized infantry are only “overpowered” because of the Global 1940 map and setup’s inherent problems in my opinion.
AA guns need a boost. Most people would rather change their entire mechanism, but I think most of us wouldn’t mind buying them for a 1 IPC discount, and at the same time, they’re still not too effective. I don’t see why anyone should object to this.
Cruisers are overshadowed by battleships and the other special naval units. Again, many players have tried countless ways to change cruisers into something more affordable, but in order to keep it simple but also keep battleships relevant, a single IPC discount should work for most people.
Tactical bombers are actually quite good already. I can understand why many would argue that 11 IPCs isn’t that bad, but I do think they are slightly overpriced due to their limitations. I’d honestly rather boost them by a small rule change, but the purpose of this thread is to only change prices. 11 or 10— take your pick.
Strategic bombers at 13? Yikes. I can already hear the players who love bombing the heck out of factories screaming at me. But seriously, these far-reaching aircraft are pretty darn good and effective at eliminating production. I just wanted to throw this out there since I think the power of strategic bombing is pretty heavily abused.
Aircraft carriers are already a great purchase. So why do I want to discount them? Well, since I’m suggesting reductions in price, to the big gun ships, I want to make sure that the effectiveness of aircraft carriers is preserved. This is World War II after all, and I’d hate to see the false idea of battleships being superior to aircraft become a thing. It’s just another idea I want to add since…
Battleships need a discount since cruisers are getting one. I think the perfect value would be 19 IPCs, but I could see others arguing for 18 or even leaving them at 20. 19 might sound like an odd number, but if cruisers are 11, I think battleships should be 19.
So now that I’ve seriously thought about it all, here’s a revised price chart that I think most players will like. Changes are in bold:
Infantry: 3
Artillery: 4
Mechanized Infantry: 4
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: 4
Tanks: 6
Fighters: 10
Tactical Bombers: 11
Strategic Bombers: 12
Submarines: 6
Transports: 7
Destroyers: 8
Cruisers: 11
Aircraft Carriers: 16
Battleships: 19
Please share your thoughts, especially on those that I changed and whether aircraft carriers should be 15 or not. Remember, no unit characteristic changes, only price changes.
Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.
Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.
Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.
When you’re stuck at home in quarantine and you have nothing that you need to do, sometimes the craziest ideas will cross your mind:
This is something I’ve actually been toying with for a while: a 1939 or 1937 game played on the 1914 board. It’s been a great deal of fun, but I usually find myself exploring alternate history rather than creating a game that is actually balanced with streamlined rules.
Have you ever experimented with playing a World War 2 era game on 1914 with the rules and units from 1940? Making a good setup has been difficult, and some places like Russia just aren’t ideal, but I’ve seen a lot of potential with making an early war scenario like this with many playable little nations. OH, and a well-defended France as well. ;)
Have I just gone crazy, or is this an interesting idea?
I hadn’t really given it a thought, but here’s two ideas that just came to mind:
Make it so that the player has to somehow “transfer” the precious metal from the area. This could be as simple as forcing there to be one unit in the zone, or somehow involve a shipping convoy.
Another thing I was thinking that might help with the same old boredom in Africa, is perhaps gold or silver can be used to recruit more African locals and deploy infantry in the colonies.
Unfortunately, no. Never got the chance to play it because I’m on Android. That would be a fun way for me to try Oztea’s new rules though.
Did I hear the words Free French?
This is an interesting spinoff, Oz! I had been waiting so long for you to make this setup that I actually made my own. But now we got yours to try, and it even incorporates a semi-independent Holland! Some great stuff here.
And I love any scenario in which I can fight the despicable Vichy Regime and its Boche oppressors of France.
I’d like to see resources developed a little more. Gold and silver, for instance, basically just increase the IPC value of a territory. Maybe you could add some technicality to make it more interesting and influential?
Have you ever seen a game where France actually builds units in Indo-China? I’ve never seen this happen and was wondering if it ever occurred in a real game.
Japan typically builds an industrial complex after capturing French Indo-China, so it would only take the UK or another ally to liberate it and give France a free factory to use. Supposing Paris has also been liberated, France could very well start building in Indo-China.
Now of course this scenario would imply that Germany has lost France, and Japan has done very poorly in Southeast Asia —making a grim scene for the Axis. Typically in my games, they would surrender after losing two very crucial areas. The only scenario I could think of is perhaps Germany and Japan are trying to destroy Russia and didn’t fare well on other fronts. Maybe France would have a reason to build in Indo-China because of this? Although Paris would likely be the better option, but games can be crazy.
Have you ever seen this happen?
@Moffett:
CDG, that is for Triple A? Never saw a factory in Libya for Italy in your 1939 v3.
Thanks…
Some fans have made a triple A version of this fan made setup; I don’t play Triple A so I don’t know how you can access it or how I can help the creators tweak it. As for a factory in Libya, I never suggested that and neither would that be legal since Libya is worth only 1 IPC. Were you confused because I said the starting forces in Libya were reduced by 1 infantry?
@Charles:
Also, since this is 1939, it feels acceptable to pretend that France will never surrender, but rather fight or retreat to Algeria etc.
France will never surrender! Vive de Gaulle!
We don’t need Vichy rules when France does not have to give up. That is the spirit of this mod. France, and all the countries really, have a chance to make early decisions that will drastically change the war.
SETUP TWEAK:
I’ve gotten so many complaints about the ahistoricality of ANZAC’s battleship that I decided to remove it and replace it with a destroyer and a cruiser (all in Sea Zone 54).
Extremely minor tweak was made last summer: the Italian infantry in Libya was reduced from 4 to 3.
This is the direction I’d love to see A&A head towards: more interesting and less gamey combat. Contested territories worked splendidly in 1914. In fact, if it weren’t for the trench warfare style of fighting that is a little boring, I think 1914 game mechanics are better than the standard.
Not funny Tojo. When, I was on the road yesterday, people seemed to have fogotten that the yellow line is not to be driven upon.
