League General Discussion Thread

[oysteilo]

It’s not absolute, but in most situations the british has to leave the med in round 2.

Assuming the british get a bid of 6 i think Taranto is better. In most situations the italians will take Greece in round 1. Taranto allows a plane stack at Malta. It kreps the italians honest round 2. If the BRITISH leave the med the objectives are lost and italy and germany gain theirs

[Karl7]

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

It’s not absolute, but in most situations the british has to leave the med in round 2.

Assuming the british get a bid of 6 i think Taranto is better. In most situations the italians will take Greece in round 1. Taranto allows a plane stack at Malta. It kreps the italians honest round 2. If the BRITISH leave the med the objectives are lost and italy and germany gain theirs

Interesting, usually the Brits stack 92 and then move against Italy. Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

[axis-dominion]

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

except if you’re Karl, in which case Germany would still consider sea lion (yes, you have sea lion’ed my 92 stack in the past lol)

[DizzKneeLand33]

Refresh my memory, I thought when bidding if you place a land unit it has to be where another land unit already exists (this may also be true of sea units). Did this rule change sometime in the past 5 years? :)

Of course, I’m talking about bidding an inf to NG, since that was always the main issue.

[DizzKneeLand33]

If it’s legal, no worries, just consider me to be permabidding that one for now on :)

[farmboy]

@DizzKneeLand33 any kind of bid is legal if both players agree. But the default is that you can place no more than one unit where you already have units. So you are within your rights to say no if someone wants to do that.

[simon33]

My understanding that the Gibraltar airbase is still the go to move for the allies. Perhaps I’m missing something.

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 G1 bomber or transport buy prevents SZ92 stack.

If you assume 2 bombers bought, no scramble to 110, all Luftwaffe returning to W Germany/Rome. That leaves:
Ger: 4bomb, 5tac 5ftr
UK: 5ftr 1CV 2CA 2DD

That makes the attack on SZ92 99% +30TUV 6.8 planes remaining.
vs no bombers bought which makes it 83% +14TUV

Is such an attack beneficial for the Axis? On paper, yes. Although such heavy plane losses reduce their options later in the game. I guess Italy could go wild.

JDOW had a move G1 of 2 subs to SZ91, attack SZ110 only. If the SZ106 & SZ91 attacks succeeds, 2that reduces the forces available to SZ92 by a CA & DD. Combine this with a 2bomber buy G1, perhaps the attack is good. Or if the subs in SZ91 aren’t killed (as JDOW did to me once). Hmm.

[Karl7]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

My understanding that the Gibraltar airbase is still the go to move for the allies. Perhaps I’m missing something.

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 G1 bomber or transport buy prevents SZ92 stack.

If you assume 2 bombers bought, no scramble to 110, all Luftwaffe returning to W Germany/Rome. That leaves:
Ger: 4bomb, 5tac 5ftr
UK: 5ftr 1CV 2CA 2DD

That makes the attack on SZ92 99% +30TUV 6.8 planes remaining.
vs no bombers bought which makes it 83% +14TUV

Is such an attack beneficial for the Axis? On paper, yes. Although such heavy plane losses reduce their options later in the game. I guess Italy could go wild.

JDOW had a move G1 of 2 subs to SZ91, attack SZ110 only. If the SZ106 & SZ91 attacks succeeds, 2that reduces the forces available to SZ92 by a CA & DD. Combine this with a 2bomber buy G1, perhaps the attack is good. Or if the subs in SZ91 aren’t killed (as JDOW did to me once). Hmm.

The threat of buying 1 trn G1 is interesting. If UK blows 15 on AB and then buys 4 dudes for defense with only 1 Ftr in London… that’s not enough to hold?

[Karl7]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

except if you’re Karl, in which case Germany would still consider sea lion (yes, you have sea lion’ed my 92 stack in the past lol)

Got to followup on the threat!

[Karl7]

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

except if you’re Karl, in which case Germany would still consider sea lion (yes, you have sea lion’ed my 92 stack in the past lol)

Got to followup on the threat!

Ok starting my first game of the league this season… Aquitas Veritas has a winning record against me, and that CANNOT BE ALLOWED!

[simon33]

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

The threat of buying 1 trn G1 is interesting. If UK blows 15 on AB and then buys 4 dudes for defense with only 1 Ftr in London… that’s not enough to hold?

If Germany doesn’t have a CV, can it land on Scotland? Unless the SZ92 stack is destroyed, probably not. Perhaps you’re thinking of a G1 buy of 1bomb 1trn and still taking out the SZ92 stack? Would they then have decent odds to take out London? Probably not G3.

I thought the idea of the TT was to attack Gibraltar - not sure that would work though. Perhaps it’s for a G4 Sea Lion.

[trulpen]

I know change is hard, but I’ve noted some internal and external frustration with the ranking system. It doesn’t really allow for play were opponents have a big gap. Being, say, tier E and playing tier 3 means that the higher ranked player will lose ranking no matter what.

Even though it’s neat and functional, the present ranking system is actually flawed in this respect.

I think that implementing something like the chess Elo-rating system could solve this? I believe the algorithm could be incorporated as it is.

The point of difference is that with Elo a tier 3 could easily play against an E or M player, without the ranking being an issue. The higher player would most likely win, gaining a very small rating increase, but lose a lot if the game was lost. By the same measure the lower ranked player would gain a lot with a win, but lose a little with a loss.

[simon33]

@trulpen That’s arguable. Should mismatched games actually proceed. Of course, you can balance them with bids or some other way.

[oysteilo]

I think @trulpen proposal is a good idea. It is a significant weakness with todays system that high rank players can not play low rank players without going down in ranking. You don’t become a worse player by playing a non ranked or so called bad player if you are tier E or M.

I think administration of todays system is easy, it gives good indication on how good a player is. It is the same players every year who dominate the league/rankings and hence todays system is working. Maybe the elo rating system would generate more league games and maybe you would play other players that you dont play today.

I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it. Without any such information todays system will stand as it is not a bad system even though not perfect

[Adam514]

Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.

[trulpen]

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.

That is very true, yet more league games means more fun. There’s usually a quality difference between competitive and casual play.

[dawgoneit]

@Adam514 accept for a minus in your points if you loose or win.

[trulpen]

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it.

Thanks for the input. I’ll try and look into it.

[DizzKneeLand33]

I have one already set up from a few years back when we were doing the TripleA tournament. What is really cool is with Gamer’s rankings we could set people with an initial rating during the provisional rating process. I’m not saying we should do this, just that it’s possible.

I have the whole process in an Access database. It was a modified ELO – chess ratings are based on 0% luck, of course A&A is more than 0% luck and should be adjusted accordingly.

[farmboy]

I think it is a good idea to make sure that people don’t have too much trouble finding opponents to play. That is both in the interests of some players individually but it is also in our collective interest. If some players, and especially new players, have difficulty finding opponents, than we will have trouble keeping people in the league and getting new people to join.

I don’t think mismatched games are necessarily a problem. It may be less interesting for the better players but it is a good learning experience for newer players and helps them become more competitive in the long run.

At the same time, I don’t want to add to the work of those who manage the league. So I would support an ELO system if it can be implemented in a way that doesn’t add to Gamerman’s work.

If that is too complicated, another option is just to score tier 3 the same way as tier 2. M and some E ranked players would still lose score in those games, but they would lose less, and everyone else would still go up.

Also, its worth noting, with new players at least, that losses to E and M players increase their average. There is a very good chance that players who start out at tier 3 will end up at tier 1 or 2 by the end of the year, and the more losses they have to E and M ranked players the more likely that is. So there is less of a disincentive than might appear at first.