Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 2 carriers, 1 destroyer and 2 submarines; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Americans Non Combat Move - Americans 1 fighter moved from Philippines to Guam 1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 35 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 1 transport moved from 26 Sea Zone to 12 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Western United States to 10 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Western United States to 10 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport moved from 10 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Western United States to Eastern United States 1 bomber moved from Central United States to Eastern United States 1 transport moved from 12 Sea Zone to 10 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands 1 armour, 1 infantry and 3 mech_infantrys moved from Central United States to Western United States Place Units - Americans 1 carrier and 1 submarine placed in 10 Sea Zone 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 1 submarine placed in 101 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Americans Americans collect 52 PUs; end with 52 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Artillery Supplies: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Open Chinese buy 3 artilleries; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 infantry moved from Kweichow to Hunan 1 infantry moved from Kweichow to Hunan 1 infantry moved from Yunnan to Hunan 1 fighter moved from Szechwan to Hunan Combat - Chinese Battle in Hunan Chinese attack with 1 fighter and 3 infantry Japanese defend with 2 infantry Chinese win, taking Hunan from Japanese with 1 fighter and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Chinese: 2 infantry Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Non Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter moved from Hunan to Szechwan 1 infantry moved from Shensi to Suiyuyan 1 infantry moved from Yunnan to Szechwan Place Units - Chinese 3 artilleries placed in Szechwan Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 10 PUs; end with 10 PUs Objective Chinese 1 Burma Road: Chinese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 13 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 1 armour, 6 infantry and 1 mech_infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Purchase Units - UK_Pacific UK_Pacific buy 5 infantry and 1 mech_infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 destroyer moved from 109 Sea Zone to 106 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 106 Sea Zone 1 cruiser and 1 submarine moved from 91 Sea Zone to 96 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Malta to 97 Sea Zone 1 tactical_bomber moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 97 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from United Kingdom to 97 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 cruiser moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to 96 Sea Zone Combat - British Battle in 96 Sea Zone British attack with 1 cruiser, 1 fighter and 1 submarine Italians defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport British win with 1 cruiser, 1 fighter and 1 submarine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 15 Casualties for Italians: 1 destroyer and 1 transport Battle in 106 Sea Zone British attack with 1 destroyer and 1 fighter Germans defend with 1 submarine British win with 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is -2 Casualties for British: 1 destroyer Casualties for Germans: 1 submarine Battle in 97 Sea Zone British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber Italians defend with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 transport British win, taking 97 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 33 Casualties for British: 1 submarine Casualties for Italians: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 transport Non Combat Move - British 1 bomber moved from 97 Sea Zone to Malta 1 tactical_bomber moved from 97 Sea Zone to Malta 1 fighter moved from 96 Sea Zone to Malta 1 transport moved from 98 Sea Zone to 72 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 71 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from India to 39 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 39 Sea Zone to 41 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 41 Sea Zone to Sumatra UK_Pacific take Sumatra from Dutch 1 infantry moved from West India to Eastern Persia British take Eastern Persia from Neutral_Allies 1 battleship moved from 37 Sea Zone to 39 Sea Zone 3 infantry moved from Malaya to Shan State 1 fighter moved from Burma to India 1 infantry moved from Burma to India 1 infantry moved from Burma to India 1 armour moved from Alexandria to Egypt 1 infantry moved from Egypt to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 artillery moved from Egypt to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 artillery moved from Alexandria to Egypt 1 infantry moved from Alexandria to Egypt 1 infantry moved from Union of South Africa to Rhodesia 1 infantry moved from Union of South Africa to Rhodesia 1 fighter moved from 106 Sea Zone to Quebec 1 artillery moved from Ontario to Quebec 1 infantry moved from Ontario to Quebec 1 battleship moved from 111 Sea Zone to 109 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Scotland to United Kingdom 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Scotland to United Kingdom 1 mech_infantry moved from United Kingdom to Eire British take Eire from Neutral_Allies 1 infantry moved from United Kingdom to 109 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 109 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Gibraltar Place Units - British 6 infantry placed in United Kingdom 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry placed in Union of South Africa Turn Complete - British British collect 28 PUs; end with 28 PUs Trigger British 3 No Enemy Submarines: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 31 PUs Objective British 4 Control Convoy Lanes: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 34 PUs Objective British 1 Original: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 37 PUs Place Units - UK_Pacific 5 infantry and 1 mech_infantry placed in India Turn Complete - UK_Pacific UK_Pacific collect 21 PUs; end with 21 PUs Some Units in India change ownership: 5 infantry and 1 mech_infantryPost League Game Results Here
-
No problem, thanks akreider, I think I see what you’re saying. I thought I just confused you by not updating anything for a few weeks.
Sorry everybody, I’ll put it on my calendar, and maybe make it a habit to update every Sunday night or something (at a minimum)
-
@gamerman01 A proper system should add to your ranking based on the probability of winning or losing. So if you play a very weak player and have a 1/1000 chance of losing, your ELO gain if you win should reflect that.
-
@akreider2 And thus an ELO gain by a favored player in a match where they are expected to crush their opponent should be very small.
-
Yeah, that’s not how it works here. Unlike chess, we have a very small number of games played because this game takes a lot longer than chess. Not really comparable. This system really works well for our purposes, and if I get much more criticism, someone else is going to have to take over because I’m not even playing the game any more.
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
Don’t ELO systems always add to your rating if you win, no matter how weak the opponent? Encourages bottom feeders who get inflated ratings, no thanks.
Not really.
Elo is a statistical model and rating change is based on the probability of win and loss.
In chess there is no such problem anyway. Sure, some guy wins 20 games against crappy opponents gaining 20 points, but then for some reason loses one game for -20 and it all gets square.
Usually even opposition is the best for game quality. The beauty of Elo is that it’s fully possible to play someone of clear lesser playing strength without automatically getting a ranking shift downwards like our system does now.
Main point being that if an excelling player takes it to heart to invest time to hone someone else’s skill by play, that’s possible with Elo, but not really with our present system.
Like my games with axis-dominion. They must be all a joke to him, but I appreciate that he takes the time to teach me some valuable lessons. If I were tier 2 or 3, I’m pretty confident it wouldn’t happen.
-
I hear you, and I’ve listened to these arguments for years. This is my philosophy, however. League ranked play is not the place to learn from a much stronger player - play outside of league ranked play if that’s what you want. As many hours as this game takes to play, a tier M really doesn’t need to be messing around with 2’s and 3’s, frankly there’s such a huge difference in ability they’re not even competitive games. League ranked play is intended for competitive play
I’ve never had ANYONE else pipe up and volunteer to handle all these calculations, updates, and rankings, so until that happens, my system stands.
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
Yeah, that’s not how it works here. Unlike chess, we have a very small number of games played because this game takes a lot longer than chess. Not really comparable. This system really works well for our purposes, and if I get much more criticism, someone else is going to have to take over because I’m not even playing the game any more.
Actually :) there’s correspondence chess, which takes a lot longer than A&A. And that carries an Elo as well.
The trick I believe is rather to incorporate the element of luck, which is a lot less in chess, reflected in the ratings. But that’s no biggie. Just tweak the algorithm. Like I said before, I think @DizzKneeLand33 has done it already.
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
Yeah, that’s not how it works here. Unlike chess, we have a very small number of games played because this game takes a lot longer than chess. Not really comparable. This system really works well for our purposes, and if I get much more criticism, someone else is going to have to take over because I’m not even playing the game any more.
Okay, this is a slight fallacy. Back in the 1980’s when I started playing correspondence chess, there was an ELO system in place for both the USCF and the ICCF (international organization). My longest correspondence game (in time) ended in 2 years, 8 months (67 move draw). So, our games indeed do not take as long as that. ;)
For an ELO system to work for us, however, it has to take in account dice. So, a master beating a Class C should be minimal in gains, but yet it should be worth something, because the “master” is taking a dice chance of losing.
So, for those who want an ELO system, remember that this isn’t chess, it’s a strategy dice game.
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
I hear you, and I’ve listened to these arguments for years. This is my philosophy, however. League ranked play is not the place to learn from a much stronger player - play outside of league ranked play if that’s what you want. As many hours as this game takes to play, a tier M really doesn’t need to be messing around with 2’s and 3’s, frankly there’s such a huge difference in ability they’re not even competitive games. League ranked play is intended for competitive play
I’ve never had ANYONE else pipe up and volunteer to handle all these calculations, updates, and rankings, so until that happens, my system stands.
Again, in chess tournaments grand-masters meet patzers. No problem.
I respect that you are not so keen on change. Hopefully there’s no hurt by discussing these matters though.
-
We rarely have any significant upsets in the tournaments at the end of the year, and the rankings have always been very successful in creating great matchups at the end of the year. I understand people are always looking for continuous improvement, and no matter what system is in place, there will be criticisms.
-
No hurt, I’m just kind of tired of defending my system for so many years.
It’s not chess, it’s not starcraft, there’s weaknesses in every system, but frankly I think this system is dynamite.Length of game, I meant in hours of effort, not in how many years of correspondence - again, apples and oranges, you guys! lol
-
I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game
-
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m still updating the rankings.
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game
Gamerman, your system is SOOO annoying because I am not No. 1!!!
-
lol I was waiting for someone to spice this up
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
No hurt, I’m just kind of tired of defending my system for so many years.
It’s not chess, it’s not starcraft, there’s weaknesses in every system, but frankly I think this system is dynamite.Length of game, I meant in hours of effort, not in how many years of correspondence - again, apples and oranges, you guys! lol
Again, this system is really good. The problem is that it discourages play between the ranks. Gamer, honestly, I think this only happened (as an issue) when the M was introduced, and then there were games where beating someone wasn’t as good as losing to someone. Maybe the losing to M equals beating a 3. I’ll have to look, but this change (5 years ago or so???) was the bad part. Otherwise, it’s really cool.
-
I really appreciate that, Dizz, again, I know some will hate this, but I don’t think M’s have any business playing a 3 in league play - play in the play boardgames section or something if you must
-
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game
Okay, you don’t understand old correspondence chess at all. I mean, there could be 200 hours in a game lol.
Of course now since the late 90’s there are computers. Sad days.
-
And I hear you on the adding one more tier - 5 is a lot - pluses and minuses
-
@DizzKneeLand33 said in Post League Game Results Here:
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
I have played thousands and thousands of games of chess, so I totally understand ELO and what you guys are arguing, just so you know. How many hours of thought was put into that 55 move chess game? I’m no grandmaster, but I’ve never had a chess game come anywhere near the level of effort of an A&A game
Okay, you don’t understand old correspondence chess at all. I mean, there could be 200 hours in a game lol.
Of course now since the late 90’s there are computers. Sad days.
There could be 200 hours on a move. LOL