GenCon Indy 2012

[squirecam]

@questioneer:

2. True again- must do this.� � I don’t agree with the Bonus System completely- just have a problem with LA being 0.� � This illiminates any West Coast threat and reduces the games arsenal of strategies.� � I’ve seen serious strategies formed where there is a threat to LA.� � Do you know of the z42 progression from Revised???� � All bouns cities should be worth SOMETHING, thats why they are victory cities.� � I would tweek this a bit.

3. Bid system is fine.� � We do a version of it online here also.� � Playing in Greg’s tournys and online with it, I see no difference.� � I don’t see the complaint here.

4./5. Optional rules are optional rules.� � From play online, in AA50 the 41 WITH NatObj is popular, open-ended strategy game and very balanced.� � Proved over 100s of games.� � However, the 42 w/o NatObj. is also balanced from what I have experienced.� � Greg made the call to go with the latter b/c he did not want optional rules for simplicity- OK I understand that.� �

He also said that the 41 “turns into the 42 setup anyway”- which is NOT true.� � That is a very grossly false assessment.� � If that were true, then for example, Japan in the 41 would reach out into the Pacific and pick up all those islands that the 42 starts with- completely different strategy routes from what I have seen.

Regardless, b/c Greg has decided not to use optional rules which is his choice, that leave the 41 w/NOs out of the picture.� � That is his right to do that.� � Its a shame and I never agreed to it but it is his right to make that call- its his tourny, not ours.

6. LHTR- man you guys still got those- that’s old.� � I predict that AA50 will slowly fade away as there are fewer and fewer copies available and AA41, AA42 2nd ed and G40 will be the flagship games of the tourny.� � That being said, there are no NatObj in 41 and 42 so it won’t matter and in G40 Larry made the NatObj part of the regular rules (not optional- thank God!!!).� � So the complaints I had with the AA50 tourny, I don’t care about anymore b/c I believe that version will slowly fade away.

7. Most people at the tournaments or your playtesting group liked 42, but online, 41 w/NatObj was king.� � Again, irrelavant now that 42 2nd ed will probably take AA50s place.

8. Mike and Greg- have you considered my proposal for online qualifier and automatic bids???� � BTW I have a new email so anything you sent after June 15th I didn’t receive.� � PM me and I’ll give you my new one if you want.
� �

Larry was the one who made LA worth 0. I remember telling him that you should just have had hawaii worth VP instead of 20 for Washington and 0 for LA and that would have solved some issues, but no go.

As to AA50, Global will never overtake it for FTF tournaments as its is. Its just TOO LONG to play tournament wise, and few are willing to play 10-12 hr games. Now, if you took Global and made a workable 1942 setup, then that might be playable in 6 hrs.

I also dont see AA42 2nd ed being the “main” game. Why play that when you could play the much better AA50??

[Clyde85]

@smo63:

See this is exactly what I am talking about jim.  Clyde Calling people idiots when the only idiot is probably the one that wrote that.  Then to call Gar hardcore, do you even know what hardcore even means…?

And I don’t only have the interest of WotC here.  I have only the interest of those that attend and want to play AA.

We are talking about just trying to establish an means by which ANYONE, “idiots” and all can come and play AA ftf in a great setting.  If you are a “Hardcore” player, come have at it but don’t take your frustrations out on the ones that might be the ones that beat you in the end?

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe my posts were directed at you, and if i’m not mistaken, I was wan’t even quoting anything you said so either you’ve got the wrong posts or you’re projecting so hard you could point yourself at a wall and show off power point presentation.

Casual gamers tend to be a bit stupid when it comes to games like A&A and i’m sorry that I feel it’s wrong to dumb down a game just for them. I can appreciate your stance of “No drooling mongoloid left behind” towards these gamers but I just feel it takes away from the real fans of the game who want to play it the way it was designed.

I’m not sure how you’re quantifying being “hardcore” but I know well enough that myself, and guys like Gar, Axisaplaya, Vance, Surprise Attack, and Young Grasshopper just to name a few, are hardcore and don’t need the acknowledgement of certain other forum members to validate that.  :-)

[djensen]

Greg,

We’ve already talked about this on email. Go back through our email conversation and you’ll see this was posted before that conversation and I’ve changed my thoughts on some of these things since then.

Face-to-face tournament play is a completely different beast than any other form of play, including friendly face-to-face and you’re the expert on tournaments.

People have a preference in what they like to play, I like AA50-41 with NOs, which is why I thought I might play something else instead, maybe minis or something. I’m still definitely playing 1942 and still probably AA50.

Is it too late to setup a 1941 tournament? We could probably finish that in half a day. :wink:

The guys who sit behind their computers to play also play face-to-face and have some good ideas but like everybody they/we also have ideas that won’t work. Finally, not everybody here plays online, only about 25% of active users.

David

@smo63:

@djensen:

Has anybody ever played in one of Smorey’s tournaments? The backwards bidding took me much longer to wrap my head around. I much prefer the “I will play Allies of you give me 10” and respone, “well I can play Allies for 9!”

Smorey’s is like “I will give you the Allies and 9” and response, “well I’ll give you Allies and 10.”

Next, the Anniversary tournaments seem to use rules that nobody actually plays with. Strategic bombing escorts? No National Objectives?

I may not be playing much AA50 at GenCon as I thought.

Dave,

I bet you didn’t think I would be here responding?  Just curious though, this is the kind of things I was talking about regarding G40 rules and the like.  Onliners continue to knock the system when they haven’t even tried it and used it in the setting by which it was created for.  You and I have discussed this before at length.

On the bid front, we ( myself and a few guys from California) created a bid system that was simiple and easy and it has worked now for 19 years.  It is kind of like an auction.  You know your own game and know what it takes to win under those conditions, so you bid up until you think that is enough….and then your opponent counters with the same.

Bidding 10, 9, is counting backwards and is really “backwards bidding”…so, I am not sure how you can say that about the system we created.  It is all in the positive direction.  It was created online for online gamers.  Again, my point that I have been making for along time now…

@djensen:

Next, the Anniversary tournaments seem to use rules that nobody actually plays with. Strategic bombing escorts? No National Objectives?

I may not be playing much AA50 at GenCon as I thought.

Not sure when you talk about “Nobody”.  Again, speak for yourself and those people that have no concept of the game other than their own opinion.  You know Larry and I have worked hard on trying to transition all the AA games from OB play, with the rules as is, and slightly modify them to have a great game played in a tournament format, FTF, within a time limit.  This is not rocket science nor is it something we can just put in stone and go with it.  We have to try out what we think is best for the game then continue to work it so that everyone enjoys the format by which they basically set.

As far as you not playing AA50.  Why do you say that.  You are defeating your purpose of going to GEN CON and the ability by which you have to voice your opinion on how the system works.  Hey, when I met you several years ago in LA at GEN CON, there was no complaining then and knocking the system?

I really hope you get all your guys together and come and play.  There will be a suggestion box for all those that do play and I am always open to new ideas that work for the best of FTF play.

Hey, everything I have even done at Origins, GEN CON and the Spring Gathering is based on what the players that show up and play want.  Not what the guys that sit behind their computers and play want.  When they make suggestions, we listen and try to do what they want and make it the best system there is to play under the circumstances we are in.  Sweat and simple.

So, please Dave, don’t go knocking the system when you haven’t given it a chance.  These systems are created for everyone, not just the super so called experienced, AA gamers.

Peace,
Gregory J. Smorey
Event Organizer/GM - GEN CON/Origins/Spring Gathering
www.headlesshorseman2.com

A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - General George S. Patton

[miamiumike]

I second squirecams comments about having a partner for the AA50 - it can be a LOOOONNNGGG couple of days when you have little (or no) time to eat, drink, go to the restroom or bounce an idea off your partner or have him tell you that you forgot to move a certain piece into the proper position…

MM

[djensen]

There is pre-signup, which reminds me…

@ghr2:

Do people have to sign up on the day of for the tournaments or is there a pre sign up thing?

[djensen]

The time sync isn’t thinking about NOs, it’s counting and explaining to beginner users.

I also disagree and I think this reaction is too strong. It’s one thing to have an online tournament but it’s completely different to do it in person with a time limit. Sure, maybe AA50 isn’t quite as interesting without NOs but it’s still Axis & Allies.

@Gargantua:

we wanted people to play asa much as possible, rather than spending additional time trying to figure out what NOs they had or how to get them.

What?

If you’re not competent enough to calculate NO’s at the end of the turn, or incorporate them into general strategic thinking, then you SHOULDN’T be playing Axis and Allies.

That’s like saying, “Lets play the game without Artillery, Cruisers, or Bombers, because we want people playing Axis and Allies, and not spending additional time figuring out what these units can do, and how many options they have”

Absurd.

Hold a risk tournament instead.

[Gargantua]

How many beginners are going to be at next years tournament?

[Gargantua]

@Gargantua:

How many beginners are going to be at next years tournament?

Versus, how many experienced players are going to be beginners all over again, because gameplay without NO’s is incredibly different?

[djensen]

That is a question for Smorey. I think GenCon Indy has the most number of players and likely the most number of beginners.

@Gargantua:

@Gargantua:

How many beginners are going to be at next years tournament?

Versus, how many experienced players are going to be beginners all over again, because gameplay without NO’s is incredibly different?

[squirecam]

@djensen:

The time sync isn’t thinking about NOs, it’s counting and explaining to beginner users.

I also disagree and I think this reaction is too strong. It’s one thing to have an online tournament but it’s completely different to do it in person with a time limit. Sure, maybe AA50 isn’t quite as interesting without NOs but it’s still Axis & Allies.

If complexity and # of rules are what you crave, then stick to global. AA50 is just as intense a tournament experience with NO’s or without. The fact that its a limited time with specific win conditions make the game pretty interesting.

I say try it before you knock it.

[Gargantua]

Oh for sure.

If you guys want to play golf with a soccer ball, that’s none of my business. You’re tournament, and I shouldn’t knock it until I try it. :P

[BushidoBlitz]

@Gargantua:

Oh for sure.

If you guys want to play golf with a soccer ball, that’s none of my business. You’re tournament, and I shouldn’t knock it until I try it. :P

And the troll bait dump continues…

[Gargantua]

Oh you’ve got it all wrong, I’m drinking your kool-aid now.  I’ve seen the light! It’s time to transition to the next plain!

[DizzKneeLand33]

So far, I’ve played 6 PBEM games of AA50-41 in my life, and here are the results:

One non-league game:  11 rounds, opponent resigned when Germany fell

League game 1:  12 rounds, opponent resigned when Russia fell
League game 2:  6 rounds (opponent resigned early)
League game 3:  currently in the 17th round
League game 4:  currently in the 23rd round
League game 5:  currently in the 20th round

Quite frankly, I don’t see how a quality game of AA50 (at least the 1941 setup) could end consistently in 7 rounds.  The game is too full of possibilities.  Therefore, it must be very difficult to come up with tourney rules to shorten the game.

That being said, here is a suggestion from my tournament chess days.  Put a clock on the players – a chess clock if you will.  Games should EASILY be able to go 10-15 rounds in 6 hours.  12 rounds would be 1 round every 30 minutes.  The clock would make players who play too slow for tournament settings speed up.  By rounds 12 the outcome is at least more certain than by round 7, when the game should just be getting started.

Just a thought…

[questioneer]

@DizzKneeLand33:

So far, I’ve played 6 PBEM games of AA50-41 in my life, and here are the results:

One non-league game:  11 rounds, opponent resigned when Germany fell

League game 1:  12 rounds, opponent resigned when Russia fell
League game 2:  6 rounds (opponent resigned early)
League game 3:  currently in the 17th round
League game 4:  currently in the 23rd round
League game 5:  currently in the 20th round

Quite frankly, I don’t see how a quality game of AA50 (at least the 1941 setup) could end consistently in 7 rounds.  The game is too full of possibilities.  Therefore, it must be very difficult to come up with tourney rules to shorten the game.

That being said, here is a suggestion from my tournament chess days.  Put a clock on the players – a chess clock if you will.  Games should EASILY be able to go 10-15 rounds in 6 hours.  12 rounds would be 1 round every 30 minutes.  The clock would make players who play too slow for tournament settings speed up.  By rounds 12 the outcome is at least more certain than by round 7, when the game should just be getting started.

Just a thought…

Suggested the chess clock idea to Smorey ages ago…again he wouldn’t listen to reason.

[squirecam]

@questioneer:

@DizzKneeLand33:

So far, I’ve played 6 PBEM games of AA50-41 in my life, and here are the results:

One non-league game:�  11 rounds, opponent resigned when Germany fell

League game 1:�  12 rounds, opponent resigned when Russia fell
League game 2:�  6 rounds (opponent resigned early)
League game 3:�  currently in the 17th round
League game 4:�  currently in the 23rd round
League game 5:�  currently in the 20th round

Quite frankly, I don’t see how a quality game of AA50 (at least the 1941 setup) could end consistently in 7 rounds.�  The game is too full of possibilities.�  Therefore, it must be very difficult to come up with tourney rules to shorten the game.

That being said, here is a suggestion from my tournament chess days.�  Put a clock on the players – a chess clock if you will.�  Games should EASILY be able to go 10-15 rounds in 6 hours.�  12 rounds would be 1 round every 30 minutes.�  The clock would make players who play too slow for tournament settings speed up.�  By rounds 12 the outcome is at least more certain than by round 7, when the game should just be getting started.

Just a thought…

Suggested the chess clock idea to Smorey ages ago…again he wouldn’t listen to reason.

Will you write a check for the clocks? Who do you expect to pay for all those?

[Asterios]

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

@DizzKneeLand33:

So far, I’ve played 6 PBEM games of AA50-41 in my life, and here are the results:

One non-league game:��  11 rounds, opponent resigned when Germany fell

League game 1:��  12 rounds, opponent resigned when Russia fell
League game 2:��  6 rounds (opponent resigned early)
League game 3:��  currently in the 17th round
League game 4:��  currently in the 23rd round
League game 5:��  currently in the 20th round

Quite frankly, I don’t see how a quality game of AA50 (at least the 1941 setup) could end consistently in 7 rounds.��  The game is too full of possibilities.��  Therefore, it must be very difficult to come up with tourney rules to shorten the game.

That being said, here is a suggestion from my tournament chess days.��  Put a clock on the players – a chess clock if you will.��  Games should EASILY be able to go 10-15 rounds in 6 hours.��  12 rounds would be 1 round every 30 minutes.��  The clock would make players who play too slow for tournament settings speed up.��  By rounds 12 the outcome is at least more certain than by round 7, when the game should just be getting started.

Just a thought…

Suggested the chess clock idea to Smorey ages ago…again he wouldn’t listen to reason.

Will you write a check for the clocks? Who do you expect to pay for all those?

yeah those $1 stopwatches from the dollar store can get expensive.

[Gargantua]

I know right,

Can’t even afford to pay attention.

What’s the cost to get a team entered into Gencon?  I mean, what would happen if it was $1 more, or bring your own stopwatch?

Maybe the roof would collapse like that mall in Onterrible.

[Gargantua]

Will you write a check for the clocks?

You know what. YES. I would cut the cheque and pay the bill.

Provided you actually listen to fan input, instead of -relegating- people to the “suggestion box”. Hold me to it.

From what I can tell, apparently speaking in person about the tourney style is a totally unacceptable form of communication, and damned is anyone who tries to encourage change.

Writing online also seems to ill-advised as anyone who DARES to have another opinion should be overlooked or invalidated, because their paperwork didn’t make it to the “suggestion box” at the event.

It’s clear from the history of the tourney, and it’s attendee’s, limited interest and ear is being lent to the players. Not when Pride is on the line. (Infact, from what I’ve read here, only -eye- is lent to written submission, everything else is veto’d irregardless of content)

Maybe we’re wrong, maybe Smorey does have it figured all out perfectly, but maybe it’s time to try it differently?

Regardless of how you slice the cake, GENERATING INTEREST in GEN CON should be the primary objective of the pre tourney-effort, not pigeon-holing play style, and excluding/belittling alternate opinions.

What a great way to treat people.

In my -obviously- worthless opinion, the tournament should suit the players/attendee’s, not the other way around.  I hope someone prints that and puts it in the “suggestion box” for me.

[squirecam]

http://www.nextag.com/chess-clocks/stores-html

Theres the website.

You can order 30 clocks or cut a check for the cost plus shipping.

After delivery I’d be happy to discuss your suggestions personally and in detail.