League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

[gamerman01]

I have played tech games without tokens and I have hit several techs.  I disagree that only America should buy tech when there are no tokens, but this isn’t the place to go into it.  It’s been discussed exhaustively in other threads before, and does not need to be discussed here, because tech is allowed, tech tokens are allowed, there’s nothing to discuss about league rule changes in 2014 regarding tech.

Triple A is not harsh on bombers when it comes to SBR.  I have seen many, many misses, usually when my opponent is flying over me.  I think I get less than 1/6 on AA hits, so I am balancing you out, Jenn.  Small sample sizes.  Perception.  Etc.

[Jennifer]

Hence why I said “I feel.”    :lol:

Okay, so technology tokens are allowed for next year.  Unless there is a counter argument to disallow them entirely.

[boldfresh]

Just say NO! to tech.

[gamerman01]

@Boldfresh:

Just say NO! to tech.

When I imagine my opponent getting paratroopers with Germany on G1 and Japan getting LRA on J1 for $5 each, I would agree with you.

You know when we had the whole low luck discussion…  I have to recall that we did not have the option of closing the Dardanelles in the AA50 league (this is an optional rule in the rule book), and also did not really have the option of playing with no NO’s (was an optional rule in AA50 I believe).  I mean, I suppose it was allowed (not sure), but good luck finding someone who would agree to it.  And it would mess with your ability to play the “standard” game well anyway

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

Just say NO! to tech.

I can’t say no to tech.

[boldfresh]

@Soulblighter:

@Boldfresh:

Just say NO! to tech.

I can’t say no to tech.

:lol:  i understand.  it’s addictive, i get it.

however, my point is, there are so many “children” out there that have no idea how to play this game yet WITHOUT tech.  let alone with that ridiculously complicating dimension.  if playing for “fun” tech would be great i guess.  if playing for “skill” tech takes the game up 15 notches in complexity.  just sayin.

[Guest]

You misunderstand me. Nobody introduced me yet to tech, so how can I say no to tech :lol:

On a side note and a more serious note I am unfamiliar with tech. However it is my belief that the difficulty about playing with tech lies not within the randomness of it all, but more in the fact that it requires timing about when to use it and when not to. Also logically speaking if you plan on using tech, then you make sure your entire strategy can benefit from any of the given outcomes of the branch you want to try. Can somebody explain me how tech works rl tho. If you buy a tech dice. Is it just for that round or permanent? I never really saw an explanation to that question inside the rule book I downloaded.

[gamerman01]

You’re paying 5 IPC’s per die.  If you roll one or more sixes, you get 1 tech.  If you roll no sixes, you have nothing.
Tokens were only used in AA50 (if you roll no sixes, you get to roll again next turn for each token and you can even buy more), but then Larry inexplicably went away from tokens.  And neutered some techs.

[boldfresh]

is LRA +1 or +2 now?

[Guest]

Long-Range Aircraft - All of your air units’ ranges are increased by 1 space.

[Jennifer]

I won’t say that all games have to have technology in them, but I refuse to say that you cannot have technology even when both players agree.  I would prefer to allow technology tokens if both players agree to that as well, since I think it takes some of the horrible risk out of technology rolls. Â

Cons of tech:

• 100s of IPC lost with no technology gained
• Risk of getting completely useless technologies or technologies that are useless for your nation with the strategy you have in mind
• Lost IPC being compounded by fewer units on the board that could have been used in a timely manner
• Generally only afforded by larger more ridiculously wealthy nations (i.e. USA?)

Benefits of adding tokens:

• IPC lost should be reduced by at least half, since after you get a certain number of tokens you would stop purchasing them
• Afforded by all nations.  After all, if Russia knows they will get one roll a round until they get a tech, they would be more inclined to purchase 1 die, probably before being at war.

[variance]

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

[boldfresh]

@variance:

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

I love it but good luck getting ANYONE ELSE to agree that its a good idea.  Especially alexgreat.  :wink:

[Guest]

@variance:

I’d like to see a rule for the 2014 league whereby if you play someone once and lose, you have an automatic right to a rematch.  The loser chooses whether or not to exercise this right.  If the loser wants a rematch you will switch sides and play with the same bid amount as in the first game (can place differently but same amount).  If the opponent refuses to start the rematch game you can start a thread and bump until you win by forfeit.  If the players are tied after the rematch, a tie breaker may be played with a new bid.

You can always agree prior to the first game to do a rematch under the same conditions. Once agreed upon beforehand they can’t pull out. However this goes both ways. I did this with several players. In my opinion it only seems fair that you get a rematch under the same terms, whether you win or lose of course.

[gamerman01]

Good point, Soulblighter.
Vance, if you want to assure a rematch opportunity with same bid, you need to get your opponent to agree to it beforehand.  We’re not going to mandate this on everybody involuntarily, though.

[JDOW]

@allweneedislove:

[…}
possible wording could look like the following.

Determining sides.

When setting up a game both players ‘Player A’ and ‘Player B’ declare their preference to play as the Axis or Allies.
If the players both want to play opposite sides the game begins.
If both players want the same side an auction begins.

The Auction
‘Player A’ offers ‘Player B’ the side that he/she does not want and adds a bid to entice ‘Player B’ to accept.
‘Player B’ has two options decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer and the game commences.
If ‘Player B’ declines the offer and increases the bid it is now up to ‘Player A’ to decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer. The bidding goes back and forth until both player are happy with their side.
[/quote]

I really like that idea, it is just perfect with one flaw: One would need to make the side choice blind. Like both players put an envelope on the table with the preferred side on it.
The only idea how to handle this in the forum is imo to make this via PM to a special administrator account or so. I would say it is not even a super big deal, there are not too many games starting per day and all the Admin would need to do is the following:

1. Create the thread
2. Roll a dice about which player has to make the first offer

This is a bit formal and not super handy, so the players can of course easily just agree on whatever they want. However this process should be the fallback solution for a very competitive game or if one player insists on it. This would require that players who prefer this process would ge flamed for it:)

@PGMatt:

The issue I see here is that it could be gamed pretty easy without a way to make a blind, simultanious proposal. “Oh, you want Allies do you? Well, so do I, so if you want me to play Axis it will cost you” Even if all along the othe rplayer wanted to play Axis anyways.

First of all, one could argue it is a mind game and every player could bluff, however this could lead to a game theoretical problem comparable to the prisoners dilemma: I simply do not post first, I’ll just wait till eternity, he might give up earlier, if not, we don’t play.

So as I said a PM to a trustworthy source could solve the simulation of a blind and simultaneous proposal. If only used for important and competitive games, the sample size should be small and the overhead managable.

Cheers,
Tobias

[gamerman01]

If anyone wants to choose sides this way, I am willing to take the blind side preferences by PM for you and then tell you if you chose the same side or not.

[Jennifer]

I see nothing wrong with that.  We did it for last year’s Tournament.

The main issue is that you would probably bid the lowest you would take so as to prevent your opponent from getting an advantage you would dislike
vs
Auction style where you start with the bid you want and determine on the way down if you want to lower it or give up the field

Not offering an opinion, just giving food for thought.

[MagicQ]

@Cmdr:

So far we have 1 supporter for LL, 1 “I don’t care either way” (me) and a few opposed.  Unless something drastic changes, I’d say consensus is no LL next year.

1 more supporter for LL here. :evil:

[arathorn]

I am completely against LL being allowed in the same league as regular dice.
If people want to play LL, they can, but it shouldn’t count in the league unless enough players existed to justify the forming of a second LL league.

That’s my opinion at least.