League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

[gamerman01]

LL will continue to NOT be the default
However, LL will be allowed in the 2014 league if both players want to play it.
This means that no player will EVER be forced to play LL against their will, so as Soulblighter said, it will not affect any current “ADS” or “regular dice” player’s enjoyment or experience in the league.

I do agree with Arathorn that it is apples and oranges.  I do not see much benefit in banning low luck from the league, though.

[Whackamatt]

I think the ELO system could work looking at the 2013 statistics.  I’m not sure why some feel that we do have enough games played per person on average to accurately measure strength.  If you’re in the single digits played, then no, it’s probably not an accurate reflection, but most people on the list for 2013 have around 20 games played.  That’s plenty to get a decent idea of relative strengths.

I played another online game, Laser Squad Nemesis that was all PVP and used the ELO ranking.  It was turned based PBEM, wait for your opponent to play, etc.  Using ELO for turned out to be a fairly accurate measurement of a player.  You would gravitate up or down the ladder according to your skill.
Why I believe it works:  Yes, you could play only low-level players or players new to the board to try and gain points, but it only gets you so far.

1. Playing vs. new people to the ranking will only get you so far.  Assuming you win them all, you will get diminishing returns and will be forced to play higher-ranked players to advance.
2. If a player shoots to the top of the ladder through several quick victories, it was either well deserved, or they will start to lose and slide down.  Taking it easy and only playing lower-ranked players would give you little gain for great risk, and you wouldn’t advance your score as much as another top player playing vs. other similarly-ranked opponents.
3. It’s all based on math, without decisions being made on who should be in what tier; that’s all in your ranking number.
4. It would eliminate picking and choosing for the playoffs.  Four players were removed from the top to get down to the top 8.  Using ELO, they never would have been at the top.  It’s about score, not win %.  A
   Everyone started out with 1000 points.  Playing an equally pointed player would either give you +10 for a victory, or -10 for a loss.  As the points difference increased, you would get +8 for a win -12 for a loss for playing lower-ranked, and vice versa, up to a +20 -0 or +0 -20, which no one would ever do. 
   In sum, I believe there are a lot of false perceptions about how the ELO would not work in the context of A & A.  I feel it would do well for us and provide an accurate reflection of a player’s ability.

Now, because I’m new to the thread that is 10-pages long, I apologize if this system would be close enough to the proposed retro-active tier revisions.  Either way, I think the league will survive.  I also don’t want to propose a new system when someone else is doing all of the leg-work for free. (Thanks, Gamer!)

[gamerman01]

Thanks, Matt
I think the current system is working well - PPG very accurately reflects the skill of a player after about 10 games too.
I don’t know what you meant by “four players were removed from the top.”  Do you mean the highest 4 in win %?  They do not qualify for the playoffs because they don’t have 8 games played.  If any of them finish 8 games and go 8-0 or 7-1 they will in fact be in the playoff.
Also, this is definitely the last time win% will ever matter for playoff qualification.  Next year will be by PPG.

[Jennifer]

I feel that it is best to use the big tent approach for standard league play and only restrict the rules for playoffs.  For standard league play, you can choose to play someone or not.  For playoffs, you either participate or you give up your seat - you have no choice who you play.

So for standard league play, I would say that the following options are okay, as long as both players agree PRIOR to the start of the game, and it is clearly listed in the opening post:

• Technology can be in play (default is no technology.)
• Low Luck can be the method of play for ALL dice (default is actual dice server results.)
  **  Submarines MUST be rolled separately in LL - not sure if AAA does that or not.

I’d love for there to be technology tokens, but I don’t know how the community would feel about it.  Again, good with it, or without it!

I am also good with using the inhouse dicey or tripleA and I would leave choice of which up to the player in question.

Playoffs have to be most stringent to make them more universal.

[MagicQ]

@Soulblighter:

@MrRoboto:

Well while you’re correct about the fact that LL does not change the game entirely, I don’t agree 100% with you PGMatt.

Yes, the majority of the game remains the same. But the option “LL or regular” is altering the game much more than the option of “tech or no tech”.

So yes, it will attract more people because there are MANY people who like LL games. On the other hand there will be some few, who will quit the league. Overall, I expect to see a rise in players, although that’s just speculation.

I’d not go as far as arathorn, staying out of the league if LL is allowed. But I’d vote against it, if my opinion is of any worth.

I think that ultimately it doesn’t matter. If say player X and Y decide to play a game at low luck. How does that affect your enjoyment of the game. Also ultimately it doesn’t really matter. Fact of the matter is that there will be enough players to do both ways.

Yep, your words make sense.

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

I’d love for there to be technology tokens, but I don’t know how the community would feel about it.  Again, good with it, or without it!

Default for playing with tech is no tokens because that’s the rule book rule, however

Playing tech with tokens is a perfectly acceptable option for league players as well.

[Jennifer]

That’s why I am good with LL play in League.  HOWEVER, playoffs will have to be played ADS so that all games are equal.

I would prefer to even have a set bid amount (take all the games from April 1 to Oct 1, average the bid and that’s the standard playoff bid) so even that is static.  You could still place it as you see fit…just an opinion here.

[gamerman01]

Please review my draft if you haven’t already, Jennifer

I’m gonna have to veto the static bid idea, sorry
I’m confident a majority of the league would agree with me.

[Jennifer]

Just to clarify, I was thinking static bid for the playoffs.  But it was just an idea.

[JDOW]

@Gamerman01:

LL will continue to NOT be the default
However, LL will be allowed in the 2014 league if both players want to play it.
This means that no player will EVER be forced to play LL against their will, so as Soulblighter said, it will not affect any current “ADS” or “regular dice” player’s enjoyment or experience in the league.

I do agree with Arathorn that it is apples and oranges.  I do not see much benefit in banning low luck from the league, though.

Well said and totally agree! I guess the same would apply for Tech?

@Gamerman01:

Please review my draft if you haven’t already, Jennifer

I’m gonna have to veto the static bid idea, sorry
I’m confident a majority of the league would agree with me.

Sorry if I overlooked it, where can I find your draft?

[MrRoboto]

Since I’ve not seen anyone so far who’s in favor of the 6VC rule in the Pacific, wouldn’t it be wise to change that rule for our 2014 league?

Victory conditions:

Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 3 out of (Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu, San Fransisco). Maintain control of one of their own capitals.
Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals.

It’s not such a big change and keeps it simple, but has great effects. USA will not be forced to spend very early, very much IPC to prevent a fast Japanese Victory. It opens up the option of spending Atlantic first to pressure Germany.

[allweneedislove]

@MrRoboto:

Since I’ve not seen anyone so far who’s in favor of the 6VC rule in the Pacific, wouldn’t it be wise to change that rule for our 2014 league?

Victory conditions:

Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 3 out of (Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu, San Fransisco). Maintain control of one of their own capitals.
Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals.

It’s not such a big change and keeps it simple, but has great effects. USA will not be forced to spend very early, very much IPC to prevent a fast Japanese Victory. It opens up the option of spending Atlantic first to pressure Germany.

most people do not say when they are in favour of the status quo.

i have not seen anyone in favour of keeping germany as a playable power. this does not mean that everyone thinks the game would be better without playing germany.

coincidentally, i just started a topic about why global 1940 is so great. and i believe the most important change was the victory conditions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32258.0

[boldfresh]

@allweneedislove:

@MrRoboto:

Since I’ve not seen anyone so far who’s in favor of the 6VC rule in the Pacific, wouldn’t it be wise to change that rule for our 2014 league?

Victory conditions:

Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 3 out of (Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu, San Fransisco). Maintain control of one of their own capitals.
Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals.

It’s not such a big change and keeps it simple, but has great effects. USA will not be forced to spend very early, very much IPC to prevent a fast Japanese Victory. It opens up the option of spending Atlantic first to pressure Germany.

most people do not say when they are in favour of the status quo.

i have not seen anyone in favour of keeping germany as a playable power. this does not mean that everyone thinks the game would be better without playing germany.

coincidentally, i just started a topic about why global 1940 is so great. and i believe the most important change was the victory conditions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32258.0

i do think the VC conditions were an improvement.  i just need to investigate further to see if it doesn’t break down in the later rounds.  i think there should possibly be some penalty for the axis losing VC’s in one theater to gain them in the other and achieve the victory.

[gamerman01]

I think we should stick with the rulebook for league play, so no change in victory conditions for 2014.  Thanks for the idea.

When the new and improved house rule version is finished, it will be a separate “special”, if you will, league.  So that the 2nd edition G40 game by the rule book will always be available for league play.

[Jennifer]

I think the VCs are incorrect for victory, to be honest.  How to fix them I am not sure, I just know it does not really work well - like the old M84 rule.

ATM, I like get the right number of VCs but you MUST either have W. USA for victory in the Pacific OR London, Moscow or Washington D.C. for victory in Europe.  I just don’t see Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt saying “we surrender, Hitler got Cairo!” you know?

Besides, requiring a capitol is more like previous versions of Axis and Allies.

That said, I don’t personally have a problem requiring global domination to declare a winner in your G40 league games, but it might be safer to just say “standard victory conditions as per rule books” to prevent arguments.

[MrRoboto]

@allweneedislove:

@MrRoboto:

Since I’ve not seen anyone so far who’s in favor of the 6VC rule in the Pacific, wouldn’t it be wise to change that rule for our 2014 league?

Victory conditions:

Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 3 out of (Sydney, Calcutta, Honolulu, San Fransisco). Maintain control of one of their own capitals.
Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals.

It’s not such a big change and keeps it simple, but has great effects. USA will not be forced to spend very early, very much IPC to prevent a fast Japanese Victory. It opens up the option of spending Atlantic first to pressure Germany.

most people do not say when they are in favour of the status quo.

i have not seen anyone in favour of keeping germany as a playable power. this does not mean that everyone thinks the game would be better without playing germany.

coincidentally, i just started a topic about why global 1940 is so great. and i believe the most important change was the victory conditions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32258.0

Yeah I expressed myself very poorly here.
I was talking about discussions that were regarded specifically to the victory conditions. I’ve seen a lot of people argue that the Japanese victory condition is lackluster (Have a look at the thread “cheesiest things in global 1940” (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32187.0).