AA50 League and/or Tournaments


  • Moderator

    This is not a sign-up.  😄
    Just trying to gather info.

    This is for PBF of course.

    1.  If there was an AA50 League, would you like two seperate divisions - one for 41 and one for 42?

    2.  NOs - yes (no), Tech - yes (no)?

    3.  Sides chosen by random in-house roll?  (or would bidding, even if both bid 0, be used and ties broken randomly by Frood)

    4.  Anything else?

    Tournaments

    It is likely that we’ll do a tournament sometime this year, so sort of the same questions.

    1 - 41 or 42?  or both?
    2 - NO and tech (yes/no)?



  • How does playing in the League differ from playing a tournament??



  • Definitely separate '41 and '42 divisions.

    The techs and NOs are what makes 50 interesting in my opinion. If we don’t include them we might as well just play Revised again. And as far as the argument about loosing to randomly decided techs the last I checked all the AA series games use dice which are by nature random.

    Rolling for sides seems fair. With over 20 games played '41 is looking pretty balanced. '42 is a big Axis advantage.

    As a weekender I rarely can play in the tournaments but my feelings above apply.


  • Moderator

    @captainjack:

    How does playing in the League differ from playing a tournament??

    A tournament would be single elimination, once you lose you are done.

    A League is a year long thing.  You can play as few or as many games you want against whoever you want.  The overall winner would then be determined (by an agreed upon scoring system) once all games are completed by a certain date.



  • DarthMaximus,

    Great idea.  I would love a League system.  Single elimination is great for the excitement and drama, but a League system puts less reliance on luck.  Ultimately, I already participate in three gaming groups so I won’t be able to participate.  Good luck on the setup!  😄


  • Moderator

    We’ve had pretty good success with Revised in '07 and '08.

    We use a system where you get more points for beating people with better records, it seems biased towards number of games played, but that is what we want, more games!  And we’ll acknowledge a “Minor League” winner for those that played 12 games or less.

    Infact, I just finished the Standings for the '08 Revised League.  We had 216 total games and 212 games in '07 and roughly 50 players with at least 1 game played each year.  🙂


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I would say League with caps: 2 1941 Games, 2 1942 Games and 1 Game of either 1941 or 1942, players chose. (One chooses 1941/1942 the other Axis or Allies.)

    I’d make it one league.

    Tournaments would have to be separate, 1941 and 1942 tournaments.  I know it’s more work, but the games are dynamically different!

    In general, league and tournaments won’t work at all without National Objectives and Technologies active for this.  We are not playing Daddy’s Revised Edition, this is Anniversary!


  • 2007 AAR League

    Keeping separate leagues for 41’ and 42’ would allow players with less time to be competetive because they can choose to focus on one year. You’re still going to get players who play 30 games, but they are most likely going to split those games between 41’ and 42’ so people who can only play 10 or 15 games can still challenge them for one of the titles if they play exclusively 41’ or 42’. I vote for 2 separate leagues.

    NO’s are neccesary. The Axis rely on NO’s more than the Allies do. If you remove NO’s, the Axis will need a bid.

    Techs are a gamblers paradise. They give people who consistently make poor strategic choices a chance to be competetive. It allows you to be outplayed the entire game and come back and win on the figurative “Hail Mary pass” so poor players can sit back and keep doing the same things that lose games for them without actually having to change their ways and learn to make better decisions. It is a strategic crutch. Nothing more. AA50 isn’t one dimensional like Revised and Classic. There are plenty of avenues to victory that you can take without having to add techs. If you want to play with techs for fun, that’s fine. Gamble at the casino, not in the League.



  • @U-505:

    Techs are a gamblers paradise. They give people who consistently make poor strategic choices a chance to be competetive. It allows you to be outplayed the entire game and come back and win on the figurative “Hail Mary pass” so poor players can sit back and keep doing the same things that lose games for them without actually having to change their ways and learn to make better decisions. It is a strategic crutch. Nothing more. AA50 isn’t one dimensional like Revised and Classic. There are plenty of avenues to victory that you can take without having to add techs. If you want to play with techs for fun, that’s fine. Gamble at the casino, not in the League.

    I knew it wouldn’t take long for this argument to rear its head. Investing the money to get the tech is a strategic decision. Not figuring the potential changes should your opponent achieve such, is poor strategic decision making. Allowing techs keeps the LL, calced to the death, play by script types from thinking they are some kind of great General.



  • 1941 is far from being competitive, giving axis a monster advantage (many players are not killing China round 1 and that is the reason of many allied victories, even some players don’t kill the fighter). 1942 still gives axis advantage (China falling round 3 or 4 instead round 1  😛 ), but not so horrendous. Playing without NOs don’t solve totally this because China can fall anyway (but at least gives allies a chance). I’m not sure if a bid can solve it, many will bid allies and give the units to Egypt or such, leading to a opposite unbalance.

    For balanced competitive game, better if we stick to Revised

    Said that, if finally play AA50 as league or tourney, I’d play with techs and NOs. Even if not competitive, at least we get the fun factor of techs.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    1.  Two separate divisions - one for 41 and one for 42?
    2.  NOs? Tech?
    3.  Sides chosen by random in-house roll?

    It is likely that we’ll do a tournament sometime this year, so sort of the same questions.
    1 - 41 or 42?  or both?
    2 - NO and tech (yes/no)?

    League:
    1. 2 divisions
    2. NOs: yes. tech, no (for every reason U-505 stated)
    3. Bidding is best

    Tourney:
    1. One or the other, 2 separate tourneys
    2. NOs: yes. tech, no (for every reason U-505 stated)

    Tell me how one can overcome with strategy a t1 Heavy bomber tech roll by your opponent? No one should ever lose when getting a t1 Heavy Bomber roll. Insta-win imo, and terrible for competitive play.



  • So what happens to your intsa-win when the AA guns shoot down all your bombers (has happened to me in more than 1 game). Hmm again that is another random dice thing. Maybe we should just get rid of the dice all together. How effective are your Hbs if your opponent has Radar or improved industrial? I think HB is nice but I don’t think it is an automatic win. Personally for me if the '09 league is without techs I will not be playing. If I wanted to play a no tech game I might as well just play Revised.

    Sorry the argument I see against techs is this: “I had a turn by turn strategy worked out and was playing by my script. Then the conditions changed and I couldn’t adapt.”


  • 2007 AAR League

    No point in having several divisions! That would be too complicated, more difficult to find opponents etc.

    I think, to keep things simple:

    • Scenario 1941
    • Tech: Yes
    • NOs: Yes
    • Bidding for sides

    I think we should start off with that!
    Why not a Spring 1-on-1 Tourney??



  • @a44bigdog:

    So what happens to your intsa-win when the AA guns shoot down all your bombers (has happened to me in more than 1 game). Hmm again that is another random dice thing. Maybe we should just get rid of the dice all together. How effective are your Hbs if your opponent has Radar or improved industrial? I think HB is nice but I don’t think it is an automatic win. Personally for me if the '09 league is without techs I will not be playing. If I wanted to play a no tech game I might as well just play Revised.

    Sorry the argument I see against techs is this: “I had a turn by turn strategy worked out and was playing by my script. Then the conditions changed and I couldn’t adapt.”

    I quite agree.

    Yes, I’ll grant you, playing with techs makes the game a little more volatile, but that’s exactly what this is, a game, and techs definitely make the game more fun/interesting.  I’m not opposed to tweaking some of the techs, but leave them in the game.  I mean, what ended WWII anyway?  The atomic bomb, a tech.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    @U-505:

    Techs are a gamblers paradise. They give people who consistently make poor strategic choices a chance to be competetive. It allows you to be outplayed the entire game and come back and win on the figurative “Hail Mary pass” so poor players can sit back and keep doing the same things that lose games for them without actually having to change their ways and learn to make better decisions. It is a strategic crutch. Nothing more. AA50 isn’t one dimensional like Revised and Classic. There are plenty of avenues to victory that you can take without having to add techs. If you want to play with techs for fun, that’s fine. Gamble at the casino, not in the League.

    It deeply hurts me to say this but I concur with……V-05

    Techs are all about luck, nothing more. We should attempt to keep some semblance of “skill wins over luck” without having to go to the extreme of playing low luck games.

    NO’s aren’t about luck at all so IMO they should be in.

    41 or 42, I think the person brave enough to run this NEW league along w/the other site duties they hold should decide. Seems like a great deal of work to manage the League(s), Tournament(s) etc……



  • @JWW:

    @U-505:

    Techs are a gamblers paradise. They give people who consistently make poor strategic choices a chance to be competetive. It allows you to be outplayed the entire game and come back and win on the figurative “Hail Mary pass” so poor players can sit back and keep doing the same things that lose games for them without actually having to change their ways and learn to make better decisions. It is a strategic crutch. Nothing more. AA50 isn’t one dimensional like Revised and Classic. There are plenty of avenues to victory that you can take without having to add techs. If you want to play with techs for fun, that’s fine. Gamble at the casino, not in the League.

    It deeply hurts me to say this but I concur with……V-05

    Techs are all about luck, nothing more. We should attempt to keep some semblance of “skill wins over luck” without having to go to the extreme of playing low luck games.

    NO’s aren’t about luck at all so IMO they should be in.

    41 or 42, I think the person brave enough to run this NEW league along w/the other site duties they hold should decide. Seems like a great deal of work to manage the League(s), Tournament(s) etc……

    Yes, dice are a part of the game.

    Yes techs are dicey.  The new game took away a portion of the ‘luck’ in tech, but not enough for my tastes.  But then again, I am from the Enhanced camp that utilized a 4:2 tech roll in conjunction with the directed tech that came into effect at the end of the turn.

    I will soon post our tech house rule that mimics Enhanced as closely as possible within the AA50 tech construct.  Use it if you would like to reduce the ‘luck’ that is inherant in dice rolls.  I better sign off here now or get yelled at for posting house rules in the wrong forum.

    AARe version of tech in AA50:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=41.0

    I agree the N.O.s (or strategic suggestions as I like to call them) should be in the league.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Techs are a part of the game.  I don’t really see them turning a losing battle into sudden victory the way Industrial Production or Heavy Bombers did in Classic.  But having it can augment your ability to recover if you are not getting the pants beat off you.

    For instance, Germany can be losing, even though both sides are playing with good strategy.  Getting something like Improved Factories could turn that -20 IPC a round into -10 giving Germany a chance to recover.  Maybe getting those Paratroopers allow Germany some quick gains in IPC so they can defend a bit longer and recover.

    What you won’t see is one magic technology that makes it so Germany can go from only Berlin to owning the entire world.  Not like you did in Classic!

    That said, I think they should be left in the game.  They’re very integral and balanced now. (Except Super Submarines and you all know how I feel about submarines in this game to begin with.)


  • 2007 AAR League

    im not sure yet, not enough games played, not enough info, not sure bout techs
    i do know the axis look strong in 41 but my experience has the allies winning most 41 gmes so far
    i do expect a strat to come out that will require a bid for one side or the other say around june of 09


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Axis are way stronger in 42 than 41.



  • Perhaps this completly of topic but why not use the box techs as they are but but make up some buying rule. Then play test it and determine how much is fair for each tech to cost or have some other mechanic to buy tech.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, the obvious solution to the tech problem is to make it a player choice. That way the gamblers can gamble and the skill players can have a less wobbly playing field. I see no reason why we can’t just make the baseline game either 41’ with NO’s or 42’ with NO’s and techs up to the two players.

    Personally, as a skill player, and a decent one at that, I suppose having some people playing with techs is in my favor because, knowing the inherent volatility of techs, it makes it harder for a player who plays “tech only” to dominate the league since a low skill player can much more easily defeat a high skill player when techs are in play than when they are not. Tech it up guys! But, only if you want to.  😄

    So I vote “tech optional”. But, if I am forced to choose firmly between tech or no tech then I vote “no tech”.

    @Cmdr:

    Techs are a part of the game.  I don’t really see them turning a losing battle into sudden victory the way Industrial Production or Heavy Bombers did in Classic.  But having it can augment your ability to recover if you are not getting the pants beat off you.

    No, techs are not part of the game. They are an “optional” part of the game. Big difference. And it was made that way for a very good reason.

    And no, maybe it can’t turn a game around where you’re about to lose your capital. But, it can radically alter a game where you are losing with a slim chance of winning or shift a tight game heavily into one side’s favor.

    There is no OTHER $5 purchase or placement that you can make that can so radically alter a game. And it has nothing to do with strategy. It’s buying an “everybody wins something” lottery ticket because eventually you will be rewarded with something but there is no guarantee that it will have a miniscule effect or a huge effect. How that is not gambling is beyond me.

    Case in point. We all can pretty much assume that if Germany spends $5 on G1 and gets rockets, IFP, or mechanized infantry on one chart or LRA, jets, or heavy bombers on the other chart, that they will immediately have an big advantage. This would happen in an average of 1 in 12 games. That’s almost 10% of the games when Germany invests just $5 into techs. Even super subs helps because they start the game with 3 of them in position to do a good deal of damage. And techs like mech infantry and heavy bombers are virtually instant game winners right off the bat. Now, someone explain to me how it can even be considered a strategy when one player can be put firmly in control of a game after only ONE country plays it’s turn. At the very least, techs should go back to coming into effect AFTER the country plays their turn.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    No, they are part of the game.

    National Objectives are optional, but I think the game is strongly anti-Axis if you take them out, so to avoid the need to bid, just leave them in.

    As for Techs, it already is player choice.  You chose to buy researchers or not.  No one says you HAVE to buy them.  See, player choice!



  • There is no OTHER $5 purchase or placement that you can make that can so radically alter a game. And it has nothing to do with strategy. It’s buying an “everybody wins something” lottery ticket because eventually you will be rewarded with something but there is no guarantee that it will have a miniscule effect or a huge effect. How that is not gambling is beyond me.

    Actually, in this analogy, Tech Rolls present more uncertainty than a state lottery.  In a state lottery, you can guarantee yourself a share of the grand prize if you buy up every number combination.  In A&A, you can buy eight tech rolls and still not be guaranteed a Tech.  Nor are you ever assured a specific tech at a specific part of the game.  So yes, Tech Rolls are ABSOLUTELY Gambling.  Anyone who states otherwise is flat out wrong.

    The Bigger question is, So what?  So what if it is gambling?  To stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.  A competent player will seek opportunities that maximize his potential for progress, while minimizing his risks of disproportionate loss.  Just because you’re gambling does not mean there’s no strategy involved.  If you can’t handle the element of chance, then Axis and Allies isn’t the game for you.  Perhaps chess is more up your alley.

    National Objectives are optional, but I think the game is strongly anti-Axis if you take them out, so to avoid the need to bid, just leave them in.

    As for Techs, it already is player choice.  You chose to buy researchers or not.  No one says you HAVE to buy them.  See, player choice!

    My rationale is that the Person who HATES tech does not mind playing against an opponent who invests heavily in tech, yet unlocks nothing.  That Person only gets upset when the other player unlocks something worthwhile.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Tech can be strategy.  If you do it wisely, you are not spending overly much and hedging that eventually you will unlock something of use.

    As for “tech being random game win buttons” so are AA Guns.  For that matter, every time you enter into combat or defend against someone making combat you are entering into a gamble.

    I can’t even count how many times I lost a game because I attacked in Caucasus when I had 99% odds to win and been slaughtered by the defenders in Revised.  Does that mean all those games were bogus and I should have been handed the victory anyway, since the other guy “cheated” and relied on “luck” to win?

    In other words, saying we can’t use tech because it introduces luck into the game is a strawman argument to start with.  It’s all luck!  Even low luck is luck.  Even no luck is still luck (since you are lucky if your opponent makes a tactical error.)  Even Chess has an element of luck to it.  If you want to play without luck, go play a computer game against an artificial AI, something that doesn’t take dice into consideration.

    That said, unlike previous incarnations of the game from Larry, this version at least has tech do something other than buff units.  We finally have a version that sometimes buffs units, sometimes negates the buffs of units and abilities.

    For instance:

    Rockets, Heavy Bombers and SBRs are countered by Not Repairing Damage, Cap on total damage you can take in a turn, War Bonds, Improved Factories and Radar

    Mechanized Infantry are countered by Paratroopers (just drop a guy behind the lines and stop the tanks from blitzing infantry up, or at least slow them down, hence they counter each other.)

    Jet Fighters, Long Range Aircraft and Heavy Bombers counter Advanced Shipyards and Improved Factories

    Etc.  The list goes on.


    In summation, I think the only reason people (in general, not anyone specifically) vote against technologies in games is because they have a pat move plan and they don’t want someone to discover a technology that would make them think of something new to do.  In other words, they are relying 100% on luck to make sure their plan works this time like it did before.



  • @Cmdr:

    In summation, I think the only reason people (in general, not anyone specifically) vote against technologies in games is because they have a pat move plan and they don’t want someone to discover a technology that would make them think of something new to do.  In other words, they are relying 100% on luck to make sure their plan works this time like it did before.

    Wow.

    Sometimes your posts are way out there: They’re head scratchers.

    What are you saying?

    This is wrong in so many ways.
    I’ll be brief and list two:

    1).  People have already stated they do not like tech for the additional randomness that it brings to the game, not because they are rigid in their strategic thinking.  How do you come to that conclusion?

    2).  If people like to run the same strategy over and over again, they probably have worked out some / most of the numbers to specifically ELIMINATE the “luck” of dice outcomes.  I would say the complete opposite:  These people want to rely on 0% luck, not 100% luck.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 3
  • 3
  • 4
  • 1
  • 6
  • 5
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts