I think it is a good idea to make sure that people don’t have too much trouble finding opponents to play. That is both in the interests of some players individually but it is also in our collective interest. If some players, and especially new players, have difficulty finding opponents, than we will have trouble keeping people in the league and getting new people to join.

I don’t think mismatched games are necessarily a problem. It may be less interesting for the better players but it is a good learning experience for newer players and helps them become more competitive in the long run.

At the same time, I don’t want to add to the work of those who manage the league. So I would support an ELO system if it can be implemented in a way that doesn’t add to Gamerman’s work.

If that is too complicated, another option is just to score tier 3 the same way as tier 2. M and some E ranked players would still lose score in those games, but they would lose less, and everyone else would still go up.

Also, its worth noting, with new players at least, that losses to E and M players increase their average. There is a very good chance that players who start out at tier 3 will end up at tier 1 or 2 by the end of the year, and the more losses they have to E and M ranked players the more likely that is. So there is less of a disincentive than might appear at first.

@lmterrell welcome to A&A! As barnee says, triplea is a good way to play online and for free. But if you do want the boardgame itself, it probably just depends on what you are looking for. If you are new to this kind of boardgame or you want something that is lighter and quicker (games that take an evening rather than a few days) you are probably better off with the 1942 or 1941 versions, at least to start. The Europe and Japan 1940 games are a bit more complicated and they combine for a Global game. These ones require quite a time commitment though and games can last days.

I’ve been playing online for a bit so I’m a bit rusty on the physical versions of the games but that is my sense. And if you are looking for people to play against the online game and this site are a good resource.

Dawgs input is welcome as well. How the league determines playoffs should be a question that everyone who is playing in league can speak to, although I assume gamerman gets to make the final decision. In past years, multiple playoffs have been set up to include people below the top 8. The point is to find rules that are inclusive enough of the different preferences people have, so that people are not discouraged from participating.

I like Oysteilo’s choices except I would hesitate on the sub in 110, the inf in Yunnan, and the transport in 71.

Yunnan increases the chances for a Yunnan disaster for Japan, but Japan is almost always going to go for it and the most likely outcome is just China losing one more inf.

The transport is probably only useful if you are fairly sure you are going to hit the Italians first in Ethiopia. But I think they often have other priorities that would demand the other units needed.I suppose it can go to Persia to allow the India transport to go to the islands, but I think the islands are often a mistake on UK1.

The sub in 110 is useful because the naval base gives it range but it doesn’t add much to the defense since the German attack there is mostly air and because that is the one spot the Germans are definitely going to hit. 106 may be more useful for defense since it likely blocks that attack or forces the Germans to send 3 subs (in which case the sub can submerge and join the counter)

UK Europe is almost always the best bet for the bulk of the bid since that is the one ally that is certain to be at war in round 1, (so I agree with Oysteilo’s emphasis on that) but I might still consider adding to the pacific. More UK inf in the pacific, or a second ANZAC sub, or Art for China.

Also, the sub in 91 is for me a must, as it discourages an attack on that cruiser (which is an option for Germany if they ignore 111 or 106) and it threatens everywhere the German navy ends up plus the Italian destroyer in 96.

But I haven’t really played much OOB for a while (and never had a chance to play with a 50 bid) so I might be misjudging and identifying things that are more appropriate for BM.

@martin welcome to the league martin!
You can play either BM or OOB here, or other variants such as PTV. The issue is only being able to find opponents that want to play the version you want. More people now play BM here, so if you are not too committed to OOB you may have more luck finding a game if you are willing to play both. BM is fairly close to OOB, but with a little more complexity and a little more balanced. PTV is more substantially different, but I believe it is also still being workshopped.

It can sometimes be hard for new (and unranked) players to find a game right away so you might need some patience. If you don’t get a response in a day or two, it can be worth posting here again … and again. And also look for others posting as well and message them. You will likely have more luck (as a new and unranked player) with players that are lower in the rankings then higher.

It is worth reviewing the league rules and standings to see how they work while you wait for a game. And somewhere on this site, you should find explanations for BM and PTV if you are interested in those.

The cost is that you are going to lose 3 inf that could be in Moscow. The benefit is that you deny him 7 ipcs and his air builds for Moscow become slightly more expensive (he loses a chance to build tacs in Leningrad). Probably this denies him a bomber which might make the trade closer.

It does give you an opportunity to mess with Scandinavia. I would still be concerned that he might just gamble on the Italian bomber thinking its a low risk route (about 30% odds) of hitting the Soviet air. Probably he wouldn’t do that since he is not in desperate shape.

If you don’t go with Leningrad, the mechs (at least 1) are probably better placed in Moscow since the inf still have time to reach there from Stalingrad too.

@aequitas-et-veritas I’m just trying to gauge if there is interest in this kind of rule change and since I’m ‘newer’ to league play, whether there was thought given to this in the past. I expect ties would be very rare. And having conditions like it has to be after round 20 (or 25 or 30) and both players must agree would hopefully make it very rare. I just think it would be nice to have a mechanism for players to agree to end a game without a decision and not have all the time spent go to waste.

@surfer I’m tempted by Normandy as well because the fleet is better positioned and the us can start using a factory sooner. Plus some of the fleet can still end up in 92 since 110 is pretty safe. But I think the fleet should be safe. It’s quite a risk for Andrew to attack. Trulpen can land UK air on one carrier. They would still be in range of Moscow if needed because the us carrier can move them in range. If he is attacked by Italy he can take one air as casualty and land the French fighter. And UK fleet in 98 might be enough to pressure the med. I’m on my phone though so maybe I’m mis judging but I don’t think the risk to the fleet would be the reason not to go to Norway.

@axis-dominion said in BM3 (Bombers cost 14) Adam514 (Axis) vs farmboy (Allies+10):

great game guys, one for the books for sure. farm boy’s allies are now a force to be reckoned with… no pressure hehe

The games against you and Adam (and also observing some of the games with JDOW) have made a real difference in my play. I still did some overblocking and I wasted far too many transports, but on the whole think I’m doing a better job of being efficient and patient, conserving forces, and have a much better sense of what to prioritize on the board.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway

I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think

Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.

Interesting to see the data. Also, one of your longer games was with me and I think I also have that problem. So maybe you and I just have to be careful when we play against each other.

@farmboy Jap9.tsvg

@me1945 uk14 final.tsvg I forgot to load and move a US transport from New Zealand. With your permission, moved it now

@me1945 uk14.tsvg forgot to move the subs from 98 to 95.

@me1945 all air are on their own carriers in 95

@me1945 uk14.tsvg

@me1945 Actually, I imagine I can just assume max d here and if somehow you have units surviving, you can adjust them after.

@me1945 13 hits OOL? UK14 combat.tsvg

@me1945 I’ll also walk a UK inf into Albania

@me1945 UK 14 combat move.tsvg scramble for S Italy?

@me1945 US14 combat move.tsvg I suspect you won’t scramble for the amphibious assaults in 95, but here is the save if you do want to. Note it is 3 fig, 1 bomber, 1 destroyer and a carrier against 2 Ita figs.