Just FYI, some statistics for the current 2023 League
Best posts made by MrRoboto
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
I love managing spreadsheets actually so if nobody else wants to do it, I’m available.
I don’t have nearly as much history here as many others though, so no hard feelings if I’m not suited to the task. -
RE: Post League Game Results Here
Oh wow, so much praise from the gamerman himself. Thanks mate :-)
Yeah I tend to be emotional about being diced, making mistakes afterwards and had to step back a while after getting frustrated.
Then I kinda forgot about the game and now am super happy to be back. Not to enthusiastic yet about PtV but that may be just because I am not used to it.
I don’t know why you waved that Japanese flag at me though haha.
PS: 4 years older, with my 3rd child on the way - although not completely emotionless, I’m sure I can handle bad dice a lot better now ;-)
-
RE: Post League Game Results Here
@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:
Roboto is clearly not very rusty…
No pun intendedYeah those were nice. I am having some losses coming in too tough, unfortunately.
I always find it fascinating how in a game that does involve luck in quite a substantial way, some players are still so consistently strong and come out top of the league year in year out.
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
I am away for a week, so won’t be able to play.
Will be back next Tuesday!
I hope it’s ok if I make my life easier by just posting it here once and tagging everyone that I’m playing against right now, instead of posting it in every single thread.@gamerman01
@simon33
@Avner
@FlyingBadger
@Ghostglider
@aequitas-et-veritas
@Sovietishcat
@Pejon_88
@surfer
@elche -
The new ELO-based ranking system
Dear community,
there is a discussion going on right now concerning revamping / overhauling the current ranking system.
While the current system is doing okay and we could certainly just leave it as is, there are some issues with it. How severe are they? I guess that’s up to personal opinion. For me they are major flaws.
I have listed these in another post, over in the league general discussion thread:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1664594Please also have a look at this post:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1664652Now I have been working these past few weeks on an improved system and I’d like to introduce it to you.
The spreadsheet is here. I hope it’s easy to understand, but explanation will follow.
Short and simple version for everyone:
Every player starts at a base rating of 1500.
Wins award points while losses give negative points.
Winning against higher ranked opponents give more points than winning against lower ranked ones.
Accordingly, losses against low ranked opponents reduce ELO rating more thank losing against better players.That’s basically all you need to know: The higher your ELO rating, the better you are!
Tier levels are included but just serve as a visual cue or a motivation. They don’t have any impact on the ranking.
For everyone interested: Now some more details:
Whenever a game is posted, the Ratings of both Players A and B will change.
The exact formula is:
RAnew = Rating of Player A after the game
RAold = Rating of Player A before the game
K = Factor that increases / decreases the points - more on that later
S = 1 if Player A has won, 0 if Player A has lost
EA = Expected outcome for Player AWhat is EA?
Now this might look complicated to some. But what this formula does is easy:
The higher the difference between Ratings of Player A and B before the game, the smaller the absolute value of Ea. Therefore a win against much lower ranked players is not worth a lot, while winning against similar or even higher ranked players is worth a lot more.
For losses the opposite is true.
A win by the current #1 against the current last place will award only meager 4 points for the winner and -2 for the loser.
However, the last player would receive a whopping 136 for a win and #1 would suffer -87 for that loss!Now the Factor F is important: I set it to 500.
This means, that a player with an Elo rating 500 higher than the opponent is 10x as likely to win the game.Increasing this factor would lead to a wider field of ELO Ratings, while lowering the factor would squeeze everyone closer together.
I found 500 to be quite suitable for our needs but this might change in the future with more games coming in.Now the other important thing: The K factor.
This factor is quite high in the first couple of games and then diminishes gradually. This is so a player can rapidly find her or his correct place in the ranking system. A very strong player would not need to play dozens of games to climb to the top - the system would realize the strength very quickly and move that player to the top in just a few games. Same of course for not-so-good players.
The exact numbers are up for debate, but I have for now settled on these values:We can change these numbers if people think the impact of the first couple of games is too high or too low.
.
.
.Advantages of this system:
Besides solving the issues I mentioned in my other post, there are the following upsides:
-
Transparency
Everybody can always see the amount of points a result gave at any time. -
Climbing is always possible
ELO is not set in stone. Climbing or falling can always be done: The more drastic the change in skill, the faster the ELO change will be.
PPG on the other hand was getting more stable with each more game finished. -
ELO reflects the CURRENT strength
You can see how strong every player RIGHT NOW is and not how strong the year on average was. -
No games are discouraged
No strategic avoiding of games / players anymore! -
No theoretical end, improvement is always possible
PPG always has a maximum. You can reach that maximum with your first game! You might need to complete the necessary amount of games to qualify for playoffs but if you go 3-0 against highest Tier, there is no way to get higher than that.
ELO can always be improved, there is no limit! -
Filtering
You can filter the results quickly. If you want to know how a specific player is doing with the Axis, you can find out!
.
.
.
Now this is a work in progress. I will gladly take your feedback and discuss it with the community. The goal is to find a system that the majority is happy with!Some things are TODO at the moment and I hope I will get to it asap.
-
ELO Decay
I am planning to implement a decay, if someone is inactive. My idea is that only ratings above the starting Rating of 1500 will decay. The decay could start after 6 months inactivity and then the ELO could drop by 10% per month until it reaches 1500. Please give some feedback! -
Two different rankings
I am in favour of a lifetime ranking. However, most of us love the yearly playoffs and we need some kind of requirements to qualify for them. So my idea is to have two columns: One for the lifetime ELO and one that only uses the results of the current year. That way we can see overall ranking and yearly ranking at the same time. We could keep the requirement of 3 completed games in the current year to qualify for playoffs. -
Factor in bids?
One idea came up by @mr_stucifer to factor in the bids into the results.
For example: For every point the bid is above the average bid, the ELO-change could be 5% bigger than usual (and vice versa). I would need to work out the exact numbers. But I’m not sure if that’s even desirable in the first place? Your feedback is appreciated!
-
-
RE: The new ELO-based ranking system
I was playing around with the exact numbers and apparently didn’t settle on the same number across different versions.
Tiers have no actual meaning and are just a visual cue.
And they add motivation, I think.I will discuss final numbers with gamerman later, probably after entering more of the historical results.
Huge thanks btw to @mr_stucifer and @farmboy who provided all of the data before 2023.
As of right now, we have everything from 01-01-2019 until now! -
RE: The new ELO-based ranking system
First of all, I can’t quite follow @Arthur-Bomber-Harris last post. Sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say there.
All I can say is, that starting ELO is the same for everyone.Then the easy answer to @oysteilo first post:
Winner and loser points may differ, when one of them (or both) has less than 11 completed games.This is because the first couple of games weigh more than later ones. I accomplish that with a “K Factor”, which expresses the amount a game is worth.
That K factor is really high for the first couple of games and then gradually decreases. As @gamerman01 said, the exact values are chosen “arbritrarily”, although of course we thought long and hard about them.That K factor is essential, because new players all start at 1500, which is almost guaranteed not a perfect rating for them (most newbies are worse than that average, but some might be a lot better too). So we need the system to move new players as fast as possible to where they belong. Normally, a game between two equals awards only 25 (or -25) points. If a new player is actually a 1900 or a 1100 player, those 400 points climb or descend would take a long time without that sensitivity Factor.
Right now, the K factor we settled on is:
As you can see, the first 3 games are worth a little bit more than double the later games.
We can talk about these values, they are not set in stone. But I want to emphasize the importance of bringing new players to their appropriate rating asap. The only alternative would be placement matches - this would mean that new players are not rated at all for their first 5-10 games and opponents would receive / lose just a fraction of the normal worth. I don’t like this option for us.
Now the other question concerning playoff ranking / seeding.
@AndrewAAGamer is correct, originally I planned to use the current year only for playoff seeding. He said he also prefers this and compared it to football, basketball, baseball and hockey.
Now that comparison has one gigantic flaw however: All of these sports are in a league system where every participant has a fixed number of games and the exact same opponents. So it makes sense to start a season with a clean slate.
However, this is not the case with our community. With OOB and PtV, players need to have 3 completed games, with BM4 they need 6. But 3 games are not nearly enough to properly rate a player, especially not if one of those games was an upset (an unexpected loss / win). If we had an entry requirement of 10+ games per year, I’d definitely go for a clean slate every Jan 1!
Our game is more like the other two sports you mentioned (golf or tennis), even though they are still a bit different: It’s impossible to burst onto the scene as a complete nobody and expect to participate in the biggest tournament with only 3 games completed. A first time participant of a Grand-Slam-Tournament has proven himself/herself over many matches beforehand in smaller tournaments. We don’t have that luxury.
I think our sports can probably best be compared to boxing, where everyone chooses their opponents and some have only very few matches per year, while others have some more.I can change the system to rank playoff seedings only according to results in the current year. Which would mean everyone starts at 1500 (for playoff ranking only). But do we want that?
@oysteilo actually gave a great example!
Oysteilo started the year with OOB rating of 1669
He is 2-1 this year, with both of his wins being almost worthless (against dawgoneit), giving him only +3 each. He lost once against the #1 AndrewAAGamer for -16. Which gives oysteilo a final rating of 1659. Which is more or less the same rating he had for the last 7 years.ArthurBomberHarris started the year with OOB rating of 1542
He went 5-0 this year, although only one of his opponents was really strong (he defeated #1 AndrewAAGamer!). He gained 110 in the process, which means he significantly improved his rating from 1542 to 1652. This is the highest OOB rating he ever achieved.They are now almost identical in rating (1652 and 1659), with 32 or 41 total completed games. Which means the rating is very reliable, those two players are very likely extremely similar in strength.
Now it’s a personal decision: Do you think oysteilo should get the higher seed because of his slightly higher rating and the fact he mainainted roughly that rating for 7 years? Even though his rating basically stagnated this year? Then the system should stay as it is.
Or do you think ArthurBomberHarris should get the higher seed because he is on an upward trajectory this year? Remember, Arthur is probably not better than oysteilo (they are most likely equally strong right now) and it is the first time he achieved the same level as oysteilo. But if you think the improvement he showed this year is worth more the system should change to let everyone start at 1500 on Jan1.
Do you think AndrewAAGamer who sits comfortably at #1, with only farmboy being SOMEWHAT close should get the top seeding? He went 7-2 and increased his OOB rating from 1798 to 1830.
Or do you think the 5-0 of Arthur and the 4-0 of Booper this year is more impressive and should give both of them a higher seeding, despite both of them definitely being not as good as Andrew?
My personal preference is the first option, which is currently implemented.
But I can absolutely understand if you value recent results higher than overall strength! This is a system that should be backed by the majority of the community so please: WEIGH IN! -
RE: The new ELO-based ranking system
With AAB you mean ABH, ArthurBomberHarris?
We use the overall ranking right now and I would like to keep it as well in the future.
We wouldn’t need it if EVERYONE is like Myygames and plays one version only.
However, some people like Pejon or GeneralDisarray are playing 2 or even more versions. I find it interesting to see if someone is a specialist or a generalist.
But, as you two have already agreed: Playoffs are never based on overall rankings, but rather on type specifics.
-
RE: Find League Opponents Thread
The last 100 BM4 games have almost exactly 50% Axis wins.
Bids in that timeframe hovered around +20 for Allies.Since you are a new player, my assumption would be that an Allied bid of slightly over 20 would be fair if you are Allies or slightly below 20 if you are Axis
Latest posts made by MrRoboto
-
RE: L24 - BM4 - Ghostglider vs MrRoboto (+16)
TripleA Turn Summary: French round 12
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 12 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 carrier and 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 1 transport moved from 62 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java Combat - ANZAC ANZAC creates battle in territory 6 Sea Zone Battle in Java Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 submarine moved from 6 Sea Zone to 23 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 17 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 3 destroyers, 3 submarines and 1 transport moved from 62 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 46 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 57 Sea Zone to 61 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 1 carrier and 1 submarine placed in 54 Sea Zone Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 15 PUs; end with 15 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 18 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 21 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 2 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern France Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
-
RE: L24 - BM4 - Ghostglider vs MrRoboto (+16)
TripleA Turn Summary: UK_Pacific round 12
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 12 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 2 artilleries, 1 carrier, 2 destroyers, 2 fighters, 9 infantry and 2 submarines; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Americans 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern France 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 118 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Holland Belgium 2 fighters moved from 110 Sea Zone to Holland Belgium 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to France 1 artillery moved from Normandy Bordeaux to France 1 infantry moved from Sakha to Buryatia Americans take Buryatia from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi Chinese take Kiangsi from Japanese 4 fighters moved from 110 Sea Zone to Holland Belgium 4 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern France Combat - Americans Americans creates battle in territory 6 Sea Zone Battle in Holland Belgium Americans attack with 6 fighters and 1 infantry Germans defend with 1 infantry Americans roll dice for 6 fighters and 1 infantry in Holland Belgium, round 2 : 3/7 hits, 3,17 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Holland Belgium, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Holland Belgium 1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Holland Belgium Americans win with 6 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Americans: 1 infantry Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry Battle in France Americans attack with 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Germans defend with 1 airfield and 1 factory_minor; Italians defend with 1 aaGun and 1 infantry Americans roll dice for 2 artilleries and 2 infantry in France, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1,33 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 aaGun and 1 infantry in France, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in France 1 aaGun owned by the Italians lost in France Americans roll dice for 2 artilleries and 1 infantry in France, round 3 : 1/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in France, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in France 1 infantry owned by the Italians lost in France Americans win, taking France from Germans with 2 artilleries remaining. Battle score for attacker is 2 Casualties for Americans: 2 infantry Casualties for Italians: 1 aaGun and 1 infantry Battle in Southern France Americans attack with 5 artilleries and 4 infantry Italians defend with 1 artillery, 1 factory_minor, 1 harbour and 2 infantry Americans roll dice for 5 artilleries and 4 infantry in Southern France, round 2 : 2/9 hits, 3,00 expected hits Italians roll dice for 1 artillery and 2 infantry in Southern France, round 2 : 0/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Italians lost in Southern France Americans roll dice for 5 artilleries and 4 infantry in Southern France, round 3 : 1/9 hits, 3,00 expected hits Italians roll dice for 1 artillery in Southern France, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Italians lost in Southern France Americans win, taking Southern France from Italians with 5 artilleries and 4 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 10 Casualties for Italians: 1 artillery and 2 infantry Non Combat Move - Americans 6 fighters moved from Holland Belgium to 110 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Morocco to 91 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 destroyer, 1 infantry, 3 submarines and 1 transport moved from 91 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone 1 destroyer, 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 108 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 103 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone 4 transports moved from 110 Sea Zone to 107 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 6 infantry moved from 110 Sea Zone to Normandy Bordeaux 1 carrier moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 5 infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 103 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 108 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Morocco 4 transports moved from 107 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Manchuria to Korea 1 artillery moved from Amur to Korea 1 fighter moved from Western United States to 91 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Eastern United States to 110 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 110 Sea Zone to United Kingdom 1 fighter moved from Eastern United States to 110 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 110 Sea Zone to United Kingdom 5 submarines moved from 6 Sea Zone to 25 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 23 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 23 Sea Zone to 47 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 23 Sea Zone to 48 Sea Zone Place Units - Americans 1 carrier, 2 destroyers and 2 submarines placed in 101 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 2 infantry placed in Korea Americans undo move 2. 3 infantry placed in Korea 2 artilleries, 2 fighters and 6 infantry placed in Eastern United States Turn Complete - Americans Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 2 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 6 Sea Zone. Rolls: 2,4 Americans collect 57 PUs (2 lost to blockades); end with 57 PUs Trigger Americans 5 Presence In France: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 62 PUs Trigger Americans 7 North Africa Beach Head: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 67 PUs Trigger Americans 6 Western Europe Beach Head: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 72 PUs Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 82 PUs Objective Americans 8 Pacific Airfields: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 87 PUs Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 92 PUs Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 97 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed Chinese buy 4 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter moved from Manchuria to Shantung 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Shantung Combat - Chinese Battle in Shantung Chinese attack with 1 fighter and 1 infantry Japanese defend with 1 infantry Chinese roll dice for 1 fighter and 1 infantry in Shantung, round 2 : 2/2 hits, 0,67 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in Shantung, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Shantung Chinese win, taking Shantung from Japanese with 1 fighter and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter moved from Shantung to Jehol 5 infantry moved from Manchuria to Jehol Place Units - Chinese 4 infantry placed in Jehol Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 11 PUs; end with 11 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 4 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Holland Belgium British take Holland Belgium from Germans 3 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Iraq 1 artillery moved from Persia to Iraq 1 infantry moved from Turkmenistan to Kazakhstan British take Kazakhstan from Germans 1 armour moved from Eastern Persia to West India UK_Pacific take West India from Germans 1 armour moved from West India to Eastern Persia Combat - British Battle in Iraq British attack with 1 artillery and 3 infantry Germans defend with 1 factory_minor and 1 mech_infantry British roll dice for 1 artillery and 3 infantry in Iraq, round 2 : 2/4 hits, 1,00 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 mech_infantry in Iraq, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the British lost in Iraq 1 mech_infantry owned by the Germans lost in Iraq British win, taking Iraq from Germans with 1 artillery and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 1 Casualties for British: 1 infantry Casualties for Germans: 1 mech_infantry Non Combat Move - British 6 infantry moved from Egypt to Trans-Jordan 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from Eastern Persia to Persia 1 armour and 5 mech_infantrys moved from Eastern Persia to Persia 3 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 submarine moved from 80 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 79 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 5 aaGuns and 11 infantry moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern France Place Units - British 3 artilleries placed in Persia 3 infantry placed in Egypt 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry placed in United Kingdom Turn Complete - British British collect 39 PUs; end with 39 PUs Trigger British 3 No Enemy Submarines: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 42 PUs Objective British 4 Control Convoy Lanes: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 45 PUs Objective British 1 Original: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 48 PUs Objective British 2 Southern Europe Beach Head: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 51 PUs Turn Complete - UK_Pacific
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Chinese regular : 1,33 Americans regular : -3,50 Japanese regular : -0,33 Italians regular : -1,33 Germans regular : 2,67 British regular : 1,00
-
RE: L24 - BM4 - Ghostglider vs MrRoboto (+16)
TripleA Turn Summary: French round 11
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 11 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 41 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 35 Sea Zone to 46 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 33 Sea Zone to 62 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 54 Sea Zone to 62 Sea Zone 1 transport moved from 63 Sea Zone to 62 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 19 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 41 Sea Zone to 57 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 1 destroyer and 1 submarine placed in 62 Sea Zone 1 fighter placed in Queensland Turn Complete - ANZAC Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 2 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 43 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,2 ANZAC collect 16 PUs (2 lost to blockades); end with 16 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 19 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 22 PUs Combat Move - French Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
-
RE: L24 Avner - MrRoboto (L +18)
TripleA Turn Summary: French round 7
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 7 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 infantry, 1 submarine and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 1 transport moved from 62 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Caroline Islands to 33 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 33 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 44 Sea Zone to Celebes Combat - ANZAC Battle in Java Battle in Celebes Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 33 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 carrier and 2 fighters moved from 33 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 2 fighters moved from Caroline Islands to Queensland 1 artillery moved from New South Wales to Queensland 1 submarine moved from 55 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 1 submarine and 1 transport placed in 62 Sea Zone 1 infantry placed in New South Wales Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 17 PUs; end with 17 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 20 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 23 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 1 destroyer moved from 77 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Iraq to Northwest Persia Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
-
RE: L24 BM4 GeneralDisarray (Axis) vs Roboto (Allies+22)
TripleA Turn Summary: French round 7
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 7 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 destroyer, 2 submarines and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 1 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 32 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 32 Sea Zone to Marshall Islands 1 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 34 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 34 Sea Zone to Paulau Island Combat - ANZAC Battle in Marshall Islands Battle in Paulau Island Non Combat Move - ANZAC 2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 destroyer, 1 infantry, 2 submarines and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 1 infantry, 2 submarines and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 33 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 1 submarine moved from 62 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 1 destroyer, 1 submarine and 1 transport placed in 54 Sea Zone 1 submarine placed in 62 Sea Zone Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 17 PUs; end with 17 PUs Trigger ANZAC 1 Control Original And Malaya: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 20 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 23 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 26 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 2 infantry moved from United Kingdom to 110 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 81 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
-
RE: L24 - BM4 - Ghostglider vs MrRoboto (+16)
TripleA Turn Summary: UK_Pacific round 11
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
Game History
Round: 11 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 2 artilleries, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters, 9 infantry and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Americans 1 submarine moved from 93 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to Kwangsi Chinese take Kwangsi from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Amur to Sakha Americans take Sakha from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Kiangsu 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Guam to Kiangsu Combat - Americans Italians scrambles 3 units out of Yugoslavia to defend against the attack in 97 Sea Zone Italians scrambles 3 units out of Southern Italy to defend against the attack in 97 Sea Zone Battle in 97 Sea Zone Americans attack with 6 submarines Germans defend with 5 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber; Italians defend with 1 destroyer Americans roll dice for 6 submarines in 97 Sea Zone, round 2 : 2/6 hits, 2,00 expected hits Italians roll dice for 1 destroyer, 5 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber in 97 Sea Zone, round 2 : 4/7 hits, 4,17 expected hits 4 submarines owned by the Americans lost in 97 Sea Zone 1 destroyer owned by the Italians lost in 97 Sea Zone Italians and Americans reach a stalemate . Battle score for attacker is -16 Casualties for Americans: 4 submarines Casualties for Italians: 1 destroyer Battle in Kiangsu Americans attack with 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Japanese defend with 3 infantry Americans roll dice for 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Kiangsu, round 2 : 2/3 hits, 1,33 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 3 infantry in Kiangsu, round 2 : 0/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Kiangsu Americans roll dice for 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Kiangsu, round 3 : 2/3 hits, 1,33 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in Kiangsu, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Kiangsu Americans win, taking Kiangsu from Japanese with 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 9 Casualties for Japanese: 3 infantry Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Yugoslavia Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Yugoslavia Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Yugoslavia Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Southern Italy Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Southern Italy Moving scrambled unit from 97 Sea Zone back to originating territory: Southern Italy Non Combat Move - Americans 1 artillery moved from Manchuria to Amur 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsu to Manchuria 1 submarine moved from 19 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 3 submarines moved from 20 Sea Zone to 23 Sea Zone 2 fighters moved from Eastern United States to 110 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 6 infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 3 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Morocco to 91 Sea Zone 3 artilleries, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 5 infantry and 4 transports moved from 91 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone 3 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from 110 Sea Zone to Normandy Bordeaux 1 artillery moved from Holland Belgium to Normandy Bordeaux 1 transport moved from 107 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 108 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Morocco 3 submarines moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 101 Sea Zone to 108 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 103 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 118 Sea Zone 3 transports moved from 110 Sea Zone to 107 Sea Zone 1 transport moved from 110 Sea Zone to 107 Sea Zone Place Units - Americans 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone 1 fighter placed in Western United States Americans undo move 1. 1 destroyer placed in 20 Sea Zone 2 infantry placed in Kwangtung 1 artillery and 2 infantry placed in Korea 1 artillery, 2 fighters and 5 infantry placed in Eastern United States 1 carrier and 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Americans Americans collect 64 PUs; end with 64 PUs Trigger Americans 7 North Africa Beach Head: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 69 PUs Trigger Americans 6 Western Europe Beach Head: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 74 PUs Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 84 PUs Objective Americans 8 Pacific Airfields: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 89 PUs Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 94 PUs Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 99 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed Chinese buy 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 2 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 infantry moved from Manchuria to Jehol Chinese take Jehol from Japanese Combat - Chinese Non Combat Move - Chinese Place Units - Chinese 3 infantry placed in Manchuria Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 10 PUs; end with 12 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 9 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 infantry moved from Eastern Persia to Turkmenistan British take Turkmenistan from Japanese Combat - British Non Combat Move - British 7 infantry moved from United Kingdom to 110 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Southern France to Normandy Bordeaux 7 infantry moved from 110 Sea Zone to Normandy Bordeaux 2 fighters moved from United Kingdom to 110 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 39 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 41 Sea Zone to 79 Sea Zone 3 infantry moved from Anglo Egyptian Sudan to Egypt 3 infantry moved from Egypt to Trans-Jordan 3 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Iraq 2 armour and 5 mech_infantrys moved from Northwest Persia to Eastern Persia 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from Persia to Eastern Persia 5 artilleries and 18 infantry moved from Northwest Persia to Persia 2 artilleries and 6 infantry moved from Iraq to Persia 3 infantry moved from Rhodesia to Belgian Congo Place Units - British 1 carrier placed in 110 Sea Zone 1 destroyer placed in 71 Sea Zone 3 infantry placed in Egypt 3 infantry placed in Iraq 3 infantry placed in Persia Turn Complete - British Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 3 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 80 Sea Zone. Rolls: 3,5 British collect 32 PUs (3 lost to blockades); end with 32 PUs Trigger British 3 No Enemy Submarines: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 35 PUs Objective British 4 Control Convoy Lanes: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 38 PUs Objective British 1 Original: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 41 PUs Objective British 2 Southern Europe Beach Head: British met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 44 PUs Turn Complete - UK_Pacific
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Americans regular : 1,33 Japanese regular : -1,33 Italians regular : -0,17
-
RE: BM4 - Stucifer (Axis) vs MrRoboto (Allies+18)
That’s very sad.
You know what we can do? We can nullify your loss, when you return, and pick up at this point.
This way, I get a win if you are gone for good. But if you come back, nothing is lost!
-
RE: The new ELO-based ranking system
Ok two major formulas didnt translate properly from google sheets to excel and it seemed to work after fixing both of them.
First, check the “Data” Sheet, column G
In Google Sheets, the formula is:
=IF(ISBLANK(F2),IF(EQ(F2,D2),E2,D2))In Excel, I had to rewrite it slightly to:
=IF(ISBLANK(F2),IF(F2=D2),E2,D2))And of course you have to extend the formula to the whole column.
I have the German Excel version and it failed to translate the formula in the (hidden) column B.
Google Sheets formula:
=IF(ISBlANK($A2),IFS($A2=“OOB”,1,$A2=“BM4”,2,$A2=“PtV”,3))Wrong translated Excel formula:
=WENN(ISTLEER($A2),IFS($A2=“OOB”,1,$A2=“BM4”,2,$A2=“PtV”,3))As you can see, it translated the “IF” and the “ISBLANK”, but not the “IFS”.
I suspect you don’t have that problem.You might have other issues though. Just check the cells and see if they are doing what you’d expect them to.
-
RE: The new ELO-based ranking system
Pretty sure the formulas in Excel are ever so slightly different from the formulas in Google sheets.
Gonna download it on my work computer tomorrow, since I don’t have an excel license on my personal one.