……
……
Here are the formulas:
q = new rank
r = old rank
p = opponent’s old rank
LOW player wins:
HIGH player wins:
low player’s new rank (applies to losing to an opponent 4 or more ranks under)
q = r + (r-p-3)^0.5
high player’s new rank:
q = r - (r-p)^0.2 * (0.6 * r^0.65 + 1.3 / p^0.9)
all ranks are rounded (0.4xx -> 0 and 0.5xx -> 1)
The general idea:
Word version of v 5.0
Nice thread format.
BTW, please tell us WHERE the power rankings are to compete in. Not that I’m worthy of the top spot, but I’d like to practice against more opponents.
Also, we have 4 players on these boards I know of. Emperor Mollari, Axis_Roll, Commander Jennifer and Bean. For anyone who wants to be introduced to this variant of the game. (BTW, the Battlemap for this is awesome, I want to use it for my regular AAR games because it has more information on it, in case you wondered where my endorsement was going!)
For beginners, and trainers, I recommend phasing this game in incrementally.
For instance, try playing with just the new National Advantages first couple of games. Then add in Convoy Raids and submarine detections in the next game. Etc. This way new players will not be over-whelmed right off.
Just a suggestion.
now that we have a sticky I hope that means AARe is officially present in this forum and official contact for fans is now avaliable
question: are you guys making 6.0? or more like 5.1?
now that we have a sticky I hope that means AARe is officially present in this forum and official contact for fans is now avaliable
question: are you guys making 6.0? or more like 5.1?
I don’t have much/any say in that
However, small changes should not necessitate a new version number.
My guessing is that only 2 NA’s are being slightly tweaked, so it’ll probably be 5.1
But I’ve been wrong before.
Radar and ???
@Cmdr:
Radar and ???
Yamamotos
-$1 each one after the first (-$5)
yeah
battleships are a bit expensive for Japan’s budget
so without only an inital discount its not a lasting NA
Hmm.
Honestly, I never see Japan NEEDING a navy. If they do, the first Yamamoto is about all they ever need. I don’t see them spending 19 IPC a round on more, if you want my honest opinion.
Perhaps a better benefit would be to give them two shore bombardments each at 5 or less instead of reducing their cost a piddly little 5%?
yes so we could do something to encourage that kind of game
maybe somehow useful in KJF or something
@Cmdr:
Hmm.
Honestly, I never see Japan NEEDING a navy. If they do, the first Yamamoto is about all they ever need. I don’t see them spending 19 IPC a round on more, if you want my honest opinion.
Perhaps a better benefit would be to give them two shore bombardments each at 5 or less instead of reducing their cost a piddly little 5%?
I do not see any real need for a further tweaking to either Yamamotos or even Radar, IMHO, however, others do.
Regarding a Jap navy… perhaps you haven’t yet experienced a full US on Jap naval battle. Those are quite a bit of fun, especially with US naval advantage and 2 hit carriers, Japan WILL need to build a navy.
know how much fun they are, Axis. I do them all the time in KJF games. =) I’m even known as Die Flottemurder because I seem to get lucky a lot in naval warfare. (Luck, as in 3 submarines vs 3 aircraft carriers with all submarines hitting in the opening fire step, kind of luck!)
Here’s what I was thinking, if they need tweaking:
Yamamotos:
1st Battleship costs 15 IPC
Battleships with Combined Arms fire AA Guns at 2 (like Radar, it is the same requirement the British need, seems fair)
Battleships may bombard twice at 4 or less
Battleships may attack and defend at 5 or less
Atlantic Wall:
For every Infantry defending in Germany, W. Europe or Norway against DESTROYERS, the defender may roll a die and negate that destroyer’s bombardment on a roll of 1. (This is identical to jets stopping SBR runs and rockets.)
These should encourage more naval battles in the Pacific by buffing up the Yamamoto as well as give Japan a significant advantage if America ignores her. After all, taking India/Australia/Hawaii will be a snap with 6 battleship bombardments in opening fire! Hell, Japan could seriously stop a North Africa attack plan iwth that kind of firepower. As America, I’d seriously consider taking Reinforced Carriers and trying to stop Japan before she got out there to be a nuissance. But that’s just me. Not to mention, they’ll be significantly harder to kill in naval warfare since 33% of your airpower will be shot down before the battle. (16% if you get Jets, so at least the Yamamoto cannot be nutralized with a tech.)
Also, you won’t have to adjust Radar since combined arms won’t be a huge deal with the destroyers A) being counterable and B) reduced in number with America going Pacific to stop Japan from taking the world over. As for the British Battleships killed 33% of attacking fighters, it’s the same as Japan now and still reducable with a simple Jet Power Technology (a tech I like to get for Germany ANYWAY!)
You see, I do not like nerfing something because it’s currently too powerful. I’d rather buff something else to compensate. That way you are not hurting someone, you are just helping someone else.
@Cmdr:
Here’s what I was thinking, if they need tweaking:
Yamamotos:
1st Battleship costs 15 IPC
Battleships with Combined Arms fire AA Guns at 2 (like Radar, it is the same requirement the British need, seems fair)
Battleships may bombard twice at 4 or less
Battleships may attack and defend at 5 or less
The BB aaa @ 2 would be far too powerful
In fact, this capability is being removed from radar (BB aaa’s can not exceed 1)
In other words, if UK takes radar AND gets Combined Arms, you would not exceed the 1 BB aaa capability
In fact, this capability is being removed from radar (BB aaa’s can not exceed 1)
In other words, if UK takes radar AND gets Combined Arms, you would not exceed the 1 BB aaa capability
yeah I think thats fair
I’d rather just give Japan the same ability then take an ability away from England.
@Cmdr:
I’d rather just give Japan the same ability then take an ability away from England.
The point is not to even it out, the point is that BB aaa@2 is too strong.
We don’t want uber weapons as badly as we don’t want uber strats
I don’t think it’s too strong. I think Dive Bombers are too strong. Battleships with AA Guns firing at 2 or less (which costs money btw, both for the battleship AND the technology, not to mention the opportunity cost of having to take that specific NA) evens out the Dive Bombers.
actually AA at 2 it more than evens out dive bombers
I think thats the problem
I’d be less displeased if we took Dive Bombers out of Navy Battles and reduce AA Fire on UK BBs to 1 then just nerfing England.
Honestly, I’d keep them both the same, maybe buff Japan to equalize the sides. Although, IMHO, the Axis don’t need help in AARe as formulated, but the allies could use some assistance…like maybe making Norway a Victory City so that the pressure isn’t on America all the time to grab the 10th VC away from the Axis.
yeah I like more VCs too
the more the merrier up to a certain point
AARe is below this point
especially Africa
it guess its easier if we don’t need “equal number per nation”
