AA50 League and/or Tournaments

[Funcioneta]

@WOPR:

@Funcioneta:

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).

Is the Allied player building an IC in India when you kill China on J1?

Better if not, or axis victory will be quicker. Without China, India cannot hold, no matter Japan does 1st round. But again, even with China, Japan should be able of taking India round 3-4 with so many starting trannies.

No more asian front in AA50, 1941. We are reduced to Pacific front (a setback from Revised). If I had to choose, I would pick 1942 as base for competitive playing, at least China starts mediocre instead dead, and India can hold against a lone starting trannie.

[DarthMaximus]

There won’t be any “altering” of techs, ie come into effect after your turn or change some of the techs, it will either be Tech or No Tech based on OOB rules.  If you are going to alter them you might as well just eliminate them.  The only exception here would be if there was something updated via a Rules FAQ or something like LHTR for AA50 came out.

[jsp4563]

@DarthMaximus:

There won’t be any “altering” of techs, ie come into effect after your turn or change some of the techs, it will either be Tech or No Tech based on OOB rules.  If you are going to alter them you might as well just eliminate them.  The only exception here would be if there was something updated via a Rules FAQ or something like LHTR for AA50 came out.

I agree.  Larry and his team spent a lot of time developing the game and it’s rules, it should be played as is, fixes should come from them.  They are completely open to suggestions, in fact they welcome them.

[DarthMaximus]

I actually kind of like U-505s idea but switch it up, allow OOB tech rules but allow any players to make an agreement to not use them in their game.  You can simply say looking for a no-tech game.  This way the tech people don’t have to worry and Tech is allowed by defualt but if you want a no tech game you can seek one.  This can also help if we eventually find one side has an advantage since I’m not really interested in introducing any type of bidding (far too early IMO).  This would also be equivalent to a Tech game where no side bought tech or achieved a tech.

[TG Moses VI]

Sounds fair.  :-D

[Jennifer]

That would work for me, DM.

Honestly, I don’t see a lot of victories coming without technology being available.  I could be wrong.  (Seems to me that bidding was only required once technology was abolished anyway….but that could just be perception.)

As for introducing bidding, why not wait until December next year, look at the ratio of allied wins vs axis wins (we’d have to track that somehow, possibly when we say “I won against So-And-So and I was Allies” it would make it easier) and check that against how people scored.

If the top 5 were consistently winning with the axis each game and losing with the allies, then we almost definitely need a bidding system next year!  If the top 20 players average 50/50 win loss with axis and allies, we probably don’t need a bidding system next year!

I’m currently putting my money on games, with tech available, not needing bidding.  Even if you don’t buy the tech, just having the option seems to curtail enemy aggression giving both sides more time to recover.

[Bardoly]

Sounds fair.

[TimTheEnchanter]

I don’t like the “tech-optional” recommendation at all.  First, I think anyone claiming that techs don’t result in additional randomness to the outcome are fooling themselves, just because very few situations have such wide swings in both immediate and long term value on just a few dice.  However, I am not convinced that, in and of itself, is bad.  It certainly should lead to more variability in how games play out. It might let a few poorer players win a few more games if they gain a tech advantage, but overall I think smart play will usually win out in the end.

The problem I see with “tech-optional” is that it seems clear from this thread that there will be one group who only play with techs, and another that refuse to, so there will essentially be two groups playing under different rules within the same league.  There will be a few people who probably switch back and forth for the sake of finding opponents, but I would suspect most people will find their comfort zone in one camp or the other.  This will make it that much harder to find competition for games and to get experience playing all the members across the community.

I think league should be either one way or the other and people will likely learn to adapt to it if they want to play in league - which is where most of the ‘action’ has been for the last year+ that I’ve been here.  Personally, I’d lean toward giving the techs a try and take some more time to see if they really are broken - much like finding out whether bids are really necessary.  If you start with tech, you could always pull them back out.  If you start without them, they’ll never be part of the league.

[Funcioneta]

Yep, you are right. Me, per example, could stand playing without allied bid (I just have to pick axis each time I can  :-P), but I would not play without techs or NOs unless that would be the only way of finding opponents. And with optional tech, I would evade non-tech opponents. A good analisis deserves a +1 karma  :-)

[tcnance]

it wouldnt matter to me if tech were optional or not, in 5 tech games so far ive only unlocked one(but i still keep trying, paratroopers would be way cool)……i would play games in both camps, tech and no tech

[Jennifer]

Everyone keeps forgetting that tech is already optional.  You either opt to buy researchers or you don’t.  If you don’t then you spend the money for units to use now.  If you do, perhaps (17% per roll) you find a tech and perhaps that tech will be useful to your campaign.

For those who don’t want to use tech, then don’t.  But don’t deny the option to your opponents.  After all, if they spend 30 IPC a round on tech then you’re in all that stronger a position, right?

[P-Unit]

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but those who don’t like the randomness of the tech rules do so because of their opponents gaining a insta-win via tech. Sure, I’m all for tech if my opponent doesn’t use it, sign me up. Not going to happen.

[P-Unit]

Keep in mind, the most over-powered tech was slightly put in check with the escort rule in the latest FAQ, and now SBRs from Heavy bombers won’t be as brutal. They’ll still sink almost any fleet but at least you can defend yourself against that and can now defend against massive Heavy Bomber SBRs. The insta-win paratrooper situation still exists though, but at least that can be defended. It’s really not worth trying to defend against having your fleet sunk by a LRA tech roll, it’s too crippling to the plans.

[questioneer]

I would like to play without techs-period.
I don’t want to play hard and then suddenly lose because someone got Heavy Bombers.
The Tech is better than Revised but I would like an option to play games without it.
I think there should be an option to play with or without the NOs also… the option to play with or w/o the 2 new optional rules Larry gave us on his new FAQs on Jan 12th. as well.

Thanks

Questioneer

[Jennifer]

If you suddenly lose because someone got a tech, then you were playing hard, but not smart.

You should never put yourself in a position where one technology gained by the opponent will suddenly change the game.  IE, your fleet should assume the enemy has those long range fighters or those heavy bombers (or both).

You should assume your enemy will get those improved factories before you decide to make your SBR runs.

You should defend as if the enemy has advanced artillery and/or mechanized infantry.

In other words, the best players will assume the enemy has all 12 technologies and act accordingly taking risks where they must, but being ready with a plan to recover should the technology come and the battle turn so as not to lose the war.

[questioneer]

@Cmdr:

If you suddenly lose because someone got a tech, then you were playing hard, but not smart.

In other words, the best players will assume the enemy has all 12 technologies and act accordingly taking risks where they must, but being ready with a plan to recover should the technology come and the battle turn so as not to lose the war.

Exactly my point!!!  Then it would be hard to do much of anything, everything would be a risk!!!  Look, the game already has the chance factor with the dice rolling, why skew the game on potential game breaking tech.  Don’t get me wrong, its fun and all, but leave it for the casual games, not tournaments.  Just ask those who play at “real” tournaments at GenCon and Origins- most like the no Tech options. 
I understand your strong opinion for tech, but there is just as much of a voice for “no tech”.  So good luck lobbying.

Questioneer

[Jennifer]

Which is exactly my point, if everything is at risk, then you have to use strategy to manage the risk and stop relying on dice calculators to give you favorable odds all the time!

This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of statistics right?

Anyway, with darn near 100 games right now (15 of which are active) and all of them with technologies, I’ve yet to see a game lost because someone got a tech suddenly or a game won because suddenly someone got a tech.  Generally, the person who won did so after recovering over a long period of time after getting the technology, or was already winning and the technology just sped things up a bit.

heavy bombers can seem like a game breaker if you already have 15 bombers on the board.  If you only have 1, it’s not quite so powerful!

Advanced Artillery the turn before your tanks arrive at the door of moscow (where you already have infantry and artillery) could allow you to take moscow a turn early, but at that point, you were probably on the brink of taking moscow anyway, all it did was allow you to do it one round earlier than you would have if you had to wait for that last wave of reinforcements.

If you don’t defend your fleet adequately enough and the 4 fighters your enemy has turns into jets and that little extra “oomph” gives him the punch needed to win, it was not because he got the tech you lost, odds were probably good he could have won without the tech, just not as well, it was bad strategy on your part.

In other words, if you cannot win the game when technology is a factor (for you or against you) then perhaps you need to play more games and learn some skills on how to deal with technology?  You are aware we’re the only online club I know of that does not play with technology in our AAR league and tournaments, right?  No one else seems to have a problem with technology.

You also need to be aware that getting a technology is not a sure thing.  In AAR it was much more sure than now, at least you could buy the dice for a specific technology.  Now you have a 1 in 36 chance of getting the tech you want. (You have to get a 6 and then get the number you want on the next roll!)  That’s only going to happen 3% of the time.

You want to eliminate an important part of the game and unbalance the entire thing over a 3% possibility???  Your odds of getting shot down on an SBR run is 6 times greater than the odds your enemy is going to get a technology s/he wants!

[questioneer]

@Cmdr:

Which is exactly my point, if everything is at risk, then you have to use strategy to manage the risk and stop relying on dice calculators to give you favorable odds all the time!

This is supposed to be a game of skill, not a game of statistics right?

Anyway, with darn near 100 games right now (15 of which are active) and all of them with technologies, I’ve yet to see a game lost because someone got a tech suddenly or a game won because suddenly someone got a tech.  Generally, the person who won did so after recovering over a long period of time after getting the technology, or was already winning and the technology just sped things up a bit.

heavy bombers can seem like a game breaker if you already have 15 bombers on the board.  If you only have 1, it’s not quite so powerful!

Advanced Artillery the turn before your tanks arrive at the door of moscow (where you already have infantry and artillery) could allow you to take moscow a turn early, but at that point, you were probably on the brink of taking moscow anyway, all it did was allow you to do it one round earlier than you would have if you had to wait for that last wave of reinforcements.

If you don’t defend your fleet adequately enough and the 4 fighters your enemy has turns into jets and that little extra “oomph” gives him the punch needed to win, it was not because he got the tech you lost, odds were probably good he could have won without the tech, just not as well, it was bad strategy on your part.

In other words, if you cannot win the game when technology is a factor (for you or against you) then perhaps you need to play more games and learn some skills on how to deal with technology?  You are aware we’re the only online club I know of that does not play with technology in our AAR league and tournaments, right?  No one else seems to have a problem with technology.

You also need to be aware that getting a technology is not a sure thing.  In AAR it was much more sure than now, at least you could buy the dice for a specific technology.  Now you have a 1 in 36 chance of getting the tech you want. (You have to get a 6 and then get the number you want on the next roll!)   That’s only going to happen 3% of the time.

You want to eliminate an important part of the game and unbalance the entire thing over a 3% possibility???  Your odds of getting shot down on an SBR run is 6 times greater than the odds your enemy is going to get a technology s/he wants!

Wow!!!  Unbelievable!!!  There are so many of your points that we so disagree on I cant fit it on this post.  Each of your paragraphs needs a swift rebuttle.  I will start with one and do the rest later.

I commend you for playing online, it gives you good practice.  I am a tournament chess player.  Many people play online and OTB(over the board) too.  Online ratings can be very skewed- a person can have an online rating of 2000 yet be only a 1400 player OTB!  To compare OTB play versus online is ridiculous.  OTB is far superior.  Playing 100 games doesn’t necessarily make you better. 
If you played 100 OTB games then I would be impressed.  Besides, your online record wasn’t that great in 07/08 was it? :cry:
Last time I checked, your name was not listed at GenCon in the Masters tournament for OTB play- ah, alas, I digress.

Questioneer

P.S.  if its a game of skill than why add another chancy component to your gameplay to mess up the strategy!!!- Uggghh.  :roll:

[Tarling]

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

[captainjack]

@Tarling:

Wow Questioneer, way to throw venom, malice and personal attacks into that post. As an almost solely FTF player now venturing into online play I’d like to say that I think online play is no less challenging than ftf play. Online play tends to bring up a wider variety of players and play styles, which I think makes it more challenging than ftf (gaming groups, friends, etc tend to have a similar assortment of people). If your argument is that only ftf at tournaments counts for anything, then you’re insisting that a tiny minority of all A&A players should declare what the game should play like, including ONLINE play.

To counter your chess analogy: look at professional poker. For years now the people winning the WSOP have been online players. It’s not the same but…well none of these are the same!

Personally I’d say play with tech for now in a league setting. The game just came out and no one could claim to be an expert at AA50 just yet. If after this season the results are clear that tech far and away won most games, then that will be the first credible evidence as to its efficacy.

Nicely said, +1