League General Discussion Thread

[axis-dominion]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

It is definately a problem that the rules dont reflect the majority of the games. I think it should be changed. But not sure to what.

I think most likely it has to be:

1. BM only.
2. All 3 versions, OOB, BM, PTV

Actually, the issue looks more to be whether there should be a set hierarchy, i e default. I think there is today, and that is OOB.

Imo the most proper relation would be:

1. BM3
2. OOB
3. P2V (since it’s still under construction)

This would mean that if there’s a conflict regarding version, BM3 takes precedence over OOB and P2V as the main standard of the league.

I concur, except I think P2V should have its own tournament, and probably its own league too.

For example, it may well be possible that someone might want to play in both leagues, and participate in both championship tournaments.

[simon33]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Hmm, perhaps P2V should have a separate league. I guess Gamerman01 wouldn’t really want to moderate two leagues though. I would consider doing it.

I think PTV should most definitely be separated into its own league. Let’s not kid ourselves, it’s quite a different game, and far more involved, especially with all the complexity surrounding the land and sea scrambling rules. Different and bigger map, different rules, different Strats, and so on.

Interesting, I think you should give it a go at some point. Perhaps you want to wait for the rules to be more refined but I think it improves in many areas. Don’t agree with everything of course.

[Amon-Sul]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

It is definately a problem that the rules dont reflect the majority of the games. I think it should be changed. But not sure to what.

I think most likely it has to be:

1. BM only.
2. All 3 versions, OOB, BM, PTV

Actually, the issue looks more to be whether there should be a set hierarchy, i e default. I think there is today, and that is OOB.

Imo the most proper relation would be:

1. BM3
2. OOB
3. P2V (since it’s still under construction)

This would mean that if there’s a conflict regarding version, BM3 takes precedence over OOB and P2V as the main standard of the league.

I concur, except I think P2V should have its own tournament, and probably its own league too.

For example, it may well be possible that someone might want to play in both leagues, and participate in both championship tournaments.

I agree.

In 2021 we should have 2 leagues, 1 for BM, 1 for PTV cus its a new game.

Its like tennis, U have single matches and league, and u have the doubles one.

If somebody thinks it will be hard to enter both playoffs, we can reduce the number of games played to get to play off, from 8 to less, especially in PTV; maybe 5

[trulpen]

I agree. P2V would preferably have it’s own league. In the best of worlds.

No need to reduce the number of games anywhere. I’d happily play full monty obän both scenes. 😁

[oysteilo]

Just a couple of more comments. I think we all understand the need for clear guidelines when it comes to playoffs. If you only have played BM and then in the playoffs are drawn against someone who insists on OOB it comes across as unfair. That is certainly a valid point. But you can also argue the other way too and especially since the rule sates OOB is default. I think we need to update the rules! But how??

The argument to the majority is that no one plays OOB, so it doesn’t matter if you allow it in the regular season if they, the majority, are not required to play it in the playoffs. To me this is meaningless and borderline selfish. There is no motivation to play OOB in regular league play if you are required to play BM in the playoffs. That is a sure death penalty to OOB competitive play. Is that what the League wants?

The only solution I see is to have three leagues, one for OOB, one for BM and one for PtV. Then we avoid all arguments about what to play. If no one wants to play OOB then that league will die after a season or two, but the OOB could also get revitalized, I think. Really it is not that much work to record results for different games in different ranking sheets. I really don’t see why it is a problem. Nothing prevents people from playing all three leagues if they like. Also, if we are worried about no one playing OOB you may remove the 8 games cap for playoffs and introduce a 3 or 4 game rule.

I also think a solution like this will make it easier to keep all players at this site. We desperately need every single player! If everyone gets to play what they want even for the playoffs its easier to keep players too. I think players in many situations are “forced” to play BM because “everyone” wants that, and they feel expected to.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@oysteilo I agree with you and would welcome your solutions.
This brings huge credit to, since you seem like a person who aknoledge issues/ problems and also files on solutions and present them.
Very good!

I would add that it could also easily maintained with specific league badges wich are showing that you either a prefferable Oob or BM or PtV Player or have a multibadge wich reflects that you are good to play all or certain two versions of G40.
We discussed a badge solution for League members a while ago, when this site became a New facelifting.
Maybe it is this time to get more serious about that.

I suffered this season to play a version where i am less comfortable with. And would be open to the ideas of three different brackets.

And i would also mention, that i was beat fair and square and accepted it without a mourning!

[trulpen]

I think you make some very good points, sir! I’m all in favour of separating the versions into different leagues. Makes a lot of sense.

I for one would absolutely never play OOBsolete in a playoff ever again. Not under any circumstance, since for me OOB is just not interesting enough (single-minded recipy of GDOW2 crush Moscow + bomber-spam and JDOW1 rule the Pac). Simply out of the question for me.

I know that others have exactly the opposite view. Separation thus is the way to go.

[trulpen]

The above was of course in response to @oysteilo.

@aequitas-et-veritas said in League General Discussion Thread:

We discussed a badge solution for League members a while ago, when this site became a New facelifting.
Maybe it is this time to get more serious about that.

Great idea!

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

I agree. P2V would preferably have it’s own league. In the best of worlds.

No need to reduce the number of games anywhere. I’d happily play full monty obän both scenes. 😁

Well, U re not average player xd

So i think 5 games could be entry point for the play-offs, but maybe limited to 2 games against one opponent,

or 3 games as entry point, but only 1 game against one opponent.

[Amon-Sul]

And I have one proposal.

Since BM is very cool game without switching to PTV, and a lot of guys is playing it still,

discovering new strategies, ways of play.

I would consider we invest in further develop of BM, i mean about the price of units, and some little (but important) changes that were done in PTV, would be done in BM (like bombers cost 14) , but still not too big changes so it becomes a new game (like PTV with carrier and air scrambling, and new territories etc.).

We shall see how much PTV will be played, i think that BM will stay the dominant version in the years to come.

Especially if we upgrade him a bit.

cheers

[Amon-Sul]

From my point of view,

OOB is like trulpen said, too simple.

PTV is (too) complex - the games last very much.

BM is in the middle :)

and if we see about good tech solutions they can add up a new dimension to the (BM) game.

[TheVeteran]

@simon33
Ptv has been around enough and developed by the same guys who did BM3… set it up for its own league for the 2021 season now!

[axis-dominion]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Hmm, perhaps P2V should have a separate league. I guess Gamerman01 wouldn’t really want to moderate two leagues though. I would consider doing it.

I think PTV should most definitely be separated into its own league. Let’s not kid ourselves, it’s quite a different game, and far more involved, especially with all the complexity surrounding the land and sea scrambling rules. Different and bigger map, different rules, different Strats, and so on.

Interesting, I think you should give it a go at some point. Perhaps you want to wait for the rules to be more refined but I think it improves in many areas. Don’t agree with everything of course.

I did play it a few times and did like it, it has great potential. I found some things to be unexpectedly challenging, like how you really have to watch out for japan (or America) taking a land and then having lots of air that could scramble from the carriers to defend. Made it very tricky, and very different from A&A. Anyway, regardless of how we feel about the game, it’s a different game, not A&A, and should be in its own league.

[TheVeteran]

@Amon-Sul
Sorry bud, but in P2V bomber do NOT cost $14… they still cost $12 but they do attack at 3 instead of 4 making them very much less powerful!

[TheVeteran]

@Amon-Sul
That’s your opinion that P2V is too complex! I think not… I quite enjoy the game myself.

[TheVeteran]

@axis-dominion
Different game yet developed by the same people who developed BM3… in fact most of the changes are based on BM

[Amon-Sul]

@bretters said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Amon-Sul
That’s your opinion that P2V is too complex! I think not… I quite enjoy the game myself.

the game lasts too long, too many variables. I prefer BM. But it is a matter of taste.

[simon33]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

like how you really have to watch out for japan (or America) taking a land and then having lots of air that could scramble from the carriers to defend

I agree with this as a bit of a limitation. It is bad enough in G40 that amphibious assaults are very overpowered compared to reality. Although if you had realistic amphibious assaults, it probably wouldn’t be any fun.

[dawgoneit]

The P2V game looks like it would be a lot of fun. its just a matter of getting used to all the new rules. i would like to play a few before i get in to the league with it. i think i made a mistake agreeing to a game before i practiced it first. anyone interested in a game in the play boardgame forum?

[regularkid]

@dawgoneit i’d be down to play, dawg.