I’m declaring war, baby! Any scramble to SZ35?
41557 OOB Round 01 - Japan - combat.tsvg
Scramble.jpg
Handicapping system like in golf
-
@crockett36’s idea:
Given the evil of the history behind these events shouldn’t we as a community adjust the set up to favor the Allies. This would make the better players accept the bids of their inferiors to play the Axis. Because they still rightly assume , even with the bid, that their side will win.
If the Axis are not winning most games, my guess would be it is because good players feel the need to play the other side occasionally. And they still win.
Some random ideas.
-
M Martin referenced this topic on
-
crockett36 @martin OK try this out for size we’re handicap according to the allied IPC value intern five of your last 10 games. What do you think?
-
@martin in turn 5! Thank you M-
-
Only for OOB: What about the idea to grant a standard bid to the Allies which is solely depending on the Axis Player’s Tier?
Axis Player Tier M - Allied Player’s Bid 60
Axis Player Tier E - Allied Player’s Bid 50
Axis Player Tier 1 - Allied Player’s Bid 40
Axis Player Tier 2 - Allied Player’s Bid 30
Axis Player Tier 3 - Allied Player’s Bid 20 -
@martin we could even standardize the bid below 30. Fig in Scotland, sun in 98 etc
-
Potentially. But for my taste this would lead to too much planned economy.
-
In general, everyone could shout out in the “find league opponents” thread: “Who would play the Axis, granting me a bid of 55?”
-
@martin I think of it like zeroing out a scale that is off by 20 pounds or 30 pounds
-
@crockett36 you could also try and develop a culture of glory and bravery to make the bids go higher. The higher, the bids, the more the glory as opposed to. I just want to W in my column.
-
@crockett36 what if there was a set bid like for example. man tank gun on any factory for a couple of rounds. a man and a gun for a couple of more rounds and the a man for a few rounds.
you could either designate it to a country or split it up accordingly.
like i said for example.
-
@dawgoneit I like the spread out of the bid.
-
I generally dont like the idea of standard bids. It generates unique settings and experiences to bid for a game and decide how that will manifest on the board.
I feel though, that the discussion is more on evening out player levels. And thus giving the „weaker“ player also the chance to play more axis (since „stronger“ Player will accept higher bids against „weaker“ the axis often goes to the „stronger“). That could maybe be done with a kind of Handicap system:
E.g. If tier 1 plays against tier 3 it could automatically mean a +X number of IPC in favour of the Tier 3 player. In that example, if both agree on bid Y, this could result in Tier 1 player playing allies with Y-X bid, or Tier 3 player playing Allies with X+X bid
Something like this maybe. Of course that would even out the the strength of players, so it would also have to be thought about if beating higher tier players still should result in more league points…
-
Just not to confuse with my typo, this is how the example should Look like:
E.g. If tier 1 plays against tier 3 it could automatically mean a +X number of IPC in favour of the Tier 3 player. In that example, if both agree on bid Y, this could result in Tier 1 player playing allies with Y-X bid, or Tier 3 player playing Allies with Y+X bid
-
@myygames This is EXCELLENT. You address two major issues. In the current system expert players have a disincentive to play lower level players. This should not be. Top tier players also are disincentives to play the Allies.
As stated before, top tier players should earn glory, honor, points for allowing higher bids.
I do prefer regimented bids levels. Perhaps temporarily. Adjusted by the top 5 every year. Say the first 30 are regimented.
Bids made by lower-level players are going to be less efficient. A player should be able to “opt out” at a slight penalty or by agreement.
Suggested Topics
