League General Discussion Thread

[FlyingBadger]

@Ghostglider said in League General Discussion Thread:

@FlyingBadger: Don’t be hard on yourself. You did win against me…

Thanks, but I have no idea how that happened.
I suppose - with enough help from MARTI - every dog can have his day!

---

I believe that the extra scramble options in PtV from both carriers and airbases - including the possibility to defend you blockers - adds a lot of nice possibilities to an already great game.

Yeah. The carrier scamble gives a nice alternative to the usual OOB/BM fleet positioning, with the possibility of multple smaller fleets supporting each other and providing air cover for blockers. Makes a nice change to those mid/late game doom stacks.

Also, the Pacific sea zones are very different, with key islands often be sited on the boundary of sea zones rather than within one, which does affect how these key points are contested.

[gamerman01]

I think some of you may appreciate if we

Create a separate stickied thread for each of the 3 playoffs

Then you can talk about your playoff without gumming up the league discussion thread or cross-talk. I’m wondering if there would be some level of discussion by version, then.

Or perhaps it would be good if there was just a permanent sticked thread for each of the 3 versions for players to talk that version, for not only the playoffs but whatever else.

Any positive feedback to that one? We do have a lot of stickied threads and if some of you like to see the most recent games on the first page of the league, you wouldn’t be able to see as many…

[Stucifer]

I realize it is a big part of the history of the forum, but you might consider unsticky-ing the League Standings thread. I don’t know that a new thread for Playoff discussion is necessary. Most of the strategy threads for each of the games are pretty quiet.

[simon33]

Since its the time in the year for reviewing rules, can I suggest we change this one to allow land units on empty territories, really only an issue for New Guinea.

• The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

Reason for change is that pretty much every player accepts the bid and so does Triple-A.So why not make the standard rules what is normally practised?

[mikawagunichi]

Hello everyone, with the new year and a new support drive beginning, @Stucifer and I have decided to sweeten the pot a bit and generate some interest for our favorite league game variant. For any player who has never played PTV or whose most recent PTV league game was completed in 2023 or earlier, we will pay for a Gold badge for any player who completes 3 PTV games this year. For players who pay for their own badge, we will still make an equivalent dollar amount donation to the forum. Limited to the first 5 sign ups, please DM if interested, thank you!

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Reason for change is that pretty much every player accepts the bid and so does Triple-A.So why not make the standard rules what is normally practised?

I have never accepted this Bid.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@simon33 I have never accepted this bid.

[simon33]

Well I think it should be either enforced or removed.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Well I think it should be either enforced or removed.

Why? The default Bid is the standard of how to Bid and is the default if the parties cannot agree on a Bidding process. However, as stated in the rules, ANY Bid arrangements or rule arrangements that both parties agree too can be implemented. Why say it has to be done one way or the other as long as the two parties can agree? The default is only needed when they cannot agree.

[simon33]

@AndrewAAGamer I wouldn’t be a fan of having to discuss this one before starting bidding.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@simon33 you don’t have to discuss NG infantry. Just deny the placement if they want to put a troop there and hadn’t requested that exception prior to bidding. Rules are clearly posted on the forum and their job to know they have to ask for exceptions.

[Stucifer]

@mikawagunichi said in League General Discussion Thread:

Hello everyone, with the new year and a new support drive beginning, @Stucifer and I have decided to sweeten the pot a bit and generate some interest for our favorite league game variant. For any player who has never played PTV or whose most recent PTV league game was completed in 2023 or earlier, we will pay for a Gold badge for any player who completes 3 PTV games this year. For players who pay for their own badge, we will still make an equivalent dollar amount donation to the forum. Limited to the first 5 sign ups, please DM if interested, thank you!

[Stucifer]

Please take advantage of us! 😉

@surfer incentive to complete 3 games 🤓

[simon33]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 you don’t have to discuss NG infantry. Just deny the placement if they want to put a troop there and hadn’t requested that exception prior to bidding. Rules are clearly posted on the forum and their job to know they have to ask for exceptions.

Guess so but if they then don’t want to play is it a loss? We would need @gamerman01 for that one.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

If nobody has made a move in the game, it would be a bit rude to claim a win for a League match. Call it a “no-contest” and move on to an opponent who is capable of reading the rules.

I have certainly had many times where my opponent pointed out rules that I did not fully understand. Sometimes they showed me the statement in the rulebook. Sometimes it was ambiguous and a mod had to make a determination. In all cases, I was able to resolve the interpretation differences and continue playing the match (like most grown-ups are capable of).

[simon33]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris Guess that’s a reasonable viewpoint. It would make me frustrated to go through the whole bidding process and then not actually have a game though.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@simon33 Not as frustrating as getting diced on G1 and giving up since you failed a 99% roll on Paris!

Hopefully the unsolvable disagreement over NG is also a 1%-frequency event. I don’t see anyone in the League playoffs who did a NG bid, but haven’t searched through every single match.

[simon33]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris And those scenarios have certainly happened to me.

[gamerman01]

Allowing bid units to blank territories or zones is a whole new frontier we don’t want to broach.

New Guinea is an exception that many players like, and allow, but if you have one exception, people will want more.
New Guinea has to be agreed by both players and should be done before bidding, otherwise you would probably need to bid over, yes.

I would suggest that players who want the New Guinea bid in play should be the ones stating that before bidding starts, because they are wanting something beyond default league rules.

In the event that you bid against such player and then find out he’s placing an infantry in New Guinea, you would then have to re-bid if you don’t accept it, and you can point out to him that it is not standard.

If you are in a playoff game and hypothetically the New Guinea player will not budge, he would forfeit the game because he refuses to play by league rules. Of course sporting and reasonable adults would work it out with zero animosity, but the answer is ultimately you have to play by the rules, this is how we prevent tug-of-wars

In regular season play, you would simply not start the game.

[simon33]

Thanks for the discussion guys. It has always irked me slightly about the NG bid but never seemed worth having too much of an argument about.