A) Regarding AA50 game quality:
For DizzKneeLand33 and others, the logic of their preference for AA50 tourney format seems to be:
*** Use chess clocks –> Minimum 12-round games --> Games are closer to out-of-the-box (OTB) victory condition (VC) when time runs out --> BETTER GAMES ***
I disagree with this logic.
1. Even 12-round games will not achieve OTB VC–Dizz mentioned ongoing games of 17, 20 and 23 rounds–so an event will still need a tourney VC, such as Most Victory Cities or Most Territory IPCs (tiebreaker) that Greg uses.
2. Since tourney VC is needed no matter the number of rounds, I’m skeptical that most players will find longer games (# rounds) inherently better. For example, to me an Allied 10-8 Victory City tourney win is just that–a win–whether after 12 rounds or 6 rounds.
Perhaps the argument is, if a tourney guarantees 12-round games, more folks from this forum will show up. Ok, that would be good, but again, I’m skeptical. Folks here, I presume, are used to long games, yes, but games in which you can take a good amount of time to take each turn, with the full use of battle calculators, etc. Would they really leap into the equivalent of a “speed chess” tourney, with 5-minute turns, just because it was guaranteed to last 12 rounds? I doubt it.
B) Regarding chess clocks:
1. Worth considering - I’d probably suggest their trial in a Masters/expert level tournament first, so that mainstream tourneys stay accessible to newcomers.
2. You are in fact modifying the game - rulebook has no timing rules, so you would be “making them up”–anathema to some on this forum.
3. It seems to me that to use chess clocks, you’d have to set the number of rounds in the tourney. In chess, for example, it is commonly 40 MOVES in 2 hours. In AA50, it might be 12 ROUNDS in 6 hours. Each side starts with 180 minutes (half the time), and if either side runs out of time before 12 rounds are complete, they lose. Realize that setting the number of rounds is changing the OTB rules, no more or less than Greg’s current AA50 format of setting no time limit on turns, no minimum number of rounds, and game time limit to 6 hours.
4. If you have to set the number of rounds, I think 12 is too many. You’d be talking about 5-minute turns on average, including all dice rolling for battles–sure, Italy is OK with that, but others, not so much–which is insanely fast. Might be good for a “Blitz AA50” tourney, but not for the mainstream one. I would suggest 7 rounds (8.5-min turns), or 8 rounds (7.5-min turns) at the most.
5. I don’t think there should be a set limit on each turn. I think, just like in chess, players should be free to spend less time on earlier moves–standard opening sequences if you will–and more time crunching numbers for major battles at the end.
6. I think the main advantage of a clock would be ensuring that each side gets the same amount of time to plan and act. The disadvantage is that you have to set the number of rounds, which is undesirable to some who prefer the game to be more “open” in that length.
7. If you’re going to go this route, it has to be with chess clocks. People using a stopwatch or cell phone or some device that is easily disrupted (reset by mistake, etc.) is a recipe for disaster.
8. Chess clocks are a non-trivial investment, and should not be sprung on Greg.
Like I say, I think chess clocks (divide time in half, set number of rounds to achieve) could be deployed at a Masters or some other expert level event. It would lend to the gravitas of the tourney and would be a small-scale test to see how they go over. It may be that players in other tourneys notice and say, “why don’t we use those, too?”
C) Regarding good discussion:
There are ways to make the following points that wouldn’t make the posters come across as immature or disrespectful:
questioneer - “Suggested the chess clock idea to Smorey ages ago…again he wouldn’t listen to reason.”
DizzKneeLand33 - “So, in essence, you are a gaming god then…LMFAO. Italy owns Russia, Germany owns Arch, Japan owns Urals. And yet… it’s still an AWESOME game. Glad souL and I didn’t play our game at GenCon…”
Imperious Leader - “All these ‘Gen Con legends’ should play at AA.org and prove their worth. Then we will know the truth about skills.”
Not to mention the juvenile gloating above of Gargantua and questioneer.
I’m grateful that djensen, ghr2, and jim010 are on the forum to make their points with civility.
BB
