1-1.png
My map isn’t heavily distorted to fit too many kind of units. I am favour to add new units if only absolutely needed. But Italy and China have units with similar Mech stats to diversify their options.
Face-to-Face Tournament Rules
-
A Poker timer for $3 solves this problem.
Don’t need chess clocks…
Poker timer can show accumulated time and each player can have their own for this price.
-
@Imperious:
A Poker timer for $3 solves this problem. Don’t need chess clocks…Poker timer can show accumulated time and each player can have their own for this price.
Like the low cost–$3 is accessible to everyone. On the other hand, there will be situations where someone forgets to hit Start or Stop at the right time, and a disagreement over time follows, requiring adjudication. A single game (chess) clock avoids those messes–if someone forgets to hit the button it only hurts them, as its their side’s time that will continue to count down until they remember.
-
Regarding FTF tourneys…@questioneer:
Format is a little fast- you have to play fast to get enough rounds in to feel like you’ve somewhat completed a game…still you never feel like you’ve had enough time.
I agree, when I play a 6-round game of AA50, it doesn’t feel like I’ve completed a game by OTB standards. Given the time limit, purchases and movement in the last two rounds are always skewed toward achieving last-minute land grabs for tiebreaker points, which would never happen in an OTB game. Even so, I consider those quirks part of the tourney format and enjoy the game none the less.
Playing AA is like baseball. Its really meant to be played by the number of rounds (innings) not timed quarters.
I can understand your point. Six rounds in AA50 feels like it’s the start of the midgame in chess, so you can’t predict who would ultimately win were the game to be played to OTB victory. Some players might be more satisfied with the idea of, “Hey, we have to call the game ‘early’ for Side X, but looking at the board, it was just a matter of time before they would have won anyway (gotten to 13 VC for Projection of Power, for example).” I like the current tourney format a lot but could adapt to a format that forces games to more rounds if that’s what most folks want.
Chess clocks- Came up with this idea and told Smorey awhile ago. It was rejected b/c he did not want to have players pay for their own clocks ($20-30). This made no sense b/c he has all players bring there own $40-90 games, so what’s $20 more dollars???
I don’t think money is the issue. The issue is laying the chess clock requirement on folks without the grass-roots demand for it by the players. A survey or written feedback at GenCon might help back this up or not. Many, I would even say most, of the A&A folks that show up at the cons are there mainly to have a good time with friends, some of whom they only see once or twice a year at these events. They could care less whether the tourney is timed by chess clock or not.
Chess clock idea is simple…Players play until one side has a VC win or they reach a certain IPC threshold on their turn (usually established for the Axis). If they run out of time that person loses “on time”. The wins would be immediate when accomplished though (VC win or IPC win) not at the end of a complete round.
Not so simple, in my opinion. You still need alternate victory conditions should the round time expire with neither side achieving the “checkmate” instant win (VC or IPC). Also, some kind of round setpoint would be needed with chess clocks; otherwise, one side could win just by playing faster. They just need enough skill to prevent the other side from getting an immediate win (VC or IPC) while playing fast, and make the other side time out. Not a very satisfying way to win, or lose. A round setpoint needs to be reasonably achievable (I would argue for 7 or 8 rounds for a 360-minute game), otherwise you’ll have situations where, by the rules players must play 10 rounds in 360 minutes, for example, but both sides use their 180 minutes exactly and only finish 7 rounds, or they’re on Germany’s 8th turn and time is called.
BB
-
Chess clocks- I don’t think you understand. Â With the chess clock idea either…
a. One side will run out of time and lose automatically on “time”
b. Or one side will win with a VC win (immediate not end of round)
c. Or one side will win with an IPC victory (predetermined some by the tourny director or maybe even through the bid)
You will NOT wait til one side runs out on time then determine a winner. Â That’s not how this works. Â B. and C. are your checkmates that stop play immediately otherwise A. will happen. Â Unlike the rulebook, B. and C. are “immediate” not at the end of the round.
For example in the current tourny rules I made for Smorey for G40, either a side gets a Euro VC win, a Pac win or Axis acheive 130 IPCs (otherwise) Allies win. Â These need to be done before the clock runs out on your side in which case in a 12-hour round is a G-360 game (6hr a side). Â Otherwise the side, whose clock ran out loses.
-
This will force players to play much faster and use their time well…no different than what you currently have except that with an exact parameter, you can fairly assess a winner and a loser. The catch is to get the right time control which may need to be increased by and hour or two for these games…more later…
-
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
-
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
That’s where the bid comes in. You bid to compensate for that pressure of having an extra country (or more as in Global- though France, China and ANZAC aren’t that hard)
The chess clock idea CAN be done. I can type up a full description and help with procedures but its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task. He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways. The Chess Clock play would make the FTF tourny completely fair timewise and force players to be more efficient. It would eliminate any “stalling” or accusations of such.
For the 42 game I think the bonus system should be tweeked as well. There is no reason why San Fran should be worth nothing. The mistake of Honolulu being a Victory City on that side of the board could be a potential blessing. To essentially eliminate both of those cities as Victory Cities is ridiculous. Japan then has zero motivation to attack in the Pacific- just play defense- eliminating a lot of Pacific strategies for Axis. Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
-
First, I’m all for trying the chess-clock.
Honestly, however, it doesn’t help the process to outwardly to make a borderline personal attack like that. You can say, “in the past Greg has beens stubborn” because it happened and it’s your view of the situation. But if you want somebody to change something for you, accusations like this about future actions don’t help.
Let’s frame it like this instead: let’s hope that Greg (and other players) will consider some changes if we come up with a set of rules that are well-thought out and thoroughly tested.
-
First, I’m all for trying the chess-clock.
Honestly, however, it doesn’t help the process to outwardly to make a borderline personal attack like that. You can say, “in the past Greg has beens stubborn” because it happened and it’s your view of the situation. But if you want somebody to change something for you, accusations like this about future actions don’t help.
Let’s frame it like this instead: let’s hope that Greg (and other players) will consider some changes if we come up with a set of rules that are well-thought out and thoroughly tested.
Ok, fair enough- good luck with that.
-
The chess clock idea CAN be done. I can type up a full description and help with procedures but its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task. He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways.Â
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
You had an idea that wasnt accepted. Stop crying about it. If you actually want a chance to see it implemented, stop with the personal attacks and insults.
Get over it already dude…
-
squirecam, I already addressed this and thus there is no reason to throw more fuel on the fire; let’s stay on subject.
-
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
For AA50, the sides are even. China really isnt that hard.
For AA42 second edition, The USA still has a shorter turn. If some adjustment were to be made, perhaps an extra half hour??
But I wouldnt want to take away time from the axis. more like 3.5 and 3 as opposed to 3 and 2.5.
-
The chess clock idea CAN be done.�� I can type up a full description and help with procedures but its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task.�� He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways.��
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
You had an idea that wasnt accepted. Stop crying about it. If you actually want a chance to see it implemented, stop with the personal attacks and insults.
Get over it already dude…
Squirecam,
I’m not crying at all. Frankly, I could care less. I’ve been down this road long ago. I’ve accepted the fact that these changes won’t happen. It would be nice to have better changes, but hey, I’m just fine playing quality tournaments at AA.org.
I’m just joining the conversation with chess clocks and sharing ideas.Didn’t I challenge you to a game here at AA.org and you chickened???
Also, MM just quit against Garg…lol :lol:- and that’s the best GenCon’s got??? :roll:
I suppose you also believe, as does Smorey, that all the online AA players “brainwashed” Larry during the Alpha project???
Do you have anything else smart to say Squirecam??? :?
BTW- let’s just stick to the topic…back to chess clocks.
-
I already addressed this and thus there is no reason to throw more fuel on the fire; let’s stay on subject.
Sorry, djensen, but have to disagree and address this before getting back on topic…
Questioneer, I suspected it was too good to be true–having a civil discussion with you about chess clocks and timing rules. And then, sure enough, your personal strafing against Greg, now broadened to include “the players at GenCon,” resurfaced en force and unprompted, quite the barrage:
@questioneer:…its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task. He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways.
…Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
Any person–particularly one like Greg who has devoted 19 summers of his life serving the A&A community as tourney organizer (TO)–would find your comments insulting and hostile. This is not the way to act like a decent human being, much less persuade others to your ideas on A&A tourney formats. A&A tourneys serve three groups: the players, WOTC, and the convention companies. You have to convince that your ideas will increase player satisfaction and turnout, which in turn will make WOTC and the con companies happier. Instead, all I hear from you is a purist vehemence about how the game SHOULD be played, and anything short of that is “lame,†“stripped down,†or “disgusting.†This from a man who has been to GenCon ONE time.
Until you recant, apologize or otherwise change your tone, I’m done listening to you.
I think the chess clock idea has merit, though, and potential application in some form of tourney. I still plan to try it out on the side at GenCon and give Greg feedback on its potential use. Combined with the input of other, less prickly, posters on this forum, I’m certain we can manage without your “help with procedures.â€
BB
-
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
For AA50, the sides are even. China really isnt that hard.
For AA42 second edition, The USA still has a shorter turn. If some adjustment were to be made, perhaps an extra half hour??
But I wouldnt want to take away time from the axis. more like 3.5 and 3 as opposed to 3 and 2.5.
The point of the chess clock is to keep the time even between sides…otherwise why have the chess clock???
-
I already addressed this and thus there is no reason to throw more fuel on the fire; let’s stay on subject.
Sorry, djensen, but have to disagree and address this before getting back on topic…
Questioneer, I suspected it was too good to be true–having a civil discussion with you about chess clocks and timing rules. And then, sure enough, your personal strafing against Greg, now broadened to include “the players at GenCon,” resurfaced en force and unprompted, quite the barrage:
@questioneer:…its Greg Smorey that you have to convince and that is a difficult task. He and the players at GenCon are too set in their ways.
…Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.
This is the point where Greg will get sensitive and offended and fires back lame reasons for these decisions.
Any person–particularly one like Greg who has devoted 19 summers of his life serving the A&A community as tourney organizer (TO)–would find your comments insulting and hostile. This is not the way to act like a decent human being, much less persuade others to your ideas on A&A tourney formats. A&A tourneys serve three groups: the players, WOTC, and the convention companies. You have to convince that your ideas will increase player satisfaction and turnout, which in turn will make WOTC and the con companies happier. Instead, all I hear from you is a purist vehemence about how the game SHOULD be played, and anything short of that is “lame,” “stripped down,” or “disgusting.” This from a man who has been to GenCon ONE time.
Until you recant, apologize or otherwise change your tone, I’m done listening to you.
I think the chess clock idea has merit, though, and potential application in some form of tourney. I still plan to try it out on the side at GenCon and give Greg feedback on its potential use. Combined with the input of other, less prickly, posters on this forum, I’m certain we can manage without your “help with procedures.”
BB
1. I can have an opinion
2. My last statement was out of line- I recant only that one.
3. If you choose not to listen to me, that is your right as it is mine to speak my mind by the 1st ammendment
4. Chess clocks…let’s continue then…
-
Chess clocks- I don’t think you understand. � With the chess clock idea either…
a. One side will run out of time and lose automatically on “time”
b. Or one side will win with a VC win (immediate not end of round)
c. Or one side will win with an IPC victory (predetermined some by the tourny director or maybe even through the bid)
You will NOT wait til one side runs out on time then determine a winner. � That’s not how this works. � B. and C. are your checkmates that stop play immediately otherwise A. will happen. � Unlike the rulebook, B. and C. are “immediate” not at the end of the round.
For example in the current tourny rules I made for Smorey for G40, either a side gets a Euro VC win, a Pac win or Axis acheive 130 IPCs (otherwise) Allies win. � These need to be done before the clock runs out on your side in which case in a 12-hour round is a G-360 game (6hr a side). � Otherwise the side, whose clock ran out loses.
OK, this is HOW to apply the chess clock to AA.
Any questions or concerns??? -
Another thing to consider about the timer is that the Allies have one extra country to deal with than the Axis. Should you still split the time evenly when the Allied player has another round of purchases, combat moves, combat, and non-combat moves? There’s a lot of overhead just to complete a turn.
Yes, I think the time should still be split evenly. As Squirecam mentioned, in AA50, it’s really 3-3 on countries, as China merges easily with US. With 1942, I would try equal time first and see how it goes, especially since the game starts with Allies at an 7-6 advantage in victory cities (Honolulu is the 7th VC), and a 97-71 advantage in IPC count.
-
First, I’m all for trying the chess-clock
Me, too, but I have a different preference than some on how it might be implemented.
…if we come up with a set of rules that are well-thought out and thoroughly tested.
Thorough testing is the key, so that we catch all the glitches that inevitably come up.
I don’t think I like the idea of winning or losing a game due to “timing out.” Â Talk about a real change to the OTB “feel,” that’s a big one. Â Only getting 5 rounds done in 6 hours is lamentable, but at least you play for 6 hours, and you win or lose based on the state of the board (control of VCs, IPC count). Â Winning or losing based on time seems a bit drastic, and I’m thinking I’d find it unsatisfying on either end. Â We could consider instead applying a penalty–for example, if you time out, you lose all 9-9 ties, or you have to win 11-7 on VCs or something like that.
For example, AA50 tourney game, 5:46 = 346 total minutes (+15 minutes grace if at UK or later in last round)
Try 3 stages on the chess clock:
1st stage - must complete 6 rounds in 250 minutes (~42 min rounds or 7 min/country/turn), 125 minutes per team; if a team times out, they lose all 9-9 VC ties at end of game
2nd stage – must complete the 7th round in 54 minutes, 27 minutes per team; if a team times out, they must win by 11-7 VC or better at end of game; otherwise, they lose
3rd stage – must complete the 8th round in 42 minutes, 21 minutes per team; if a team times out, they immediately lose -
I don’t think I like the idea of winning or losing a game due to “timing out.” � Talk about a real change to the OTB “feel,” that’s a big one. � Only getting 5 rounds done in 6 hours is lamentable, but at least you play for 6 hours, and you win or lose based on the state of the board (control of VCs, IPC count). � Winning or losing based on time seems a bit drastic, and I’m thinking I’d find it unsatisfying on either end. � We could consider instead applying a penalty–for example, if you time out, you lose all 9-9 ties, or you have to win 11-7 on VCs or something like that.
For example, AA50 tourney game, 5:46 = 346 total minutes (+15 minutes grace if at UK or later in last round)
Try 3 stages on the chess clock:
1st stage - must complete 6 rounds in 250 minutes (~42 min rounds or 7 min/country/turn), 125 minutes per team; if a team times out, they lose all 9-9 VC ties at end of game
2nd stage – must complete the 7th round in 54 minutes, 27 minutes per team; if a team times out, they must win by 11-7 VC or better at end of game; otherwise, they lose
3rd stage – must complete the 8th round in 42 minutes, 21 minutes per team; if a team times out, they immediately lose1. The stages is a lot to keep track of. Only the more expensive clocks can do that.
2. If you don’t lose by timing out then there is no point of having the chess clock b/c no other penalty is not going to be enough for running out of time.
Suggested Topics
