2015 League Rules Discussion Thread

[Jennifer]

oh, thought the :P  made it clear that I was taking it all in good jest.

Good, I don’t like exploits.  Nice to see they fixed it so we don’t have to do something unilaterally.

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

I am okay with closing loopholes in the league.  Anything that makes moderation easier (because I can just link the rules page) is a plus for me.

Krieghund has officially closed the “loophole” for all of us.
The latest FAQ clarifies that you may COMBAT MOVE whatever ships you want, away from a zone to avoid combat even if it’s not a hostile zone (only has subs/transports).

HOWEVER, it is important to note that it is a combat move away from the zone to avoid combat, so just as if the zone were hostile (surface warships), you CANNOT load up transports unless they are doing an amphibious assault this turn, and since ships are moved in the combat movement phase, they cannot do anything in the non-combat movement phase (transports will not be able to load/unload in the non-combat movement phase)

If you have any questions, please ask.
League games are played by the rulebook and official FAQ/errata, and the official FAQ was amended recently for the unintended rulebook wording that only allowed you to make a combat move that did not result in combat (escaping combat) from HOSTILE sea zones so that you can now also escape combat in non-hostile sea zones.

It should be noted that many of the implications of escaping combat still exist (If you noncom subs into an enemy fleet, they still won’t be able to attack your subs and also use the transports in non-com - can only make amphibious assaults with them).
The only unintended portion of the rulebook per Krieghund, is the specification that the zone be HOSTILE.

[Soulblighter]

This isn’t a rule question or discussion point, but I am wondering what the minimum bid for the allies is. What is a mandatory part of the allied bid. I personally dislike the submarine for the allies that a lot of players want in the med. But Whakamatt pointed out that it is there to represent taronto, but you can do taronto without it as well (tho it will be more costly). So what is mandatory? What do the allies need to stand on equal grounds with the axis.

[gamerman01]

Sub in the Med is common because it is very cost-effective.

Minimum bid depends on whether you limit 1 unit per territory/zone.

All you have to do is look over the league games thread.  I just looked over the last 2 pages for a few seconds, and see bids are 6-20.

My opinion is that the Allies need about 18-21 to stand on equal ground with the Axis.
I would take a sub to 98, destroyer to 91, artillery to China (Kweichow) for 18
For the extra 3, many players would take infantry to New Guinea.
Instead of the artillery to China, many players like mech or art to Egypt/Alexandria area.

As Allies you want a bid with immediate impact for maximum effect, so bid to UK/China where the unit will see action in round 1 or alter Axis decisions in round 1.

[Zhukov44]

It’s tempting to say there ought to be a minimum bid (say 12) for a game to count for the league, but that’s not really necessary.

A more reasonable debate would be whether league games should be 2 game matches with the same bid (like the TripleA ladder).  Of course, that would be a departure from the flexibility presently enjoyed so I’m not necessarily for it.  But……it could lead to more accurate rankings as well as a better approximation of what the bid should be.

Just thinking out loud.  I’m not saying we should change the league system as it appears to be more popular now than ever, thx to Gamer’s ranking and the convienience of TripleA.

[arathorn]

@Soulblighter:

This isn’t a rule question or discussion point, but I am wondering what the minimum bid for the allies is. What is a mandatory part of the allied bid. I personally dislike the submarine for the allies that a lot of players want in the med. But Whakamatt pointed out that it is there to represent taronto, but you can do taronto without it as well (tho it will be more costly). So what is mandatory? What do the allies need to stand on equal grounds with the axis.

To make it crystal clear.

There are no minimum bids. You can bid 0 if you want to. I have even seen two allies experts bid for the allies by going in the negative, meaning that the Axis get a bid (yup - Gargantua gave Gamerman 7 in bid for Gamer to take the Axis).

I don’t understand why you dislike the sub bid so much, but even with that, you’re free to only accept games that agrees to your limitations…

[arathorn]

@Gamerman01:

Sub in the Med is common because it is very cost-effective.

Minimum bid depends on whether you limit 1 unit per territory/zone.

All you have to do is look over the league games thread.  I just looked over the last 2 pages for a few seconds, and see bids are 6-20.

My opinion is that the Allies need about 18-21 to stand on equal ground with the Axis.
I would take a sub to 98, destroyer to 91, artillery to China (Kweichow) for 18
For the extra 3, many players would take infantry to New Guinea.
Instead of the artillery to China, many players like mech or art to Egypt/Alexandria area.

As Allies you want a bid with immediate impact for maximum effect, so bid to UK/China where the unit will see action in round 1 or alter Axis decisions in round 1.

This completely depends on who’s playing.
I would have to think about accepting a game against a true allies expert with a bid of more than 13-15.

And then again, if I am going to play to Allies against an Axis expert, then I would probably want mid 20s… lol

But then again, being Axis against another Axis player might make me real generous and offer them 20+ for Allies easily.

It all depends - and there is no fixed rule as far as what is right.

[Jennifer]

I am anti-minimum bids or maximum bids.  The idea of bidding is to bring an equal footing between two players and that will change from opponent to opponent as well.

Some common rules in the past (established by the players, not league rules mind you) include things like:

• 1 Unit maximum per territory
• No naval bids
• Minor powers cannot get bid units (Italy, China, ANZAC, France would be “minor powers.”)
• No transport bids
• 2 Unit maximum bid per territory
• There must be a unit in the territory to put a bid in that territory (i.e. no bidding an Infantry to West Indies if you ever wanted to do so for some reason.)

There are others I am sure, can’t think of them right now.

I had thought of a standard bid route for games back in the day, but the game has gotten exponentially more complex than Classic 2nd Edition and Revised were.  I doubt we could do a standard bid and make it fair for everyone, if we could, then why wouldn’t Krieghund and Larry Harris just make the change universal for everyone?

[wheatbeer]

@Cmdr:

Proposed Changes:
2) Bid Units:

• No territory may receive more than one unit from a bid.

I would support this being changed to the default rule simply for convenience sake. I always ask for this restriction before bidding.

[arathorn]

@wheatbeer:

@Cmdr:

Proposed Changes:
2) Bid Units:

• No territory may receive more than one unit from a bid.

I would support this being changed to the default rule simply for convenience sake. I always ask for this restriction before bidding.

I would agree with this being default - and that people can agree to have more than one unit if they want to.

A couple of times I’ve experienced that after bidding (assuming 1 unit as that’s what majority of players do) that they’ve tried to give me a hard time.

Let’s make 1 unit max default and make multiple optional upon agreement.

[Jennifer]

Personally I don’t have a problem with 2 units to a territory, but I understand the community has been leaning towards one unit maximum.

I would say adjacent sea zones should count against that - like pick Egypt or sea zone 98.

Also, is a transport to SZ 98 or SZ 39 too powerful?  Like can another transport in SZ 98 make a landing in Italy possible or too large a beachhead in the SE Europe, or is giving India another transport get them too much money before Japan is ready to go to war?  What I am getting at is, should we just ban transports from being units you can bid for?

Also, I don’t think anyone is going to argue, but are we firm on China limited to Infantry Artillery and/or Fighters for bids?

[gamerman01]

I think the (default) league rule on bidding should be

1 unit per territory/sea zone
China can only get infantry/artillery (because that’s all they’re legally able to build at game start - Burma road is open)

Wheatbeer and Arathorn, I am adding a note to my list for the 2015 league rules so I remember when the time comes

---

Jenn, I like the way you are thinking about dramatic results that may be possible with transports, but this should all be taken into account by the players bidding.  I have never seen any problem with transport bids yet.

Transport to 98 - ineffective because Rome and North Italy are HEAVILY stacked on UK1.  Also, because a sub or destroyer in 98 is much more effective, for the purpose of attacking the Italian fleets.
Indian transport - no problem with this.  You’re spending a bid of 7, taking more ground units off India to get +4 a turn for a turn or two.
The whole point of bid units is to leverage that bid as effectively as possible.  Both sides know what is possible, and bid accordingly.

[Jennifer]

Okay.  Those were just two areas of immediate concern.  I know transports have been used in the past for exploits, not sure if any have been found this year or not.

Not sure if I want to limit China from getting a second fighter.  IMHO they start with one, so it is a legal unit, and locking up 10 IPC bid for the Allies into a fighter in China can’t be the most optimal use for a bid!  Personally, I’d rather go with a transport for India to lock up the Dutch in two moves instead of 4 if I was going to do something of similar expenditure in the SE Asian area.

Are there any exploits in bidding we have seen?  Like “if you do this the Axis stand no chance?”

[arathorn]

@Cmdr:

Are there any exploits in bidding we have seen?  Like “if you do this the Axis stand no chance?”

No, I have never seen such a bid, because if you give it time, the best players will pave the way with a new adopted strategy.

I remember that the first times people did ftr in scotland and sub to 110 it caused several players frustration as it disallowed taking out 111 and 110 which was seen as a “must” - but now gameplay has evolved to the point where fewer and fewer of the top players take out both G1 from what I’ve observed, and retaining a high Axis win percentage among those that I follow.

I’ve played SEVERAL games where I’ve given substantial bids away, where the opponent has been smart with his bid, but adapting the play accordingly can actually encourage creative thinking for even more effective wins.

[Jennifer]

I agree, allowing the bid maximum latitude should be a goal.  But if there is something that is clearly an exploit we should look into it.  Just making sure there are no such clear exploits is all.  :evil:

[gamerman01]

No one has found a big exploit, but then, bids of 20 or so are just starting to become more common

[MagicQ]

@Gamerman01:

I think the (default) league rule on bidding should be

1 unit per territory/sea zone
China can only get infantry/artillery (because that’s all they’re legally able to build at game start - Burma road is open)

Agree that.

[Karl7]

@MagicQ:

@Gamerman01:

I think the (default) league rule on bidding should be

1 unit per territory/sea zone
China can only get infantry/artillery (because that’s all they’re legally able to build at game start - Burma road is open)

Agree that.

Huh, I thought this was already the rule?  Also, I thought it was only 1 unit per territory in which a unit already existed.

I like that fine.

[Jennifer]

Currently it is China can bid for any unit that does not violate their movement restrictions and that you can have unlimited bid units in any territory so long as you start with at least one unit in said territory.

Not saying that’s how it should be, not saying that’s not how it should be.  Just addressing the system to figure out where people are concerned and how the community wants to resolve issues.

Personally, I have no problem if people want to bid two units to Alexandria or even Kweichow.  I would have issue if my opponent wanted to bid 5 infantry to Paris however, so I can see some of what people are worried about.

Speaking of, just out of grins and giggles here, has anyone tried bidding a fighter to Paris to see what happens to the German offensive forces?  If it survives (and currently it COULD be British so it could have major utility if it does) it could screw up any Sea Lion plans two fold.  If it draws extra planes to Paris then that’s more AA Gun shots and potentially more damage to the Luftwaffe and at worst, drawing more planes means better odds for the Royal Navy too.  Then again, maybe Germany for goes hitting Normandy and/or Vichy France (S. France) just to have more manpower on the ground to deal with said fighter?    Anyone have experience with a bid like that?

[bmnielsen]

A few ideas about the playoffs.

First off, the 8 game rule. Would it make sense to relax this a bit for returning players who have consistently performed well? For example, players who qualified for this season’s playoffs only need to play 6 games to qualify for the next season’s playoffs. My understanding is that the rule is in place to ensure players are ranked accurately before allowing them into the playoffs, but this isn’t an issue for already-established top players.

My reason for bringing this up is pretty clear from the current standings. I personally would hate to see Gamerman miss out on the playoffs by missing one game, though it looks like he might just get in under the wire :)

Second, 8th place tiebreak. There should probably be an extra tiebreak option in the case that the first two still leave it tied, which would be the case if the playoffs ended now. I think normally the last tiebreak option in competitions is to just decide it by chance, so in our case rolling a virtual two-sided die would likely suffice.

Finally, call this beating a dead horse if you must, but I still think playoff games should also count for the league standings. Our league is not analogous to professional sports with a distinct regular season and playoffs, since we always have a season running. As such, the season should reflect the overall performance of each player over the time period the league runs for, and since playoff games fall inside that time period, they should be counted as well.

A couple of real-world things to back this up.

In chess, rankings are done continuously. When a tournament rolls around, the top X players are invited based on their ranking, and the matches played during the tournament count for their rankings. In other words, there is no distinction made as to what venue a match is played in. As long as the match conforms to the rules of the federation, they count for the player’s rating.

Another example is tennis. The top 8 players in the points ranking participate in the end-of-season finals tournament (sound familiar? :)). The tournament itself also awards points, that then count for the rankings in the next season.