New World Order
Entek [Sides: (even is Allies, odd is Axis)] vs redrum
Rolling 1d20:
(8)
UPDATE TO TOTAL ANCIENT WAR:
I know that the options state that you must own 3 more victory cities than you start with for the victory. I also just spent some time reading every thread I could about the game in the developer’s forum (including the 270BC mods thread). I see NO COMMENTARY WHATSOEVER as to why that rule was set for victory – I apologize as I thought that there was a playtested balancing mechanism regarding that.
Therefore…
This game is also played until one side owns all capitals or the opponent cries uncle. Sorry for any inconvenience, and I will update the message now under options (there is no “total victory” option, just a number of cities). If you hit the limit that says one side wins, just keep playing after that and you should be fine.
ACGTO 270 BC Bacala (Roman alliance) wins over Balladeer (anti Roman alliance)
Link for game above:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37059.45
ACGTO Great War Entek (Alliance) v Bacala (Entente)
Bacala wins
Great War
mike48484 [Sides: (even is Allies, odd is Central Powers)] vs EntekRolling 1d20:
(12)
Hey Dizz, I was wondering about the exact tournament format. Is it essentially double elimination including the final game? Just wondering if the loser’s bracket champion has to beat the winner’s bracket champion twice or just once?
Hey Dizz, I was wondering about the exact tournament format. Is it essentially double elimination including the final game? Just wondering if the loser’s bracket champion has to beat the winner’s bracket champion twice or just once?
In order to expedite those final rounds a bit, instead of the loser’s bracket winner having to win twice, the final is just one game; however, the sides for the final are chosen by the winner of the winner’s bracket (instead of randomly).
Does that sound fair? We could change that otherwise, but I thought it would be better than having to possibly play two games for the final.
That’s fine with me. Just wanted to make sure it was clear early on to avoid any confusion later.
Also, FYI there is at least one bad connection in TAW: SZ61-SZ64 shouldn’t be connected.
TAW- redrum (Romans) defeats Mike48484 (Anti-Romans)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37079
Overall, I have some concerns around balance and tournament ready this map is. I think the Roman alliance is considerably stronger to the point of probably at least a 10-20 PU bid for Anti-Romans. I also don’t particularly like the ‘barbarians’ as they add too much randomness as if they tend to focus on one alliance more than the other then it can be very unbalanced. Just some thoughts.
Overall, I have some concerns around balance and tournament ready this map is. I think the Roman alliance is considerably stronger to the point of probably at least a 10-20 PU bid for Anti-Romans. I also don’t particularly like the ‘barbarians’ as they add too much randomness as if they tend to focus on one alliance more than the other then it can be very unbalanced. Just some thoughts.
For a few of these maps (like TAW), part of the purpose of the tournament is to test the balance of the maps. The tournament is for fun, so if there are one or two out of balance then we together as a community can help fix that. Of course, if it ends up that we can’t fix it, we can always change to a different map for next year – that’s all part of the fun! :mrgreen:
Great War, Narushima (central powers) loses vs redrum (allies)
TAW- Balladeer (Anti-Romans) defeats Bacala (Romans)
FYI –
Havent heard from DAYMAR and Santaclause - and have sent them multiple messages to get these games started
FYI –
Havent heard from DAYMAR and Santaclause - and have sent them multiple messages to get these games started
I have send them messages as well. I hope that they respond somewhere, or else they will be withdrawn by the middle of the month. Everyone else seems alive and kicking at least! :)
This is my busier time of year, so I will have days (like today) where I won’t have time to post to games, but I’m almost always around to answer questions/issues – just an FYI.
Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?
This is actually a practice game and not a tournament game, but the rule question stands, as it goes for WAW and TRS as well:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37180.new;topicseen#new
@Balladeer - I’m 90% sure that is illegal. From the NWO rules:
So any purchased carriers can’t be consider for fighter range since they don’t get exist during combat move.
I’d defer to the NWO experts though.
I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.
Rule question for NWO: I want to attack a couple of sea units at 3 move distance with a fighter, the fighter can land at an AC that I am planning to build this turn, but haven’t bought yet as combat movement goes before purchase units. The map won’t let me move the fighter, as there are no currectly legal landing spots available.
So that makes me wonder, am I allowed to edit in the fighter to make sure it combats, or is the move illegal?
The LHTR Carrier Production rules are a “variant” that we use in the tournaments, so (as you I believe correctly implied above) I think the reason that the move is not being allowed is because the engine does not yet see the possibility of a carrier being in SZ17. Â I think in games like AAG40 it calculates the possibility of that carrier being there when deciding the legality of combat moves (but someone like redrum would be much more qualified to confirm that than I). Â Because this is an A&A variant, I do believe that the fighters should be able to land.
Redrum, in practice do ladder NWO players play with LHTR Carrier rules or not? Â I see what you are saying about the carrier not being able to move to the zone during combat, but it seems to me that the explanation is for existing carriers, not newly purchased ones.
I’m no expert but I’d definitely be against that move. It just seems weird.
Well, so are you saying that the fighters that land on the newly purchased carrier are not able to do anything else during the turn except land on the carrier? That doesn’t seem normal, either. :wink:
