Unofficial spring '42 league

There is no tech option in Spring 1942.

Explanation of bid - say you think the Allies have a better chance to win.  Say you want to win, that you don’t particularly care if you play Axis or Allies.  So when you play, you will want to play Allies.  If your opponent has the same ideas, but thinks Axis have a better chance to win, everyone’s happy.  But suppose you both think Allies have better chance to win.  Then who plays Allies?  Since you both agree Axis is the underdog, you put an IPC value on how much you think Axis needs to compensate for their starting weaknesses.  Obviously if you bid 400 IPCs, the Axis will roll right over the Allies.  So you bid less.  Someone makes a starting bid to play Axis - maybe using a ridiculous number like 400, then the other player undercuts the bid, saying maybe 200 (still obvious victory).  Then you go on, to 90, 40, 20, 10, whatever, until someone’s nerve breaks and he/she won’t go any lower.  Then whoever made the lowest bid starts with Axis and that many IPCs.

How are IPCs spent?  Different systems, some put IPCs in the bank, some put pieces on the board, some put half in the bank and half on the board, some put pieces on the board but limit it to one per territory.  My favored system is to put pieces on the board, no limit on placement.  It makes the game far more interesting.

My opinion on bids - I think the Axis needs a bid in Spring 1942, but that’s just a general impression; I don’t have solid numbers and examples to back that up, but it is what I think.

I would prefer a bid of at least 7 to Axis, with no limitation on the number of units placed per territory, IPCs may be allocated to either Germany or Japan (Axis player decides before Russia’s first turn) and bid may be used to place units before Russia’s first turn; unspent IPCs remain in the respective country’s bank.  If the bid required half bank half placement, I’d say 14 IPCs.  If requiring one unit per territory, I’d say 8 IPC bid, which makes the game even more interesting with a potential Axis destroyer lurking around at the beginning of the game.

Other than that, there’s the question of how games should be played.  Best edit the original post and put a link in, so people know how to play online.

I would prefer using a rating system to determine position rather than percentage of wins.  Simply using percentage of wins to determine ranking would result in some players looking for babies to beat up on to inflate their standing.  Although I’m all one for beating up babies, I think it’s really something that’s best left to my dungeon, rather than an organized play environment.

What rating system to use?  Elo, TrueSkill, I can’t say, maybe we can get some feedback from players.  How to implement it?  Ideally we could set up a website to minimize long-term administrative and clerical work (a website could apply to all leagues, not just this one of course).  I don’t have the skills myself, but I suppose I could pick them up if someone would point me in the right direction.

This is a good idea…I guess the regulars here are burned out on Revised and V4 is too much like Revised.  But a V4 league would be perfect for those not yet initiated into AA50 and Global.

Hobbes and I have lobbied for a V4 TripleA ladder–unfortunately the software for the ladder is complicated so we need the Admin to set it up for us.

If we start a league here and keep track of the results, we can integrate the data into the TripleA ladder ranking when it comes.  The TripleA ladder uses an ELO rating system.

If you guys are interested in a ladder for V4, please go the TripleA WarClub and add your voice to the threads asking for one.

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=300&forum=5

The league was created by Zhukov: http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16. Unfortunately I am the only one to post results so far. I really think it is essential for promotion of V4 to get the league properly started. So please join in.

@Granada:

The league was created by Zhukov: http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16. Unfortunately I am the only one to post results so far. I really think it is essential for promotion of V4 to get the league properly started. So please join in.

Could anybody explain to me, please, why this post was “flagged as spam”?

This is really funny. I wrote a short note informing about the Zhuk’s precious effort to get the league going with a link to the TriplaA War Club respective page, but the message was marked as a spam… Now in the Spring 1942 forum, it appears I have posted the last message in this thread, but you cannot really see it, while in the list of all forums it looks like the last post is there from Bunny on the German Air buys – which really is the last one you can read.

Is is it a principle here that any post with a link is marked as a spam?

If anybody is interested in a Spring 42 league competition, we are hosting a league very similar to what DessertFox envisioned above on the TripleA Warclub forums.

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16

I’m been in discussion with the mods to post a double thread for the league here on A&A forums, but that’s just talk for now.

Keep in mind that this is provisional, every current rule can be changed and is up for discussion.  There’s also hope that eventually the results for the league can be integrated into a more comprehensive ranking system like the Ladders for AA50 and Revised.

One improvement that would be welcome is a solid formula for taking “strength of schedule” into account when tallying league results….I don’t want people to get penalized for taking on good opposition, but at the same time don’t want the league scoring to be too complicated either.  The goal is a laid-back league structure, where no one has to play anyone they don’t want to.

Granada if you’re up for it feel free to post another thread or multiple threads advertising the league.  One thing I had meant to do is post a mass email to all the posters on here who might be interested in participating…I’ll try to get to that sometime this week.

Strange I also tried to reply and was also flagged as spam……

The provisional league (very similar to what DessertFox has in mind above) is currently hosted at TripleA War Club Forums here.

If you like to play V4, join the competition!

Yikes I tried to reply twice with a link to the TripleA War club page and it was flagged as spam.  I don’t know if it has to do with this particular thread or posting links to the War Club.

In any case the League is up at TripleA War Club and it’s very similar to what Dessert Fox has in mind above.  Check it out and join the competition–-everyone is welcome, whether you are familiar with TripleA or not.  Battlemap or GTO games can also count towards league standings.

We would like to integrate the results of these league games into a more comprehensive rankings system like the AA50 or Revised Ladders when we develop a ladder down the road.

We’d also welcome any suggestions on improving the league–I’m particularly interested in finding a formula for a final scoring system that would take strength of schedule into account but wouldn’t be too complicated.

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16

Desertfox, many thanks for the effort. Is it the system used in the other ladders? Or where does the system come from? By doing some basic calculations, it leads me to following conclusions:

1. The average rating of all players is increasing, which might lead to the conclusion that the handicap of players joining the ladder later will increase.

2. The player with lower rating loses the more points the higher is the ranking of the player he plays.

I know there is the 40 points gap but still it seems to me to go a bit against common sense.  When I sometimes play on the Free Internet Chess Server, the system works the other way round. Your ranking would always change within the margin of 16 points. And the sum is always 0. You lose exactly the same number points your oponent gains. The weaker the player you play the more points you can lose, the less you can take and vice versa.

3. The proposed system is a bit difficult to carry out manually.

As things stand at this point I am unfortunately still the only player to take part in all four league games. So I tried to apply your system on the four games I have played.

1. game was Packersplus vs me
2. game MikeWatroba vs me
3. game Packersplus vs. me
4. game Packersplus vs me

By chance, I won all four games. It gave me really tough time to count all the changes in the Desert Fox rating.

But I belive they went like this. 1. Granada 115. Packersplus 95; 2. Granada 130. MikeWatroba 93,5; 3. Granada 144,5, Packersplus 86,5; 4. Granada 158,15, Packersplus 78,85.

I am sparing you the counting. And I do admit I might got something wrong. So soon my oponent might be deviding 108,15 by 2 getting really weird numbers at the end.

This really leads me to a question whether a less complicated system of counting without a need to use decimal numbers would not serve us better.

–-

And hence coming back to the inspiration of the FICS system based on the rating difference between players, let me propose an alternative system:

1. difference less then 40. Winner 8 / Loser 8, Draw 0.
2. difference 41-80. A. Higher ranked player wins: Winner +7 / Loser -7 B. Lower ranked player wins: Winner 9 / Loser -9.
3. difference 81-120. A. Winner 6 / Loser -6; B. Winner 10 / Loser -10.
4. difference 121-160. A. Winner 5 / Loser -5; B. Winner 11 / Loser -11.
5. difference 161-200. A. Winner 4 / Loser -4; B. Winner 12 / Loser -12.
6. difference 201-240. A. Winner 3 / Loser -3; B. Winner 13 / Loser -13.
7. difference 241-300. A. Winner 2 / Loser -2; B. Winner 14 / Loser -14.
8. difference 301 and more. A. Winner 1 / Loser -1; B. Winner 15 / Loser -15.

Or even better the rating zones should increase progressively, as follows, which reflects actually the real ratings change in stake:

1. difference less then 40. Winner 8 / Loser 8.
2. difference 41-100. A. Higher ranked player wins: Winner +7 / Loser -7 B. Lower ranked player wins: Winner 9 / Loser -9.
3. difference 101-180. A. Winner 6 / Loser -6; B. Winner 10 / Loser -10.  
4. difference 181-280. A. Winner 5 / Loser -5; B. Winner 11 / Loser -11.
5. difference 281-400. A. Winner 4 / Loser -4; B. Winner 12 / Loser -12.
6. difference 401-540. A. Winner 3 / Loser -3; B. Winner 13 / Loser -13.
7. difference 541-700. A. Winner 2 / Loser -2; B. Winner 14 / Loser -14.
8. difference 701 and more. A. Winner 1 / Loser -1; B. Winner 15 / Loser -15.

Unless there is a specific condition for a draw set in the rules, there is no point in deciding what should be the ratings change when a draw occurs assuming there would be none.

With this system it would be much easier to count manually. Coming back to the four games with everybody starting at 1000 points, it would be: 1. Granada 1008, Packersplus 992; 2. Granada 1016 MikeWatroba 992; 3. Granada 1024 Packersplus 984. 4. Granada 1032 Packersplus 976.

So next time I would play Packers in case he wins, he would get 9 points and I would lose 9, while my win would bring me only 7 points and his loss would be 7 as well. If I happen to win my rating would get to 1041 so then anybody entering the ladder would play me for 9 points while having at stake only 7, oddly enough even Hobbes (unless we all agree that he, Zhuk and some other heavyweights should enter the ladder at 1500  :-D).

This system is much easier to count, isnt it? It also keeps the avearge rating of all the players at 1000. The only problem is we really would need a database to keep a track of all the changes. But a way to bypass this would be to start a thread either here or at the TripleA Warclub where you would actually have to update the ladder standings after each and every game. This of course is possible, though not very practical.

What do you think?

I hope you don’t mind me interfering - it’s really none of my business since I don’t intend to play, but I do have some experience with chess rating systems.

I see a few problems with the system proposed:

(a) The explanation and examples suggest that it’s actually better to lose against a lower rated opponent than against a higher rated one. For instance, if your rating in the first example would have been 110, then we’d see (changes in bold):

My rating = 110
Zhuk (My opponent) rating = 125
I win

My rating change

125-50 = 75 + (100*1) = 175
175/10 = 17.5
110+17.5=127.5

Zhuk’s rating change

110-50 = 60 + (100*0) = 60
60/10 = 6
125-6=119

So Zhuk lost an extra point because he played a stronger opponent than in the original example. This effect becomes even stranger at lower ratings, because from what I understand of the calculation, it’s actually possible to gain points by losing to someone rated at 40.

(b) The method adds points to the rating pool as a whole. In the above example, you gained more points than Zhuk lost. When that happens, all ratings tend to drift upwards over time - it’s happened with international chess ratings as well. The effect seems to be rather strong here, and that implies that players who play a lot tend to get overrated as compared to those who play fewer games. Some say that it’s good to “reward” active players by doing that, but it’s contrary to the principle of rating lists.

The basic thought behind a rating system is that it’s not a competition, but a statistical tool to compare relative playing strengths. That implies that the system should be able to compute an expected average outcome for a game between two players on the list. In other words: if everyone keeps playing at the same level as when they started, that expected outcome will be met, and the ratings will hardly change at all. Conversely, a player who improves and achieves better results relative to the others in the rating pool, will move up.

The FIDE rating system used in chess works like that, but it’s a bit of a pain to do the calculations. If you’re interested, I can suggest a manageable alternative that works in approximately the same way but is much easier to understand and calculate than the FIDE ratings. It would be a simplified version of a system proposed by Jeff Sonas, an expert in the field of chess rating.

Ah, Granada made the same points but didn’t need all my wordiness.  :-)

Anyway, like I said, I have an idea on how to do this if you’re interested.

1.  The point changes count be calculated by computer instead of manually.

2.  I think each “match” should consist of two games, with a player playing BOTH Axis and Allies.  A win and a loss would count as a draw; two wins a win, two losses a loss.  This is to eliminate any bias from Axis or Allies being more powerful, and would help determine if there is a bias.  (If Axis win 75% of games in a large sample of first out of two games played, Axis might have an advantage) & so on.

@Bunnies:

1.  The point changes count be calculated by computer instead of manually.

In the perfect world, surely. The best would be of course if it is directly included in the TripleA software. But before we get there I don´t think there is a way to get this done in any different way, then just count it and publish a new complete ladder after every single game.

@Bunnies:

2.  I think each “match” should consist of two games, with a player playing BOTH Axis and Allies.  A win and a loss would count as a draw; two wins a win, two losses a loss.  This is to eliminate any bias from Axis or Allies being more powerful, and would help determine if there is a bias.  (If Axis win 75% of games in a large sample of first out of two games played, Axis might have an advantage) & so on.

Bunny, please, dont make it more complex then it is necessary. People can always agree to play a revange game with altered sides.  That is what we did with Packers. Moreover, in the rules suggested by Zhuk, there is the bid option. I would say Allies and Axis is a bit like black and white pieces in the chess.

But what do you people think of the 16 points a game counting system I suggested based on the experience with the FICS (Free Internet Chess Server)? Would not this be the easiest way for us to go before there is an official ladder?

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that’s going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn’t much more trouble.

@Granada:  Re:  “publishing a new complete ladder” - what’s the rush, Gran?  Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a “perfect world”?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I’m afraid I missed your meaning.

As far as FICS or whatnot - I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

'Far as I know, XBox did some serious statistical ratings research - they put out a paper that I read a month or so ago for fun, can’t remember too much of the specifics.  IMO FIDE stuff is in the right direction, or at least a system that doesn’t ALWAYS reward the winner with points.  But I will say that I heard there are better system than FIDE’s (wouldn’t know personally, as I don’t track rating systems, so maybe someone more familiar with that sort of thing can comment), and I have heard that chess players game FIDE’s system.  (Although with chess politics the way they are, I’m not sure if I’d blame the rating system or politics or both.)