Face-to-Face Tournament Rules

@djensen:

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.

@djensen:

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.

@questioneer:

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…

@djensen:

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.

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

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.

@djensen:

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.

@questioneer:

…Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.

@questioneer:

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

@squirecam:

@djensen:

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???

@BushidoBlitz:

@djensen:

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.

@questioneer:

…Again, stripping the game down to nothing. That is virtually what GenCon tourny formats do- its disgusting.

@questioneer:

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…

@questioneer:

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???

@djensen:

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.

@djensen:

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.

@djensen:

…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.”  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 lose

@BushidoBlitz:

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 lose

1. 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.

@questioneer:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

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.

One of the main problems with internet communication is that it can be very difficult to determine if a person is being sarcastic and if so, to what degree. While cute icons can help in that determination to some extent, they are far from perfect.

So - I use that as a preference, because I a) have seen similar posts from you and b) I see nothing in the icons you did use to indicate that you were trying to be sarcastic. Questioneer - you can kiss my you know what, you jerk. Perhaps if you had more of the facts of what you were talking about you would make yourself look less like a jerk from time to time.

Yes, I played Garg in a G40 game - just for fun as he knew that I have played that version exactly ONE time and that was back before Alpha anything. I surrendered when, due to my missing one line of text about the political rules, the US took over an undefended Japan. It was undefended because I did not realize the US could attack on that turn. So - yup, I lost Japan, and losing that capital probably meant I wasn’t going to be able to get back into the game. Of course, what you fail to mention is that I suggested to him that (since it was just a game for fun) I change my Japan purchases (not attacks, movements, etc) to defend Japan and we move forward - he declined. Certainly within his right and he also suggested we start a new game.

I just know that the ‘guys from GenCon’, when presented with a similar situation would have either a) pointed out that if I did attack with Japan on the UK that the US could attack me or b) they would have let me change the purchases so that we could continue with what was otherwise an interesting start to the game (his own words). Again - I have no ill will towards him for declining - I understand that not everyone likes to do that. But, my point is that the ‘guys from GenCon’ would have (and, in fact, HAVE) done this sort of thing before.

To somehow imply that because I lost a game I’ve played 1 time due to an error such as this represents ‘this is the best GenCon’s got’ is a personal attack, IMHO. I am far from the best A&A player in the world (I happen to have several good friends that I consider better than me), but I also consider myself to be a very skilled and expereinced player. Obviously, if I have played G40 as much as you or anyone else on this board has, that sort of mistake would not occur. In fact, I am getting ready to start another game - lesson learned.

I invite you to play me or any of  the ‘GenCon guys’ in a game of AA50 using the rules we have, and while no victory is guaranteed, I promise you that you would find a challenging and interesting game on your hands.

So - before you start making insulting comments about the level of play from people you have never played and apply that comment to ALL players even though I was the one who lost - you might at least consider having all the facts before you open your big fat mouth.

Maybe not so respectively,
MM

Back on the topic of clocks - I think, for starters (subject to review and play-testing)…this is for AA50…

1. 6 Hour game - evenly split 3/3 between Axis and Allies
2. The game should still have a minimum number of rounds expected to be played using a reasonable average - might be 7 rounds, 8 - whatever is reasonable.
3. If you run out of time completely before the minimum number of rounds - you DO lose.
4. Each side would need maybe 15 minutes of extended time (kinda like Soccer does it) whereby if you have used up your 3 hours, but have completed the minimum number of rounds, it will give you a chance to get to the end of the CURRENT round.
5. If at the end of the round (assuming you passed the minimum number) one side has run out of time, the game ends at that point. Standard VC apply - but I like the idea of the team that ran out of time losing the VC tie-breaker.

I think it is important to have a minimum number of rounds in there and only if you run out of time before that you automatically lose.

MM

@questioneer:

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

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.

So you throw out a bunch of attacks after being warned? Really?

But since you mentioned it, I dont recall any juvenile challenge. I do recall beating you at FTF revised, FWIW. Or maybe that was Q2…

I find it hard to discuss anything civil with you when your acting like a 5 year old. Perhaps you should apologize.

@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.

Its gotta be uniform. People will say someone’s personal timer can be manipulated, or somebody conviently forgets to subtract time by starting/stopping the clock.

If everyone has to use the same set of dice (which is true if asked for) then everyone has to use the same time clock.

@BushidoBlitz:

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

Is this thinking time, or rolling the dice time or what?

I’d hate to see someone lose because rolling dice took too long.