2015 League Rules Discussion Thread

3. Bid Units:

• Only a territory’s owner may have units from a bid placed there - even if more than one nation has troops starting on that territory or sea zone. (i.e. Egypt has ANZAC and British units, but it is British sovereign soil so only England may place bid units there.)

I suggest that we exclude this restriction for territories. What could be a reason behind the restriction? Please reconsider.

Btw, you mention see zone. Not clear who is sz110 owner, UK or France?

Are you saying you set this placement restriction just because it is only four teritorries and not sure wather anybody needs the bid units from multiple nations there?  I cannot say for the entire community - only for myself. As Allies I’ve really considered adding ANZAC art or event tank to Egypt. We can talk offline what for. Well, if you believe it breaks the game or have another reason you don’t like share, let’s leave it as it is.

More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent’s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong.  E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too,  please voice up.

@Me1945:

Are you saying you set this placement restriction just because it is only four teritorries and not sure wather anybody needs the bid units from multiple nations there?  I cannot say for the entire community - only for myself. As Allies I’ve really considered adding ANZAC art or event tank to Egypt. We can talk offline what for. Well, if you believe it breaks the game or have another reason you don’t like share, let’s leave it as it is.

In my humble opinion, I think that such obvious restrictions as only letting the controlling power getting to place units in a territory/sz preserve the intention of the game. Yes, there are many things that can be thought of that could work well in the game strategically or tactically, but as a purist, I personally think that too many variations can altar the natural course of the game. I think the potential combo of a more potent ANZAC in Egypt not only violates course of history, but it also altars the nature of Middle East warfare too far. But that’s just my two cents, and only my opinion. :)

@Me1945:

More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent�s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong.  E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too,  please voice up.

This is another rule that I find to be unnecessary, since agreements between players can always be reached prior to the game regarding speeding up games, making assumptions etc. I’ve only had 1 or 2 games where the atmosphere in the game turned sour, and then a strict adherence to protocol was exercised after the dispute.
If there is a dispute between players, the moderators always lean toward preserving original dice anyway. And if there is bad blood between players, making assumptions, then one can always just go back to strict adherence to the sequence of play.

One of the things that I love about this game is its “code of honour”, being a gentlemen’s game. Playing with people like Wheatbeer, Karl7, Gamerman, Boldfresh (if you’re not a weasel ;) ), and MrRoboto (and many more so forgive me if you’re not mentioned) is just a pleasure, as you know that there is gentlemanly courtesy, and a default understanding that there is no ill will or intent behind a potential mistake. So I don’t see the need for too many added restrictions beyond what the game itself and the minimum requirements of a functional league demand. But then again, I am a libertarian ;) I never believed in big governments ;) ha!

Again, just my two cents.

How about sweetening the pot for those Tier 1 guys?  Us Tier 4 low lifes only get a chance to play a small percentage of the top dogs because we’re fodder…rightfully so. I will say those who have ran me over I greatly appreciate the lesson…I think I’ve learned a little about some things…(not saying the tier 2,3, and 4s haven’t done their teachings as well).

But I’m looking to get a way to get these guys to play…If they play us with no bid as the Allies or give us a super bid of +20 or so, shouldn’t that be worth some thing to them as well? Maybe an extra Point?

Give us plankton a chance!  8-)

@Mallery29:

How about sweetening the pot for those Tier 1 guys?  Us Tier 4 low lifes only get a chance to play a small percentage of the top dogs because we’re fodder…rightfully so. I will say those who have ran me over I greatly appreciate the lesson…I think I’ve learned a little about some things…(not saying the tier 2,3, and 4s haven’t done their teachings as well).

But I’m looking to get a way to get these guys to play…If they play us with no bid as the Allies or give us a super bid of +20 or so, shouldn’t that be worth some thing to them as well? Maybe an extra Point?

Give us plankton a chance!  8-)

plankton is tier 3 :P

Dear Jennifer,

Nothing of what you just wrote makes any sense.

Have you even thought about the consequences of such a point system?

Did you run the math on it?

;)

Arathorn

Why not have a certain number of exhibition games (ie, points are not REQUIRED to count toward tier 1’s PPG if he wins but MUST count if he loses)…  ie, tier 1’s must accept up to X number of challenges (X = 1 or 2 should be sufficient) from tier 3 and tier 4 players per year in order to be eligible for the playoffs.  If a tier 1 gets no challenges levied against them, then of course they are still eligible.

Just spitballen - big picture.

Just became aware of this thread.  Reading in time order, and at this point am only through the bidding discussion.

The league bidding rules are more like guidelines.  You and your opponent can agree to whatever bidding rules you want, before bidding.  The league bidding rules are just the default - what you can count on if you don’t agree to something else.  It’s to help league players, not to restrict them.

Therefore, no-one should really have a significant problem with the league bidding rules, because they shouldn’t be tying your hands at all.

@Boldfresh:

Why not have a certain number of exhibition games (ie, points are not REQUIRED to count toward tier 1’s PPG if he wins but MUST count if he loses)…  ie, tier 1’s must accept up to X number of challenges (X = 1 or 2 should be sufficient) from tier 3 and tier 4 players per year in order to be eligible for the playoffs.  If a tier 1 gets no challenges levied against them, then of course they are still eligible.

Just spitballen - big picture.

when i say X = 1 or 2 i mean TOTAL, not per player.  So  if there are 10-15 tier 1 players who are contending for playoff spots, then there are 10-30 games that tier 3 and 4 players could request.  each tier 3 or 4 player could request up to a couple per year, for example.

@Me1945:

More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent�s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong.  E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too,  please voice up.

This is a good point, and I have added it to my list of things to specify in next year’s league rules.
There will be guidelines printed about how to handle these situations.

Basically, when you make any assumption for the other player, obviously you should give them the benefit of every doubt.  As I did for you when I attacked Guam (I think it was you).  You may have misunderstood what I was doing (IIRC you re-rolled a hit that didn’t need to be re-rolled).  If you have any problem with Guam whatsoever, please bring it up with me via PM so that I can fully explain (again) how my assumption helped you, and could not have possibly handicapped you in any way.

Again, good point, and I will add language that describes what is expected when making assumptions for the other player.

@Cmdr:

4b - Bidding Bidding will be used in order that both players are satisfied with the side they are playing and the starting setup.  Players may negotiate with one another, with the following default settings:

1. Adding units to sea zones - There must already be a unit of the same power in the sea zone
2. Adding units to territories Territory must be controlled by the power placing units (e.g. UK can be added to Egypt, ANZAC cannot, French can be added to France, UK cannot)
   Players may agree prior to bidding to change these default settings for their game.

These are the rules currently in force.  What is the problem?  I think Jennifer might have caused some confusion by listing it as a proposed change, #3, when it’s really not a change at all.  :-P
Again, read the last sentence.  PLAYERS MAY AGREE PRIOR TO BIDDING TO CHANGE THESE DEFAULT SETTINGS FOR THEIR GAME

So again, the league bidding rules should not be a problem for anybody at all.

@Mallery29:

How about sweetening the pot for those Tier 1 guys?  Us Tier 4 low lifes only get a chance to play a small percentage of the top dogs because we’re fodder…rightfully so. I will say those who have ran me over I greatly appreciate the lesson…I think I’ve learned a little about some things…(not saying the tier 2,3, and 4s haven’t done their teachings as well).

But I’m looking to get a way to get these guys to play…If they play us with no bid as the Allies or give us a super bid of +20 or so, shouldn’t that be worth some thing to them as well? Maybe an extra Point?

Give us plankton a chance!  8-)

I understand the sentiment, but I have some responses.  No offense intended.

As you said, tier 2, 3, and 4 can teach you plenty too.
I don’t think tier 1’s should be bribed to play tier 4’s.  There is frankly a huge chasm between tier 1 and tier 4.  Think Pacific Ocean, California to Japan.  Honestly, a tier 2 has about a 98% chance of winning against a tier 4, so I don’t think you can expect tier 1’s to play tier 4’s.  That said, I have played tier 4’s before, and I’m not the only one.  But I only play about 8 games a year in regular season, so of course I’m not going to spend a lot of time playing non-competitive games.

I really appreciate Jennifer’s brainstorming, and anyone else’s brainstorming as well.

However, I think mandated games is very problematic and bad precedent.
I also disagree that the only reason for turning down a game should be to avoid a frustrating experience or because the players don’t get along.  You also have:

1. Don’t have time - don’t want to play too many games at once
2. The game would not be competitive

Gone are the days of racking up easy wins to inflate your record and make yourself look awesome and over-rated.  There is still a purpose to play weaker players - to get the number of qualifying games you need.

As I said, a tier 2 vs. a tier 4 is at least 98% certainty.  The intent of the league should just be creating games.  It should be creating a maximum number of reasonably competitive games.

Tier 1’s will murder a tier 3 98% of the time.  It proves nothing to have tier 1 play 3 or 4, or tier 2 to play 4.  It only shows again and again that there is a vast difference.  But keep in mind that these games are still accepted and played on a pretty regular basis in league play anyway.  There’s nothing preventing mismatches.

Simply mandating that each player must play at least one other player from each tier per year could be a very simple way to handle this. The trick is, player tiers change throughout the year so when you play each respective player is kindof a crapshoot.  This would require that at least three of the minimum 8 games are required to be likely mismatches, with 2 being gigantic mismatches.

Have you read what I wrote?  No need for any mandated matches.

@Gamerman01:

Have you read what I wrote?  No need for any mandated matches.

i read it and i tend to agree but was just pointing out that mandated matches would “only” result in 25% of the necessary 8 matches being gigantic mismatches, as well as having the issue of being a crapshoot as far as how players move around.  remember, losing to a tier 1 gives you 2 points, which would raise all tier 4 and some tier 3 ppg levels.  :-)