2015 League Rules Discussion Thread

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

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.

@bmnielsen:

A few ideas about the playoffs.

Great, thanks!

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.

Good point - I think there is a secondary reason - to encourage more participation in the league.  Gives players more chances to play regular season games against the 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 :)

Oh!  I’ll make it in, thanks to Juan’s very good sportsmanship.  He just posted today, that he would be willing to play 4 straight hours with me Thursday, and yes I’ll probably have my 8th game done, barely.  But it’s mostly my own doing that I’m close to not qualifying.  Part of the reason is (I did glance ahead and see you raise this issue) I played 3 heavy playoff games during the 2015 league season.  This made it less easy to finish 8 games this year, and I had the exact same issue 2 years before when I won the championship.  I was 1 game short of qualifying for the playoffs in 2013 (Not a problem necessarily, because I didn’t want in badly)

I was having similar thoughts for this year (didn’t really want in badly), but thought if there were people who encouraged me/wanted me to participate in the playoff again (defend my title and all that), that’s all it would take for me to make sure I got 8 games done.  Even if that means resigning 1 game that wasn’t really done.

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.

Won’t say much since I’m not 100% sure of your meaning, but the tiebreaker is basically just by most games played, which makes sense.  Ahh, now I see your vested interest  :-D  You are at 4.00.  If the season ended right now and if you assume I have 8 completed games, then we would have a 3-way tie for 8th, with Rasmustb getting in, because 1) there were no head to head results among the 3 players and 2)he has 13 games to Snake and nielsen’s 10.  Again, the idea seems to be encouraging more participation in the league and rewarding those who have played more games.
What is not clear is when there are 3 or more players tied, how do you apply “head to head play”.  I think the simple solution to this is to reverse it.  #1 factor is most games played, then if there is a tie, look at head to head.

A caveat - This was my first year as co-moderator, so many of the rules are carryovers from before.
I think an improvement on the tie-breaker rule would be to have the #1 tie-breaker be who has played the most tier 1’s.  Then if it’s still tied, go by most games played.  If still tied, head to head (assuming there wouldn’t be more than 2 tied at this point).  If all else fails, then die roll.

Since you can still participate in an 8-man playoff even if you narrowly miss the main official league playoff (to name league champion), my opinion is that it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.  I mean, you still get fun playoff action.  The bottom seed has only won the Super Bowl once, to my knowledge.  My point being that it is unlikely that the 8th seed will win it all.

Finally, call this beating a dead horse if you must,

For the record, that was Jennifer  :-D

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.

Very well stated.  I agree.  And if this change is implemented, then that’s another reason the 8 game entry requirement could remain unchanged (I would have 10 games completed).
My only reservation to this is the double reward/punishment pressure of the playoff games.
Imagine getting diced in a playoff game - not only are you disappointed at being knocked out of the playoffs before your otherwise sure championship win  :-D but you are hung with a loss on next year’s regular season too.  Do you know what I mean?
And, as I said, double reward if you get lucky.

Difference from chess is that their chess rating is based on hundreds or thousands of games.  If somebody like me loses a playoff game and plays about 8-12 games a year, that’s a pretty significant setback on next year’s rating.

Like I said, I still tend to agree with counting it towards next year, but what I just described, is the biggest negative I see off the top of my head

Thanks again for a well thought out and intelligent list of ideas!

As far as the imminent playoff games counting toward 2015 regular season (this could be done for the additional playoffs as well, not just the main one), that needs Jennifer’s approval as well.  I’m not opposed.  I would like to hear the opinions of players like Me1945, Zhukov, Ghostglider, I already know Boldfresh is in favor, Hobo, Wheatbeer, Rasmustb, Snake11, and the other players who have signed up for playoffs before actually deciding for sure.  (Mr. Roboto doesn’t count because 1-3 games would have almost no effect if he plays 50+ games again  :lol:)
I know there was a lot of discussion on this topic earlier in the year.  I could go back and see who said what.
If there is a significant majority for or against, from the people it would actually be affecting, I would think Jennifer would also agree that we would go with that.  It’s the players’ league.

@Gamerman01:

If the season ended right now and if you assume I have 8 completed games, then we would have a 3-way tie for 8th, with Rasmustb getting in, because 1) there were no head to head results among the 3 players and 2)he has 13 games to Snake and nielsen’s 10.

Actually I was thinking more of the situation if the league ended right now, i.e. before you got your 8th game in. Rasmus would get in as #7 on the basis of having more games played, which I think is perfectly fair. But Snake and I would be tied for 8th with no games between us and the same number of games played, so the rules have no answer as to who should get in as the 8th spot.

So my suggestion was really just to explicitly add a die roll as being the last tiebreak option, so we don’t get a situation where it has to be decided in the heat of the moment. I don’t have any issue with the existing tiebreak rules. As you say, there is a bit of ambiguity as to how to interpret the first rule in the case of a 3+ player tie, but I’m not sure it’s a likely enough event to need to spend a lot of time on it.

@Gamerman01:

Imagine getting diced in a playoff game - not only are you disappointed at being knocked out of the playoffs before your otherwise sure championship win  grin but you are hung with a loss on next year’s regular season too.  Do you know what I mean?

And, as I said, double reward if you get lucky.

Difference from chess is that their chess rating is based on hundreds or thousands of games.  If somebody like me loses a playoff game and plays about 8-12 games a year, that’s a pretty significant setback on next year’s rating.

Fair points, and I certainly understand if this is a stumbling block for some people. Personally the reason I like the game is the combination of skill and luck, so I don’t mind the risk of getting doubly shafted if it means I also have the chance of getting doubly rewarded. :)

A mitigating factor is that the playoff games are going to be against players of comparable skill, so for higher tiers you are at least going to get some points for the loss.

Plus, the ranking system gets more accurate the more games are counted, so all else being equal, we’ll have a “better” ranking by counting as many games as possible.

OK
Yes, for tie-breakers, if it were to go beyond the provision of the rules, as you said, die roll would make sense
I will be re-evaluating the tie-breaker rules for 2015 ruleset

Yeah, if I don’t hear a lot of protesting, the playoff games should count for 2015, I think, unless Jennifer doesn’t agree.
I need to scan through this thread soon, too, in drafting 2015 rules with Jennifer

@Gamerman01:

OK
Yes, for tie-breakers, if it were to go beyond the provision of the rules, as you said, die roll would make sense
I will be re-evaluating the tie-breaker rules for 2015 ruleset

Yeah, if I don’t hear a lot of protesting, the playoff games should count for 2015, I think, unless Jennifer doesn’t agree.
I need to scan through this thread soon, too, in drafting 2015 rules with Jennifer

totally agree - the playoff games should count toward 2015 league.

I agree as well

As do I.  It’s a “real” game, so it should therefore count.