League General Discussion Thread

oysteilo

@Adam514 - For Global and other standard A&A maps, I’d probably agree with you as the OOL tends to be fairly standard and doesn’t deviate that much. There are other TripleA maps where it does due to the complexity of the unit sets. That being said since the standard A&A maps are pretty popular on TripleA, it probably would be worth adding TUV differential as well.

I think the TUV differential has to be added for this to be useful. Look at this:

Russians attack with 3 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber
Germans defend with 1 infantry
Russians roll dice for 3 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Baltic States, round 2 : 0/6 hits, 2,50 expected hits
Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Baltic States, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits
1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Baltic States
Russians roll dice for 3 fighters, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Baltic States, round 3 : 4/5 hits, 2,33 expected hits
Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Baltic States, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits
1 infantry owned by the Russians and 1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Baltic States
Russians win, taking 106 Sea Zone from Germans with 3 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is -3

Then the summary:

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Germans : 1,33
Russians : -0,83

The game is now counting all my hits in round 2 as a good thing, but the problem is they are not needed. Obviously if a TUV differential summary was given it would be about -5 for Russia (expected is about +2, ended up beeing -3). This is more accurate I believe as it also indicates that this is a smal battle and probably not decisive over all. Is it possible to add this to the summary?

Gargantua

Whilst I like the TUV reporting, it doesn’t always do a good job of representing “dicing”. Maybe we should who both?

Example 1:
You are having a horrible dice game, so you have to stack up your forces when you attack just to get a breakthrough. You attack with 10 bombers against a cruiser. All 10 miss. The cruiser hits.

Round 2, you attack with 9 bombers and score only 1 hit. The cruiser misses.

TUV differential would show -6 from expected result IPC’s. But the hit differential would be you -11.667 expected hits, opponent 0. Showing that you def got diced, regardless of the result; because 10 bombers should blast a cruiser anyday.

Example 2 (this actually happend for me):

You are defending London against sealion! You roll AA for 10 planes and score 9 hits. Germany concedes.

TUV swing should be 3.4; actual result 90+ IPC. This will also be +8 in the dice differential. Good to show both IMO.

oysteilo

I am all in for showing both. Your examples illustrate the opposite point of my example so by all means. You just add a dice differential summary and a TUV differential summary. It wont get more accurate than that

farmboy

I like the idea of including both dice and TUV and I think they would complement eachother. I haven’t downloaded it yet (waiting for the official update) but I am looking forward to using it. And thanks for doing the work of getting this started.

I would quibble a bit with how we read the bomber example. Apologies in advance if I am completely misunderstanding this, but … If all 10 bombers and the cruiser hit in the first round the TUV calculator would show that the defender beat the average TUV differential, whereas the dice would tell us that the attacker was very lucky. If only one bomber hit instead, the TUV would show the same but the dice would tell us that the attacker was very unlucky.

But in each case above (and in the example Gargantua gave), the outcome in game terms is exactly the same. A cruiser was destroyed which should happen 100% of the time and a bomber was destroyed which should happen 50% of the time. 1/10 is a terrible roll but not meaningfully unlucky when you only need 1 hit. 10/10 is a great roll but is not meaningfully lucky when you only need 1 hit. 0 hits is consequential but only if the cruiser gets a hit in the 2nd round.

Or suppose only 2 bombers hit and the cruiser misses, the hit differential would tell us that the attacker had very poor luck (missed 4.67 possible hits) and the defender had poor but better luck (only missed 0.5 hits). But the consequence in game terms is clearly worse for the defender than for the attacker.

While it appears that 10 dice have 11 outcomes (0 through 10 hits) in game terms, when there is only one opposed unit, there are only two meaningful outcomes. Either they get at least one successful roll or they don’t.

In individual battles, this is not a big deal since one should be able to understand the significance of the hit differential in the moment. But at game’s end, the cumulative count might produce a narrative of the game that is far removed from what actually happened. If one player had more rolls that beat the average where they could under-perform, it will appear that they got more hits. If the other player had more rolls that were below average, but sufficient to win the combat round, they would appear to have gotten fewer hits. It might then appear that one player was much luckier than the other, but in game terms that dice luck had no bearing on the game outcome.

A TUV differential helps correct this but is it possible to also get a hit differential count where inconsequential luck wasn’t included? If the hit differential doesn’t count rounds where both the expected and the actual number of hits exceeded the number of casualties, that would remove most of the inconsequential dice luck. And I think the remainder would be addressed if the combat differential only counted whichever number was smaller, the number of actual hits, or the number of actual casualties. If this could be done, it would get closer to a measure of only the dice luck that had game consequences and the number of hits above or below the expected hits would also equal real (rather than hypothetical) units saved or destroyed in the game.

simon33

got: “The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.”

simon33

@simon33:

got: “The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.”

Seems to be working again.

Karl7

can Germany blitz through NW Persia if still pro-allied neutral?

Or must they stop?

BSD

@Karl7:

can Germany blitz through NW Persia if still pro-allied neutral?

Or must they stop?

Yes

Desert_Admiral

Friendly neutrals may not be attacked, and air units
may not fly over them. They can be moved into (but not
through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power
that is at war (see “Noncombat Move,” page 22).

Pg 10 Europe rule book

So can not move through.

BSD

@Desert_Admiral:

Friendly neutrals may not be attacked, and air units
may not fly over them. They can be moved into (but not
through) as a noncombat move by land units of a power
that is at war (see �Noncombat Move,� page 22).

Pg 10 Europe rule book

So can not move through.

This is talking about Allied units moving through Pro-Allied territories. He is asking about Axis units blitzing pro Allied territories, which they can do.

Desert_Admiral

Sorry, didn’t pay close enough attention.

BSD

I’m playing Axis and I control All original Axis VCs plus Paris and the 3 Russian VCs. Italy then takes Egypt, UK retakes it, and then Italy takes Egypt once again. When I move to take Germany’s next turn I’m surprised to see a message pop up that says “the Axis have achieved victory by controlling 8 European VCs” I was under the impression that the Axis have to hold 8 cities for a full round and that trading an 8th VC back and forth does not trigger victory. So the question is; do the Axis achieve victory by trading an 8th VC for 2 consecutive rounds, or do they need to hold 8 solidly for a full turn. Thanks in advance for helping.

Adam514

Answer is you need to keep the 8 without trading for 1 full round, so TripleA is incorrect.

BSD

@Adam514:

Answer is you need to keep the 8 without trading for 1 full round, so TripleA is incorrect.

Thank you.

Desert_Admiral

My rating/# of points just readjusted on the rankings spreadsheet. Is it due to the fact that some of my opponents just finished their 3 initial games?

gamerman01

@Desert_Admiral:

My rating/# of points just readjusted on the rankings spreadsheet. Is it due to the fact that some of my opponents just finished their 3 initial games?

Yes, Dawgoneit finished his 3rd and is tier 2 instead of 3. Some others raised tiers with recent results too. The rankings are more jumpy in the 2nd month of the year than later. When Dawgoneit drops to his regular home in tier 3 (I’m pretty sure he won’t take offense :-)) you will lose 2 points.

Oh, I see he’s actually hanging on to tier ONE right now because he took a forfeit :-D
You’ll lose 4 points for your 2 wins over Dawgoneit if he settles back to tier 3.

dawgoneit

not offended. :x Syke :wink:
how do i get my 2018 gold badge to add to my collection?

gamerman01

Wait for Dave to update the site I guess?

Nice win, Dawg, you rose in the rankings!

Panzergeist

I’d like to toss my hat into the ring. I’ve read the league rules and familiarized myself with the balanced mod. Is there anything else I should do. I hope to be a solid tier 3 player one day.

gamerman01

You probably won’t need to (since some will see your post here) but you could also post in the find league opponents thread https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41283.0 and you shouldn’t have to wait long!

It will be like this, after offering a goat to a T-Rex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEljXeYMxRo

League General Discussion Thread

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

zarhunter (Allies+19) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM

pacifiersboard (X) -vs- Karl7 (L +21) BM

Simon33 (Allies+10) vs Lebowsky (Axis) French Rebalance

L25 BM4 zarhunter (Allis +19) vs Lebowsky (Axis) - Rematch

L25 Playoff OOB GeneralDisarray (X) V ABH (A) Bid 50

Farmboy (X) vs General Disarray (L+10) BM playoffs round 1

L24 bm4 axis-dom (axis) vs GeneralDisarray (allies+19)

PTV Daaras (x+12) vs General Disarray

69

17.5k

40.0k

1.7m