Hi everyone,
I’m sharing some thoughts about tournament / bracket design, mostly because I can’t help myself. I think about this stuff in the shower. Obviously this is SiredBlood’s tournament and he can and should run it the way he sees fit, but I’m offering these suggestions in case he finds them useful.
It looks like we’re going to have 10 teams competing in the tournament, meaning 5 tables. Call the teams A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, and assume for the sake of argument that A is the best team, B is the second-best team, and J is the worst team. Assume everyone gets average luck.
After the first game, there will be 5 teams that have won their game: A, B, C, D, and E. So, in the second game, if you pair those winners against each other, you can expect at least two teams to have a perfect record, maybe three teams. In the A-B match, A will win and then be 2-0. In the C-D match, C will win and then be 2-0. E doesn’t have another winning team to play against, so they have to play against one of the losing teams, like F. In the E-F match, if E wins again, then E is also 2-0. So now you have three teams that all have perfect records, but only two teams can advance to the championship round, which means you need a way to break the tie.
My suggestion is to use the VP scoring as the tiebreaker, and only as the tiebreaker. If the Axis come up with 12 VP, they win, and get paired with another winner on day 2. Otherwise, they lose, and get paired with another loser on day 2. It doesn’t matter how many points the Allies have; it’s just do-or-die, come up with the 12 VP, or stop your opponent from getting to 12 VP. There’s no “bonus points” awarded for getting to 12 VP…it’s just that if you make it to 12 VP, you win, and if you don’t, you don’t.
Then, later, when there are three teams with perfect records and we need to see which ones should advance to the metal round, we check everybody’s point totals. That’s when it matters whether the Allies took Italian Somaliland or whether the Axis held onto the Caroline Islands.
The alternative leads to a bit of chaos – even if you award 5 bonus points for “winning” with 12 VP, it still might be easier for the Axis to fight for 5 little territories like Caroline Islands and Somaliland. If the Axis know that they can’t get to 12 VP no matter what they do, then all of a sudden Somaliland is worth the same number of VP as Moscow, and that feels weird. There’s also an issue where you could get people who “lost” a game promoted to the metal round ahead of the same team that supposedly beat them! To make sure that didn’t happen, you’d have to set the number of bonus points for winning so high that you’re essentially saying that whoever wins will automatically advance – so you may as well just say so openly, and let the points stay in their role as tiebreakers.
Finally, I know SiredBlood thinks the game is evenly balanced for Axis vs. Allies given optimal play, and he may be right, but given how new the format is and how short the tournament is (only 3 games!), it might make sense to allow players to select their sides using a competitive bidding auction. If the Allies have a serious advantage based on the strategies us newbies will actually know how to deploy, then being randomly assigned to the Axis by a coin flip could basically knock a good team out of the championship round. It’s worth considering how you will pair teams up against each other – lets say of the five teams that win on day 1, four of them played Allies: A, B, C, and D. E was the only team that won with the Axis on day 1. So, you can pair A and E against each other, and that works out fine – A can play Axis, and E can play Allies. But then what to do about B, C, and D? You want B and C to play against each other so that you can narrow the number of teams with perfect records, but they’ve both already played Allies. One of them will have to play Allies again, meaning that if they win, they’re making it to the championship round without ever having to play the Axis.