Best posts made by gamerman01

@crockett36 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I wonder what the win ratio is: Axis:Allies–even with bids, even with different versions.

I used to track it. Looks like it was through 2018. Sometimes I tracked results by tier. You have to analyze closely to tell if it’s balanced, because of difference in player ability.

These results are all in the rankings spreadsheets.

Balanced mod 2015
Allies went 210-251
2016
Allies were 145-116
2017
Allies 155-138
2018
Allies 139-171

Total 4 years, balanced mod
Allies 649-676

Balanced mod seems to be quite balanced

Consider it clarified permanently!

If UK puts IC in Egypt, they are not adding 2 subs desperately needed in round 1, and if UK builds units in Egypt in turn 1, those are IPC’s not put on London, potentially inviting Sealion.

In other words, a UK IC in Egypt as a bid makes it easier on Germany - watch out. And then, of course, if Italy does manage to take it, you just built one for Italy.

Well… and if the IC in Egypt means no sub in 98, then UK is weaker in the Med at game start. Trade-offs.

OK! Did a little analysis on 2023 to date. (yeah, it’s not my turn in either game, right now :relaxed: )

We are a little over 1/3 done with 2023 (believe it or not).
Overall games are steady from 2022.

Balanced Mod is down significantly - can be accounted for by trulpen health issues, and 1 other of the most active players of 2022

Path to Victory holding steady from 2022 so far. 2021 a big year for PTV when it was new/newer, of course.

BUT! Out of the box has come back to life?!
Hmmmmmmm… I never did like the Iwo NO or all those Med NO’s… Oh, that’s right, they tried to make almost every island worth money - never agreed with that.
Or changing the capital rules to where you can’t raid money more than once…
Or the China rules… Hmmmmmmmmm

But those Russia NO’s were sorely needed. And I don’t even remember what the Japan/Russia at war rules were, they changed several times. BM was good on that.

Right, all of you are right, and I just wasn’t clear on what I meant.

I was not making a judgment on what out of the box should mean. Of course it means the 2nd edition, the latest version to date.

I have the P40 and E40 that was first made available in stores, on my shelf, and those are the boxes I opened many years ago. That is the G40 I first laid eyes on, so that will for ever be the G40 “out of the box” version that I think of every time I hear “out of the box” even though I know that it’s not. Because I never bought 2nd edition, because it’s just a different rulebook and maybe setups.

…

Anyone who was there, in 2010 or 2012 or whatever, will enjoy this:

There are not enough tactical bombers in my brand new game, for the game setup!

@Al3xanderTheGr8 I hope you aren’t disappointed, but I don’t think I should count a game that’s waiting on a G1 scramble decision. If you rolled all the G1 dice and they went great and your opponent no-showed, I would count that.

OK, for those of you who don’t know, it’s a big deal that Mr. Roboto is back.

Last seen in 2019, he has played exactly 200 games of G40 in league play, from 2013 to 2019.

One of his highlights is ripping off 70 games in 2014, the iron man. He edged out Whackamatt who “only” had 69. 69 was not enough for Mr. Roboto, he had to have 70.

Welcome back Mr. Roboto, you deserve this re-introduction because you are a legend around here, for anyone who’s been around awhile. :guitar: :tada: :flag-jp:

Well, we’re smart, farmboy because we’re making a run at the championship in Adam’s 1 off year

You are ideal.

We’ll talk about it.

Others are welcome to volunteer, but the need is met.

Thanks!!

To be clear to the league players -

I’m not anticipating any changes in my status.
It’s always a possibility that I would be deposed by a violent revolt, of course, complete with pitchforks and torches. (Or bombers and subs?)

Looks like MrRoboto is my backup especially for the rankings spreadsheet.

I don’t need anyone to step up to be a co-moderator (not necessarily an A&A.org moderator with the black banner and super-power abilities - which is only granted by Dave, the owner of the site)

but anyone is always welcome to ask - to make a 2 man team for setting rules and such - although nobody would benefit if there is a “two-headed monster” where we might disagree on major points.

But moderating the league has not been a burden. I almost never am asked to make rulings or stop fights - it’s incredible, you guys are incredible.

What I’m saying is I don’t even want to be perceived as a dictator - I have been in charge for over 10 years because no one has expressed desire to lead, nor displeasure with my reign of terror (all dissidents are immediately suppressed)

But this too long of a post is to say that I am really honored and I enjoy this role, but I certainly don’t want to monopolize and I am seriously not a dictator. I’m only about 70% power hungry, not 100% or anything like that.

@MrRoboto said in Post League Game Results Here:

I always find it fascinating how in a game that does involve luck in quite a substantial way, some players are still so consistently strong and come out top of the league year in year out.

@crockett36 said

In my review of one of these big games, the players avoided big battles and it was almost entirely posturing, logistics and economics. There were probably 3 or 4 big battles, almost all taking place in the first round with high precentage odds going in.

It’s like when a general retreats without firing a shot because his position is untenable.

One more point from me - if you know your opponent is better than you and won’t give you shots on his units, you can in turn give him shots on yours that you other wise wouldn’t. If he’s so risk averse because he knows he’s awesome, then you can get away with leaving less defense. He still won’t attack it, and maybe if he does, you get lucky. But if you don’t roll dice, you’re toast, right? So at least up your chances by defending with fewer units.

I know that’s really hard to do and goes against our experience. We HATE to get attacked and destroyed. But when you’re up against Goliath, you’d better try a different strategy than just dying. Dying is not a strategy. :blush:

Thanks, now I’m curious how you play 250 games in less than 3 years.

I hope you play a lot here, the PtV board needs someone like you to make it a lot more accurate. Well, I hope you don’t have trouble getting opponents for your insatiable appetite.

I’d love to get into PtV, the only reason I don’t is because I don’t have a head for going back and forth. The scrambling is hard to turn on and off, in my head.

I have amended the league rules, effective immediately, to be clear about fighters on allied carriers (rule 10).

Basically says you need to be declaring fighters on carriers when there are allies involved. Preferably in the “game notes” feature of Triple A.

If you don’t declare, they are assumed to be on their own power’s carriers if there is ambiguity.
Declaration every turn is not always necessary because a declaration from the previous turn and the course of events dictate that there is only one possibl combination, but it is good practice to declare after each turn, whenever it is not totally obvious.

Read the rule, too, see what you think.

This rule is way overdue, even though I haven’t had disputes about this ever come to my desk.

This also means that if you intend like fighters on like carriers, you need not say anything, because that will be the default assumption, so this can save efforts and confusion, both.

But I will do what I can to never allow this league to fall into incompetent or nefarious hands - not in my lifetime.
These moderator discussion words are not about MrRoboto or the current discussions - at all - they just need to be posted once in awhile so that you can be assured about the league stability.

No one has ever expressed any interest whatsoever in being a comoderator all these years even though it’s always been welcome. MrRoboto has also not yet expressed that kind of interest, to date.

Anyway, he is passionate about trying to overhaul the rznking system, and I’m open minded about that, but give me time. Please continue to post your thoughts, and I especially value those of longer term players, especially the more successful players, but all opinions are definitely considered!

Now that is what it would look like if there was a “lifetime” rating starting in late 2021. This is not what 2023 would look like. And of course our past rankings spreadsheet will fill out 2023 so that playoffs are unaffected and comparability across years will be there.

But something like this, and will be better after conversations and tweaking, is coming to a computer near you in 1/1/24.

More than half the credit goes to Roboto for enthusiasm, computer ability, and pushing for improvement. I was hard to get through, but today with this spreadsheet pictured below, I am a believer and this is the future.

And man this part annoys me! Maybe you are using the wrong term.

A circular reference is “a formula that visits its own or another cell more than once in its chain of calculations, creating an infinite loop.”

There are no circular references. There isn’t even a formula. There are no infinite loops.
You can take any given player at any given time and tally up the points from each player they’ve defeated, in that player’s current tier which is always known, and similarly with each loss.

The major strength of this characteristic of the past system is that anyone, especially me, can accurately verify exactly how many points divided by how many games and error check. A player can see exactly why his average is what it is.

There is no circular reference. There is no infinte loop.
I do understand that there are instances where it matters which result is put in, in which order. I have never seen how this makes any significant difference, and the fact remains, every average can be verified by the wins and losses against various tiers. I don’t think a player is going to be 5.43 instead of 5.20 because of this novelty exception.

Anyway.

I am only trying to educate and work together to make the ELO system as awesome as it can be.
The lifetime, multi-year results are awesome, and are quite accurate because there is more data than in a single year and the inherent limitation of players with only 1 or 3 games played is overcome by the large quantity of data.

We’ll figure out how to make good single year results and playoffs, which have always been the top priorities of league play.

@mr_stucifer said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

Not to call anyone out, but entering over 500 games I see people playing the bottom-ELO players and half the time that player gets a below-average bid, and they are always losing those games.

(The following is, I’m launching from your point, it is not at all a retort back to your post.)

Thank you, I was going to make this point yet again, but now you’ve given me a head start.

To the complaint that you can lose points with a win.
Those games shouldn’t even be played, because they are not competitive.
To the complaint that you can’t learn unless you play somebody way better than you, I tend to disagree. Watch someone else’s game, or play someone a tier higher than you. A bug doesn’t learn much getting hit by a windshield.
A stronger argument from me is that the better player is putting a lot of time into a game that, as you said, is always being lost, instead of playing a much more competitive game.

The thought behind the complaint of losing points for winning games is that everyone should be able to play everyone. I’m just saying it’s not that simple. In my opinion it is not a great improvement to give the #1 +1 points for beating the bottom player. What a waste of time. If you don’t want to lose points and the #1 player wants to play the bottom player, you could always play that game outside the league.

I’m fine with the system always giving some increase for winning, how can you argue against that?
(Except for the argument that those games are pretty much a waste of time. This isn’t a 20 minute game of chess)

New system, ELO adjusting based on current ratings is great. I’m just saying that an upper player is going to pound a low player every. single. time. And that with ELO, appropriately, top player will get about 1 point, which is appropriate, and my point is the #1 player still won’t play the bottom player if he’s wanting a higher rating, the time sink is totally not worth it, so there will always be the same complaint - top won’t play the bottom. It’s because of the time commitment.

But it’s not about the points. A top player might have a blast destroying/teaching a much lower player. I guess I’m not saying those games can’t and won’t happen, I’m saying the rating system shouldn’t reward such games (and neither the past or the future one do)

Oh wow, digging back into old league records to record all-time data for ELO rankings, I found -

@djensen the boss of axisandallies.org played games in the league when G40 was new!! 😃

Whatcha think about that?

#1 - Anybody started playing UHD, the new map yet?

#2 - Check out the stickied thread about the new ELO ranking system we’re ushering in.
Data is being entered - it’s back to 6/30/18 as of today.
The spreadsheet recalcs every time a game is entered.
It has lifetime ratings, though is only back to 6/30/18 right now. By version.
There are other stats as well. Not sure if filtering capabilities will be made available to the general public (MrRoboto is the designer of the spreadsheets), but will be easy to see things like all game results, which side taken against who, who won. So when we’re done, you could check out Dave’s complete league record with a click. Just an example!
It’s the information age! Look out!