Origins 2006: A tournament which will live in infamy... [Archive]

squirecam

07-03-2006, 08:47 AM

Ok, so hopefully the catchy title caught your attention.

Origins 2006 was just as well run as last year, and Greg deserves alot of credit for again putting on a great show.

However, unfortunately, during the tournament some issues arose that need to be addressed prior to Gencon. I will post my thoughts here on this subject later. But I also want to see how other people felt.

Before I get going on that though, let me first give congrats to...

1 - Greg and Jeff for winning A&A revised. Great job guys.
2 - The C-sub guys for finishing second.
3 - Jeff Auer, who teamed with me to win the E/P tournament
4 - Mike, who partnered with me in revised, surviving to reach the SE pool in the greatest game I've ever had.
5 - Mike again, for teaming in D-Day to come in 3rd
6- All the other Origins friends I've made over these years

and finally......

7 - Yoper, who though NOT man enough to show up for D-Day, did accept his punishment and played a revised game with the white russians.... :)

Squirecam

V-Disc

07-03-2006, 08:56 AM

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 09:33 AM

Hey.

First things first: Smorey ran another excellent tournament. I liked the tournament slips for the round robin and I liked the big board that displayed the brackets and matchups.

The trophies and prizes were cool too. Putting an event like that together is no small thing, so three cheers for Greg for running the show!

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 09:39 AM

Second things second: That was a quality group of gamers that played in the tournament. The sportsmanship from every team we faced was excellent.

No one was looking to argue; everyone was looking to play a good hard competitive game. And that's what we got.

Two notable mentions: Yoper was among the most gracious players in the field. In the round robin we had locked up the game against him, but like a true sportsman he played the game to conclusion so the score would reflect the game. And he did it with a great attitude. That's classy.

The other notable gamesmanship mention goes to the two Jims from Ohio. That was the most fun trash-talking we had all weekend, and it was in a particularly brutal game. Those guys are excellent competitors.

If the calliber of players is going to be like that, we are going to have great tournaments for years to come.

Peace

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 09:45 AM

Third things third:

There were a lot of smart kids at that tournament. Auer must have an extra organ somewhere in his body that functions as a multi-dimensional abacus. And Smorey is a scrapper; because of the style we played we didn't really get to see his aggressive tendencies, but from the bits we saw I'm betting he can put you on your heels quick as soon as he has any edge.

The other guys were quality too. There were plenty of teams there that would finish you off if you got one bad throw of dice. Very worthwhile gaming.

So all in all it was an excellent event.

Thanks to everyone who made it out!

smo63

07-03-2006, 10:47 AM

Guys,

Thanks for the complements. I could not do any of this if it weren't for you guys coming to compete and having as much love for the game as I do...

As for the final, my hat goes off to CS and MAF. You guys were great. I felt like Oddball, Big Joe and Kelly walking down the alley towards that huge Tiger. Knowing it would fire any moment but hoping we could hold it off long enough to turn the turret around and blow a hole in the bank! And what we found was, there was way too much gold in the bank for the tiger to crack...

Anyhow my two cents...

Thanks again. Hopefully the Swamp will be have updates in the next day or so as well as the info. from the Swiss rounds (i.e. rounds played, bids and total points...)

Peace,
GS:)

squirecam

07-03-2006, 12:51 PM

Hey guys.

And that being said, I didn't see any major clock abuses this weekend. People DID play the clock to an extent, but I didn't see anything flagrant. I think most guys hate the idea of using the clocks against their opponents almost as much as they hate the clock being used against themselves; it feels cheap.

I think we'd all agree that if we can find a method that's not too arduous we would prefer to have the clock issues out of the game. I don't want to play the clock; I want my game to beat my opponent's game.

Peace

As I said earlier, I thought the Origins tournaments Greg runs are first class. A lot of the reason why I will spend so much money going to these events is because of him and the friends I’ve met there. However, no tournament format is perfect, and hopefully things will continue to be revised into the future.

I’ve done more specific GCI reviews, detailing game to game stuff, but I don’t think I will do so here unless anyone really cares to read it. What I will do is not some specific concerns found during the con.

1 - Swiss format. Great in theory, but 2 people lost 2 games and dropped out, not playing a third game. Unfortunately, swiss gaming is not for A&A because of this. Everyone else had to play another game (which does create extra tiredness, if you make it to the later rounds), and I guess there could have been seeding issues at stake. I don’t think people in the masters tournament would drop after losing 2 games (no one did last year) but it is to be expected when playing people who would rather play a different game rather than in a losing bracket where they have no chance to advance.

2 - People playing 4 rounds. I may be off here, but if you cannot play 5 rounds then you are taking too much time. Games must go 5 rounds to give the allies a good chance. 4 rounds is not enough time and I feel those playing 4 must somehow be sped up. If this involves penalties, so be it.

3 - Round stalling. The main issue in my book. Unfortunately, players tried to “Game” the tournament, either by intentionally slowing/stalling play, or by trying to speed play, in order to prevent or get additional rounds in. THIS MUST STOP. Greg has an idea that should resolve this issue. Basically, there will be a proposed 45-30 minute cut-off point. After that, it’s officially 1 round. No more agreements to go x number of rounds, only to have one side stall or affect the game. No more encouragement to “speed” up play so another round can occur. Officially, the game ends at the end of the next turn. Agreements are possible AT YOUR OWN RISK, which should mean no agreements will be made/or are not necessary. You will see what I mean when Greg posts the new rule.

I strongly debated whether or not to post specific info. I still may do so as an example and as to why this rule change is needed. But I would rather see the proposal debated on without specific info yet. Those who know the whole story are free to comment however.

4 - Scouting. I know the C-sub guys scouted using digi photos. I eventually told them not to on my board, and they respected my request. I’m not yet sure where I come down on this issue yet. I know that the tournament is supposed to be 2v2 and not 2v2+additional scouts. Then again, anyone is free to watch anyone else’s game. But is taking photos going “too far”? Again, I’m not sure how I feel about this, though at the time my response was to avoid my games being recorded in such a manner.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 01:16 PM

4 - Scouting. I know the C-sub guys scouted using digi photos. Yo. The third guy came to Origins at the last minute and was bored. The photos were for adding pictures of people to the CSub website and THE GOAL was to get photos of folks with their name tags. In fact, I haven't seen ANY of the photos taken at the event except the photo taken by MightyAirforce of the dice throttling we got in the second round of elimination. And that was taken for laughs because we were getting hammered so bad. We didn't use photos for scouting games.

In fact, I did the game-scouting for our team, without a camera. I spent time at all the boards for teams we knew we would play and I'm surprised other teams didn't seem to do that much.

We actually told the third guy to stay away from us during gameplay after the first round because it would look questionable, and we told Greg we were sending him away.

We want that to be on the up-and-up, so just to make it clear: it occurred to us after round one it would look odd to have our friend hanging around, so we shooed him away. I hope no one has any serious concerns on that score, but by all means if you do let us know. We want a clean game.

Peace

V-Disc

07-03-2006, 01:24 PM

4 - Scouting. I know the C-sub guys scouted using digi photos. I eventually told them not to on my board, and they respected my request. I’m not yet sure where I come down on this issue yet. I know that the tournament is supposed to be 2v2 and not 2v2+additional scouts. Then again, anyone is free to watch anyone else’s game. But is taking photos going “too far”? Again, I’m not sure how I feel about this, though at the time my response was to avoid my games being recorded in such a manner.

Squirecam

The answer to your question is YES.

Scouting; as we'll call it, should be strictly forbidden. Especially in the example here; where we have a third player, more or less, functioning in this role. Taking a digital photo of a potential opponents game board for scouting purposes should be grounds for an automatic expulsion from the tournament.

I would like to see a policy put in place that requires permission from the tourney director BEFORE photographs are taken of boardplay. I also feel that players should have the right to refuse "photo access" to their boards.

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 01:25 PM

I'm fine with that policy, V-Disc. I want to reiterate that we did NOT do that.

squirecam

07-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Yo. The third guy came to Origins at the last minute and was bored. The photos were for adding pictures of people to the CSub website and THE GOAL was to get photos of folks with their name tags. In fact, I haven't seen ANY of the photos taken at the event except the photo taken by MightyAirforce of the dice throttling we got in the second round of elimination. And that was taken for laughs because we were getting hammered so bad. We didn't use photos for scouting games.

In fact, I did the game-scouting for our team, without a camera. I spent time at all the boards for teams we knew we would play and I'm surprised other teams didn't seem to do that much.

We actually told the third guy to stay away from us during gameplay after the first round because it would look questionable, and we told Greg we were sending him away.

We want that to be on the up-and-up, so just to make it clear: it occurred to us after round one it would look odd to have our friend hanging around, so we shooed him away. I hope no one has any serious concerns on that score, but by all means if you do let us know. We want a clean game.

Peace

Just for the record, I asked after the tournament about the photos. The answer given was that the photos taken were attempted to be taken during people's second rounds so that the different placements and builds could be seen. This was admittedly done for ananalytical purposes.

I never said anyone was shady, or tried to "watch" my game surreptitiously, or attempted to take photos in my absence, or did anything underhanded at all. I NEVER SAID IT WAS WRONG TO TAKE PHOTOS. At the time, I just did not want it done on my board.

But to say it was not done for scouting purposes, when it was already admitted that the info was to be analyzised for people's second round builds/placements, is untrue.

It was "scouting". Now, the question is do people object to this. To me this is not a concern compared to stalling play, a far more questionable tactic.

Squirecam

squirecam

07-03-2006, 01:35 PM

The answer to your question is YES.

Scouting; as we'll call it, should be strictly forbidden. Especially in the example here; where we have a third player, more or less, functioning in this role. Taking a digital photo of a potential opponents game board for scouting purposes should be grounds for an automatic expulsion from the tournament.

I would like to see a policy put in place that requires permission from the tourney director BEFORE photographs are taken of boardplay. I also feel that players should have the right to refuse "photo access" to their boards.

I agree that a player can refuse photos. I did so.

But Crazystraw was free to watch my entire game if he liked. It was a public game. Scouting in that sense is inevitable. They could have been 2-0 and their last opponent 0-2 and MA could have played the game and let Crazy scout the whole 4 hrs and nothing would be wrong with that.

From your point of view, is all scouting improper? Or just photos?

Squirecam

V-Disc

07-03-2006, 01:40 PM

Casually taking a stroll around the gaming area and checking on the progress of other games is no big deal to me. You'll likely ask other players which side?...what was the bid?...and so on....no big deal. Taking a "recon
photo" of a potential opponents board is going to far. The whole thing has left a bad taste. There should be a policy that strictly forbids it. I'm all for compettitive play; but this is out of line.

Moderator Sinister

07-03-2006, 01:43 PM

LOL reminds me of a high school football game where the coaches swap scouting tapes...maybe you should try that.

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 01:47 PM

Just for the record, I asked after the tournament about the photos. The answer given was that the photos taken were attempted to be taken during people's second rounds so that the different placements and builds could be seen.
I don't doubt that our friend was taking pictures of the board and he probably had a grand scheme for helping us because he's a pretty sharp gamer, but I did not see any photos he took. I still haven't, in fact.

I think our buddy was just trying to be helpful.

I'm fine with any photo policy folks want to go with. I don't plan on taking photos like that myself; I plan on walking up to the game like anyone else. And I don't mind if people photograph my board as long as they don't interrupt.

And heck, you know I'm not secretive with MY game since ultimately all the strategies I use get posted on CSub. You can't get better scouting than us posting our plans on line and in detail.

Peace

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 01:49 PM

The whole thing has left a bad taste.Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm saying that that's exactly what DIDN'T happen, legal or not. So get that sweet taste back ;)

Peace

squirecam

07-03-2006, 02:08 PM

V-Disc had to play with Yoper for 3 days. I'm sure he wont be feeling well for decades. :)

However, What I'd like to focus on is the Stalling and speed of play issue. This, IMHO, is a problem...

Squirecam

Frog

07-03-2006, 04:38 PM

I don't doubt that our friend was taking pictures of the board and he probably had a grand scheme for helping us because he's a pretty sharp gamer, but I did not see any photos he took. I still haven't, in fact.

I think our buddy was just trying to be helpful.

Peace

let me be more helpful CrazyStraw. People were concerned your friend was spending time after the games each night during dinner/whatever in discussing what he saw others doing. I believe you when you say you haven't seen photos, I belived the "Recon" guy when I specifically ask if he would share information about games with others and he was very clear he would do no such thing.

So did he discuss games/strategies of what people did at anytime with you at Origins?

CrazyStraw

07-03-2006, 07:13 PM

pdubarry

07-03-2006, 08:51 PM

And heck, you know I'm not secretive with MY game since ultimately all the strategies I use get posted on CSub. You can't get better scouting than us posting our plans on line and in detail.

First off, thanks to Greg for a great tournament!

I thought the Csub guys conducted themselves in a reasonable manner. To be honest, I don't think they were in need of much "help". This is a good point about already having their strategies online. It's nice to have something surprising to pull out of your hat on occassion, but really what's so bad about absolute free and clear information being available? Why shouldn't a person be allowed to observe every single moment of a game? Isn't that part of A&A: finding the BEST strategy possible?

Tournaments should be a time for sharing and developing strategies, for learning more about the game. We have nothing to fear from knowledge. If a team brings a bus-load of cronies to watch the games and strategize with them, so what? If a team takes a picture of every move and then dissects entire games during the breaks, so what? Anybody who is willing to work this hard deserves to win. The answer is free access and hard study, not whining about "spying" and unfair advantages.

smo63

07-03-2006, 09:59 PM

Ok,

I guess my turn to chime in on this subject as the judge of this whole thing. Yes, several with the concern approached me. And even before then, the "Scout" who’s name I will not mention, in round one had asked to take a picture of our first game. He mentioned, “they like to post things of this nature on their web site. Strategies and all…?” Well, being in the middle of the game and being used to taking pictures myself in the past for my web site, it did not even faze me.

But soon after, when others approached me with the concern of him actually scouting, I took note and tried to make and informed decision concerning the situation. After watching what was going on over the course of the tournament and seeing him in action, I had to say to myself, is this right? But I then came to the conclusion, you know, if someone was that desperate to try and gather that much information, go back and analyze it before a game of mine and then try and use it against me, I thought, bring it on. If you think you know what we are going to do, then just wait, we have a counter. AA is a game that, I believe, has a counter for every move and if you are not savvy enough to know how to do it, then that is your loss. The same goes with knowing which side a team would rather play. I look at it this way, if you can’t win with both sides then watch out, your probably going to lose!

Now, I am not taking sides on the scouting issue but I do need to have an opinion and I believe respect for others should be in place. I also believe there is a level of scouting that is NOT in good taste and should be prohibited at all cost during tournament play. That is when a team is in the middle of a game, they step back from the playing table to talk about what they will be doing in their next move, and an outsider from the game, a scout, whomever, steps ups and joins in the conversation. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Also, if while tournament play is occurring, someone makes a comment about the game board and they are not part of the game but watching as a spectator, then that is wrong and should not and will not be tolerated as well. Guys, this is a tournament. It should be treated as one. Those that are standing around, watching these games should NOT be talking or conversing with those in the game, period. I don’t care what they claim they are talking about. If it is about the chick in the chainmail bra or the weather outside, come on, we are NOT dumb. Those in the game have one thing on their minds and if someone ever said, “oh, we weren’t taking about the game”, I must LOL! IMO, this is grounds for disqualification and consideration should be made in these cases.

We know that errors occur all the time during play and if the four people playing don't catch it then someone outside of the game should not be commenting on it either!

So, in short, and after long consideration, the scouting aspect of someone going around and taking pictures, huuummm...is questionable. I look it as if being scouted by an opposing coach just before a big football game. Now, if they ask if they can take pictures or write down strategies and someone says “no”, then they better respect it. And if one gets involved in the game itself while being played. Can you say, “DISQUALIFIED!”?

GS:)

smo63

07-04-2006, 05:35 AM

Hey, I have not updated the site yet but here is a shot of the finals in the last round...

Enjoy...

Frog

07-04-2006, 07:49 AM

Hey Frog.

Thanks for the heads up.

Uno: We did talk to him of course, largely because he is trying to get up to speed on the game. But all the stuff we discussed was public knowledge; what was the bid, how many rounds did they play, what are the rules in specific instances, etc. Info like that is simply in the rules or written down on the sheets for the round robin. I believe we also discussed who was building the India complex, but that was primarily based on my scouting, not his. There wasn't anything discussed that I think people would believe is out of bounds.

Peace

I at first was uncomfortable with him watching and observing the game. I then specifically ask him what his purpose was. I was OK with his answer, in part because I think you and Mighty air force are open and honest people. I agree most of that things in tournaments are open items. Anyone can ask questions about how a game is going. I agree with Gregg also

But I then came to the conclusion, you know, if someone was that desperate to try and gather that much information, go back and analyze it before a game of mine and then try and use it against me, I thought, bring it on.
GS:)

However, Not everyone is like that. Some people have secret strategies they may want to try that nobody has seen before. (whether they work or not) The big concern was not the scouting by a team, Everyone does that, but by a person who had no other concerns but to scout. He didn't have to return to a game quickly for a question or his turn. He had unlimited time to take in peoples strategies, and he only talked about those strategies with your team.

I became OK with him after a while, probably because we lost so bad I didn't care anymore. Some games are lost by 1 to 3 pts. I know it's hard to swallow a close loss, any seen or unseen advantage one team had over another may be seen as unfair, and the difference in a close loss. In years past this has been an issue with Byes. a team with a bye had time to scout others and watch their style of play, KGF, KJF, aggressive, etc. This is not a new issue, but one that has come to a conversation point.

We want to encourage others to see a tournament and play. This was the largest turnout in my 4 years at Origins. So we don't want some rule saying people can't watch a game, that is a insane rule if anyone wants to promote the game. We need to rationally and in an adult manner discuss the issue and come up with a good fair solution.

...........By The Way, Muddog and I have revised our strategies for GenCon. So your Recon photos are useless. Our IC in Madagascar will ensure it never falls to the Axis!!

CrazyStraw

07-04-2006, 08:30 AM

A) I think it's really cool that the photo of me caught me throwing a gang sign to my homies.

B) Ironically, the scouting was a total non-issue to us because I do all my own scouting (and I do a lot of it); our buddy was mostly killing time. We thought what folks would be upset about was the long break we had due to a team dropping out ;)

It definitely sucks when someone drops from the tournament. Suddenly there is no good option. The round robin is a good idea, but only if folks are committed to it.

ButchOHare1

07-04-2006, 08:46 AM

The discussion has been sidetracked to the non-issue of scouting. Half the fun I have is watching how other players play. Scouting is and should be a non-issue. If you always use the same strategy then probably you shouldn't win a tournament anyway.

The real issue is people playing too slowly if they are ahead. I saw this in several games in the last couple years at GenCon. I think 6 rounds in 4 hours is reasonable. IMO 5 rounds is playing slowly. 4 rounds is ridiculous except maybe if you never played before.

Think about your turn while the other players are moving, don't jut pass gas and waive it under the table toward their side of the board.

The 20 minute conference for USSR turn when you had all Japan and USA to look at the board takes a lot of fun out of the game.

squirecam

07-04-2006, 10:21 AM

Hey Butch,

Nice to see you here. I agree that people should be able to play 5-7 rounds, and 6-7 should be able to be done by good players. But you cannot force everyone to get to 6. Some people are just too slow for that.

The issue is not getting to 6 rounds, but stalling once one is ahead, and trying to "fix" when the last round will be based upon slow play. This tactic cannot be allowed and I think Greg and I have a good solution. Under it, you will clearly know when the last round is going to be, and everyone will be prepared for it.

BTW, send me an email re: Gencon...

Squirecam

smo63

07-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Here are the numbers gathered from Origins. Now, of the games played, I only recieved back 13 of the 16 teams score card after round three. Or they must have gotten lost in the shuffle. So, I have only the results of 20 of 24 Swiss games played and the three SE games we played. A total of 23 in all. So, here it is:

12 Axis wins
11 Allies wins
Ave. Bid = 6.2 IPC (16 of 23 games, bids went to the Axis)
Highest bid=8 (5 times)
Lowest bid=3 (1 time)
Ave. Rounds Played=5.3 (High was 8 rounds for one game and low was 4)
Highest IPC gained for one game=263 (with LHTR bonus system)
Lowest IPC gained for one game=88 (with LHTR bonus system)

In the final, for those interested, the bid was 8 to the Axis. The Axis at the end of the game owned all of Asia, almost all of Africa, some of the Allied Islands in the Pacific and only needed to hold Germany and Southern Europe to win. The Allies need to take at least two of three VC remaining (Germany, Western Europe, and Southern Europe) They attempted Germany and lost...

So, there are some of the numbers from Origins 2006.

Peace,
GS:)

Yoper

07-04-2006, 05:25 PM

Hail to all the great players I met at Origins! (and Squirecam)-

1) Game Play- Time-limits/Rounds Played

Five rounds should be a minimum.

That being said, it is hard for Greg to keep a good eye on it when he is playing in the tournament. I know that he doesn't play in the tournament at GCI, so it is easier for him to move around the games being played and help to keep them moving.

This is not a knock on Greg, it is just an observation concerning one way in which a GM can deal with the time-limit/rounds played problem.

In most cases, those with tournament experience were able to meet the minimums. It was in the cases of those who where new to the tournament setting and/or were new to the Revised edition that made for slow going.

The problem that I see arising from a blanket rule is that there will be times when extraordinary circumstances happen. Extraordinary circumstances that then screw a player/team because the GM doesn't have the flexibility to make a judgment that makes sense, but is contrary to the set rule. Now this is unlikely to happen, but I make the argument just to make sure we don't get too rigid in defining the ending of the game.

In the end, I think that this problem can be better handled by policing the individual instances and giving warnings to the particular offenders about what penalties they will suffer for continued slow play.

A knee-jerk reaction isn't needed.

This is the time-limit/rounds played section I have posted for the A&A Revised tourney that I am the GM for at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC):

************************************************** *******
The 4.5-hour time frame is enough to finish at least five "game rounds" minimum. While time limits can be a factor in any tournament setting, try to keep your game moving towards a definitive conclusion. If you feel that your game is moving too slowly, please alert the GM.

Any attempt at "stalling" or "slow play" will garner the offender:
First offense- warning
Second offense- forfeiture of the game being played
Third offense- expulsion from the event
************************************************** *******

As you can see, I have given the players more time to finish a game. But that doesn't mean that I want them to play any slower.

For more info as to how I am handling the time-limit/rounds played issue, check out my event preview at this link:

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/a&apge.htm

2) Scouting-

Very early on I advised Crazystraw (CS) and then the "scout" that he (the "scout") should be very careful about how he went about observing games and talking to active players.

While some players don't mind people watching their games, others can be very touchy about observers, especially when it is people they don't know.

Do I think that CS and MAF's friend was scouting opponents for them?

No.

Do I know that for a fact?

No.

Was it the best decision by those guys to have their friend tag along?

Probably not.

Did they do anything wrong?

No.

Did alot of people think that they did something wrong?

Yes.

Perception can become reality in cases like this.

I also was taking pictures through out the tournament. But since many of the players know me from previous events, I do not think that any felt threatened by my actions. As most know, I end up sending them to Greg so that he can post them on his website for all to see.

(Not to mention the fact that even if I was using them to scout the opposition, it sure didn't help! :o )

I talked to just about everyone in the tournament about other guys game plans including talking to and about CS and MAF. It is what we A&A gamers do at tournaments. It is one of the best things about a FTF tournament.

I hope that all realize that this was an unfortunate incident that I don't think really was premeditated by CS and MAF.

They brought their buddy along and he was eager to learn/help. I just didn't look good to other who were there. I hope all have learned a lesson from this.

3) My Tournament Experience-

Well, the "Anti-Team" better get some practice in before next year or I just might not go.

Okay Squirecam, you can stop celebrating! I will be going. But I definitely will not allow myself to go 1-2! :eek:

Embarassing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's enough comments for now. (Yes Frog, it was a long post. Deal with it! :p )

Craig

Bushido Blitz

07-04-2006, 09:38 PM

Hats off to Greg for another great set of tourneys! Largest turnout for A&A I had even seen, in the several years I've been attending. And the quality of games was outstanding. Greg, great teaming with you! I especially appreciated your voice of reason, which kept me in check when I wanted to try some change of strategy or risky tactic without good reason.

Charles, enjoyed teaming with you for Euro-Pacific! Too bad we didn't get to play Jake and his partner, but there's only so much time in the day...

Great thing about A&A is that the players are good sports, and congenial to boot. Seriously. I've posted this line of comments in past years, but I'm very glad I made the switch at the cons from playing Magic to A&A--this is thanks to Greg, who needed a substitute partner three years ago. Much less stressful and much more fun.

For that reason alone, I enjoyed all our games, but also because of the great game play. Kudos especially to Ben and Dan for a solid, tight game in the finals. That was a nail biter!

As for the issues being talked about, I believe scouting is OK, although pictures may be on the edge, but fine with permission of the competitors.

I did not come across stalling. In our finals, however, with 50 minutes to go and the UK "at bat" in Round 5, both sides agreed to finish 6 Rounds. This was not unreasonable, given our average up to that point of 35-40 minute rounds. Still, after our agreement, we all took greater care and extra time doing math, which resulted in the game going way over stoppage time. So while I loved that we could agree on a turn limit and plan accordingly for the best game possible, I also acknowledge that this kind of time overage is untenable in a tournament setting. I hope whatever idea Squirecam and Greg have cooked up will solve this issue!

Bushido Blitz

07-04-2006, 09:51 PM

Thought a recap of the finals would be of interest....

Greg and I won the die roll and offered the Axis 7 IPCs. We accepted their return bid of 8 IPCs and put a tank and an infantry in Ukraine.
Ben and Dan elected for a KGF strategy and conceded India to the Japanese on Turn 1. R1 consisted of a 2ftr-3inf attack on Belorussia and a heavy attack on West Russia. UK gradually built their fleet up to five transports, while US constructed an Atlantic transport shuttle.

Two key early battles in Africa went in our favor. First was our G1 attack on Egypt, in which we lost no casualties, taking with 2inf-2arm. Second was the UK1 counterattack on Egypt with 3inf-1ftr, which we held with 2arm. While they landed both UK and US troops in Algeria on turn 1, we did not take the bait as Germany and instead shuttled 2inf to Egypt, where we holed up. When they later vacated the US troops, but advanced the UK troops to Libya, we were able to eliminate their force and retain control of Africa for the whole game. Keeping Germany's Mediterranean BB+trn alive the whole game was very beneficial.

Due to a UK1 move of their bomber to Novosibirsk--within range of any transport build we might place--we elected for a 2IC build for Japan1, in French Indo and Kwangtung. We did build 2trn on J2, with which, in combination with the surviving starting trn, we took troops to Alaska on J3. This forced the US to divert some of its attention to the West, taking some pressure off of Germany.

Russia pushed forward from the east and US-UK troops did a D-Day invasion of Western Europe so that by round 5, Germany had retreated to its capital, but had a sizable force (~45+ inf, 10rtl, 13arm, 6ftr+2ftr[***]). On Turn 6, Germany pushed out, taking back Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Western Europe, leaving Germany with ~24inf+7ftr, and forcing the Allies into a situation where they had to take two victory cities in order to swing the point total in their favor, given that Japan was poised on J6 to take and keep Evenkl, Novo, Kazakh, South Africa, Madagascar and Australia, not to mention Brazil, although the US would easily have retaken it.

Great game! Tough maneuvers by Team Caspian Sub, and solid play by my partner Greg. Looking forward to GenCon.

Mighty Airforce

07-05-2006, 05:57 AM

Greetings gang,

I have not chimed in on these boards in a while; I supposed it’s time I threw my 2 cents into the abyss.

First, thanks to Greg Smorey again for hosting the tournament. I went to GenCon last year, and Origins this year, and it seems to me that Greg raised the bar a bit in terms of organization. I think he deserves a round of applause for his efforts. I know I’ve thrown in some small criticisms his way before about how I’d like to see the thing run, as many have in the past. Imagine what it has to be like for the poor guy, in a room of 32 people, probably 20 or more of them are the best gamers in their group, and are used to making minor changes to the “house rules”. To run a tournament with a bunch of guys who are used to making the rules they think are best has to be a huge pain in the butt at times. Thanks Greg.

Second, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised at the level of sportsmanship I found in every game I remember playing. Everyone was a really good sport, and fun to play against. I was especially impressed with Yopper considering we’ve had some semi-heated debates online.

Also honorable mention should go to Auer and Smorey in the finals for this one thing that happened: When CrazyStraw and myself throw down, we usually try to play fast. We grant each other minor forgiveness for things like moving units in non-combat (like AA guns and boats) when it’s a fairly obvious oversight. Something of this nature happened with the UK AA gun once, and I asked the soon-to-be champs if I could move the AA gun. At this point, I had just finished with the UK, collected, and specifically said “Japan is up”; it was obviously not the UK’s turn any longer. Asking about moving the AA gun was kind of reflexive, it’s the kind of thing I always do vs. CrazyStraw, but if I had taken a moment to think of it in terms of the tournament, I would have realized it was at minimum rude, and at maximum cheating to even ask to move it. At any rate, they allowed it to be moved. That really shows they were not just looking for the win, they wanted to win by out-playing us, not just get a win any way they could. I think this small illustration shows a lot of character.

Also, I crack a lot of jokes when I play, I didn’t really realize this till the championship game, when I was actually trying to bring the jokes down a notch. Sorry to anyone who might have found this annoying or distracting. I got the distinct impression the new champs would have been happier if I kept my pie-hole closed, but they didn’t tell me to keep it down. At any rate, hope all the jokes weren’t out of line.

Last but not least, congrats to the champs, Jeff Auer and Greg Smorey. I like to think CrazyStraw and myself are no push-overs. We brought our A-game to the table, and left with the small trophies. Congrats to the kings of Origins, the gameplay I saw was champion level play. Great job men.

smo63

07-05-2006, 07:51 AM

Greetings gang,

Also, I crack a lot of jokes when I play, I didn’t really realize this till the championship game, when I was actually trying to bring the jokes down a notch. Sorry to anyone who might have found this annoying or distracting. I got the distinct impression the new champs would have been happier if I kept my pie-hole closed, but they didn’t tell me to keep it down. At any rate, hope all the jokes weren’t out of line.

Last but not least, congrats to the champs, Jeff Auer and Greg Smorey. I like to think CrazyStraw and myself are no push-overs. We brought our A-game to the table, and left with the small trophies. Congrats to the kings of Origins, the gameplay I saw was champion level play. Great job men.

MA, first and formost, thanks for the compliment. It is well appreciated.

Secondly, not a problem regarding the jokes. Acutally it helped me relax a bit giving us the added focus we needed. It is very easy to get tunnel vision when playing in a tournament of this nature and loose site of the overall picture.

As for the AA gun. Yes, we all have done that at one point or another and as an opponent, no problem. Now, if I was acting as a judge...it might have been different...

Thanks again!
GS:)

ButchOHare1

07-05-2006, 08:31 AM

No bid in Africa and you take Egypt G-1 with no casualties. That's very fortunate.

sajac

07-05-2006, 08:56 AM

More kudos to Greg on a tournament well run.

As part of the team that won the 4-round game (as the Allies!), I will say that we do need to ensure that games go at least 5 rounds. We only had a prayer because of some fortunate dice in the first round that left us a significant Pacific fleet. We were paid back in the second game by hideous dice against strong opponents...the outcome was not pretty for us. I'll wait for Greg's suggested fix for Gencon to comment further on this.

I really appreciated the Swiss format. Yes, it means that if people go 0-2, they might not show up, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that one game of bad dice (we had this in our second game in the pool) won't kill you, and with the number of quality teams at Origins (and Gencon), it's great to get in at least three games before having to pack it up (we won our pool, but lost in the next round by three points due to a combination of some lucky opposing dice and my inability to count...I, of course, believe the dice were the determining factor; my teammate seems to be incomprehensibly stuck on my statement "Don't worry, Paul! I counted it twice. Trust me!" Some people are just sooooo rigid).

Well, I'm sure he'll forgive me by next summer!

sc
--

squirecam

07-05-2006, 08:57 AM

For your perusal........

End Time: All games shall be played within the 3:45 allotted to each game. Given an approximate time frame of 40 minutes per turn, it is clearly expected that you should be able to complete FIVE full rounds. There will be a "15 minute stoppage time" play at the end of the 3:45, IF NECESSARY, for teams to finish up their final moves and finalize the game in order to accomplish this goal.

An announcement will be made with about forty five minutes remaining. This will remind you of the thirty MINUTE CUT-OFF PERIOD. What this means is this:

1 - If, WITH forty five minutes left and the game is in the middle of a turn (Germany, UK or Japan), the NEXT TURN WILL BE YOUR LAST ROUND. (i.e you have one hour to complete the round you are in, and the next round.) Officially, you may NOT start another game turn after this round. IF for whatever reason, both teams choose to start another game round, all games will be called at the end of stoppage time (3:45 + 15 min = 4 hours) and the total IPC values with bonuses will be determined AT WHATEVER POINT THE GAME IS IN.

2 - If, WITH forty five minutes LEFT, you are at the beginning of the USSR turn, THIS ROUND WILL BE YOUR LAST. Officially, you may NOT start another game turn after this round. IF, for whatever reason, both teams choose to start another game round, all games will be called at the end of stoppage time (3:45 + 15 min = 4 hrs) and the total IPC values with bonuses will be determined AT WHATEVER POINT THE GAME IS IN.

3 - If a game is at the end of US's turn within the last 15 minutes of regulation play, you may NOT start another game turn.

The judges will notify all players when 1 hour is left and the 30 minute time frame will begin during tournament play. It is up to the individual teams to complete the last round of play within the time constraints, not the judges.

With this rule in place, all games should still achieve at least a 5 round game. If not, you are playing way to slow!

Squirecam

Mighty Airforce

07-05-2006, 09:13 AM

I feel compelled to chime in regarding the concerns about “scouting”. I want to give some info before policy is developed for future tournaments. Sometimes when a possible flaw is detected, policy is made where the pendulum swings too far in the other direction.

I will tell you that my friend that came along was not there to be a scout, not by design, and not in practice. Here is some supporting evidence, thou it’s hardly conclusive:

1) It would be hard to find a guy to be a dedicated scout for a 3 day event. Even if you were there with nothing to do, that would make for a long and boring day.

2) How much would any information really be useful? If you tailor your game around what your opponent did last game, when they do something different, have you shot yourself in the foot?

3) Most maneuvers are only useful under very specific circumstances. Even seeing something interesting, it would unlikely manifest itself again.

4) What would it take to really make pictures useful? To really know what’s going on in a game, you’d really want pictures of combat move, post combat, and non-combat just to get a good idea. You’d want that for each power, for each turn. You’d want a mountain of pictures, a virtual photo-documentary just to be useful. Quite impractical.

5) If you did have enough info, how long would it take to think through the subtleties of the new move, and decide how to react to it?

The above items are meant to give some insight for those involved in making policy regarding “scouting”. I believe scouting just would not be very useful nor practical, and hence I’m not to afraid of it.

The below items are specifically to support the idea Crazystraw and I didn’t ask a guy to be our “scout”.

To expand on number 4 above, when reviewing the pictures from Origins, I found less than 10 pictures that were from a board that wasn’t the one I was playing on. Seriously, how useful could that possibly be? If we were actively seeking recon with pictures, there would be more than 10 times that many pictures, ideally for a single scouted game! Everyone playing knows we didn’t take a high volume of pictures, I didn’t see more than a couple pictures of any single board.

Also, many people could probably attest to the fact CrazyStraw and myself are fairly stand-up guys. More than once in the tourney, we saw something that was overlooked that we mentioned to our detriment. Once a guy threw too few dice, and we told him to throw an extra 3. There were other similar instances of this kind of behavior. Again, none of this is solid proof, but it’s a lot of supporting evidence.

This is pretty weak supporting evidence, but consider that CrazyStraw runs the Caspian Sub website. We publish our strategies with the goal of improving game play. Does it sounds right to anyone that the kind of person who shares his strategies would employ spies to gain info from opponents? That doesn’t jive in my head.

Lastly, CrazyStraw and I made it to the final game. I think this in itself tells a bit of a tale. It doesn’t mean that we were the best in the room, but I think it shows that we have some game. We have played a lot, and quite frankly, it’s been a quite a while since we have seen something really “new”. It would be arrogant of me to say that I wouldn’t see anything interesting on another board, but we have seen a lot, and the likelihood of seeing something new hardly seems worth trying to talk a friend into coming along and scouting.

This is all I’ll say on the matter, if you still think we used a spy, I won’t convince you otherwise. I just wanted to both state my case, and give policy makers and players things to think about before they tackle an under-cover “spy” standing near their table.

Mighty Airforce

07-05-2006, 09:17 AM

I really liked looking at the pictures of my board during interesting phases of the game. I have one pic of a game right after Russia’s first turn. The Axis put the bid in Ukraine, we, as the Allies, attacked BeloRussia and West Russia, and we were repelled form both territories with Germans still standing on both. That picture is nightmare quality for any allied player. Truly scary. Great to look back at and say “Wow, we won that game”. Whatever is decided, I hope I can still at least take pictures of my own board, and quite frankly, I don’t give a poop if taking pictures of other boards are disallowed. Disallowing pictures of other boards seems over-reacting, but I’m fine with whatever is decided.

In the future, I think people should be allowed to take pictures by default. I think if anyone on the board doesn’t want pictures taken, they can ask that pictures not be taken, and they can expect their wishes respected, and possibly expect enforcement by the tournament director (thou I really doubt it would come to this).

Now comes the question of if you should disturb the game to take the first picture. Perhaps if you are photo adverse, you should put a small sign by the board that says “no pictures please”, just so people who want to take pictures can go ahead and do that without having to ask all the players and disturb game play. I know I walked around many non-A&A games and took pictures, and I didn’t disturb the game to ask if it was alright with the participants. I think most people would prefer this, as long as people aren’t taking an obnoxious amount of pictures.

If taking pics will get you disqualified, I’m going to give a random stranger $1 next time to take an obnoxious amount of pictures of Squirecam’s board while saying “I’m Greg Smorey’s spy !!!” That’s one way to get around some of the hard teams!

<<<just kidding obviously>>>

Mighty Airforce

07-05-2006, 09:19 AM

One more comment while I’m throwing my ideas around. I saw one instance where a bystander made a comment about a board. It was not a comment giving advice or pointing out any tactical info, which I think we can all agree is bad. The bystander made the comment that a particular non-combat movement was illegal. This was an obvious mistake/oversight. I find this situation interesting. On one hand, the bystander helped one side by making that comment. On the other hand, the guy didn’t give any advice; he simply helped to prevent what could be considered cheating (thou surely inadvertent).

This incident happened on my board, and the team that was helped was mine. I don’t know quite how I feel about this. It’s obviously wrong for a bystander to make a comment like “your fighters can land in territory X to help defend”, or “why don’t you attack here” those cases are cut and dry all kinds of wrong. However, if the bystander is simply helping to enforce the rules, is that appropriate or welcomed?

I feel like if I made the mistake, I’d be okay with being corrected. I’m generally of the opinion that a bystander should not comment, but on the other hand, is that principal more important than making sure the game is played by the rules, even in the case of accidental-type cheating? I could see cases where, if a bystander is allowed to comment only to clear up a mistake or violation of the rules, he would accidentally give away too much info, or help one side out. This is, after all, why we all feel compelled to not comment out loud on games we might observe; we don’t want to influence the game.

This seems like a sticky situation. If I had to make the rule, I guess I’d say a bystander should be allowed to make comments only to make sure the game is kept fair from even accidental cheating. However, letting them say anything at all sure seems to cross a line.

squirecam

07-05-2006, 09:19 AM

With the exception of a no-photo w/o consent policy, what Greg posted earlier re: scouting is all thats needed.

And indeed, you both have game.

Can we move on to the more serious stalling issues now....

Squirecam

Mighty Airforce

07-05-2006, 09:27 AM

This is hardly original, CrazyStraw had an idea about a system using a clock, but here’s some general thoughts on the subject:

If you want to get in at least N rounds, you need to time each team’s turns, there’s no two ways about it. You need to determine who is playing slow. Any system that says “at X time, a new round will start if Z conditions are met” is susceptible to clock manipulation. This much is obvious

Some systems more so than others, and some people could be more subtle about it than others. The truly crafty could go completely undetected.
It would be possible to say “the game will be N rounds", this gives the
Allies get a total of ( total_time * 0.6)
Axis get a total of (total_time * 0.4)
Then, if you play at a speed conducive to a N round game, you will finish. If you do not finish, you’ll know who played slow, and a penalty should be assigned?

This also means you can have the ocassional really long turn, as long as you roughly make up the time by speeding up other turns.

This sounds like a lot of work, but if you just wrote the time each team power finishes, you’d never have to review the data unless the requisite rounds haven’t been finished in game time. This should very rarely be the case.

Any system that tries to force a certain amount of gameplay in a certain amount of time will either need a timekeeping system per side, or be open to either judgement, exploitation, or both.

Personally, I try to play as fast as I can reasonably, I think in the long game the best strategy will prevail, so I try to play as much as I can to either
- let my superior strategy prevail
Or
- take the loss I deserve

But I acknowledge that any systems comes with its flaws.

Again, I sure wouldn’t want to be Greg Smorey with every guy who plays throwing out suggestion after suggestion. It looks like work just to read them all, let alone give them serious consideration.

squirecam

07-05-2006, 09:32 AM

Greg will never go to chess clocks, so thats out.

The above will prevent one side from requesting that the game go "2 more rounds", with an hour plus remaining, then suddenly stall once they see the opponent's moves (based upon playing 2 more rounds) and they see an advantage to only going 1 more round.

This is clear manipulation of the game and will be fixed by the above rule.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-05-2006, 09:38 AM

Can we move on to the more serious stalling issues now....Hey Squire.

In general I think the timing rules you have Greg have devised are an improvement, but it doesn't quite solve the problem I have with the round count. You are trying to avoid a last round speed up/stall, whereas my problem is that my bid for a 5 round game is different than my bid for a 6 round game.

I want to know in advance that I will get exactly 5 rounds or exactly 6 rounds before I bid. The longer the game goes, the more I want the Allies.

You could easily end up with a situation where the Allies play VERY fast and the Axis play VERY slow to end up with a 5 round game, even with your fix. Without the equivalent of a 'shot clock', stalling is a great tactic.

Again, the sportsmanship at the tournament was such that no one abused this terribly, but you can't precisely tailor your bid and your game unless you know the number of rounds.

Peace

squirecam

07-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Well, it happened to us.

But, I dont see how you can guarantee a 6 round game at the start w/o a rule saying all games will go 6 rounds.

The stalling tactic can and will be prevented though. Everyone will now clearly know which round is the last one, before it starts.

Squirecam

smo63

07-05-2006, 12:30 PM

Guys,

Great conversations here but a lot of info. to digest. Give me a bit, and I will comment on most of it. In the meantime, keep firing away. We really need this feed back for the forum and the tournaments as such...

Peace,
GS:)

pdubarry

07-05-2006, 01:04 PM

But, I dont see how you can guarantee a 6 round game at the start w/o a rule saying all games will go 6 rounds.

Which is exactly what we need: a definite round limit. Although, judging from how even the most experienced games went, 6 rounds seems just this side of reasonable for most tournament players (especially when the tournament involves such careful mathmatical calculations). This leaves us with a mandated 5-round game, which is what everyone says has to be the minimum anyway. You could get to mandated 6-round games only with a timekeeping mechanism and penalties for the slower team.

The stalling tactic can and will be prevented though. Everyone will now clearly know which round is the last one, before it starts.

True, everyone will know which round is the last, but they will not know it soon enough. CrazyStraw is exactly right in his above post: the bid (and strategy) is very different for a 5-round game versus a 6-round game. Therefore, you really need to know before the game even begins. Even if you don't go that far, the ABSOLUTE latest you can know is on the BEGINNING of round 4. Otherwise, Russia, and maybe Germany too, will be out of position for a game that ends either too soon or not soon enough. In a 5-round game Russia turn 4 is the LAST setup turn to go for points with Russia 5. Should they buy infantry or tanks? They can only answer that question if they know when the last round is.

squirecam

07-05-2006, 01:16 PM

Limiting people to 5 rounds is unfair to those who can and do play faster. Making folks play 6 will force games over 3:45. Unfortunately, some people are just too slow to make it.

But with an hour left, you will know whether you are getting 1-2 more rounds in. You will know based upon how fast the game is going.

BTW, call me in the minority, but I dont see how 5-6 makes a huge bid difference. If you have played well for the first 5, chances are you will be able to last 1 more round without having had that extra "bid" at the start.

All a bid does is attempt to prevent certain R1 attacks, or make axis attacks R1 "easier" with more fodder. That's it. After that, dice rolls and strategy determines how the game goes.

IMHO, you will not lose a "R6" game just because your bid was lower by 2 IPC and you thought it would be a 5 round game.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-05-2006, 01:34 PM

squirecam

07-05-2006, 01:52 PM

Dice whippings aside:

As Allies I guarantee I can crack a German Victory City in 7 rounds.
As Allies I can almost certainly take a German Victory City in 6 rounds.
As Axis I will almost certainly NOT lose a Victory City in 5 rounds.

The difference is enormous.

In a five round game, the US purchases from R4 & R5 will not even make it into play. The first US purchase has to go toward infrastructure (transports). So in a 5 round game you're talking about a US game that has 3 significant purchases, one of which must be transports. Even running a trim 3x3 transport fleet, you're not going to get it up to speed in 5 rounds.

The sixth round is the distinguishing round. It shows what you can do as an Allied player.

Peace

1. Havent you lost India by that point???
2. I do not believe you can crack a German VC guaranteed by Round 7. If your opponents strategy is working, you may not even have a shot at a German VC by that time. Unless you are going KJF, in which case I agree that you will have a Japan VC by turn 7. Of course, you will have other issues too.

I plan to be at Gencon Indy Wen night. Perhaps a T7 game is in order. 1v1. You be allies. What bid do you feel comfortable giving me...

Squirecam

squirecam

07-05-2006, 01:58 PM

Change India to a japan VC. It wont let me edit the post above for some reason.

squirecam

07-05-2006, 03:37 PM

No bid in Africa and you take Egypt G-1 with no casualties. That's very fortunate.

Butch,

email me re: gencon

Squirecam

Yoper

07-05-2006, 03:59 PM

Maybe stalling, in this case, is just a symptom of a larger problem.

A symptom of people planning out certain strategies that will work based on rounds played and, more importantly, based on the scoring system that is used.

While I don't have an immediate answer/fix for this situation, this may be the bigger problem that is driving this "playing" of the tournament game time-limit.

pdubarry- V-Disc and I were not stalling. We are just slow. :eek: :o ;)

Craig

Frog

07-05-2006, 04:19 PM

Maybe stalling, in this case, is just a symptom of a larger problem.

A symptom of people planning out certain strategies that will work based on rounds played
Craig

Wow for once I agree with Yope. I know some strategies are based on a 5 round game. We take a German VC, and since they go before UK and US they wont be able to counter on a next turn.

No problem with this strategy. The problem is when a game seems to go to slow, say 4 rounds, which happened at Origins, the team with the 5 round strategy wants to rush. Or if things are going to fast, and they fear a 7 round might happen, a stalling occurs.

This is where some people are concerned. They showed up for a game. Not based on exactly 5 rounds, if they could get 8 rounds, great. But as a play style to slow things down to always end at the same number of rounds is wrong. I know this happens.

It would be interesting to see if any team played the exact number of rounds in every game they played? I have no clue if this is true, but It would certainly be interesting??

It's to bad people can't just play for fun. We try every angle to slightly manipulate the game to our favor. I don't remember rounds of play being such a huge issue in past years?? I could be wrong.

squirecam

07-05-2006, 04:35 PM

What is also bad is having an agreement to play (2) additional rounds, then one side stalls and tries to avoid that agreement and play only one more turn, based upon an advantage discovered in the opponent's moves, which were based upon playing 2 more rounds (i.e Germany abandones WE, and allies can win by playing only 1 turn by taking it, when Germany abandoned WE based upon the agreement of playing 2 more turns).

Squirecam

squirecam

07-05-2006, 04:42 PM

It's to bad people can't just play for fun. We try every angle to slightly manipulate the game to our favor. I don't remember rounds of play being such a huge issue in past years?? I could be wrong.

No, it seems new to this year.

Squirecam

smo63

07-05-2006, 05:36 PM

Hey Squire.

In general I think the timing rules you have Greg have devised are an improvement, but it doesn't quite solve the problem I have with the round count. You are trying to avoid a last round speed up/stall, whereas my problem is that my bid for a 5 round game is different than my bid for a 6 round game.

I want to know in advance that I will get exactly 5 rounds or exactly 6 rounds before I bid. The longer the game goes, the more I want the Allies.

Peace
I guess I will start here. CS, the "End Time" rules are just mere suggestions at this point. Wether or not they will be used at GEN CON has not been detemined yet but they will be considered. I agree with most everyone here, something needs to be done.

Without quoting some of the earlier threads, one of the ideas of using time clocks; Squirecam is correct on this one. I do not think this is a good idea. Not as much for how they will be fit into a tournament setting but more so as to, it now adds a completely new dimension to the game. Some won't know how to use them, some will forget to stop it, who knows what will happen causing even more problems. And the most important reason of all, I can't expect everyone to bring a clock to the tournament. I sure in the heck can't provide 32 clocks for everyone...So, in short that idea has been considered but is NOT an option IMO.

As for the last round speed up/stall, it doesn't matter how many rounds you have or how much time is given to the game, this will happen no matter what the circumstance. Every single game whether 4, 5, 6, or 7 rounds will have speed up and stall tactics at the end. It is just the nature of the beast regarding tournament play...

As for the differential in bid. I know this might be more of a concern but still, in tournament play, yes, we know it is a fact that the Allies have a better chance to win in a six round game than a five. But I do not believe I/we have ever bid based our bid on how many rounds we hoped to play (Jeff you can chime in on this one...) Now, we have bid to force a team to play a side they are not comfortable in playing as much as the other, but that is the great thing about the bid. Regardless of what side you end up with, you better be ready to play any amount of rounds and be able to win in any situation...

More so regarding the bid; First off, one doesn't even know the side you will be playing during the bid process, so how can one assume or try and put a limit on how many rounds they will play based on the bid? Second, once you have your team, if one says that, "ok, we have the Axis, lets shoot for a 5 round game to give us the advantage", that is wrong. The same goes if you are the Allies. And last and certainly not least, again, especially now with the bid as it is, one or two units should NOT effect how many rounds are being played. Most people get their bid units killed off in T1 anyhow...so why does that make a difference?

More to in a minute...
GS:)

smo63

07-05-2006, 05:53 PM

Which is exactly what we need: a definite round limit. Although, judging from how even the most experienced games went, 6 rounds seems just this side of reasonable for most tournament players (especially when the tournament involves such careful mathmatical calculations). This leaves us with a mandated 5-round game, which is what everyone says has to be the minimum anyway. You could get to mandated 6-round games only with a timekeeping mechanism and penalties for the slower team.

pdubarry, I know we have talked about this more than once through our discussion regarding tournament play but I again have to disagree. I believe once you set a round limit, it is expected that it should be met. So, do we set it at six? If so, how does one get penalized for being under the limit. If you set it at five and the players that normally play faster just because they can, are defintenly getting penalized because someone else can't play as fast.

Then IMO, once a round is set, it completely changes the face of the game. Certain things will be done in every game and the bid will be basically standard. To me it would be like putting a limit on how many rounds one can play a chess match?

GS:)

smo63

07-05-2006, 05:57 PM

Dice whippings aside:

As Allies I guarantee I can crack a German Victory City in 7 rounds.
As Allies I can almost certainly take a German Victory City in 6 rounds.
As Axis I will almost certainly NOT lose a Victory City in 5 rounds.

The difference is enormous.

In a five round game, the US purchases from R4 & R5 will not even make it into play. The first US purchase has to go toward infrastructure (transports). So in a 5 round game you're talking about a US game that has 3 significant purchases, one of which must be transports. Even running a trim 3x3 transport fleet, you're not going to get it up to speed in 5 rounds.

The sixth round is the distinguishing round. It shows what you can do as an Allied player.

Peace
I don't believe these are fair assessements regarding tournament play. Terms like "almost certain" and "guarntee" aren't words that we should be using here. And on top of it, the sixth round does not tell me wether or not I know how to play the Allies!

GS:)

pdubarry

07-05-2006, 07:03 PM

I believe once you set a round limit, it is expected that it should be met. So, do we set it at six? If so, how does one get penalized for being under the limit. If you set it at five and the players that normally play faster just because they can, are defintenly getting penalized because someone else can't play as fast.

It would be easier to set the limit at 5 rounds. The only "penalty" will be that some of the super-fast players will only get 3:15 of their 3:45 playing time. Then again, this might be an excellent opportunity to get a sandwich (or, dare I say it, scout...).

If you set the limit to 6 rounds, the penalty gets nasty. Either the slow team loses outright (based on turn end-times written down over the course of the game), or they lose victory points equal to or proportional to the abuse of time.

Either would be fine by me.

smo63

07-05-2006, 07:46 PM

It would be easier to set the limit at 5 rounds. The only "penalty" will be that some of the super-fast players will only get 3:15 of their 3:45 playing time. Then again, this might be an excellent opportunity to get a sandwich (or, dare I say it, scout...).

If you set the limit to 6 rounds, the penalty gets nasty. Either the slow team loses outright (based on turn end-times written down over the course of the game), or they lose victory points equal to or proportional to the abuse of time.

Either would be fine by me.
Your right, this is probably the best defense of the round issues, but I do not believe one would be doing the tournament justice by just letting the fast maybe good players finish first. Again, I see it more as completely changing the facit of the game instead of rewarding fast players with a break?

OH, no...don't say scouting!

GS:)

CrazyStraw

07-05-2006, 08:03 PM

Uno: P. du Barry, I'd like to swap some emails about time ideas. Shoot me a PM or email me at bdimaxim@yahoo.com

Dos: Squire, I'm totally up for a game. When I say that barring crazy dice I can guarantee a German VC in 7 rounds, I mean, that barring crazy dice the Allies should have a German VC in 7 rounds.

I'm not saying hold it; just capture it for victory conditions. In the games we played none went longer than 6 rounds. I think we actually captured a capital in EVERY game except the final (perhaps not in pdubarry's game; I don't recall). In the final, we captured Rome and Paris on R5. We would have recaptured Paris R6, but because we needed two victory cities we conceded the game without running that battle. And that was with the Germans buying nothing but ground troops the whole game.

Taking a German VC is necessary to offset sacrificing India. The question then becomes, "Will the Allies be up enough from Europe and 1 VC to offset the loss of India and a whole bunch of outlying territories?" In the final game, we were 3 IPCs short due to Smorey & Auer's excellent play. That forced us to go for two VCs.

But the bottom line is simple: basic math dictates that the Allies should be able to overwhelm one of the three VCs unless substantial dice are involved.

In our game vs. pdubarry he even invaded North America for several rounds running two swap fleets, yet we still got German VCs.

We'll just have to play a game in Indianapolis if we can find the time :)

Peace

smo63

07-06-2006, 04:28 AM

I'm not saying hold it; just capture it for victory conditions. In the games we played none went longer than 6 rounds. I think we actually captured a capital in EVERY game except the final (perhaps not in pdubarry's game; I don't recall). In the final, we captured Rome and Paris on R5. We would have recaptured Paris R6, but because we needed two victory cities we conceded the game without running that battle. And that was with the Germans buying nothing but ground troops the whole game.
Again, I believe we need to make some clarifications here. First off, barring crazy dice rolls. What is the definition of "crazy"? I do NOT believe there were any "crazy" dice rolling in the final. In the early portion of the game, especially for Russia, you guys did not miss and it was lucky if we killed three Russian in the first three rounds...? I know that might be a little over the top but it is very close to the truth. Towards the end of the game, yes the dice swung our way, but only to the point that we were just above average, nothing "crazy".

And I completely believe this is part of the game. When one starts complaining about dice rolling, IMO, they are just complaining about the lack of strategy and the ability to pull out a victory. Now, granted, bad dice rolls do happen, but not nearly as much as players lack of play, blaming it on the dice.

Next and honestly, regarding, "In the final, we captured Rome and Paris on R5". Again, I believe this is needs to be clarified in that, you walked into two vacated countries. When you put as many units you could in both, Germany came back the next round and cleaned house in both. Noting that between the three remaining countries Germany owned in Europe (Germany, SE & WE) Germany had the least amount of troops(but did have the entity value in their favor). Hence, the reason you attacked Germany? Yes, you knew you had to have two VC and not just one...the point being, in T7, if there was one, you would have been hard pressed if not lucky, with "crazy" die rolls, to get back any of the three.

And last, I am not sure what you are implying when you say, "And that was with the Germans buying nothing but ground troops the whole game?" Is that a problem? If it gets one to the victory, then IMO, it is the best move...Yes, or yes! Considering what your strategy was, we knew what was needed to hold Germany. Jeff and I had the conversation several times during the game, what is the best buy? Even so much as to consider buying a T1 Carrier for Germany. We had to stop and say no, stick to our game. And in the end, the way we played was exactly what was needed for victory regardless of what round we were in…

GS:)

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 05:45 AM

Hey Greg.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I'm saying you guys played a text-book defense with Germany, there WEREN'T any crazy dice in our game, and VCs were still capturable.

Remember we went to Berlin with the UK instead of W. Europe because we needed both Berlin and Paris to win. But taking W. Europe alone was not a problem. That's all I'm saying: that on round 6 we could own 1 VC even when Europe forts up as much as possible.

Peace

Yoper

07-06-2006, 07:10 AM

Wow for once I agree with Yope. I know some strategies are based on a 5 round game. We take a German VC, and since they go before UK and US they wont be able to counter on a next turn.

No problem with this strategy. The problem is when a game seems to go to slow, say 4 rounds, which happened at Origins, the team with the 5 round strategy wants to rush. Or if things are going to fast, and they fear a 7 round might happen, a stalling occurs.

This is where some people are concerned. They showed up for a game. Not based on exactly 5 rounds, if they could get 8 rounds, great. But as a play style to slow things down to always end at the same number of rounds is wrong. I know this happens.

It would be interesting to see if any team played the exact number of rounds in every game they played? I have no clue if this is true, but It would certainly be interesting??

It's to bad people can't just play for fun. We try every angle to slightly manipulate the game to our favor. I don't remember rounds of play being such a huge issue in past years?? I could be wrong.

Frog- I am glad that you see the validity in what I am saying, but you didn't say whether you think my final point is what is driving this phenomenon.

What is also bad is having an agreement to play (2) additional rounds, then one side stalls and tries to avoid that agreement and play only one more turn, based upon an advantage discovered in the opponent's moves, which were based upon playing 2 more rounds (i.e Germany abandones WE, and allies can win by playing only 1 turn by taking it, when Germany abandoned WE based upon the agreement of playing 2 more turns).

I think that the scoring system as it is now set up is driving this set of strategies and in turn is driving this want/need to have a certain set amount of rounds.

Now that doesn't mean that someone isn't going to figure out the "set" strategy for whatever other victory system that we come up with, but right now it seems that this is all driven by optimal KGF strategy that needs at least five turns and has a good chance after six.

Then again, maybe the Axis bid needs to go up to at least 9 so that Germany can survive. Start piling up extra infantry up on the Eastern Front and they might put it to the Russians before the Western Allies can get there. This all might just be an instance where the bid needs to recalibrate itself to even out for this "uber" strategy.

Craig

pdubarry

07-06-2006, 07:49 AM

I think we actually captured a capital in EVERY game except the final (perhaps not in pdubarry's game; I don't recall). ... In our game vs. pdubarry he even invaded North America for several rounds running two swap fleets, yet we still got German VCs.

Actually, you took Germany twice in our game :( ...although, both times with only one unit remaining after we kept missing with fighters, etc. Things would have been a bit closer had you failed to do this even once (or had we gotten the big break in Egypt on G1-B1 ...or actually killed some Russians on R1). But I do give you lots of credit for your Russian tank drive which threatened India and Germany at the same time. I will be using that little move for some time to come.

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 08:12 AM

Yeah, you guys had some crummy dice, no doubt.

At least it happened in the round robin. Dice like that in the elimination bracket can end your day.

Peace

squirecam

07-06-2006, 08:48 AM

Next and honestly, regarding, "In the final, we captured Rome and Paris on R5". Again, I believe this is needs to be clarified in that, you walked into two vacated countries. When you put as many units you could in both, Germany came back the next round and cleaned house in both. Noting that between the three remaining countries Germany owned in Europe (Germany, SE & WE) Germany had the least amount of troops(but did have the entity value in their favor). Hence, the reason you attacked Germany? Yes, you knew you had to have two VC and not just one...the point being, in T7, if there was one, you would have been hard pressed if not lucky, with "crazy" die rolls, to get back any of the three.

And last, I am not sure what you are implying when you say, "And that was with the Germans buying nothing but ground troops the whole game?" Is that a problem? If it gets one to the victory, then IMO, it is the best move...Yes, or yes! Considering what your strategy was, we knew what was needed to hold Germany. Jeff and I had the conversation several times during the game, what is the best buy? Even so much as to consider buying a T1 Carrier for Germany. We had to stop and say no, stick to our game. And in the end, the way we played was exactly what was needed for victory regardless of what round we were in…

GS:)

I think that GS is right here, in that if all the Axis must do is hold Germany, WE and SE, they can do so turns 1-7. You have given them India. You have given them China and russian IPC which equals 10, plus Australia and HI if they want it. They dont need anything else but to hold those countries.

I do not think it is simply turn 7 and Allies will win guaranteed. Obviously, had there been a turn 7 in your game you still would not have taken any of them. It seems Jeff & Greg had a good enough plan to defend those countries with "even" dice.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 09:43 AM

I do not think it is simply turn 7 and Allies will win guaranteed. Obviously, had there been a turn 7 in your game you still would not have taken any of them.Squire, you are very wrong.

I did not guarantee a win in round 7, I guaranteed a German VC in 7 rounds.

In the final we had Rome and Paris on R5. We would have recaptured Paris again on R6 but we skipped the US turn because it was academic; we needed 2 VCs, not just Paris. The game ended after the UK turn so we could all go home.

R7 would have seen a push with the Russians and two Allied amphibious assaults. Round 7 would have favored the Allies in a large way, but we didn't push for it because a 6 round game is plenty fair and the last two rounds would have been too fast to enjoy. And there is no guarantee we would have gotten the 2 VCs we needed R7; Greg and Jeff played masterful defense.

But we certainly would have owned a German VC at the end of every round from R5 on if that had been the goal.

Peace

squirecam

07-06-2006, 09:58 AM

Ok, lets try to be a bit more clear here.

1 - Assuming your argument to be true that you can capture a German VC in turn 7, it is worthless unless that strategy actually gets you a win. If you get Paris (by throwing every free unit into it) but still lose the game, I dont really see this as a good strategy nor as really "capturing" a VC. You just figured out a way to lose by less points by doing a move which was no longer designed to win the game. Getting that VC means you quit on actually winning the game. What's the point of that??

2- Playing to "win", you could not, according to GS above, get any of the VC T7. (I wasnt there, so I dont know what would have happened).

3 - I am sure whatever Greg did, it was "great" but could still be improved upon. For instance, how many Japanese fighters were present in WE. If the answer is "0", then obviously there were more units that should have been there (considering Japan had a free hand in the east and did not need them)

4 - In any event, I am convinced that another strategy would prevent allied landings in France or Germany. So you might not even have a shot at getting one of them. Of course, then again you might. But the dice would determine this. If my strategey was working, I dare say you would not have a chance to get WE T7. But obviously that would be determined by battles T1-6.

In closing, if you can "guarantee" that you get a German VC T7, but you also "lose" that game, then what really is the point. You did not play to win, you just played to lose by less.

Squirecam

smo63

07-06-2006, 11:23 AM

Squire, you are very wrong.

I did not guarantee a win in round 7, I guaranteed a German VC in 7 rounds.

In the final we had Rome and Paris on R5. We would have recaptured Paris again on R6 but we skipped the US turn because it was academic; we needed 2 VCs, not just Paris. The game ended after the UK turn so we could all go home.

R7 would have seen a push with the Russians and two Allied amphibious assaults. Round 7 would have favored the Allies in a large way, but we didn't push for it because a 6 round game is plenty fair and the last two rounds would have been too fast to enjoy. And there is no guarantee we would have gotten the 2 VCs we needed R7; Greg and Jeff played masterful defense.

But we certainly would have owned a German VC at the end of every round from R5 on if that had been the goal.

Peace

Gents, EXCELLENT conversation regarding this topic. I like it. Now, in response to the response of my original response to your response.

Again, I am not going to completely agree due to the fact that I don't believe that it was a forgone conclusion that you might retake any of the three. Now, if you would not have attacked Germany and saved units for R7, then maybe, but if I recall correctly, you guys were puzzled by how many units we did end up in all three countries and not to mention how many you lost during the two attacks on WE, Southern and Germany. Now, as I mentioned before dice rolling was just a bit above average in our case but having tanks and planes on defense, that is going to happen. And when the attacker is coming at us with ones, two and threes, it is never pretty for the offensive side...

And on the back side of these battles, Russia had very little to no more backup support in Europe. What ever they blew against Germany was gone and now needed to turn their eyes towards Japan breathing down their necks...

Oh and answering Squires question, no we did not have Japanese fighters in WE. We did have 2 Jp fighters in Germany totalling 7 in all! This having being the country with the least amount of units of the three but having again, the best entity value...

GS:)

squirecam

07-06-2006, 11:45 AM

GS,

1 - My point is just that if you no longer care about winning, then yes the allies might get a VC (depending on dice/strategy/circumstances), but so what? By doing so you lose.

2 - You could have had 5-6 Japan fighters protecting Germany/WE, which would have made it much tougher.

3 - I dont think anything in this game can be guaranteed.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 02:06 PM

Again, I am not going to completely agree due to the fact that I don't believe that it was a forgone conclusion that you might retake any of the three.Yeah, there were no certainties in that last round :D That's what made it such an exciting finish. But I do think the odds were quite in our favor to take one VC before the German’s last turn. Weasels that you are, you forced us to go for two.

It gets very complex at point at which you decide to switch from an R6 finish to an R7 finish. What if we hadn't forted up the Balkans and instead used the Russian infantry to pound Berlin with the tanks? Could a triple assault on Germany have paid off? Would the US fleet in Africa be able to take SEU if WEU and BER were heavily defended?

Lots of questions. In the end, you guys put out a defense that forced us into at least one desperate battle.

'Twas a good game.

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 02:17 PM

Squire, to be blunt, I think you are just offended that I claimed a "guaranteed German VC barring bad dice", because the substance of your posts doesn't really follow logically from my assertions.

I say I can take a VC in 7 rounds. Your reply is "but you should try to win". Right. That's why I want a VC. They are handy if you have winning on the brain ;)

The implication of your post is that there is a way to win without a VC. Sure there is in theory, but then you've given yourself the much harder task of "guaranteeing" that you can hold all your own VCs.

And I could retort your own logic back to you: sure you may be able to hold all the German VCs in round 7 if you just build Japanese fighters and fly them to Germany, but then you've lost the game. And I agree with your statement that it is bad to lose the game.

When I say "barring bad dice" I mean simply that if you get the odds in battles (which, of course, rarely happens over the whole course of a game) then the expected outcome is that a German VC will fall. That's what makes it a good strategy: it is a reasonable expectation based on the calculation that average dice will allow you to out-maneuver your opponent.

I'm not saying it's the only way to win. I would say it is also far more likely that a Japanese VC would fall in R6 than on R5. The longer game tends to favor the Allies.

That's my core argument:
5 Rounds = good for Axis
6 rounds = close game
7 rounds = good for Allies.

Peace

squirecam

07-06-2006, 03:05 PM

No, here is my point.

1 - If you dont care about winning, then I agree against the system played by Greg/Jeff you should get a German VC. You should do so because they dont need to keep 2, and should abandon one.

2 - However, doing this means you lose. I can do all sorts of maneuvers that will "guarantee" me a certain territory, but likely I will lose the game. So who cares? What is important is if your strategy will "guarantee" not only a VC, but a win.

3 - I think since you abandoned the pacific, Greg should have had all 6 fighters in Germany/WE. He did not need them, and would have made taking these countries harder.

4 - I stil do believe that there is a strategy which will, when it works, prevent you from getting a good shot at a German VC.

5 - I'm not "offended" by any claim. I just dont buy it, thats all. You might get a VC against me, you might not. But its not guaranteed. And I dont need great dice to do it either. But thats what Wednesday in Indy is for, no?? I'll bring the beer....

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-06-2006, 03:12 PM

Well, I'll let you have the last substantive word on the topic.

Having a healthy disagreement on this is excellent; it gives us a good reason to play the game ;)

We'll see what we can work out in Indy. Hopefully Bushido Blitz will get hit by a... er... win the lottery and be unavailable for the Masters while he claims his prize. That would be the best venue to get a game to address this topic.

Peace

squirecam

07-06-2006, 03:16 PM

Ok. As I said I'll be avaiable Wen night. As for Jeff not playing in the masters, I think lottery win or no he'd be there. :)

Squirecam

smo63

07-06-2006, 06:13 PM

Well, I'll let you have the last substantive word on the topic.

Having a healthy disagreement on this is excellent; it gives us a good reason to play the game ;)

We'll see what we can work out in Indy. Hopefully Bushido Blitz will get hit by a... er... win the lottery and be unavailable for the Masters while he claims his prize.
I don't think that will happen. Is a matter of fact and I will not speak for Jeff, but I have spoken to him and he and his partner both plan on being at GEN CON...sorry.

GS:)

smo63

07-06-2006, 06:16 PM

Yeah, there were no certainties in that last round :D That's what made it such an exciting finish. But I do think the odds were quite in our favor to take one VC before the German’s last turn. Weasels that you are, you forced us to go for two.

It gets very complex at point at which you decide to switch from an R6 finish to an R7 finish. What if we hadn't forted up the Balkans and instead used the Russian infantry to pound Berlin with the tanks? Could a triple assault on Germany have paid off? Would the US fleet in Africa be able to take SEU if WEU and BER were heavily defended?

Lots of questions. In the end, you guys put out a defense that forced us into at least one desperate battle.

'Twas a good game.
Indeed it was...

GS:)

smo63

07-06-2006, 06:32 PM

Also, for those following this thread and have not been to the Swamp...I have pretty much updated it with all the Origins info. There are a few typo's but I hope to correct those very soon...enjoy:

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/smoreyswamp.html

Go to the Origins link for more specifics.
GS:)

scopemonkey

07-07-2006, 09:42 AM

First time poster, so please be gentle... I am very emotionally fragile. :confused:

If Bushido Blitz is definitely going to GCI, maybe I'll back out so CS and Squire can go at it... (that's a joke, Straw).

As far as the time/clock issue, here are my thoughts:
I would agree that 6 round minimum should be expected for experienced players. Certainly, this would be appropriate for tournaments like the Masters Invit. and later rounds of the Mega at GCI. At the same time, you don't want to discourage "slower-tempo" players from participating or intimidate "newer" players who fear they won't be able to keep up. That just isn't good for growing tournament interest or for the game as a whole.

If I recall, last year's Masters tourney had 4 3/4 hour time limits per game. Is that correct? If so, why was it changed this year? It seemed that this would be a good solution given the previous posts.

It seems to me that an 8-minute per turn average over a game is certainly reasonable, especially since most tournament players should have their opening moves pretty much down, allowing faster play early. Maybe allow for "timeouts" if a situation requires more thought and time. My experience last year suggests that, predominantly, opponents are very gracious, especially when a given game situation requires more planning time (especially in the later rounds when accurate IPC and VC counts are crucial). Allowing, for example, 1 timeout per team of 4 minutes every 4 rounds of play while at the same time encouraging turn averages to approach the 8-minute mark seems workable. I haven't played a lot of tournaments (one to be exact), but it seems a system like this would provide some time structure that would lead to more rounds but still allow for flexibility with time when needed. What say y'all?

And OK, I CONFESS!! :eek: I sent the guy with the camera to Origins to specifically scout out CS/MAF and Squire to help get ready for GCI. The Csub B-team needs all the help we can get. And now, thanks to SMO and Bushido, it's ALL FOR NAUGHT. DINGLEBATS!!! (that's a joke, too, Squire!) :)

Shalom!

smo63

07-07-2006, 10:21 AM

If I recall, last year's Masters tourney had 4 3/4 hour time limits per game. Is that correct? If so, why was it changed this year? It seemed that this would be a good solution given the previous posts. Shalom!

Ok, now you got my attention as well as my curiousity. I am trying to figure out who you might be...? I am sure you are LOL right about now!

As for the masters, your are correct and it has not changed, it is a typo in more than one place. So, the eight teams need to gear up for one extra hour of play per tournament round...thanks for the heads up Mr. Monkey...

GS:)

squirecam

07-07-2006, 11:06 AM

scopemonkey

07-07-2006, 02:42 PM

Does LOL mean "Lot's of Love", Greg? :confused:

smo63

07-07-2006, 03:15 PM

Does LOL mean "Lot's of Love", Greg? :confused:
SpanktheMonkey,

If you want it to...
GS:)

smo63

07-07-2006, 03:17 PM

Monkey,

Really, besides being approached to take the picture at an inopportune moment, its really not a big deal compared to the stalling issue. Although I do not have a website dedicated to my ramblings/glory like you fancy folk, any search of this forum will likely tell you how I play, or ask any of these guys (Jake, TJ, Yoper) and they'd tell ya. At the time, not knowing its purpose, I took the safe route and declined. NBD.

I think I can easily play 6. But as GS has said, many wont. But 8 min a turn sounds fair, IMHO.

BTW, I thought CS/MAF was the "B" team. :)

Squirecam
Ok, Now, I was just on Caspian sub and I have no idea how to post a reply. I sent one but I can not find it...? So, what I did was copied it to this thread...Hope you don't mind CS...

Crazystraw wrote:
"Hey folks.

Here is some more raw data. It comes from Greg Smorey and our own
observations:

From Greg directly:
12 Axis wins
11 Allies wins
Ave. Bid = 6.2 IPC (16 of 23 games, bids went to the Axis)
Highest bid=8 (5 times)
Lowest bid=3 (1 time)
Ave. Rounds Played=5.3 (High was 8 rounds for one game and low was 4)
Highest IPC gained for one game=263 (with LHTR bonus system)
Lowest IPC gained for one game=88 (with LHTR bonus system)

My observations:
The IIC has become much less popular. I'd estimate the UK built a
complex in India for only about 40% of the games. That's a dramatic
decrease from GenCon last year.

The number of rounds issue is still a problem.

Stalling is still a problem. In one game I tracked the time MtyAir
and I played versus the time for our opponents. We were averaging 4
minutes 20 seconds per turn, our opponents were averaging 11 minutes
per turn. That's a big discrepency that transfers a lot of 'think
time' to the opposition.

We bid as much as 8 and accepted as little as 6 depending on the
expected speed of our opponent.

It turns out the runners up at Origins are the alternate team for the
Masters tournament at GenCon, so MtyAir and I may be in the Masters.
That means we may land two Caspian Sub groups in the Masters. Not
bad considering only two Caspian Sub groups have played in the
tournaments ;-)

Peace"

I have a problem with this. In thread you are accussing us of stalling...I need to finish later...

GS:)

smo63

07-07-2006, 03:57 PM

Ok, Now, I was just on Caspian sub and I have no idea how to post a reply. I sent one but I can not find it...? So, what I did was copied it to this thread...Hope you don't mind CS...

Crazystraw wrote:
"Hey folks.

Here is some more raw data. It comes from Greg Smorey and our own
observations:

From Greg directly:
12 Axis wins
11 Allies wins
Ave. Bid = 6.2 IPC (16 of 23 games, bids went to the Axis)
Highest bid=8 (5 times)
Lowest bid=3 (1 time)
Ave. Rounds Played=5.3 (High was 8 rounds for one game and low was 4)
Highest IPC gained for one game=263 (with LHTR bonus system)
Lowest IPC gained for one game=88 (with LHTR bonus system)

My observations:
The IIC has become much less popular. I'd estimate the UK built a
complex in India for only about 40% of the games. That's a dramatic
decrease from GenCon last year.

The number of rounds issue is still a problem.

Stalling is still a problem. In one game I tracked the time MtyAir
and I played versus the time for our opponents. We were averaging 4
minutes 20 seconds per turn, our opponents were averaging 11 minutes
per turn. That's a big discrepency that transfers a lot of 'think
time' to the opposition.

We bid as much as 8 and accepted as little as 6 depending on the
expected speed of our opponent.

It turns out the runners up at Origins are the alternate team for the
Masters tournament at GenCon, so MtyAir and I may be in the Masters.
That means we may land two Caspian Sub groups in the Masters. Not
bad considering only two Caspian Sub groups have played in the
tournaments ;-)

Peace"

Ok, here it is. As I read this, it specifically states that Stalling is a problem and that in one game, they (that would be Ben/Dan) averaged just over 4 minutes and we (that would be me and Jeff) averaged 11 minutes. Now, I commented on the Caspian Sub site but can't find it so I brought it here!

I believe this is a completely a misleading statement in that, your 4 minute moves were with the allies that averaged less than one attack per move. At most the Russian might have had two and the US had at least four times, not even attacked. Yeah, if I were in that situation, I would have my moves be over in 4 minutes as well. But in a game of this magnitude and wanting to make sure we did NOT make a mistake, we just made sure that we weren't missing anything. 11 minutes for purchase combat moves and all the rolling of the dice is not bad. Is a matter of fact, if you think we were stalling, I would love to see what you think real stalling looks like...

I am not making excuses but we were not playing slow. I would have said just above average regarding our overall moves...

I take offense to this comment. And if you try and say it wasn't us, well you did time our game and that was what you told us at the end of the game when we only got to six, the moves took...

GS:(

VanGal

07-07-2006, 04:36 PM

The Csub B-team needs all the help we can get. And now, thanks to SMO and Bushido, it's ALL FOR NAUGHT. DINGLEBATS!!! (that's a joke, too, Squire!) :)

Shalom!

Hey ScopeMonkey, are you in the Masters Tournament this year? By mentioning that you are in the Csub B-team makes me think that you are the other Csub team that we beat last year. I sure could have used a scout last year against CrazyStraw and MAF. That blitz on UK by Germany sure blind-sided us. I had to use all my lucky dice and steal some from others.

Carl

squirecam

07-07-2006, 04:52 PM

scopemonkey

07-07-2006, 05:23 PM

SpanktheMonkey,

If you want it to...
GS:)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

scopemonkey

07-07-2006, 05:34 PM

Hey ScopeMonkey, are you in the Masters Tournament this year? By mentioning that you are in the Csub B-team makes me think that you are the other Csub team that we beat last year.

Carl

Yep, I'm the one with the big nose...

smo63

07-07-2006, 08:28 PM

GS,

1 - those numbers cannot be correct. For one thing, 11+11+4+4+4 = 34 minutes per turn. That means easy 7 turns, and you guys didnt make 7, IIRC.

2 - I dont think CS/MAF meant you guys playing 6 rounds was stalling. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Squirecam
The reason I mention that it was us was that in T5 when we were trying to determine to play one or two more, Ben made the comment that he had been keeping track and, did we realize that we were running 11 minute turns, on average for each country to their 4+ minute turns. And if that was the only game he did keep track of, it had to be ours...

GS:)

smo63

07-07-2006, 08:30 PM

Yep, I'm the one with the big nose...
Hey, Scope...sorry for the comment earlier, I acutally thought maybe your were Carl under an alias...

GS:)

smo63

07-07-2006, 08:33 PM

By mentioning that you are in the Csub B-team makes me think that you are the other Csub team that we beat last year.

The B-team? Wouldn't that be the A-team if you are in the Masters...?

GS:)

Robocop

07-07-2006, 08:55 PM

The B-team? Wouldn't that be the A-team if you are in the Masters...?

GS:)

We like to be humble, and to humor CrazyStraw.

BTW, you won't likely hear from CS about his CSub post this weekend.
He said something about going to see "Poodles on Ice" :)

scopemonkey

07-08-2006, 04:57 AM

Hey, Scope...sorry for the comment earlier, I acutally thought maybe your were Carl under an alias...

GS:)

'Tsawright... ;)

scopemonkey

07-08-2006, 05:45 AM

The B-team? Wouldn't that be the A-team if you are in the Masters...?

GS:)

We figured we'd keep the name simple for all you Ohio guys... ;)

Other names we considered were:

1. "MAF's Cabana Boys" :eek:

2. "Csub middle child"

3. "Csub Number 2", but that didn't really conjure up the most flattering images, especially in my line of work...

4. "The guys who were really ticked because Crazystraw went and posted all our best material on the internet when he new darn well we were coming to the Masters this year", but that's hard to fit on a T-shirt.

5. "Dutchmaster and Scopemaster"-- This one was cool, but the cigar endorsement requests were overwhelming our family time, so our wives pulled the plug... :(

In the end, we decided to play under the name "Nahum's Gauntlet". Robocop is working on the matching wristbands. We're looking forward to matching up with the best next month and having a great time.

Mike

VanGal

07-08-2006, 06:08 AM

As for the masters, your are correct and it has not changed, it is a typo in more than one place. So, the eight teams need to gear up for one extra hour of play per tournament round...thanks for the heads up Mr. Monkey...

GS:)
Greg, the time limit for the games in the Masters is 4.75 hrs. long?

Carl, not the Monkey

Yoper

07-08-2006, 03:05 PM

smo63

07-08-2006, 07:56 PM

smo63

07-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Greg, the time limit for the games in the Masters is 4.75 hrs. long?

Carl, not the Monkey
If you are meaning 4 hours 45 min. yes. or 4 3/4 hours...with a 15 min. stoppage time max.

GS:)

Frog

07-09-2006, 05:47 AM

This whole discussion disgusts me! :mad:

The laying out of strategies based on a set number of turns and the working of the clock to either make sure you get to that number of turns or that you don't go past/come up short of that many turns is just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

It sucks the fun right out of the damn game.

Just play the freaking game! :(

Craig

This is incredible!!!!! Twice in one thread I agree with Yope????? I believe I may be turning Libertarian. NOT!

Imagine This:
Football--Every team should have a set number of downs.
Basketball- After each team has the ball 6 times the quarter should end.
Soccer-Who cares
Wrestling- Who cares even less
Baseball-games called after each team has X number of hits each.

Point being-

1) Wrestling and soccer suck. Wrestling more.
2) The game wasn't designed for a set number of rounds. We have to use a time limit for tournaments, but setting the turns will ruin it.
3) Yope does have more than one good idea. Although exressing them intelligently is still in the infant stages.
4) LOSE THE SET ROUND STRATEGIES!!!!

zooooma

07-09-2006, 07:12 AM

Imagine This:
Football--Every team should have a set number of downs.
Basketball- After each team has the ball 6 times the quarter should end.
Soccer-Who cares
Wrestling- Who cares even less
Baseball-games called after each team has X number of hits each.

Football and basketball work well as timed games because the scoring is cumulative. Imagine how dumb football would be if the winner was which ever team had control of the ball after a set time (four quarters) expired. Baseball is not even played with a time limit, it's turn based. But you don't get a fixed number of hits per turn.

Also, in baseball, football, and basketball, you earn your hits, downs, and turns-with-the-ball by your play. Playing better gets you extra hits, downs, and ball-in-hands. In A&A it's the opposite. You are entitled to your turns on an unchanging basis, and at the end of any game each nation has always had the same number of turns give or take one.

Soccer doesn't suck. Your analogy does.

The game wasn't designed for a set number of rounds. We have to use a time limit for tournaments...

I agree with this much. Time limits - whether counted by minutes, or by rounds, outright suck for A&A. Unfortunately, they are essential for FTF tournament play. It is better to play indefinately until one side acheives a predetermined victory condition. That's what the game was made for. But that is not feasable for FTF tourneys. Time or turns, either way the game must end prematurely.

In a fixed round game, players can predict precisely how early the game will be called. They can bank on this and make a strategic game plan around it. In a fixed time game, player won't know "when" the game is going to end. Physical time elapsed depends on factors external to the gameboard; factors which have no part in the strategic masterpeice mind sport which is A&A. Turns can be calculated in advance, time cannot.

Turn play also completely eliminates the stalling problem in a nonsubjective manner.

Turn limits is the lesser of two evils. It warps the game, but at least in warps it the same for every game in the tourney.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

zooooma

07-09-2006, 08:16 AM

No set limit on rounds, time, etc. Just whom ever is leading at the end wins...

When is "the end" determined without a set limit on time or rounds? This doesn't make any sense at all. Could you restate your intension, please?

Just play the game.

The problem is that now the object of "the game" is to be leading at the end, so optimal strategy is impossible without estimating or calculating when the end will be. You cannot "just play the game" without considering the victory conditions. Victory conditions are part of the game, and no small part.

With a time limit, the estimates are imprecise. The end is unpredictable, and incalculable. Furthermore, with time limits manipulation becomes possible. It is impossible to objectively distinguish the stallers from those who simply play slowly with one hundred per cent accuracy.

Turn limits allow for scientific, fair play - as A&A play ever should be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By the way - many kudos for all your great and hard work. All A&A lovers owe you a debt. Sorry I couldn't have been there, I'm from Eastern Canada. Maybe someday. I do beleive the issue of when a game should be called off deserves more thought, though, and probably more expirimentation.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

Yoper

07-09-2006, 11:08 AM

Soccer-Who cares
Wrestling- Who cares even less

1) Wrestling and soccer suck. Wrestling more.

3) Yope does have more than one good idea. Although exressing them intelligently is still in the infant stages.

Hey, Mr. Black and White (Frog)- If the bold above is how one is to go about expressing things intelligently, then I don't want to learn how. :p ;)

The problem is that now the object of "the game" is to be leading at the end, so optimal strategy is impossible without estimating or calculating when the end will be. You cannot "just play the game" without considering the victory conditions. Victory conditions are part of the game, and no small part.

With a time limit, the estimates are imprecise. The end is unpredictable, and incalculable. Furthermore, with time limits manipulation becomes possible. It is impossible to objectively distinguish the stallers from those who simply play slowly with one hundred per cent accuracy.

Turn limits allow for scientific, fair play - as A&A play ever should be.

The whole point of a time limit is to try to stop the predictable, set strategy that comes with a turn limit game.

Yes, you need to be aware of the victory conditions and play with those in mind, but it should be done under within the indeterminate frame work of a time limit. That then should force players to keep things moving so that they can reach their objectives because they don't have a definitive idea (only a general idea) as to when the game is going to end.

Then the only thing that really needs to be monitored is the any instance of slow play/stalling.

When I say "just play the game" (and I have discussed this many times with Greg and I think that we are on the same page), I mean for people to play a game at a reasonable pace that will get in at least five rounds minimum and more likely six rounds in the allotted time.

Don't drag ass/wiz along at light-speed and also don't annoy your oppponent to the nth degree to hurry up.

Take care of your side of the game and if you think that things are dragging, alert the GM. Let him be the "bad guy" that has to nag the opponents.

Tournaments should be about your ability to adapt to the changing environment of the situation as it happens. Not a statistical exercise to be methodically run through to prove you thesis.

You do need to have a general idea of what strategies you would like to go with when it comes time to play but that should be your framework that then is reworked to deal with the specific situations that arise.

It seems that some players need to have the whole thing mapped out ahead of time. That is the thing that I think is a crock. Sounds like something out of a eurogame like Puerto Rico where getting the first Corn seat sets you up to run the optimal strategy to win. If eveybody knows this, then what's the point of playing? Just find out who get to be the optimal side by flipping a coin and that will determine the winner of the game.

zooooma- Soccer is fun to play, but watching is painful. Plus ending games in a shoot-out is ridiculous. Play until someone scores- they do claim to be the best conditioned athletes in the world. Prove it.

Craig

Frog

07-09-2006, 11:58 AM

I see my sarcasm has not been well recieved. As I expected.

I'm glad to see no one has defended WRASTLIN........... yet.

smo63

07-10-2006, 05:24 AM

When is "the end" determined without a set limit on time or rounds? This doesn't make any sense at all. Could you restate your intension, please?

The problem is that now the object of "the game" is to be leading at the end, so optimal strategy is impossible without estimating or calculating when the end will be. You cannot "just play the game" without considering the victory conditions. Victory conditions are part of the game, and no small part.

With a time limit, the estimates are imprecise. The end is unpredictable, and incalculable. Furthermore, with time limits manipulation becomes possible. It is impossible to objectively distinguish the stallers from those who simply play slowly with one hundred per cent accuracy.

Turn limits allow for scientific, fair play - as A&A play ever should be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By the way - many kudos for all your great and hard work. All A&A lovers owe you a debt. Sorry I couldn't have been there, I'm from Eastern Canada. Maybe someday. I do beleive the issue of when a game should be called off deserves more thought, though, and probably more expirimentation.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

Thanks for the kudos...it is appreciated.

Now, on the more serious issue of game play in FTF tournaments. I must remind everyone that is what we are speaking of is tournament play. Not just sitting down with buddies and playing until someone concedes? Yes, in a world were everything makes sense...we might be able to do that.

But, when you ask, "This doesn't make any sense at all. Could you restate your intension, please?" I guess we need to ask regarding, what? And after 13 years of running AA tournaments for both 2nd Edition games as well as the Revised game, how do you suggest you determine who wins in a tournament setting?

I can guarantee, before one actually comes and plays AA in a setting of this nature, one thinks they know what moves works, what is the all out strategy for victory? One can look at a board after 3 hours of play and know who is going to win? I would say, in 70% of all cases, most people that play AA really don't have a handle on any of these conditions. I don't know how many times guys came up to me, when 2nd Edition was still around, wanting to get into the tourneys, look over the rules and wonder why there was a bid to play the Allies, when they could beat the Allies straight up ALL the time with the Axis. They were dead convinced that I was crazy to think that. LOL!

And the same goes with the Revised game. First, it has not been out long enough to master the game itself. Though many have tried, in the in three years of tournament play, the game has evolved each year into something a bit different than the previous year. Which is good!

Secondly, there is no conceivable way for one to play a whole long drawn out game in a weekend with 64 others wanting to play. Heck we would have 4 guys in the tournament.

Last, I would have to say that in most cases, if one would continue to play out a tournament game to the ultimate extent for which the end desire is actually met. I would put money on it that the side that won in the time constraints would win the extended version as well. That is taking into consideration some last turn moves that typically would happen, etc. but in the long run, I believe many would be surprised at the numbers...

GS:)

smo63

07-10-2006, 05:31 AM

smo63

07-10-2006, 06:12 AM

OH, thanks goes out to Yoper...check out some more really cool shots of Tournament play at Origins!

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/Origins.html

Peace,
GS:)

pdubarry

07-10-2006, 06:26 AM

smo63

07-10-2006, 07:09 AM

Between zoomer in Canada and the lovable Yoper we have the essence of the turn-limits argument. It all turns on whether you want a "fun" game of seat-of-your-pants dice-throwing or a "serious" game of careful calculation and strategy. Looks like the community is pretty well divided on this score. I suppose we on the serious side shouldn't be TOO dogmatic--after all, we did agree to play a game involving dice in the first place!

Even so, the decision to limit turns is a decision to cater to the serious gamer. Does this fit with A&A? Where else can we expect to find the ultimate in a serious game of A&A but at one of Greg's well-organized FTF tournaments? Then again, maybe more newbies would play if the atmosphere were more light-hearted and fun... Interesting debate...

pudubarry makes the perfect point here that often gets overlooked the in tunnel vision we all suffer from, including me, when it comes to knowing what is best for AA...?

Yeah, everyone has their opinons on what works and what does not. It is my job to take what you guys give me, process it and put it into something that we can all have fun with while playing a serious game as well.

I guess one of the things I ALWAYS encourage is for new AA players to come out and join in the fun. But not everyone see this as fun...espeically when you have guys that come out to play and not just play, but to WIN!

In the old days, all new players were up for the challenge of showing what they might know and took the chance of being humbled in a tournament setting, but now it seems less important to come out and test the waters...

And with discussion of the this nature...I guess I don't blame them. And that my folks, is a good portion of my fault and responsiblity of getting good people that know how to play AA for both fun and the thrill of it to come out and share in the wealth. Heck, that is why we created the Masters. I know I would have hated to plan on playing all day on Saturday at GEN CON to find out in round four, I have to play Barry & Bob, or Eric & Brandon again, and again...

So, I know that some of these thread might sound intimidating for some, don't be pushed away by the loud voices. It is just our testosterone out of control...

Thanks for keeping us honest pudubarry...

GS:)

Yoper

07-10-2006, 08:07 AM

Pdubarry- Just because I don't like the "calculate it to the last bit" strategy game doesn't mean I am not serious about playing A&A.

You saw the enthusiasm that I showed when I got that really good roll in the game we were playing.

I am serious about my game play, but I prefer to be able to analyze the situation at hand and then make the tough decisions necessary at that time.

I do not want to show up with a written set of buys and attacks that I follow through out the whole game.

You play games the rest of the year to get good at all the possible situations that might arise in a game, then you show up at the tourney to apply that knowledge when the proper time arrives.

That is what I am talking about. Not some "grab-ass" roll-fest where you just show up and start slingin' dice and see what happens.

I enjoyed our game so don't think that I don't like you personally. I just hate the idea that you seem to be supporting. The idea of having a set number of rounds so that I know my strategy has an 84% chance of being successful (barring bad dice!).

Craig

Mighty Airforce

07-10-2006, 08:43 AM

Now, I enjoy a casual game of A&A as much as the next guy. I love the fight, I don’t mind being outplayed; I cheer at great dice, curse the bad ones, etc etc.

I’d be happy to go play Axis for a few days with some friends. If Origins consisted of a few days of fun gaming, I’d be interested. I would love to play Auer, Smorey, and most of the other guys I played at Origins just for fun. Heck, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’d even like to play Yopper again. =)

Next, I want to say I respect GS. I respect the work he puts in to the tournaments, I respect him trying to do the best he can with a multitude of opinions, and a swarm of people who want their way. Since Origins, I now respect him as a gamer. However, on the debate about round-limits or round-impositions in addition to a clock, I vote for knowing ahead of time how many rounds the game will go.

I full acknowledge that this is not conducive to growing the game, and it’s intimidating for new players. Every rose has its thorn. I’d love to see a casual pool of games running on the side to grow the game and encourage people. I’d love a big display showing some features of the game, something a guy walking by can look at to get a feel for the game. However, that’s another matter.

To say that the goal should be to “just play and have fun” is logically flawed. The fact is, it’s not a bunch of casual games, is a tournament. There are prizes, and most importantly, people are *eliminated* from the tournament. After the round-robin, when you lose, go away, you are done. The tournament itself is not set up as a casual gaming environment; it is a cut-throat competition.

Anyone who says they are not playing to win is not even kidding themselves; everyone there is trying to win. The thing is a freaking elimination-style tournament for petes sake, you either want to win, or you wouldn’t even register. To play in the A&A tournament is a monstrous commitment. You really can’t play the A&A tournament and do jack squat else, there is simply not time. There is also a non-trivial outlay of time and money. The people who register for A&A are there to roll up their sleeves and play.

Is wanting to play with a known amount of rounds any different that memorizing the bonuses for victory cities, or even just knowing the victory cites for that matter? The game is NOT played to “Just have fun” by anyone there, everyone is tackling the Victory Cities at every opportunity. Seriously, if you knew it was the last round of the game, and it would be a close battle to capture a victory city, would you attack and hope you get it? Or would you wait for the next round (which will never come) when you would be in a better position to capture the VC? Everyone there is on some level playing the rules of the tournament as well as the rules of the game.

I noticed some sports analogies on here, and I didn’t read them too closely, but here’s something to think about. When you are playing football, and you are down by 5 points with time for one more play, no one kicks a field goal to just ‘play the game’, they try for the touchdown. How about pulling the goalie in hockey when you are down by one with very little time remaining? Are these guys violating the spirit of the game with these tactics? <<Insert other obvious examples here.>>

Now, don’t get me wrong, I respect Greg Smorey’s view. I think in theory, it would be grand if everyone just played as if the game would go on and on. In theory, that would work great. I respect Greg’s desire to make the tournament inviting to new players. I respect him not wanting to bog the tournament down with a quagmire of rules.
However, in practice, it’s a tournament, there are victory conditions, and people play to try to win. I’d like as little ambiguity as possible, especially with things that dramatically effect victory conditions.

I agree this robs a little of the fun of the game. I’d love to play domination games, and play as many as I can, and have fun. But if I’m going to an elimination tournament, I’m going to try to win. I’d like the end conditions to be as un-ambiguous as possible. I realize this opinion is not highly popular, or at least it doesn’t seem to be, but I wanted to cast my vote at let my voice be heard.

That being said, I played, I had a blast, and I’d have some interest in trying again in the future. However, I’d rather know how many rounds the game would go. I believe a casual group of guys playing on the side can just play the game. But I think in the cut-throat environment of an elimination style tournament, I want to reduce the variables and play at the highest possible level of game play.

squirecam

07-10-2006, 09:21 AM

If you thinking to yourself, "well, my strategy is for 5 rounds, so I wil play slow", then you are doing a disservice to the tournament and to the game. I'm all for trying to win. But not for cheap tactics which try to "game" the game. Which this is.

Play as fast as possible. Try to get as many rounds in as possible. Have fun while doing so. That's my 2 cents.

Squirecam

pdubarry

07-10-2006, 09:55 AM

Pdubarry- Just because I don't like the "calculate it to the last bit" strategy game doesn't mean I am not serious about playing A&A.

I meant no slight to your euthusiasm or your seriousness. The fact that you showed up to Origins means you are serious. Maybe the categories are:

1. serious
2. crazy-hours-studying-and-calculating serious

It may be bad for new players but ultimately good for the game that we continue to raise the bar higher and higher. It is a testament to A&A that we still haven't reached the peak of ultimate strategy, but no one can deny the inescapable need to CONQUER the game itself.

squirecam

07-10-2006, 10:06 AM

smo63

07-10-2006, 10:42 AM

You know, there was an agreement in prior years that masters games got played prior to Friday. It is possible that the Masters could be moved to a "week" event, in that people could play games prior to Friday, in which case games could be played out to 7 rounds or so, with no strict time limit.

Squirecam

I know that some of you that know me fairly well have heard the stories regarding what, in some cases, it takes to run tournaments of this nature. It is not easy. And in the fact that at GC, WotC sponsors there own game and I am the GM for those particular games, running what I do now is tough.

Next year we add two more games to the mix. The Battle of the Bulge and Guadalcanal. Both games will be put out by WotC. The Bulge sometime in the fall '06 and Guadalcanal in the spring '07? Now, guys, remember, I am NOT an employee of WotC and my information is very limited, so, don't hold me to this. But what I do know that is by next summer (Origins/GCI) two new AA games will be out. A decision will need to be made regarding the current game systems being played at these CON's specifically D-Day, Europe & Pacific and what will we do with these games. Maybe WotC/AH will come up with a whole different team to run events. I am not sure that will happen but who knows.

The point being, we are already stretched way to thin regarding the amount of time we have now to run what we do...stretching the Revised tournament over four days is insane...? And on top of it, one would not be able to play any other games...?

Squire, I know it is a good idea to try but I am just not sure how feasible it really is?

GS:)

squirecam

07-10-2006, 11:15 AM

In the past, Sunday has not been a large day at the con. People play the finals of games on Sunday, but nothing else. Perhaps the least attended event (say E/P) could be moved to Sunday 8 a.m.

Otherwise, Bulge (a wotc sponsored game) could be placed oposite 2nd ed, which is not sponsored by WOTC.

A third option is to have a D-Day/Bulge mix like E/P is.

Squirecam

Mighty Airforce

07-10-2006, 11:25 AM

Play as fast as possible. Try to get as many rounds in as possible. Have fun while doing so. That's my 2 cents.
Squirecam

That’s one way to look at it. Here is another.

Let’s assume as a given that the Allied player has an advantage in a longer game, and the Axis in a shorter game. This may or may not be true, but assume it as a given for debate. You can also extrapolate a particular strategy for a particular number of turns. You get the point.

Now, lets say you want the game to go faster to get in more rounds. Perhaps you play just as fast as you can, and maybe even a bit *faster* than you normally would. Maybe you think that getting in the extra rounds might offset missing some small details, or making a slightly sub-optimal purchase. Maybe you think playing “lightning quick” is in your best interest. Is this “gaming the game”? It does not seem like it to me.

On the converse, let’s say your strategy/powers/whatever leads you to believe you’ll be at an advantage in a shorter game. You don’t have to “game the game” to simply really focus, double check your purchase carefully, consider all your options, really do the kind of thinking you’d like to if there was no clock. In this case, unless you were just staring at the board and pretending to think, are you really slow playing? If you are actually consciously debating and double-checking, is that ‘gaming the game’? If acting cautiously was going to improve your game, and also has the ancillary benefit of moving the game a bit slower, is that underhanded?

These things seem to hit “shade of gray” pretty quick. I don’t think there’s any such thing as playing “too fast”. I think there’s definitely such a thing as playing “too slow”, but only the person thinking knows if he has already made up his mind and he’s just straight-up stalling, or he’s actually thinking.

To be honest, I don’t think there’d be many people who would actually consciously slow-play, but it does concern me that the mechanism is in place with that propensity for possible abuse.

squirecam

07-10-2006, 11:35 AM

The problem, MA, is that I don't agree with your premise. For instance, in a KJF the allies can potentially be in manilla Round 3. Now, they will have issues holding it if they rush to manilla, but they can do so. And wont capture of a VC on round 3 bring an allied win?

The same can be said for round 4+.

Your german transport 3+3 "kill the turtle" (or whatever its named these days :) ) might need 6 rounds to be effective. But other strategies can get axis VC earlier, although with other issues (a stronger germany obviously).

The point is, I dont think you can say 5=axis adv, 6=even, 7=Allied adv. I think it depends game to game.

And yes, if you are slow playing, after 3 years of tournaments, I think I will know it. Especially if your other games are 6-7 rounds and now we are struggling in round 4. Or if I've played you before and know how fast you play. Or GS, with 13+ years of seeing this will know.

Squirecam

CrazyStraw

07-10-2006, 11:59 AM

BTW, you won't likely hear from CS about his CSub post this weekend. He said something about going to see "Poodles on Ice" :)There were no poodles involved. I was, however, making a nice macrame drink holder for your Corvair, but because I don't care for your attitude I'll keep it for myself.

Quick things:
1. Holy Macarena I have a lot of messages. I won't be posting anything substantial for a while (insert smart-alec comment here).

2. I wasn't acusing Bushido Blitz and GSmo of stalling at all! I was merely pointing out that there was a large difference in the amount of time taken per turn in the early rounds. But it was well within the bounds of good sportsmanship. To me, stalling is when you intentionally manipulate the clock. They were simply methodically destroying us with due deliberation.

3. GSmo's posts did go through on CSub, they were just delayed because it took a while for one of the other editors to see the posts and approve them while I was out of town. I'm usually the guy on top of the email.

4. The team of RoboCop and Scope Monkey are the B-Team and MightyAirforce and I are the A-Team. That's not because the A-B designation means anything. It's just because MightyAirforce can turn a wheat-thresher into a cabbage-shooting machine and I love it when a plan comes together. The B-Team was the logical next choice.

That's the short news. More later this week when I'm out from under the pile of work.

Peace

GSH34

07-10-2006, 12:06 PM

First, I would like to thank Greg for his time and effort concerning all things A&A. While I am not a face-to-face tournament director, I am a moderator at the TripleA ladder and can associate with the amount or work involved in trying to keep a disparate group of people content.

To a large degree, I do agree with pdubarry and Mighty Airforce. My preference would be for having a fixed number of rounds. If five is not enough, set it at six. It would force slower players to speed up and slow down the really fast. Is that perfect? No. Will anything be perfect? No. Having read this whole thread and knowing Greg's position, do I think a fixed rould limit will be adopted? No way.

I have only gone to one tournament, Gen Con '05. My partner and myself made it into the third round and lost to eventual Mega champions (Mike and Jim I think it was). We were beat by a superior opponent in that game. However, a contributing factor in our loss was when it came time to decide how many more rounds we were to get in. I don't remember the exact time left in the game or even how many rounds we did get in, but it was the start of a Japanese turn and we had decided that we were going to get in two more full rounds. Because of this decision, we had to start playing insanely faster than we rightly should and this led to several oversights from our haste that they were more than able to capitalize on. We made an agreement. We screwed up. They capitalized. I congratulate them for that.

Since the tournaments won't have a set round limit, I think that there needs to be a way of officially informing players two rounds before the end of the game (ie. Greg telling them, not allowing players to decide). This allows a player to have a fair chance at building units that they will then be able to use on the last turn. I think it is highly unfair to everyone to decide in the middle of the round that the next will be the last. It should be known at the start of Russia's turn that the next will be the last.

The first warning would be to players with 1.5 hours remaining. Slower players that are in the middle of round 3 would have to complete that round and two more. They would know early enough that the game ends after US turn 5.. For games that are already in rounds four or five, you could come back a little later and give them the two round warning, say with 1.25 or 1 hour remaining depending how fast they are moving.

I think it is really import for someone to know what the last TWO rounds will be. Any country may buy and move differently (offensive or defensive purchase?) on the second to last round depending on what the opponents and board is like.

Since the current system time system will be kept, please, please, please figure out a way to inform players before hand when the last two rounds will be. That allows the most fairness in my opinion.

Again, thank you Greg for doing a job that is mostly thankless.
GSH34

PS. I hope Roethisberger will be able to play this year as well as he did before.

CrazyStraw

07-10-2006, 12:34 PM

Mighty Airforce

07-10-2006, 01:14 PM

The problem, MA, is that I don't agree with your premise.

You do not need to agree with my premise. The debate is not if strategy or team X has an advantage with more or less turns. You keep steering the conversation back to that point, which is related but tangential.

The point is: should any team believe that their team, strategy, etc would benefit from a longer or shorter time, they can influence that change in the game.

No, a team cannot completely control how long a game will go, but they could influence it, directly or indirectly. That does not seem right to me. That is my point.

And yes, if you are slow playing, after 3 years of tournaments, I think I will know it. Especially if your other games are 6-7 rounds and now we are struggling in round 4. Or if I've played you before and know how fast you play. Or GS, with 13+ years of seeing this will know.

. I do not believe that’s true. I have had turns playing CrazyStraw where I would stare at the board for 20+ mins thinking through a particularly tough logical fork. It has taken me ½ hour to decide on a purchase (and combat moves) more than once. Conversly, I've had many blazing fast turns. There would be no way to look a guy and know if he is concentrating or playing slow, unless he’s snoring.

V-Disc

07-10-2006, 01:20 PM

A third option is to have a D-Day/Bulge mix like E/P is.

Squirecam

I second this proposal.

I'm still mad I missed out on D-Day @ Origins. I'm assuming "Bulge" will resemble D-Day.

ButchOHare1

07-10-2006, 01:25 PM

It has taken me ½ hour to decide on a purchase (and combat moves) more than once. You would not know that. Neither would GS.

If you spend 1/2 hour during the purchase units phase that is too slow, whether your motivation is to stall the game or simply your own analysis paralysis. The standard shouldn't be "as much time as you want to take in good faith to think about your move." Have a little consideration of the other players. Watching you stare at the board for 1/2 hour doing nothing is boring for the ther players.

squirecam

07-10-2006, 01:41 PM

If you spend 1/2 hour during the purchase units phase that is too slow, whether your motivation is to stall the game or simply your own analysis paralysis. The standard shouldn't be "as much time as you want to take in good faith to think about your move." Have a little consideration of the other players. Watching you stare at the board for 1/2 hour doing nothing is boring for the ther players.

Definately agree. Those who need 30 minutes for purchases are taking too long.

Perhaps its because I used to play the Hasbroken Cd with 3-4 minute timers, but I can play fast. But 30 minutes for purchases is greatly excessive.

You should have your purchase ALREADY thought out and ready to go when the other guy's turn ends. Arent you guys doing a set strategy anyways?? Why do you need this extra time?

Squirecam

GSH34

07-10-2006, 01:51 PM

GSH - BTW, I was thinking of trying to set up a "six round" tournament in Triple A sometime. I have only played a few Triple A games, but they can go long. I would be much more interested in a tournament where I knew each game was only going to last 6 rounds instead of a potential 20. Other guys may feel the same.

Peace

I have thought about this many times myself and would like to do it. I move in a few weeks and do not know when I will get my computer/internet back up though. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to post at the TripleA WarClub site (I support the idea). I do not wish to hijack this thread with that discussion.

GSH

squirecam

07-10-2006, 02:20 PM

I second this proposal.

I'm still mad I missed out on D-Day @ Origins. I'm assuming "Bulge" will resemble D-Day.

FTR, I'm not supporting this. I would rather Bulge, as the new game, get a prominent spot on its own.

But if there is no other way...

Squirecam

Yoper

07-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Squirecam/Butch- I think that MAF is talking about taking 30 minutes to decide on purchases in a game that was not a tournament game.

Now he did "glaze over" once during the game they played against us, but that was more about not having his partner there to keep him on task. It wasn't long enough to be a problem, but I recognized his "thousand-yard stare" and kindly asked him if there was something wrong or if we were waiting on something. :o

Greg- I thought Guadalcanal was being put out by Matrix Games? Frog talked to the Matrix guys and they sure acted like they were producing it. :confused:

Craig

squirecam

07-10-2006, 04:16 PM

pdubarry

07-10-2006, 04:37 PM

Since the current time system will be kept, please, please, please figure out a way to inform players before hand when the last two rounds will be. That allows the most fairness in my opinion.

I agree completely: if we can't get turn limits, let's at least do this.

Yoper

07-10-2006, 05:43 PM

Yoper,

1 - 30 minutes in any game is too slow. Especially for a tournament game. Perhaps people are too used to having "hours" to simulate turns through PBEM before deciding what to do, but you are playing FTF now. Get your purchases/turn done. No excuses.

2 - Guadalcanal is a long story. Just let it drop for now...

Squirecam

1- I can see taking a long time if you are working a certain topic/strategy and the person you are playing against is working on it with you. That is what his example sounded like. Teammates playing a game against each other and discussing what should be done next in a certain situation.

Any other time it would be too much. In a tournament game it would warrant expulsion.

2- A long story? Like you dodging me at D-Day? :eek: ;)

Craig

Yoper

07-10-2006, 05:51 PM

I was thinking about getting this to help the participants in the event I GM to know how much time is left in a round.

http://electronicsusa.com/ck3000.html

The GM still has to continue to alert players at the appropriate times (on the hour) how much time is left in the round, but it would be nice to have a large reminder for all to see.

Craig

Chaon

07-10-2006, 06:15 PM

How about a digital chess clock? It shows two times, counting down. It can be paused for rolling dice, and restarted when non-com movement starts. As in chess, when you run out of time, you lose.

TrimChris

07-10-2006, 07:22 PM

Chaon, that suggestion was discussed and shot down in the past. But I still think it's a legit option.

Yoper

07-10-2006, 10:01 PM

Who is going to pay for that?

http://www.wholesalechess.com/store/chess_clocks/1/

Origins had 16 teams. That means 8 clocks.

GCI has up to 32 teams. That is 16 clocks.

The cheapest listed is $17.00. That times 16 is $272.00.

But all this still doesn't solve what is the true split on time for each country/each side.

Maybe somebody a lot smarter than I could come up with a good approximation.

Even then it would not be easy to apply that as it would be an average time, not game specific.

Or it could be done as the Victory in the Pacific (VitP) tourney at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) does. The 60/40 split is done at the beginning of the game.

The Allied side would have 135 min on their clock and the Axis side would have 90 min on their clock. Use your time wisely because if you squander it early on in the game then the other side would be able to play out the rest of the game with you not going.

Or you could continue to take your turn but now you are in penalty time. For each unit of time over the limit would cost a penalty IPC against your score.

Food for thought.

Craig

smo63

07-11-2006, 05:36 AM

How about a digital chess clock? It shows two times, counting down. It can be paused for rolling dice, and restarted when non-com movement starts. As in chess, when you run out of time, you lose.
Craig, thanks for the help with this one...it just ain't going to happen. This has been a long running discussion that is just not feasible.

Again, we get into the average casual player that would never consider playing if you have to bring your own clock. They would be saying, "Way to serious for me!" Then the diehards that will go out and get one, well then there has to be requirements on the clock types, etc...and if someone doesn't like the clock they bring to the table? What then...? And teaching those that have never used one, how to specifically use it...the list goes on with concerns of this nature...

Last, I won't nor will WotC/AH provide the clocks. Just too expensive and not a viable solution...

Thanks for the suggestion...

Peace,
GS:)

smo63

07-11-2006, 05:40 AM

I second this proposal.

I'm still mad I missed out on D-Day @ Origins. I'm assuming "Bulge" will resemble D-Day.

No not really...it will be out in November! You will find it a bit different but it still has that A&A feel. There will be new pieces as well. Trucks, both German and American. There will be a new Panther, Oh yeah! There will also be a ME109.

That is all I have to say about that...

GS:)

smo63

07-11-2006, 05:43 AM

smo63

07-11-2006, 05:47 AM

Greg- I thought Guadalcanal was being put out by Matrix Games? Frog talked to the Matrix guys and they sure acted like they were producing it. :confused:Craig

Sorry about that. This was a slip...You did not hear this from me...

2 - Guadalcanal is a long story. Just let it drop for now...
I agree...

GS:(

smo63

07-11-2006, 05:53 AM

I agree completely: if we can't get turn limits, let's at least do this.
There will some sort of official rules regarding "END TIME" play at GCI...I am in the process of revising it and will have it up soon. There is just some much time in the day for me to do this stuff...

Sorry.
GS:)

zooooma

07-11-2006, 06:40 AM

But, when you ask, "This doesn't make any sense at all. Could you restate your intension, please?" I guess we need to ask regarding, what?

My request was in reagrds to the following post of yours, which I quoted:

Thanks Craig...that has been my point of defense for a long time. Just play the game. No set limit on rounds, time, etc. Just whom ever is leading at the end wins...

Again...thanks.
GS:)

My point was that playing til someone is "leading at the end" outright necessitates a basis on which to end the game early. Like a time limit or turn limit. Currently, as I understand, you play with a set limit on time. Is this correct? I advocate counting rounds instead of time, but that's not the point.

The point is that it comes across as though you are advocating neither a time limit nor a turn limit. I don't think you are, so I'm not quite sure what you actually mean.

Are you suggesting that participants play as though the game were going to proceed indefinately? That's not really reasonable to expect from strategy gamers at a tournament. That's no more reasonable than playing minor victory but asking the players to play as if the game were major victory. I think Air Force made this point well in his post (111) entitled 'Playing To Win'.

I'm not sure this is what you mean either, though. I almost feel as though I've offended you by asking for this clarification. I hope I haven't

Just to be certain, you know I meant 'intension' (meaning), not 'intention' (goal).

And after 13 years of running AA tournaments for both 2nd Edition games as well as the Revised game, how do you suggest you determine who wins in a tournament setting?

I have no problem with the way you score the game, only with the criteria upon which the games are stopped - namely time, which is external to A&A. That said, there are game changing repercussions to your scoring method which should not be ignored. The game becomes much like a cross between Axis & Allies and RISK 2210. I have no problem with this - I love RISK 2210. However, I would not like RISK 2210 very much if I had no way of knowing how many turns till the end, and no way even to accurately calculate the probability of the game ending on any given future turn.

For the record, I think a GM-issued two round warning is a very fair comprimise.

DISCLAIMER - I do not really think I should have a say as to how you (or anyone else) choses to run a tournament. Who am I to tell other people how to game? I present and support my ideas because I think my arguments may be compelling. If they are not, ignore them.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

smo63

07-11-2006, 07:35 AM

Luke,

Thanks for the clarification. It is well appreciated. And I can understand why one might need clarification.

In short, and this goes back to the 2nd Edition days, I believe the game is and should be played to win regardless of the time frame. I am a stanch believer the best way to do this is play the game as you would any other game, long or not. The first few rounds of play should not make a difference. You are playing to beat the other side.

The point of tension comes when, in a tournament setting, there is a time limit. A time limit that CAN NOT be avoided. So, in the later rounds before time is called, game play ends up changing to gather as much territory as possible. The only really big difference in play from a timed game in this situation, IMO, is what one builds and attacks countries that one would not attack in this circumstance. But with that in place, if one attacks prematurely because of time constraints, one probably was not in the position to attack in the first place, supporting their placement in the game...

Now, when one sets round limits, the game, IMO, becomes very mechanical. One will know what to buy on what turn and what one needs before the turn begins to take as much territories to win in the set number of rounds. I believe this completely changes the dynamic of the game as well as the integrity of the same.

That is why I have just said, "Play the game." I know that we will not play until death of one side or the other, but in 4 hours, most of the time, one can get an idea where the war is headed. And that is what must be taken into consideration when playing. Yes, this leaves very little if any room for comebacks, luck, or anything of that nature that might happen in a prolonged game, but it does have its share...

Hence, my reason for siding to just "play the game" without round limits and the current victory conditions, the side leading at the end, wins!

Just think back when we had to judicate the 2nd edition games. We always were looking at; who we thought would win if they kept on playing. MOST EVERYONE HATED THAT and always had a difference of opinion on that issue. Now, Larry has come up with a great system that works wonderfully and still, people find room to want change?

So, go figure. Yes, change is good for the better, but because not everyone wins, most try and find ways to curtail the loosing curve to optimize their chance for victory...?

At least that is my opinion...

GS:)

squirecam

07-11-2006, 08:36 AM

smo63

07-11-2006, 10:17 AM

Ok, how about another idea...

The mega has a "loser's bracket" correct? You could start the mega on Friday, just like the masters. Play in one game.

Saturday, the tournament continues with both winners and losers brackets. In this way you could increase the time from 3:45 to 4:45, and games will play out more to 6-8 rounds, more resembling a standard A&A game.

Squirecam

Yes, a very good idea indeed but I do need to make a clarification.

First off, it is not a true loser's bracket. It is a consolation bracket. For anyone losing in the round one only, teams/players may make another bracket of players, guarnteeing at least two games. The winner of this bracket, at best could play the third/fourth place team for third place. We have never done this but I am willing to give it a try and see how it goes. So, if you win your first game and lose in round two. You are out. Again, as I have stated before, a true losers bracket would consitute a 10 round tournament of 4 hours each round. That ends up being a three day tournament at min.

There would be NO time for anyone wanting to play any other AA games or any others for that matter to do so...

Now, starting on Friday? Yeah, we thought of this as well, but the Mega/Masters being the most popular game by far, starting on Friday might be an inconvenience to some. Should we say, so what?

Just a reminder, this tournament is suppose to be open to as many people wanting to play as possible. When we were in Milwaukee, we averaged 115 players for the tournament. That is out of maximum of 128 players. So, in round one there were four brackets and a few byes. We did not have the luxury of moving it into others days because of the numbers. Which we liked and wanted to keep up as high as they were. But when the move to Indy happened, the numbers dropped off drastically, hence, giving us only, on average, around 64 players. Almost half. That does give us a little more flexiblity but it still does not give us the ablibity to let others play the other AA games being run throughout the weekend, ie, Europe/Pacific, D-Day and the 2nd Edition Tourney...

So, is the anser to expand the tournament to Friday evening and increase it to 5 hours instead of four? One of the biggest problems we would have if we started on Friday would be, if one loses. Knowing there is only a consolation bracket, they may not come back. That was my big concern at Origins this year and in past years if by starting on Friday, the losers might not come back. That is why we always kept it on Sat. So, once I have you, you ar more inclined to stay and weather the storm if you keep on winning.

Otherwise, people will drop like Origins because they have something better to do. Heck, if you recall, the team that dropped in our bracket did not want to play there final game because it was vs. us and they thought there was not way for them to win...? LOL...but it happened.

Anyhow. Just another problem consideration to think about. If I had my choice, no.

GS:)

squirecam

07-11-2006, 10:40 AM

So, is the anser to expand the tournament to Friday evening and increase it to 5 hours instead of four? One of the biggest problems we would have if we started on Friday would be, if one loses. Knowing there is only a consolation bracket, they may not come back. That was my big concern at Origins this year and in past years if by starting on Friday, the losers might not come back. That is why we always kept it on Sat. So, once I have you, you ar more inclined to stay and weather the storm if you keep on winning.

GS:)

Speaking only for me, I would rather see the suggested system of 1 hr-45 minute notifications, so that the last 2 rounds are "known". I would also prefer an EXPLICIT statement before anyone starts that slow play will NOT be accepted, you are expected to play 5+ rounds, and your purchase phase should be under 4-5 minutes. You are in a tournament, you are expected to know the game and rules, and you are expected to play.

Every 40-45 minutes an announcment should be made that "you should be at end of 1/start of 2. If not, speed it up guys..."

ONE AND ONLY ONE slow play warning will be given. Second is DQ.

Forcing guys to play faster is the only solution if you cannot change start dates/times/etc.

Squirecam

squirecam

07-11-2006, 11:12 AM

You could move stuff around to get the best possible players for the best tournaments.

Thursday D-Day 10:00am
Thursday-Sat Bulge 5-9 pm
Friday E/P 10:00am
Friday Masters 5pm
Saturday Mega 8am
Saturday (mega consolation and 2nd ed) 1pm

Squirecam

Mighty Airforce

07-11-2006, 01:43 PM

Now, starting on Friday? Yeah, we thought of this as well, but the Mega/Masters being the most popular game by far, starting on Friday might be an inconvenience to some. Should we say, so what?

Instead of one game on Friday, bunches on Sat, and one on Sunday, why not do 3 games each day for 2 days? I don’t know what is proposed for GenCon, but I know at Origins, I played 1,4,1 games Fri, Sat, Sun, and that included the final game. I did not like the idea that I made plans to be in town on Sunday, and I knew there was a good chance I would not be in the final game.

I would have much preferred 3 games each of two days. I could stay in town one fewer night, and heck, if there’s only 3 games a day, longer (5 hour?) games are possible.

If GenCon requires 7-8 games instead of the 6 at Origins, I think 3 games on Friday, 3 on Sat, and the remainder on Sun would be ideal. The only people who would need to stick around till Sunday would the few finalists, and no one would leave after one round since they were already onsite.

squirecam

07-11-2006, 01:46 PM

3 games friday = no E/P tournament

Squirecam

Yoper

07-12-2006, 07:38 AM

Thursday-Sat Bulge 5-9 pm

Squirecam

Having a tourney across multiple days like this and like some of the tourneys were last year is the worst answer.

Those smaller tourneys should be one day and done. You just have to make choices as to which ones you play in.

As for the Revised tourneys, I run my event the way the way MAF is suggesting. The first day is three rounds of play (Random draw of opponents each round, not pool play. I came across the drawbacks of pool play last year and have changed the format.) and the second day is then the SE play.

You get to play your three games the one day. If you don't advance, then you can play something else. If you advance, then you get a good night of sleep before playing the second day.

Here is the full write-up of my format:
************************************************** *******
Schedule-
The tournament schedule has been moved back one day. It will run Thursday and Friday, with the start times of the individual rounds stated above. Each round is 4.5 hours in duration. This allows (at least) a half hour break in between rounds of play.

Format-
This years' format will consist of three rounds of play on the first day. The top two, four, or eight players (not to exceed 25% of the field) from the first day (based on record) will move on to the SE play of the second day.

This will allow anyone to play up to three games regardless of overall record while also making it possible for someone to have a bad game (Those darn dice!) and still advance to the SE play of the second day.

Day 1-
There will be three rounds of play in which the player match-ups will be randomly determined each round.

Day 2-
For the Single Elimination (SE) play the advancing players will be placed into a SE bracket. Seeding of the players into the bracket will be done based on the players' record from the first day's games.

Players with similar records are further ranked based on the VT totals that the players amassed during the first day's games. (Further tie breaking for seeding purposes will follow the system used to determine player advancement to the SE play.)
************************************************** *******

For a complete view of the event preview, check out this link:

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbkex/a&apge.htm

Now, I understand that a lot of the players don't get to GCI until Saturday. Depending on numbers, you could only have four teams advance to the SE rounds (Origins- 16 teams=> 4 teams advance) which would mean only two SE rounds on Sunday. GCI would be tougher with 32 teams. That would mean that 8 teams advance causing there to be three SE rounds.

Three rounds of SE with the tourney starting on Saturday morning means that the finals is late afternoon/evening on Sunday. Greg has stated before that he doesn't want to be around that late on Sunday.

Now if you started on Friday night and played two more rounds on Saturday to determine who moves to the SE rounds, then you play the first SE round Saturday night. That is still only three rounds in one day. The last two rounds of SE are then Sunday with the finals done before dinner.

The best set-up would be to have the three preliminary rounds on Friday with the SE rounds on Saturday. People would have to make the choice to be there on Friday to play. You would lose some who just couldn't make that commitment but the hardcores would be there.

Craig

smo63

07-12-2006, 08:17 AM

Looking at next year. What I might do this year is have a evalutation questionare at GEN CON to field questions like, if we start on Friday, how well would that be recieved, that is for the Mega?

What would you like to see in the way of tournaments for next year seeing two new games will be out? etc...

Then take those and evalute our situation from there.

There is a lot of great ideas being suggested and I appreciate it. As most know, only so many of them can be considered and/or implimented...

Thanks,
GS:)

GSH34

07-12-2006, 09:29 AM

squirecam

07-12-2006, 09:41 AM

The best set-up would be to have the three preliminary rounds on Friday with the SE rounds on Saturday. People would have to make the choice to be there on Friday to play. You would lose some who just couldn't make that commitment but the hardcores would be there.

Craig

Some of us hardcores like playing the other tournaments. You cant eliminate revenue from these events in forcing people to choose due to slow play. Three rounds on friday is a bad idea. It means no E/P. Which is a bad idea.

Speed up the players. That's the answer.

Squirecam

smo63

07-12-2006, 11:54 AM

I think having a questionaire for players to fill out would be an excellent idea. You are only really getting responses from the "hardcore" A&A players here. I know from being in the Mega tournament last year that many players were not as serious about A&A as us that post here. Many of them were probably in other tournaments and could bring in other ideas that we may have not even thought about.

GSH34

Thanks for the response. Here is what I am thinking. Guys, please feel to bleed on it if you like...!

Please take a moment and fill out the simple evaluation regarding this years AA tournaments. Please place them in the envelope provided on the headquarters table. These will not be read until after the CON.

1. Is this your first GEN CON AA Experience?

2. What tournament games did you play in?

3. Where the tournament rules made clear to you and did you understand them? If not, why?

4. Did you enjoy your time playing in the tournament(s)?

5. What did you like most about your AA tournament experience?

6. What would you like to see changed? ( be specific regarding what game, i.e. D-Day, Europe/Pacific, Revised & or judging procedures)

7. Do you plan on participating in any AA tournaments in the future?

8. Did you have any problems during any portion of tournament play, i.e. rules, time, etc.?

9. Where the GM’s knowledgeable and fair about any decisions they made during the tournaments?

10. If you were someone that placed in any of the tournaments and or where able to see the awards/prizes that where awarded, what did you think of this years hardware?

Again, guys, thanks and let me know what you think...

GS:)

Yoper

07-12-2006, 06:02 PM

Some of us hardcores like playing the other tournaments. You can't eliminate revenue from these events in forcing people to choose due to slow play. Three rounds on friday is a bad idea. It means no E/P. Which is a bad idea.

Speed up the players. That's the answer.

Squirecam

I was talking about the people who can't be at the convention at all on Friday, not those who want to play in other tournaments/events.

I know that there are many who want to play in the other events, I was just presenting a format that was about the Revised tourney and the problem of so many rounds in so little time.

If you want to have that kind of cramped schedule, then so be it. I will play in the ones that I want, on the schedule I like. I just think that four rounds in one day is a bit too much.

Then again, I didn't need to worry about that since I didn't make it to the SE rounds. :o

Craig

Mighty Airforce

07-13-2006, 07:50 AM

Looking at next year. What I might do this year is have a evalutation questionare at GEN CON to field questions like, if we start on Friday, how well would that be recieved, that is for the Mega?

I guess the problem with that is the data will be skewed because only those that attend will answer. For example, I'd love to see a Fri/Sat tourney, and either scrap Europe/Pacific, or have all the "other" tourneys played on Sunday. However, that's the view from a guy who doesn't play in those others.

There may be a few/many people who would play in a 2-day tournament, but not a 3 day tournament, but none of those people will be there to fill out a questionaire if the tournament is 3 days.

There'll be no way to get perfect data, so I guess the best we can do is keep in mind the probable answers from those who aren't there to vote.

Is it possible to do the E/P tournament on either Fri or Sun, and have the main events (Mega/Masters) on the other 2 days?

smo63

07-13-2006, 08:29 AM

I guess the problem with that is the data will be skewed because only those that attend will answer.

Is it possible to do the E/P tournament on either Fri or Sun, and have the main events (Mega/Masters) on the other 2 days?

As far as it being skewed, that may be right to a certain extent but how else do I compile information from the tournaments?

As for E/P or any tournament for that matter, the one thing that will NOT happen is starting any kind of tournaments on Sunday. Scrapping E/P will happen before starting it on Sunday. Heck, even WotC is planning things for the finals for this year and was hoping things would be done on Saturday night...?

GS:)

CrazyStraw

07-13-2006, 09:37 AM

squirecam

07-13-2006, 10:19 AM

Sunday is a day when people leave and I guess Greg doesnt want to be there at 6 pm.

I also think Sunday would work, but he wont do it.

Perhaps the games can be moved up though, all starting at 8 am like the mega does.

As for WOTC wanting the Mega to end Saturday, LOL !! Just cant be done...

Squirecam

smo63

07-13-2006, 10:52 AM

It seems like there is a general push away from Sunday, even though that seems like a logical time for some of the games.

Is there a particular reason Sunday is bad? It seems to me like we should be scheduling Sunday through about 6pm.

Peace
The CON officially closes at 4pm. The dealer’s hall, gaming halls, etc. After that it is suppose to be clean up time.

As for me. I know you guys put a lot of hard work into playing and consideration has been made for Sunday. But, I guarantee that 80% if not more of you won't want to start game play before 8:00am Sunday morning. I know I would not. But I would be there if need be. Then on top of it, even if we did move the Mega/Masters to a three day event, I still believe the finals would be on Sunday morning. That would leave little to no one playing in which ever tournament we would possibly schedule.

Next, many people leave on Sunday morning due to long travel time. If they are playing in finals they would stay, but I would be surprised if anyone would be interested in starting something new on Sunday. Well except you guys...

And last, yes, if at all possible, I like having tournaments over as soon as possible on Sunday. At least by 1-2pm on Sunday Afternoon. It is my only time I can go through the dealer’s hall...! Yes, this sounds selfish, but it is one nice thing about going to GEN CON is being able to visit the dealers hall. I know I am there for a purpose. Out of love for AA. But after 60+ hours in 4 days, I believe I am intitled to a little fun... :) Then I have to clean up as well...that is not an easy task in itself.

The last thing is that when the finals are over, all the picture taking and that would just cut into any other portion of a possible tournament being run. sometime WotC/AH will come by, or even better Larry and the like pictures, signatures and the like. Guys won't be able to nor will they want to play game when all this is going on.

That is why we have never had a tourney start on Sunday. I just don't see it being a viable option...?

GS:)

smo63

07-13-2006, 11:09 AM

The best way I could see something changing for the better would be:

Battle of Bulge 10am Thursday (all day)

2nd Ed. 5pm Thurs. (every night at 5pm with final on Sun. 9am)

Guadacanal 10am Friday(if out, all day)

Depending on which game is more well recieved between the two, the better of the two will be on Thurs.

Mega Tournament. Rd. 1 noon, Rd. 2 5pm Friday; Rd 3. 8am, Rd.4 1pm, Rd. 5 6pm Sat.; Final Sunday at 9am...

Masters, stays the same...

That is possible but where do we put D-Day? Do we get rid of the 2nd Ed? That would be fine with me. But I guarntee it will sell out again this year...lending itself to a continued pressence at GCI...

Thanks,
GS:)

squirecam

07-13-2006, 11:26 AM

Bad idea, IMHO. Mega is a saturday event. 3 games friday kills D-Day AND E/P ??

Just not worth it. Folks just need to PLAY FASTER. That's it. Just play.

Squirecam

Robocop

07-13-2006, 11:27 AM

If you want to have that kind of cramped schedule, then so be it. I will play in the ones that I want, on the schedule I like. I just think that four rounds in one day is a bit too much.

Craig

Four games in one day. 16 hours of rolling dice. The brain is royally fried, but, if you gotta go, you might as well go happy!

Yes, four rounds on Saturday last year was grueling. I hurt myself smiling so much.

I know, I need therapy, but I'd rather play A&A.

Frog

07-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Bad idea, IMHO. Mega is a saturday event. 3 games friday kills D-Day AND E/P ??

Just not worth it. Folks just need to PLAY FASTER. That's it. Just play.

Squirecam

Well said. I agree. A&A is not just a revised game. I would rather play different version of the 4 days than one version the whole time.

Is it possible to start the Revised on Thursday, and as people lose in single elimination then start other version such as D-day, E/P, Bulge, Guadalcanal, etc??? Just a thought.

Mighty Airforce

07-13-2006, 12:54 PM

Mega Tournament. Rd. 1 noon, Rd. 2 5pm Friday; Rd 3. 8am, Rd.4 1pm, Rd. 5 6pm Sat.; Final Sunday at 9am...

I think expanding the games to 5 hours will really change the games for the better. The early rounds are all usually fairly similar, this will allow the games to "play out" much farther.

My one critique would be, why not just add a third game to Friday and then the tournament is over Sat night?

The Mega and Masters are the big events. Those are the games that will grow the sport, it's not like old A&A Europe games are flying off the shelves. Make especially the Mega easy to play (2 days), and I'd guess people on the fence might commit to that. The difference between 2 days and 3 days is big, even the people who go to GenCon for multiple events can have an extra whole "day" to do other things.

All the other tourneys could start on Thursday, and they could either be played out when the participants are out of the main events (statistically likely), or they could be finsihed up on Sunday morning?

squirecam

07-13-2006, 01:23 PM

You cant have 4 tournamnents on 1 day. That is just a horrible idea.

The new moneymakers for AH are Bulge {Guadacanal?}, not Revised. There is no revised expansion pack to purchase like A&A mini's.

People play and like D-Day or E/P, even if you dont.

You are playing in a TOURNAMENT and are expected to know how to play and the rules. You do NOT need 20 minutes to figure out purchases. People need to just play faster. Period.

Squirecam

ButchOHare1

07-13-2006, 07:13 PM

Butch's plan for GenCon

12:01 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. Greg S sets up everything. I like the white chips from the old game NOT the grey chips. Thank you. For the buffet I would like some fresh fruits and of course those little hot dogs inside a mini croissaint.

4:30-9:00 first round of the tournament. Everything should be seeded according to the World Federation rankings with the top 853,006 people getting a bye. Also during this time there should be a side tournament of Broadsides and Boarding Parties for people who were eliminated during the buffet eating contest.

9:00-9:01 Everyone should relieve themselves.

9:02-9:05 meet and greet Mike Selinker and some guy from Wizards who was actually looking for the A & A minis tournament. Grab whatever prizes he is carrying and send him to the life-size RPG room.

9:10-12:00 Mighty Airforce makes his purchase with USSR round 1. This might be longer depending on the bid.

12:01 Yoper sighting. Everyone duck under the table.

12:10 Greg caters lunch. I like that Mexican place by the circle with the steak fajita plate for $5.99. Thanks again.

Afternoon: SquireCam spies on everyone else's board and is barred from the tournament.

Evening: Check for early flights.

pdubarry

07-13-2006, 09:02 PM

This is seriously THE funniest post I've ever read!

CrazyStraw

07-13-2006, 09:40 PM

Frankly, if the solution doesn't involve a Nacho Bar, then it's not really a solution.

Krieghund

07-14-2006, 06:22 AM

12:01 Yoper sighting. Everyone dick under the table.
This is a typo, right? Right????? :eek: :confused:

Yoper

07-14-2006, 06:29 AM

Butch's plan for GenCon............

12:01 Yoper sighting. Everyone dick under the table.

While I am somewhat handsome guy with a pretty well set-up body, I would rather not have my name associated with A&A players' genitalia!

I think you mean to have everyone "duck".

Please adjust accordingly.

Thank you.

Caig

CrazyStraw

07-14-2006, 07:26 AM

Please adjust accordingly.If by 'adjust' you mean 'seek psychiatric care', then yes, I think that is where we are all at after reading that post.

Mighty Airforce

07-14-2006, 07:30 AM

While I am somewhat handsome guy with a pretty well set-up body, I would rather not have my name associated with A&A players' genitalia!

I think you mean to have everyone "duck".

Please adjust accordingly.

Thank you.

Caig

When I look up "dick" at m-w.com, the first definition comes up as FELLOW or CHAP.

Fellow is sometimes used as
3 : a member of a group having common characteristics; specifically : a member of an incorporated literary or scientific society

So you see, i'm pretty sure he was just saying you are part of the gang. You are part of the A&A society.

I'm pretty sure he meant it as a compliment.
:)

ButchOHare1

07-14-2006, 10:11 AM

If by 'adjust' you mean 'seek psychiatric care', then yes, I think that is where we are all at after reading that post.

Geez sorry for the typo. See you at GenCon. I think you are in the Masters no? I look forward to the game.

CrazyStraw

07-14-2006, 12:25 PM

MightyAirforce and I are just alternates, so we'll see if a spot opens up. Otherwise we'll take a crack at the Mega.

I'm thinking you should revise your plan from buffet to table-service. It will save time.

Peace

Yoper

07-14-2006, 12:36 PM

Squirecam- I think that we can say that the A&A Revised game is the crown jewel of the events and that the others are the icing on top.

With that in mind, I think that you must agree that all planning starts with the Mega and Masters events and works out from there.

I was contemplating the scheduling issue (while mowing the lawn) and had the thought to run the other events (D-Day, E/P, BotB, Guadalcanal) in a Free-Form Format.

Starting Wednesday night at 6 pm through Saturday night 6 pm, you can play as many games as you like of any of the titles. At the end of the forementioned timeframe, the GM determines the top four in each title and starts two rounds of SE play.

-You must play a minimum of 3(?) games in a title to be considered for advancement.
-You must also play a new opponent each time so that someone can't fatten up there record against the same crappy opponent.

This kind of format would allow for you to play as much or as little as you like.

Here is some info on the Free-Form Format:
************************************************** *******
FREE FORM: This version allows players the most freedom in scheduling choices. However, with freedom comes the added responsibility to be punctual and considerate of others. Consequently, Free Form requires the most time and diligence by the GM and can result in friction between players who do not mutually agree on playing times. As such, it is not recommended for inexperienced GMs and is, in fact, discouraged by BPA as being more disruptive than conventional schedules. It requires a more dedicated and diligent GM. Essentially, the GM remains near his kiosk throughout the preliminary first round period arranging and recording preliminary heat matches of convenience.

The heats are a form of swiss play used to determine which players will advance to two-round single elimination play. The criteria for selecting who will advance MUST be published on the WBC event Preview or this format will not be allowed. Consequently, in a two-player game, four players will be selected to advance; in a four-player game, 16 will advance. This is essentially a Swiss-Elim format; the only difference is in the scheduling of the games to be played wherein the GM assumes a far larger burden.

Entrants may play any or every day during the preliminary Swiss heats segment, if so desired. Match pairings for each game will be determined by the GM. You must be at the kiosk within one hour of the scheduled heat starting time, if you wish to play in that heat. If you wish to play more than one game in a day, the GM will attempt to arrange it for players who want to do so - subject to availability of opponents. When opponents are assigned, they must inform the GM when during that day they will start their game and when they expect to finish. If they cannot agree on a reasonable start time, they will be required to begin the game within one hour. If an assigned opponent does not appear for a mutually agreed upon start time, a player who has appeared must go to the kiosk and inform the GM. After the GM is informed and after waiting 15 more minutes at the kiosk, the GM will forfeit the game to the waiting player.

The results of completed games should be reported to the GM as soon as possible. Results not reported to the GM by the start of the next heat or 2300 hours of the day before Round 2 (semifinals) - whichever comes first - will not count. The GM reserves the right to adjudicate any game at the end of the time limit for that heat/round.

The GM will post the match assignments for Single Elimination (Round 2) play by the midnight preceding Round 2. Qualifiers not wishing to advance should alert the GM asap and remove their name from contention on the kiosk list, so that lower ranked alternates can be notified of their opportunity to play in the Single Elimination rounds. Any qualifiers or alternates who fail to appear at the kiosk by 0930 hours will forfeit or be replaced by the next available alternate.

Each player is responsible for checking his status on the kiosk in a timely manner. After reporting to the kiosk for Round 2, players may mutually arrange to play their semifinal game at a convenient time; however, all semifinals must be completed by 1800 hours of that day unless ALL semifinalists agree to a 9 AM Final the following day. Barring such agreement, the Final will commence within one hour of the completion of the last semifinal game.
************************************************** *******

The info can be tailored to our needs.

I would also volunteer to help run this format under Greg's supervision, of course.

Craig

Frog

07-14-2006, 05:19 PM

I was going to read all that from Yoper..........But..........Way to long.

You can explain next time I see you.

squirecam

07-14-2006, 05:39 PM

pdubarry

07-14-2006, 08:34 PM

Squire - You keep saying "play faster" over and over. Refresh my memory...what enforcement mechanism are you advocating to achieve this effect?

squirecam

07-15-2006, 06:48 AM

1st slow play = warning

2nd = dq

Squirecam

Yoper

07-15-2006, 07:07 AM

Sorry yoper, but a free for all idea is bad. Why would you give up FOUR games for one. Play when you want?? I want a scheduled tournament. I'm not spending hard earned $$$ for some half-azzed semi-scheduled gathering.

And despite Revised being our favorite, its BULGE/CANAL that AH will make money from.

Simple solution - just play faster. :)

Squirecam

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough or you just don't get it.

You can play all of those games!

They all count towards advancement!

Play them when it is convinient!

The faster you play the more you can play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as you play a minimum amount of games (Okay, maybe just two games of a title) to be considered for advancement in a specific title, then you are good.

Squirecam- The only drawback that I can see is for a "stud" like you in which you do well enough in multiple games and is that you would have to choose which game to play in the SE rounds. Or you could work with the GM and the other competitors to see if they will work with you to be flexible in when you play a SE round for the different games.

Example- You show up on Wednesday night and play one game of D-Day. You get up on Thursday and play a Pacific game, then a D-Day game, and finally a Europe game.

Right there you have played the minimum amount of games to be considered for advancement. You can try to play more to better your chances for advancement. You can take a break and visit the Vendor Hall. You can go out to dinner. You can scratch you nads. :eek: It doesn't matter!

You can play any of the titles in any order you like, play any or all of the them, play enough games to qualify in a title or just get in one game in that title.

Guess what?!?!?!? I don't care!

I don't play those other games or not enough to care!

I was trying to give you a way to cram all those titiles in as tournaments.

My opinion is that you are going to have to dump some of them (Europe especially, but probably Pacific, too!) to get the new ones into the schedule.

You want those events, then you figure it out.

And playing faster isn't the answer! :rolleyes:

Craig

Frog

07-15-2006, 07:53 AM

This is amazing!!! I find myself agreeing more and more with Yoper????? Maybe he was smarter than we all gave him credit for in the past. Not.

This does make some sense. During free time, before ,after tournaments, during tournaments if disqualified etc. Play 3 games of Pacific/Europe/D-day, etc. The best scores in each compete head to head on Sunday morning. If someone makes it to more than one final, they must chose, then a third finisher take their place.

I will say this though. I play A&A on a regular basis, weekly. Against many a different foe from all ages. I rarely cannot finish a whole game in under 3 hours. My point being that if people played at speed it wouldn't be an issue.
I have my purchases ready the second my opponent says done. I don't wait till my turn start thinking about it. I teach this to newbies, because it also gives them something to do when it is not their turn. When I get to tournaments everyone's slows way down.
The simplest solution is to play faster, at a normal speed. Yet I know many can't /won't do such a thing. They play a certain way, purchase after they see what the non-combat moves are, etc. So I think a pool-play at any time for the lesser games, which I love, is something to at least explore.

Maybe after a few months of discussion, all the possibilities should be list in a poll for everyone to vote on what they think is best.

squirecam

07-15-2006, 09:07 AM

I will say this though. I play A&A on a regular basis, weekly. Against many a different foe from all ages. I rarely cannot finish a whole game in under 3 hours. My point being that if people played at speed it wouldn't be an issue.
I have my purchases ready the second my opponent says done. I don't wait till my turn start thinking about it. I teach this to newbies, because it also gives them something to do when it is not their turn. When I get to tournaments everyone's slows way down.
The simplest solution is to play faster, at a normal speed. Yet I know many can't /won't do such a thing. They play a certain way, purchase after they see what the non-combat moves are, etc.

This is the point people keep avoiding. There is nothing wrong with the limit. It is players abusing it.

Stop the abuse, and its fixed. Yell out "next turn" every 40 minutes. People will get the message, or start complaining about slow play, which will speed up the opponent, or cause a DQ if they continue.

Tournament players should be among the best. They should not need to slow down. They do so because they want to game the game. So stop it.

BTW, if you gave some an extra hour, they'd just take longer and STILL play 5 rounds w/o propmpting, thinking they now have "plenty of time" to play. Like Greg said, you need to keep a stick on some of these guys....

Squirecam

Yoper

07-15-2006, 10:00 AM

Guys,
All of this needs to be looked at from a GM's perspective, not a player's perspective.

There are really three days to run all the A&A events at Origins/GCI. Saturday is the day for the Mega tourney so now you are down to two days to run the other events. Right now you have two events- D-Day and Europe/Pacific. One each day. Fine.

What happens next year when you get one, if not two, new games?

1) You can drop existing events in favor of the new events.
2) You can combine new with old like the E/P combination.
3) You can run the new events at the same time you run the old events.

These are just a few of the options, but they all have their flaws.

I think the biggest flaw though is the idea of running these events as pure SE events. After the first round, half of the participants are done. After two rounds, three-fourths are done.

Now for you "experts" this is no big deal because your still playing. But from the GM stand point you are eliminating half of your potential audience by lunch time and another quarter by 4 pm.

You want Hasbro/AH/WotC to pay attention to you as a gaming block? Keep players around and gaming into the evening, everyday.

You want them to ignore you? Drive off half of your players by lunch time.

Talk about a "half-azzed" way to run a set of tournaments!

You want to bash the Free-Form format, go ahead. How was Greg running his A&A Minis event? Exactly!

Craig

squirecam

07-15-2006, 10:14 AM

You want to bash the Free-Form format, go ahead. How was Greg running his A&A Minis event? Exactly!

Craig

1 - That was a last minute thing

2 - Had someone showed up Friday, and found the leader already had a 5-1 record, and thus likely could not catch them, what was the Prize incentive to play?

However, with a 100 pt tournament on one day and a 200 pt tournament a second day, that player has reason to stay.

3 - How will Greg/AH/GCI get $$$??? GCI charges for each hour block. Will you pay for each game you play? Will there be better prizes for the increased cost?

Your system is flawed Yoper. Nice try, but it wont work for a coordinated prize event. Its fine for a pickup/who cares event. Which these tournaments are NOT.

Squirecam

Yoper

07-16-2006, 06:43 AM

1) It doesn't matter that it was a last minute thing. The fact that he used the free form format (in a slightly different form) is the defining point.

2) Again, you are not understanding the format. It doesn't matter that a guy is 5-1 in the D-Day games he has played. All you have to do is be one of the top four players in D-Day games played, based on record.

Play enough games to meet the minimum requirement and be one of the top four (based on record) players. I don't see how that is so hard to understand! :confused: :eek:

You're a smart guy? What part of this don't you get?

Or do you get it and just stubbornly refuse to try something else/new? :rolleyes:

3) Yes, you will have to pay for each game you play. You will just have to have a bunch of generic tickets. You turn one in each time you are assigned an opponent and play a game. You have to pay one way or another.

At Origins, we know that we were going to play three games in the Mega tourney and the price for signing up was set accordingly.

In this format, you don't know how many games you are going to play, so you would have to bring generics and pay as you play.

1 - That was a last minute thing

2 - Had someone showed up Friday, and found the leader already had a 5-1 record, and thus likely could not catch them, what was the Prize incentive to play?

However, with a 100 pt tournament on one day and a 200 pt tournament a second day, that player has reason to stay.

3 - How will Greg/AH/GCI get $$$??? GCI charges for each hour block. Will you pay for each game you play? Will there be better prizes for the increased cost?

Your system is flawed Yoper. Nice try, but it wont work for a coordinated prize event. Its fine for a pickup/who cares event. Which these tournaments are NOT.

Squirecam

smo63

07-17-2006, 04:46 AM

smo63

07-17-2006, 10:45 AM

Guys,
All of this needs to be looked at from a GM's perspective, not a player's perspective...
You want Hasbro/AH/WotC to pay attention to you as a gaming block? Keep players around and gaming into the evening, everyday.

You want them to ignore you? Drive off half of your players by lunch time.

Yoper, this is the best point you make. As for the rest of the story, you do have some really good ideas, it is just going to take some good analysation before this can be considered...but in short, your point made above is the best of all...and should be considered for something.

I am not really sure where to go with the rest of it but the one thing I know for a fact is that, getting more players to play all day instead of one and out is a good thing. That is if they want to...I had a comment from a player at Origins that is a good player making it to the SE rounds, and said that he did not like the format because, even though he loves playing the game, he always like getting in about three games of AA and that is his limit. He doesn't care if he wins or loses just that he gets to play. Now, how do you deal with something like that. He said he loves the SE format because he is good enough to almost always beat his first round opponent, knows the game well enough to have a good second round but normal around three, is out of energy and would prefer to lose?

So, is there a difinitive answer. NO! Something better maybe? But the answer is not going and changing everything just to see if something works. I know you have not suggested that, but in general, that is what would happen IF the format would change to anything similiar to this...?

Again, considerations will be made for next year and particularily depending on what WotC would like to see but until then, we have what we have. Will whatever system we use ever be perfect? I think most know that answer. And will everyone always be happy? NO! Just ask Bush!

GS:)

questioneer

07-18-2006, 06:43 PM

smo63

07-18-2006, 06:50 PM

Hey GSmo... here's my 2 cents...well make it 4 cents

1. Dump 2nd edition-these people need to grow up and get out of the 80's

2. I like the 5 hr. idea, I do believe you will get quality wins and games... either that or initiate...

3. stopwatches/table digital timers- $5 each-cheap, give each country 10-12 minutes to make there moves. If they go past the time, give em a tech- the 2nd tech disqualifies you from the tourney.

4. Don't schedule E/P and Mega on the same day
Sample Schedule for next year
Thur.- D-day, Guad and Bulge
Fri. - Europe/Pacific and Masters
Sat.- Mega
Sun.- Semi-Finals and Finals for Mega/ Masters

Good luck scheduling next year!!!

See ya at GenCon!!! I got my badge this week!!!

Questioneer

Hey Questioneer, thanks for chiming in. It has been awhile...or at least I think so?

As for 2nd Ed. You might have a point. Yes, the tourney is run by myself without the support of WotC. They will not continue to support this. The only reason I do is because we get 32 players, a sellout every year with me having to turn people away because we are full.

Now, I have no problem running it but the only thing that I do not like is that games still need to be judicated for victory. Brings back too many bad memories...

The problem I have with this is giving up a tourney that sells out for ones that may bring in 16-24 players...?

Is there really a good solution?

Are you also suggesting having all three on thursday? D-Day/Bulge/Guad. Man if so, I would like to see the schedule for this one...

Look forward to seeing you at GCI...

GS:)

squirecam

07-19-2006, 02:43 PM

4. Don't schedule E/P and Mega on the same day
Sample Schedule for next year
Thur.- D-day, Guad and Bulge
Fri. - Europe/Pacific and Masters
Sat.- Mega
Sun.- Semi-Finals and Finals for Mega/ Masters

Questioneer

If this were the schedule, this would be my last year at GCI.

Unlike some, I have to fly into Indy, and it is not a cheap trip. I can only get solid FTF play during tournaments. And now you've cut 4 A&A games out of my ability to play. No offense, but terrible ideas here. There are other worthy A&A games other than revised. And the 2 new ones you place on the same day??? So they get ZERO coverage and promotion? I'm sure WOTC would be very happy about their new games getting zero promotion and a bad time slot.

Squirecam

smo63

07-20-2006, 05:59 AM

If this were the schedule, this would be my last year at GCI.
Squire,

Don't worry. Be Happy!

This won't happen. Questioneer, thanks for the suggestion but we really can't run all three of these in one day.

What is going to end up happening is that one, maybe two tourneys will be cancelled. Most likely the 2nd Ed. and the E/P for now. We will have to see how the two news game have been received and regardless, WotC will most likely make those a priority at GCI 2007. So, what I could see happening is:

Thurs. Bulge 10am(don't have a duration because we don't know how long it will take to play?)

Thurs. D-Day 5pm(?, starting time to vary and will run each day at about the same time. Much like 2nd does now.)

Fri. Guaducanal 10am (don't have a duration because we don't know how long it will take to play?)

Fri. Masters 5pm

Fri. Mega 6pm (?) or Sat. 8am (?)

Now, one of the reason this would be suggested has nothing to do with it being too much for me to run by myself. Yes, I could get help, but what it comes down to is, just how does one play in so many different tournament of the same genre in four days. Do we run the other two the same time as the new ones and see who wants to play? I am starting to see a trend where guys would rather go and play some other games on Thursday anyhow. Whether it be DD, mini's or another board game, it is a CON and many very cool games are out there to be played...THOUGH WE KNOW NONE COMPARE TO AA!

Just think about these things when suggesting what we should do at the CON's and getting ones best bank for the buck regarding AA. Many people get AAed out really easy...

Peace,
GS:)