Michicon results

[Frog]

Has anyone heard how Michicon went???

Was the victory system liked??? Will it be still be used at WBC??? Changes??

Was the round robin preferred over single elimination?

Who won?? What was vaerage bids???

Info please!!!!

[pwt1997]

First, thanks to Yoper for providing a gaming forum for A&A players at Michicon.

I, for one, DID NOT like the victory system. Even though I played one round, I found that the system changed the game too much. Not to mention the system penalized players who conceded defeat. To actually make players (myself included) keep on playing after they conceded defeat is ridiculous!

The systems at Origins and Gen Con do not mess with the game that was delivered in the box, with the exception of using the desinger's (Larry Harris') rule set, which clarified a few points on what Mike Selinker put together for AH. The Michicon/WBC system alters the game significantly, making players go for territories they wouldn't normally go for in order to get victory secured.

I guess my biggest complaint was that under the Michicon/WBC system, it's hard to a) teach newbies; and b) get everyone on the same page. Some of the players played at Origins, and had to alter their playing style for this tournament. If they go back to Gen Con, they've got to alter it again.

In my opinion, no matter where I decide to open my box and play a game, especially in a tournament setting, I should be able to play by the same rules, no matter where that is. It seems that the LHTR and the Origins/Gen Con system works. Why change it?

Those are just my opinions, and are in no way meant to discredit Yoper for what he's done. I'm just saying that a lot of thought should be put into the WBC, because the Axis & Allies that I played at Michicon is not the Axis & Allies that Larry Harris intended.

PT

[questioneer]

First, thanks to Yoper for providing a gaming forum for A&A players at Michicon.

I, for one, DID NOT like the victory system. Even though I played one round, I found that the system changed the game too much. Not to mention the system penalized players who conceded defeat. To actually make players (myself included) keep on playing after they conceded defeat is ridiculous!

The systems at Origins and Gen Con do not mess with the game that was delivered in the box, with the exception of using the desinger's (Larry Harris') rule set, which clarified a few points on what Mike Selinker put together for AH. The Michicon/WBC system alters the game significantly, making players go for territories they wouldn't normally go for in order to get victory secured.

I guess my biggest complaint was that under the Michicon/WBC system, it's hard to a) teach newbies; and b) get everyone on the same page. Some of the players played at Origins, and had to alter their playing style for this tournament. If they go back to Gen Con, they've got to alter it again.

In my opinion, no matter where I decide to open my box and play a game, especially in a tournament setting, I should be able to play by the same rules, no matter where that is. It seems that the LHTR and the Origins/Gen Con system works. Why change it?

Those are just my opinions, and are in no way meant to discredit Yoper for what he's done. I'm just saying that a lot of thought should be put into the WBC, because the Axis & Allies that I played at Michicon is not the Axis & Allies that Larry Harris intended.

PT

I agree with this analysis 100%. Smorey's way is much easier, though I like the round robin play- I think that should be included. Since the victory cities are marked on the board clearly, its easier to use them for bonuses. The "victory territories" are not marked on the board so this made it difficult to remember (had to look at your sheet every round) where they were. I am not a fan of variants and I like one uniform way of tournament play. I think more players would come out if Smorey's way was used. People are more familar and comfortable with those rules because that is how they are played at GenCon and Origins. Again, it ain't broke, don't try fixing it.

However, I enjoyed myself at MichCon. I lost twice, but I learned a lot- thanks Frog! :)
It was only the 4th and 5th time I had played with bids. I figure I will get better after I play a half a dozen times more with bids. I will see you at ROBA mostly for those that come and probably at the Plymouth gathering every now and then soon. Good job Yoper and good luck with the WBC. You'll probably have more of an idea of what people think of the system after its over. Again, like you said, you don't know until you try and you're bold enough to explore other options which is very good!! See ya at Plymouth sometime. :)

To ptw1997, Yoper, Frog and V-Disc, it was great gaming with you guys and I'll see you soon at the gatherings.

Questioneer

[questioneer]

Has anyone heard how Michicon went???

Was the victory system liked??? Will it be still be used at WBC??? Changes??

Was the round robin preferred over single elimination?

Who won?? What was vaerage bids???

Info please!!!!

Frog, you're killing me :D
Way to rub it in.
Congrats to winning the 6 man tourny- you're cool now. :cool:

My vote:

1. "Victory Cities" point system is better than "Victory Territories" point system.

But...

2. Swiss Pool Play rocks over just Single Elimination!!!

Questioneer

[squirecam]

Frog, you're killing me :D
Way to rub it in.
Congrats to winning the 6 man tourny- you're cool now. :cool:

My vote:

1. "Victory Cities" point system is better than "Victory Territories" point system.

But...

2. Swiss Pool Play rocks over just Single Elimination!!!

Questioneer

There is no way that you can have a 64 team tournament on a saturday and have a swiss game play. So despite what may or may not be favored, there is just no time for it at Gencon. The masters tournament, however, will be swiss.

But I'd interested and would like more examples of how the VT changed the game, and not for the better, as you guys are saying.

Squirecam

[Mighty Airforce]

There is no way that you can have a 64 team tournament on a saturday and have a swiss game play. So despite what may or may not be favored, there is just no time for it at Gencon. The masters tournament, however, will be swiss.
Squirecam


I don't recon there's a solution for trying to cram a whole lot of games into a single day, something has to give. I think the game is best played for total domination, but I acknowledge that is not very practical for a tournament setting. That being said, you limit a game to ~4 hours, and have pre-set victory conditions. Fair enough.

I do want to comment that changing a tournament from single to double elimination only adds a single extra game to the tornament. Seems that with 64 teams, single elimination takes 6 games, double elimination takes 7 games.

Swiss seems like it could be possible. With 64 teams, after 5 rounds, there are 2 teams that are undefeated, and it's over in 6 rounds.

I haven't been to one of these big events before, but I've been to a heck of a lot of foosball tournaments that are always some form of elimination. Some of the best run tournaments were double elimination and had abreviated games in the losers bracket.

Foosball is great to have tournaments, when games take about 10-15 mins, that's condusive for setting up quality tournaments. Winners brackets matches in the big event of the state level championships were "best of 5" match ups, and it was double eliminatoin. That was a pile of foosball when your winning.

[smo63]

Frog, you're killing me :D
Way to rub it in.
Congrats to winning the 6 man tourny- you're cool now. :cool:

My vote:

1. "Victory Cities" point system is better than "Victory Territories" point system.

But...

2. Swiss Pool Play rocks over just Single Elimination!!!

Questioneer

Questioneer...I agree, that in most cases, playing a Swiss pool before SE is great, but because AA is such a long game and playing serveral rounds for 4 hours, does not lend itself to the time constraints of having a Swiss tournament for both Mega Tournaments at Origins/GEN CON.

Stretching them out over 4 days is not really an option either...espeically when you have other AA tourneys being run. Even though I would like a second chance if one game goes a stray, it is much like the NCAA BB tourney, one bad game and you are out. So, playing AA, you better be damn good and not make a mistake...

That is my only take on the Swiss vs. SE. If we could, we would!

Thanks for all the other comments regarding liking the tournament play format at Origins and GEN CON...

Peace,
GS:)

[smo63]

I do want to comment that changing a tournament from single to double elimination only adds a single extra game to the tornament. Seems that with 64 teams, single elimination takes 6 games, double elimination takes 7 games.

Swiss seems like it could be possible. With 64 teams, after 5 rounds, there are 2 teams that are undefeated, and it's over in 6 rounds.

Airforce, you lost me on this one; how do you calculate getting 5 rounds of play with 64 teams and then have two teams undefeated?

I am not being critical, I just don't follow your math?

Thanks,
GS:)

[smo63]

Has anyone heard how Michicon went???

Was the victory system liked??? Will it be still be used at WBC??? Changes??

Was the round robin preferred over single elimination?

Who won?? What was vaerage bids???

Info please!!!!

Guys, sorry I missed this...I really was looking at coming up but lifes responsibilites got in the way...don't you just hate that!

Hope everyone had a great time and good luck in PA...see everyone, or at least most everyone at GEN CON!

GS:)

[Frog]

Thanks for all the kind words. I am truly humbled (not) by all your praise at my 5-0 run in 2 years at Michicon. I have defended my title, I have had a great time, and I have seen some great competition.

The event has grown and we seemed to get alot of peoples attention. Some newbies even jumped in to the 2nd round of the tournament!!!

I liked the Swiss-style, but the Victory condition do need some attention. Craig has talked with me about this and will do some modifications before WBC. Constructive suggestions as always helpful. Craig did a great job and I know how much of a commitement he has made. THANKS!!!!!!!

Anyone who thinks they can de-thrown me as the undefeated Michicon champ is hereby challenged to next years event! (minus Smorey, he's to good)

[Mighty Airforce]

Airforce, you lost me on this one; how do you calculate getting 5 rounds of play with 64 teams and then have two teams undefeated?

I am not being critical, I just don't folllow your math?

Thanks,
GS:)

Hey Greg, this is how I math it up. I've been known to math-a-magics things, but here's my thinkin...

The sun comes up, 64 teams are 0-0
You always match teams against those with the same record, thus, tracking only the undefeated teams:

after game 1, 32 teams are 1-0
after game 2, 16 teams are 2-0
after game 3, 8 teams are 3-0
after game 4, 4 teams are 4-0
after game 5, 2 teams are 5-0

>>"5 rounds of play with 64 teams...two teams undefeated? "

after game 6, 1 teams is 6-0 (winner)

[V-Disc]

Congrats to Frog on defending his title. A "Sweet Repeat" for our {ahem} friend from Ohio.

Huge THANK YOU to Yoper for organizing and promoting another great event. Too bad the turnout was so light for this CON. Hard to say why this was; maybe just a bad time of the summer season.

PWT1997 & I paired off in the only sanctioned match I took part in. He gave me a 6IPC bid & the Allies and I proceeded to "dice whip" the Axis for the first two rounds {Sorry 'bout that buddy!}. GER made a big land grab in Africa; but it was all for naught. Twin Allied IC's in Asia was too much for Japan. The US invaded Tokyo {round 5?} to secure the win.

Tournament highlight - "Man...we gotta get this game!"
I had a ball teaching this game to a pair of new players {CCG converts no less}. The older (College Freshman} of the two brothers had played A&A a couple of times. The High Schooler wasn't too keen initially; but after seeing how anti-aircraft fire could blast his brothers' planes from the sky he really got into the game! After three rounds of coached play; I think I made some new converts.

My take on the various topics -

"Win Or Go Home" - No doubt about it! A tournament should be single-elimination. A win is a win; a loss is a loss.
However if the event is more of a "invitational", with a pre-determined field, then perhaps a "swiss" or "round robin" system is fine.

Victory Conditions System - This made for some cumbersome thinking and game-play in the one match I played. It was like I had to change gears or something. Karelia and Singapore are out; Norway and Hawaii are in. I kept having to check to see what was what.
The more I look at this system {WBC}; the more it reminds me of the old "economic victory" rule. If one side controls three fourths of the available Victory Territories; that side wins...makes sense! I really need to study this more. It seems that the WBC system {at present at least} is better designed for a long game; when players have more time than in a tournament setting.
Like I said...I only played one match with this system.

Alll in all....another fine weekend of gaming.

[squirecam]

Victory Conditions System - This made for some cumbersome thinking and game-play in the one match I played. It was like I had to change gears or something. Karelia and Singapore are out; Norway and Hawaii are in. I kept having to check to see what was what.
The more I look at this system {WBC}; the more it reminds me of the old "economic victory" rule. If one side controls two-thirds of the available Victory Territories; that side wins...makes sense! I really need to study this more. It seems that the WBC system {at present at least} is better designed for a long game; when players have more time than in a tournament setting.
Like I said...I only played one match with this system.

Alll in all....another fine weekend of gaming.

Perhaps the "difficulties" are that some players are used to ignoring certain territories (i.e. norway or hawaii). Under this system, you must make some plans for them. Therefore, you probably cannot play as usual but must back off your initial moves and/or focus on additional theatres of war.

If indeed this system forces you into multiple theatres of war and prevents the typical 3v1 gang ups, then it is worth continuing.

Squirecam

[V-Disc]

Perhaps the "difficulties" are that some players are used to ignoring certain territories (i.e. norway or hawaii). Under this system, you must make some plans for them. Therefore, you probably cannot play as usual but must back off your initial moves and/or focus on additional theatres of war.

If indeed this system forces you into multiple theatres of war and prevents the typical 3v1 gang ups, then it is worth continuing.

Squirecam

Yes....I think the system has alot of merit. As I stated in my earlier post; I think it may work better in a setting that has room for longer game-play. So for tournaments this will probably need some tweaking. I'd be suprised if Yoper was not "in the lab" as we speak!
"Ignoring territories?"....this is kind of a sticky wicket! Granted...many territories are treated as not being vital in conventional thinking. I'm not sure if turning some of those overlooked territories into crucial ones necessarily makes for a better game {better meaning more suited for tourney play}.
Perhaps I would feel more comfortable with WBC conditions if Yoper/They had merely ADDED additional "VT's" as opposed to changing the status of some of the standard VC's.

[Frog]

Perhaps the "difficulties" are that some players are used to ignoring certain territories (i.e. norway or hawaii). Under this system, you must make some plans for them. Therefore, you probably cannot play as usual but must back off your initial moves and/or focus on additional theatres of war.

If indeed this system forces you into multiple theatres of war and prevents the typical 3v1 gang ups, then it is worth continuing.

Squirecam


Exactly right!!!! It was supposed to make more territories valuable, rather than a few. 3 draw backs though:

1) Too many vital areas added. By the time 18 Victory territories were close to being reached, most knew the game was over. Maybe fewer VT were needed. Hence we were testing the system for the first time.
2) No one else uses this system. Good and bad in my opinion. I like a variation on tournaments. It makes going to different ones worth while. But most want to learn one victory system and expect that at all tournament settings to avoid confusion on how to win.
3) Were the Victory territories really vital to victory?? One could argue almost any spots that they felt were more vital, or less vital. Most of the Victory territories were important to me, most that is. Remember Mac Arthur island hopped, he didn't need every island liberated. Norway was never liberated until the war was over, was it vital????

Bottom line for me, I liked playing a Swiss style, I liked the longer time per game ( 4 hours+). The Victory system should have stayed as other major tournaments. The time change alone added a different strategy for me, I knew I could add 1-2 more rounds of play.


GOOD CONCLUSIONS-GOOD DEBATE

[smo63]

Swiss seems like it could be possible. With 64 teams, after 5 rounds, there are 2 teams that are undefeated, and it's over in 6 rounds.
Airforce, I see were you are going with this, but, I still am not sure you could call this a Swiss style tournament. IMO, this is just the same as SE. Because, if you lose once, you are out, correct. One could continue to play but why?
The sun comes up, 64 teams are 0-0
You always match teams against those with the same record, thus, tracking only the undefeated teams:

after game 1, 32 teams are 1-0
after game 2, 16 teams are 2-0
after game 3, 8 teams are 3-0
after game 4, 4 teams are 4-0
after game 5, 2 teams are 5-0

This is what threw me in the above example. I am thinking completely on the line that, somehow, one needs to divide all 64 teams into a number of pools and play X number of games within that pool. The best 4 records move on for a semi and final game. The best way this works is with 8 teams/players. 16 will work ok as well but anything beyond that is 7+ rounds and there is NO WAY one can play that many games in two days...

GS:)

[smo63]

Thanks for all the kind words. I am truly humbled (not) by all your praise at my 5-0 run in 2 years at Michicon. I have defended my title, I have had a great time, and I have seen some great competition....
Anyone who thinks they can de-thrown me as the undefeated Michicon champ is hereby challenged to next years event! (minus Smorey, he's to good)

Frog, Very impressive and thanks for the complement as well. Please don't forget the second half of the team; (Auer/Smorey)!

As far as records goes, through all the bantering earlier between Yope an Squire, I was going to mention our record in tourney play for the year but decided to sit cool...then you brought up yours so; 6-0 in tourney play for Auer/Smorey in 2005, not to shabby...and Auer plans on expanding on that at GEN CON! As you know I DO NOT PLAY at GCI:(

Peace,
GS:)

[Yoper]

Settle down Frog, my old friend!

The other 2-0 player had to leave, so you didn't have to play him!

You keep this up and I will call in the big guns!


Onto other matters.

All may not have heard, but I offered all players a set of VT stars to place upon their gameboard so as to facilitate their being able to locate said VTs.

Yes, there are going to be problems changing from one system to another. I realize that and understand your concerns. I just happen to think that the VTs that I have come up with are a better set of conditions to play for.

I think that Greg Smorey's system is a fine system. I just think that it has a serious flaw to it. It bases it scoring on the VCs of the original game. I think that some of the choices for Victory Cities are bad and as such the system has a bad basis to be working from. Giving an extra point value to the key territories is a good idea, but the key territories have to be different than the ones that are used in the Smorey system.

As for the playing out a game that you feel is over already, I am really looking at this problem. I understand that there are going to be people who are not gluttons for punishment and will want to end the agony. I was only trying to get a good read on the scoring system and was trying to get you to play it out for testing purposes.

Realize that the VTs are there for determining not only the game you are playing but also for tie-breaking purposes. I need to realize that the VTs and IPC totals are only the third tie-breaker in my tie-breaking system. First is pool record and second is head to head play.

After talking with some of the players, I am going to come up with a default adjudication score for the game in which someone drops out of a game before the victory conditions are met.

The right number of VTs and IPCs have to be arrived at so that the winner is not penalized for not having played out the game. It is possible for someone to end up with more VTs than the necessary 18 VTs for victory and as such I am reluctant to make that the default number. As Frog has said, I am constantly working in the "A&A Lab" to make things better.

Michicon is not the best test of some parts of my master plan simply because of the transient nature of a small con. I took it with a grain of salt that players are more likely to drop in and out. I do not expect this to be the way things go at the WBC.

Many thanks go out to V-Disc for being the "A&A Ambassador". It is because of people like him that we continue to bring in new players. It's no small wonder that he was the spearhead of "The Anti-Team" 's advance to the Origins semi-final round!

And thank you to all who participated in the event. I will continue to strive to make it an event that all will enjoy.

Craig

[Yoper]

Here are the numbers from Saturday.

Side- W - L (With Bid)
Allies- 6 - 1 (5 - 0)
Axis- 1 - 6 (1 - 1)

Game- (Bid) VTs / IPCs
#1
Allies(+3)- 19 / 129
Axis- 5 / 37

#2
Axis(+3)- 16 / 91
Allies- 8 / 75

#3
Allies(+4)- 18 / 115
Axis- 6 / 53

#4
Allies(+3)- 14 / 100
Axis- 10 / 66

#5
Allies(+6)- 18 / 113
Axis- 6 / 53

#6
Allies(+2)- 14 / 107
Axis- 10 / 59

#7
Allies- 20 / 143
Axis(+3)- 4 / 23


It looks better in the box when I type it, but it looks like poop when I post it!:(
Crappy message board!

Craig

[questioneer]

This is what threw me in the above example. I am thinking completely on the line that, somehow, one needs to divide all 64 teams into a number of pools and play X number of games within that pool. The best 4 records move on for a semi and final game. The best way this works is with 8 teams/players. 16 will work ok as well but anything beyond that is 7+ rounds and there is NO WAY one can play that many games in two days...

GS:)

That is true, with 64 players, you would play 7 games in 2 days:
Day 1: Swiss Pool play (3 games)
Day 2: Single Elimination (4 rounds)
or
Day 1: Swiss Pool Play (3 games)
Day 2: Single Elimination (3 rounds)
Day 3: Finals (4th round), 12 noon

I think it is possible, if you get rid of that 2nd edition tourney and play D-day, Europe/Pacific on the same day. You only get 16 teams for each of those right? Do a lot of players still play 2nd edition? Like Yoper mentioned only 16 teams play the second day. (winners of pools).

There is 1 problem, I could see some players leave after 2 games if they are 0-2 in a pool, w/o a chance to win the pool. In this case, you could still have the leaders of the pool still play another game or use head-to-head record/ IPC totals to break any ties- not a big deal.

Actually, after reading MIGHTY AIRFORCE's post, DOUBLE ELIMINATION is even better than SWISS! :)

[questioneer]

Even though I would like a second chance if one game goes a stray, it is much like the NCAA BB tourney, one bad game and you are out. So, playing AA, you better be damn good and not make a mistake...


GS:)

OR, you better be **** LUCKY and not make a mistake...

that's why Swiss, or Double Elimination (easier to run than Swiss) is better.
:)

[questioneer]

I do want to comment that changing a tournament from single to double elimination only adds a single extra game to the tornament. Seems that with 64 teams, single elimination takes 6 games, double elimination takes 7 games.

Swiss seems like it could be possible. With 64 teams, after 5 rounds, there are 2 teams that are undefeated, and it's over in 6 rounds.

I haven't been to one of these big events before, but I've been to a heck of a lot of foosball tournaments that are always some form of elimination. Some of the best run tournaments were double elimination and had abreviated games in the losers bracket.

Foosball is great to have tournaments, when games take about 10-15 mins, that's condusive for setting up quality tournaments. Winners brackets matches in the big event of the state level championships were "best of 5" match ups, and it was double eliminatoin. That was a pile of foosball when your winning.

You're exactly right!!! Swiss and Double elimination can be done with 64 teams in 7 rounds. However, people could quit early in Swiss pool play if they are 0-2 without a chance to win their pool. Why would you play a 3rd game and therefore give the GM headaches?

In Double Elimination, players can immediately leave after their 2nd loss.
A loser bracket is created and ALL players with one loss can still play!!!
In Swiss pool play, it is POSSIBLE for players to advance with 1 loss, but NOT guaranteed.

Sorry guys, I have to change my vote, Double Elimination is the way to play.
On top of that, its only 1 more round than what currently exists at GenCon!!!

:)

[squirecam]

I think it is possible, if you get rid of that 2nd edition tourney and play D-day, Europe/Pacific on the same day. You only get 16 teams for each of those right? Do a lot of players still play 2nd edition? Like Yoper mentioned only 16 teams play the second day. (winners of pools).



I'm playing D-Day and E/P and 2nd ed. So do many people.

Squirecam

[smo63]

I think it is possible, if you get rid of that 2nd edition tourney and play D-day, Europe/Pacific on the same day. You only get 16 teams for each of those right? Do a lot of players still play 2nd edition? Like Yoper mentioned only 16 teams play the second day. (winners of pools).

Questioneer, Is a matter of fact, they do...we had more pre-registrations for 2nd Edition than any other game except Revised at GEN CON...and D-Day and Europe/Pacific are still very much loved games. D-Day is very much liked because it is different and a shorter game...Europe and Pacific are both loved but not nearly as many sign up for these because they don't want to spend all four days playing AA. Hence the reason we combined the two into one tourney at Origins and the new system worked great, so...the same will be used at GEN CON...

Also, because these are all WotC games, I need to run a tourney for each. As for Double Elimination, I will very much consider this a possiblity. But I am still coming up with different numbers than you guys?

GS:)

[smo63]

Actually, after reading MIGHTY AIRFORCE's post, DOUBLE ELIMINATION is even better than SWISS! :)

I just went through the system...if you have a maximum of 32 teams with a double elimination tournament...it would take 10 rounds if the loser beat the winner in the finals the first game...

That is way too many rounds and we would have to start on Friday...play 4 rounds on Friday, then 4 rounds on Sat. with the finals on Sunday..

GS:)

[pwt1997]

All may not have heard, but I offered all players a set of VT stars to place upon their gameboard so as to facilitate their being able to locate said VTs.

I think that Greg Smorey's system is a fine system. I just think that it has a serious flaw to it. It bases it scoring on the VCs of the original game. I think that some of the choices for Victory Cities are bad and as such the system has a bad basis to be working from. Giving an extra point value to the key territories is a good idea, but the key territories have to be different than the ones that are used in the Smorey system.

Craig

Craig -

The offering of VT stars was a nice idea, but there was no way that I was going to permanently stick those things on my board, and I know I wasn't the only one!

On another note, Smorey's system bases its scoring on the game you get in the box when you buy it from the store. Your system CHANGES THE GAME, because in your opinion, what you got in the box doesn't work. What this means is that you are not running an Axis & Allies Revised tournament. You are running an Axis & Allies Yoper's Variant tournament, and that is way different. In short, you are saying that the folks who designed A&A didn't get it right - either with the LHTR or the original box - and you can do a better job.

When people sign up for your tournament at the WBC, or Michicon for that matter, they have to know that they are not playing the game they get in the box, and that's what Smorey's system does so well. Smorey's system appeals to every A&A player - not just the hard-core ones.

I know you play a lot, and have altered the game with your own gaming group, but this probably isn't the case for johnny A&A player - myself included. Personally, I just want to sit down and play the game I bought in the box with little or no changes (keep in mind using the LHTR is fine with me - he doesn't change the victory conditions).

I applaud your passion for this, and I just wanted to share my thoughts as you try to make your system appeal to the masses.

PT

[smo63]

I think that Greg Smorey's system is a fine system. I just think that it has a serious flaw to it. It bases it scoring on the VCs of the original game. I think that some of the choices for Victory Cities are bad and as such the system has a bad basis to be working from. Giving an extra point value to the key territories is a good idea, but the key territories have to be different than the ones that are used in the Smorey system.

Craig, I believe you need to reconsider saying the system is fine and then saying there are flaws in it.

Two comments; First, after talking to Larry about the previous problems with victory conditions, he came up with the point system and we play tested it. And since I am in charge of running the tourneys at Origins and GCI for WotC, I believe it was in the best interest of the tourney to incorporate the system. I just want to make sure Larry gets most of the credit for the IPC bonus system...

Second, I think it is a great system, not just becaue it is Larry's but because it balances play out drastically. Especially under the conditions in which we play. It does not change the game, VC, etc from the original, it just adds a dynamic to the game that was not present in the first go around.

I am not going to comment on your system, even though you have explained it to me and I do have all the informtion regarding such and I have never played under your rules.

I must say and reiterate without a shadow of a doubt, Origins being proof, that his bonus system, in most respect, is just what we were looking for in Tourney play and have yet to find flaws...

Peace,
GS:)

[Frog]

[QUOTE=Yoper]Settle down Frog, my old friend!

The other 2-0 player had to leave, so you didn't have to play him!

You keep this up and I will call in the big guns![QUOTE=Yoper]

Anytime, anyplace.


Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, whine like a baby,

All I know is, I'm the champ!!!!

[questioneer]

I just went through the system...if you have a maximum of 32 teams with a double elimination tournament...it would take 10 rounds if the loser beat the winner in the finals the first game...

That is way too many rounds and we would have to start on Friday...play 4 rounds on Friday, then 4 rounds on Sat. with the finals on Sunday..

GS:)

You're right GS, I just researched the format. Unfortunatley, there are 2-3 extra rounds because of byes and a possible rematch final- way too many!! Sorry about being a little too predetermined about the DE format. I should have looked into it first.

Also, with the Swiss format, I stated some of the "problem" issues earlier:

1. People possibly leaving after 2 rounds. This only happens if they are 0-2. Not really a big deal because you can still make the remain players play again for a 3rd game. I would just let the "leaders" of the pool play and use Head-to-Head Record + IPC totals etc. to sort things out.

2. Tie-breakers: use this system
a. Head to Head Record
b. IPC totals
c. First team to achieve 2 wins (only one team can do this by the 2nd round)

3. Swiss pool play only gives players the POSSIBILITY to advance with one loss, not a guarantee. You will have some players win their pools with an undisputed 3-0 record and some who will win with a 2-1 record. So the question is: "Would you extended the tourney 1 more round to give people that chance to advance with one loss?" I think its worth it and you do increase the chances for more quality rounds being played. However, I understand your thinking as well.

Questioneer :)

[questioneer]

Craig, I believe you need to reconsider saying the system is fine and then saying there are flaws in it.

Two comments; First, after talking to Larry about the previous problems with victory conditions, he came up with the point system and we play tested it. And since I am in charge of running the tourneys at Origins and GCI for WotC, I believe it was in the best interest of the tourney to incorporate the system. I just want to make sure Larry gets most of the credit for the IPC bonus system...

Second, I think it is a great system, not just becaue it is Larry's but because it balances play out drastically. Especially under the conditions in which we play. It does not change the game, VC, etc from the original, it just adds a dynamic to the game that was not present in the first go around.

I am not going to comment on your system, even though you have explained it to me and I do have all the informtion regarding such and I have never played under your rules.

I must say and reiterate without a shadow of a doubt, Origins being proof, that his bonus system, in most respect, is just what we were looking for in Tourney play and have yet to find flaws...

Peace,
GS:)


I wholeheartedly agree, its a great point system for the tourneys. No need to change it if there aren't any overwhelming complaints about it. I should have called it "Larry's Point System" instead of "Smorey's Point System".
:D

Also, I didn't quote it, but ditto to ptw1997's last comments above- right on point.

Q-ball :)

[Mighty Airforce]

You will have some players win their pools with an undisputed 3-0 record and some who will win with a 2-1 record. So the question is: "Would you extended the tourney 1 more round to give people that chance to advance with one loss?"

You possibly extend it more than 1 more round. You need to consider the case where the 3-0 folks lose, and the 2-1 folks win. Now you have a slew of 3-1 folks to sort out.

Regarding the double-elimination can of worms I opened: When mathing out the brackets, it's deceptivly long. The first round eliminates no one. The second and subsequent rounds only eliminate the loser of the loser's bracket. That's about 1/4 of the field, and just the fact you eventually have the winner of the losers bracket face off against the winner of the winners bracket has the problem that the loser can, possibly, "double dip" the winner, or at least draw out one more game. That's a lot, it's 8 hours of gaming just to get in the final match, possibly. Unfortunately, that's a lot of gaming.

[Blackhand]

When i wrestled in High school we use the brackets and double-elimination, but the ppl in the losser bracket are only playing for 3rd place. So the winning of the Main bracket is first, the guy he beat is second and the winner of the losser bracket is third...

[questioneer]

You possibly extend it more than 1 more round. You need to consider the case where the 3-0 folks lose, and the 2-1 folks win. Now you have a slew of 3-1 folks to sort out.



No, that is incorrect, what I was referring to was pool play only. Once you have won your pool, you advance to the 2nd day of single elimination-that's it, your record only matters now for seeding for single elimination. Teams are seeded by:
a. Pool Play record
b. IPC total
c. random
Then for a 64 team tourney, only 16 teams will make it to the 2nd day, and the 2nd day is just a single elimination tourney.

You probably meant when the 2-0 folks lose and the 1-1 folks win. Having possible 2-way or a rare 3-way ties. In that case you just use the tie-breaking system I mentioned earlier:
a. Head to head
b. IPC totals (w bonuses of course)
c. First team to 2 wins (only 1 team can do this by the 2nd round)-used primarily for 3-way ties.

Having a 64 man tourney using this format would require 7 rounds. A regular single elimination tourney is 6 rounds.

questioneer :)

[questioneer]

When i wrestled in High school we use the brackets and double-elimination, but the ppl in the losser bracket are only playing for 3rd place. So the winning of the Main bracket is first, the guy he beat is second and the winner of the losser bracket is third...

That was the version of the DE bracket I was looking for when I researched it. The problem is that if you lose in the first round, you drop to the loser's bracket and the best you can hope for is third place. Also, I still think this requires 2 or more rounds than a single elimination tourney which is too much.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

questioneer
:confused:

[V-Disc]

Hey gents...here's a time-tested solution to the question of how to structure a tournament: WIN OR GO HOME!

This works pretty well for the NCAA/"March Madness"; the World Cup; every Tennis event; and any number of other sports or gaming contests. You lose...that's it!...you lost...you are out of the running. Thanks for being a great sport.

There is only so much time in a day. Trying to run some kind of "round robin", Swiss-style, or double-elimination format during a convention that features a wide variety of games and attractions would actually turn people away from entering the tourney. I think we want a bigger and better field; not a smaller turnout.

The games at Origins lasted 4 hours. How are you going to get all these extra rounds of play in? "Axis & Allies 72 Hour Survival"? I think most convention attendees want to take in more than just one thing at such an event.

Single Elimination...you win...you play on.

[smo63]

Hey gents...here's time-tested soloution to the question of how to structure a tournament: WIN OR GO HOME!

This works pretty well for the NCAA/"March Madness"; the World Cup; every Tennis event; and any number of other sports or gaming contests. You lose...that's it!...you lost...you are out of the running. Thanks for being a great sport.

There is only so much time in a day. Trying to run some kind of "round robin", Swiss-style, or double-elimination format during a convention that features a wide variety of games and attractions would actually turn people away from entering the tourney. I think we want a bigger and better field; not a smaller turnout.

The games at Origins lasted 4 hours. How are you going to get all these extra rounds of play in? "Axis & Allies 72 Hour Survival"? I think most convention attendees want to take in more than just one thing at such an event.

Single Elimination...you win...you play on.

Thanks V-Disc...my point exactly...

Though it is nice as for the Masters Tournament, with only eight teams. We can play three rounds of Swiss and then two rounds of SE. When one earns the right to get this far, then, yes, playing more than just one game is worth the time to see who is the very best...

GS:)

[questioneer]

Hey gents...here's time-tested soloution to the question of how to structure a tournament: WIN OR GO HOME!

This works pretty well for the NCAA/"March Madness"; the World Cup; every Tennis event; and any number of other sports or gaming contests.

Any number of sports??? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey all play best of seven series and World Cup and Olympics play Swiss pool play.

Swiss is only 1 extra round and it decreases the chances of a team just getting on a hot streak or advancing with some luck. And it gives some hope for other teams who are competitively close. It also assures teams at least 3 games (pool play) instead of playing once and and you're out.

Believe me, I do understand the excitement and risks of a NCAA-type system we have now. To me, it is a debatable issue that could go on for weeks. IMO, both systems work very well, however most sports and competitions use a best of 3,5,7 or some kind of pool play. That ought to tell you something. People desire the highest quality matchups. You get the best with Swiss or "best of" type tourneys.

Questioneer :)

[squirecam]

Believe me, I do understand the excitement and risks of a NCAA-type system we have now. To me, it is a debatable issue that could go on for weeks. IMO, both systems work very well, however most sports and competitions use a best of 3,5,7 or some kind of pool play. That ought to tell you something. People desire the highest quality matchups. You get the best with Swiss or "best of" type tourneys.


Swiss has its issues too.

Fred wins his pool. He goes undefeated. Yet he playes someone who went 1-2 and "squeaked in". Fred Loses to him. So now a guy who went 3-1 is ouy and a guy who went 2-2 is in. Is the 2-2 guy the "best" ?

On a side note, dont be too harsh on Yoper. I think the WBC method needs more testing before you remove it. Hopefully, the amount of players at the WBC event will be a better test of the system.

No offense, but 6 players just doesnt provide the best testing grounds.

Squirecam

[squirecam]

Craig,
Second, I think it is a great system, not just becaue it is Larry's but because it balances play out drastically. Especially under the conditions in which we play. It does not change the game, VC, etc from the original, it just adds a dynamic to the game that was not present in the first go around.

I must say and reiterate without a shadow of a doubt, Origins being proof, that his bonus system, in most respect, is just what we were looking for in Tourney play and have yet to find flaws...



Is it the best system??

IMHO, its pretty close. (I STILL think a VC should be Hawaii)

Does it have flaws ??

Yes. The "flaw" is the last turn, where people make "bad" a&a moves in order to gain territories that they otherwise would not make. Who cares if they suicide a territory and make an attack which would lose them a longer game, in order to win right now. However you look at it, this is a "flaw" in the system.

In Yoper's method, these "last round" territories are pre-determined. So essentially you go for them starting on Round 1. It's a last round only vs whole game theory.

Of course I must admit I haven't played Yoper's method. So again my comments are w/o personal testing.

Be happy to do a Triple A game against anyone with Yoper's method to test. PM me if interested.

Squirecam

[questioneer]

Swiss has its issues too.

Fred wins his pool. He goes undefeated. Yet he playes someone who went 1-2 and "squeaked in". Fred Loses to him. So now a guy who went 3-1 is ouy and a guy who went 2-2 is in. Is the 2-2 guy the "best" ?

Squirecam

This is incorrect, it is mathamaticly impossible for "Fred" (3-0) to play someone the next day in SE bracket who is 1-2. All the players that qualify to the 2nd day for SE play are either 2-1 or 3-0. So "Fred" would play someone who is 2-1 or 3-0 on the 2nd day (Single Elimination day).

Ex. Fred (3-0) wins his pool and moves on to single elimination play with 16 other pool winners (64 players originally). In the 1st round, Fred plays Jenna (2-1) and loses to her and is now out. Fred and Jenna's records are now both 3-1. Who is better? Jenna, because she beat Fred Head to head.

Questioneer :)

[questioneer]

In Yoper's method, these "last round" territories are pre-determined. So essentially you go for them starting on Round 1. It's a last round only vs whole game theory.

Squirecam

Are you saying that in Larry's Bonus System that these VCs aren't predetermined? Everyone knows from the start what "Territories/Cities" you need to win, whether you are playing Yoper's way or Larry's Bonus way. I'm not exactly understanding what you are saying. I do agree that in either system, on the last round everyone is going to make some oddball moves to pick up those territories/cities and IPCs to win, but that's a problem that cannot be solved given the time frame of play- 4 hours.

Questioneer :)

[squirecam]

This is incorrect, it is mathamaticly impossible for "Fred" (3-0) to play someone the next day in SE bracket who is 1-2. All the players that qualify to the 2nd day for SE play are either 2-1 or 3-0. So "Fred" would play someone who is 2-1 or 3-0 on the 2nd day (Single Elimination day).


You could be right. For some reason thought you could have 2 people at 1-2, with one at 3-0. Bad math.

Squirecam

[questioneer]

Though it is nice as for the Masters Tournament, with only eight teams. We can play three rounds of Swiss and then two rounds of SE. When one earns the right to get this far, then, yes, playing more than just one game is worth the time to see who is the very best...

GS:)

Its fantastic that you have it in the Masters, but it would be great to have it in Mega also. C'mon, just 1 more round. :D I only debate this topic because if all goes well I will be running an AA tourny in the spring. I like all the tourny rules and setups that you and Larry created. My only deviation is that it will be Swiss for the many reasons I discussed. Its only personal preference because I believe Swiss and straight up SE brackets work very well.

Questioneer :)

[questioneer]

1-2.

Squirecam

Nevermind, you corrected yourself.

Questioneer :)

[squirecam]

Are you saying that in Larry's Bonus System that these VCs aren't predetermined? Everyone knows from the start what "Territories/Cities" you need to win, whether you are playing Yoper's way or Larry's Bonus way. I'm not exactly understanding what you are saying. I do agree that in either system, on the last round everyone is going to make some oddball moves to pick up those territories/cities and IPCs to win, but that's a problem that cannot be solved given the time frame of play- 4 hours.

Questioneer :)

Here's what I mean.

In Smorey's system, you get VC bonuses, but that's not the sole way to win. It's really IPC that count, with VC bonuses.

Generally, you play "normally" until the "last" round, which can vary depending upon timing and whether one side is "suddenly" playing faster or slower, which can be a concern.

On that last round, you may make "bad" a&a moves in order to conquer "algeria", which gives you an IPC win.

In Yoper's system, you need VT. Its the VT that matter, not the IPC. So logically you would attempt to get these VT from the beginning of the game, rather than wating to "spread out" on the last turn, when there is no counter attack.

Also, so many of the VT seem to be major objectives, such as japanese islands, that a last round gasp might not be successful if you waited.

Squirecam

[questioneer]

In Yoper's system, you need VT. Its the VT that matter, not the IPC. So logically you would attempt to get these VT from the beginning of the game, rather than wating to "spread out" on the last turn, when there is no counter attack.

Also, so many of the VT seem to be major objectives, such as japanese islands, that a last round gasp might not be successful if you waited.

Squirecam

I see, I think you're right, however, when I played Yoper's system, if the VT were tied then IPCs mattered. Either way, its hard to get away from the IPC thing, but I guess now that I look at it, IPC's matter more in Smorey/Larry bonus system than in Yoper's sytem, because when I played Yoper's way most people will gain the 18 VT needed. In Smorey/Larry way it is very hard to get 9VC unless you're playing a novice. You'll understand more when you play at WBC.

Great discussion!!!
Questioneer :)

[V-Disc]

Any number of sports??? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey all play best of seven series and World Cup and Olympics play Swiss pool play.

Questioneer :)

Pro Sports play an ENTIRE SEASON to earn the right to make the playoffs; then a set of "best-of" series. The World Cup and Olympics use Swiss/Round-robin systems to qualify for the single elimination round. The NFL plays a series of single elimination games after an ENTIRE SEASON. I guess my point is that at the end of the day it's "WIN OR GO HOME!"

Besides Questioneer; how much time {not to mention money & resources} are players willing or able to devote to an A&A tourney? Add another day to a gaming weekend; there's another night in a hotel; more restaurant food; more arrangements to be away from work & family; it's not practical.

The "Masters Pool" that is set to play at Gen Con is made up of guys who have been at {and won!} how many previous events? That is a pre-set field of players. The mix of swiss and single elimination rounds makes sense for that type of tourney. At Origins we didn't find out how the brackets were set up until showtime. I just don't see how running a open tournament as anything other than single elimination would help it be more sucessful. Can you do it? Well, yes...but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

I must say; that I find it rather interesting that such an outspoken proponent or MORE gaming would make RARE appearences at the regularly scheduled events in his area!

See Ya!

[questioneer]

Pro Sports play an ENTIRE SEASON to earn the right to make the playoffs; then a set of "best-of" series. The World Cup and Olympics use Swiss/Round-robin systems to qualify for the single elimination round. The NFL plays a series of single elimination games after an ENTIRE SEASON. I guess my point is that at the end of the day it's "WIN OR GO HOME!"


I must say; that I find it rather interesting that such an outspoken proponent or MORE gaming would make RARE appearences at the regularly scheduled events in his area!

See Ya!

Easy boy, :mad: if you read my earlier statement, I only said its a matter of preference. I respectfully disagree with the last post. I'm tired of debating now. I'll think my way, you think yours. Also "RARE appearences" doesn't mean I don't play the game. Bad assumption on your part. :(

Questioneer

[smo63]

Is it the best system??

IMHO, its pretty close. (I STILL think a VC should be Hawaii)

Does it have flaws ??

Yes. The "flaw" is the last turn, where people make "bad" a&a moves in order to gain territories that they otherwise would not make. Who cares if they suicide a territory and make an attack which would lose them a longer game, in order to win right now. However you look at it, this is a "flaw" in the system.

In Yoper's method, these "last round" territories are pre-determined. So essentially you go for them starting on Round 1. It's a last round only vs whole game theory.

Of course I must admit I haven't played Yoper's method. So again my comments are w/o personal testing.

Be happy to do a Triple A game against anyone with Yoper's method to test. PM me if interested.

Squirecam

Squirecam,

I disagree with this flaw system of yours. It is not a flaw in the system, it is the way in which people play. In any given tournament, especially AA, when there are time constraints, players will ALWAYS, rush to gain whatever is needed to win within the time frame. That was the way it was in the old version, last years set up and no different with this. Again, I can NOT and will not comment on Yoper's system due to the fact, i have not played it yet.

Though I believe in conformatity when it comes to AA tournament play, I support Craig with his efforts to make a good tournament and a game that is well balanced. Never playing and not really knowing the system, I guarntee that when time was coming to a close, players were rushing to get in whatever Victory condition points needed to win...

GS:)

[smo63]

Having a 64 man tourney using this format would require 7 rounds. A regular single elimination tourney is 6 rounds.

questioneer :)

I am still confused on how you are coming up with the round numbers?

As I alluded to earlier, DE, would be a 10 round tourney with the final being two rounds, with 32 players/Teams. That is not going to happen.

If you play Swiss with this many people Max., then what one would have is 8 pools of 4. 3 Rounds of swiss and the best record advancing to SE. that would be 8 teams. You will still get people dropping if they lose 2 games. Regardless, then in SE, you will have 3 more rounds, giving you a total of 6 rounds. The absolute MAXIMUM amount of rounds we can play in 2 days.

WE WILL AND CAN NOT SQUEAK A 7th round in. It is impossible. And on top of it...when you are in a situation as ours with running the tournaments, you never know exactly how many people will be playing in the tournament. So, with this parameter in play, one can NOT go switiching the format for tournemant play infront of everyone. What I mean is we would have to limit the amount of players/teams to play Swiss at 32. I have only once in the last 11 years had 32 teams. And that was the first year at Indy. I and WotC don't think it is an option to limit the amount of people in the tournament. Well 128 (64 players/Teams) has always been a magic number and we with this number have had sellouts and still not turn anyone away...

So, with that being said, I believe it is impossible to sweak in a 7th round...And I would have to go back and agree with V-Disc, SE is the way to go...Make it to the top three in the Mega, then you get your chance to play in the MASTERS, Swiss/SE...

Hope this helps.
GS:)

[Yoper]

The offering of VT stars was a nice idea, but there was no way that I was going to permanently stick those things on my board, and I know I wasn't the only one!



They are not permanent. They would easily come off. And no, the Victory Territories system is not something that my gaming group came up with. This is based on my personal opinion of what is and isn't a good set of victory conditions. I am going with this set of victory conditions because I think that they are better and I think they will be proved as such after enough games have been played to give a good sample of data.



Craig, I believe you need to reconsider saying the system is fine and then saying there are flaws in it.



I say this because each part can be separated and evaluated without it affecting the other.

1) I say that it is a fine system because it adds extra point values to different strategic territories, making them the focal point of a players/teams strategy.

2) I say that it has a flaw because the strategic territories (the out-of-the-box Victory Cities) that are used in the system are, in my opinion, not the best choices.

It is similar to the analogy of having the best computer around, but if the information that you are putting in is flawed, then the information that comes out will be flawed. It is not the fault of the computer (the scoring system), it is the fact that the statement "garbage in, garbage out" (the choice of victory cities/territories) is in operation.

I could easily have applied the idea of bonus points to the Victory Territories that I have chosen. Then I would have a system similar in scoring to the one used at Origins, but the difference would be that the bonus territories would be in different places.

One other variable that is different from the Origins and GCI tournaments is that the event I am running has 4.5 hours to play a game in. Most games at Origins and CGI games are still going at the end of a tournament round because the time frame is only 3.75 hours.

Most of the games in the WBC event will either reach the 18 VTs threshold or will get to a point where someone will want to concede. I have come up with what I think will be the answer, from a scoring stand point, of what to do in the case of a concession. Thanks go out to my "guinea pigs" at Michicon for playing the games and telling me about your concerns.

I have the luxury of having more time than Greg does because I am only running one event. Also, I am running it over two days which allows for my having one day for pool play and another for the SE rounds. This extra time allows me to try to run a tournament that gives everyone a chance to play three games no matter what their record is. I think that this format deals with the frustration that a player would have in the case of losing once and their out.

As for the case of someone dropping out when they are 0-2 after two rounds, I would hope that it does not happen, but I am not naive enough to think that it won't happen. I am working from the position that most of the WBC player have come a long way to play and that they are commited enough to stick around for the whole day.

I will have a better handle on my ideas once I have run the event and I have seen how it plays out.

I have made the leap into the unknown and will see how it all comes out in one week.

No matter what position any of you have taken in this discussion, I am glad that you have participated. This is great that we are going over these kinds of issues so that we can make the A&A tournament circuit a better place. Ultimately, we are all trying to make it a better experience for all to enjoy!

Craig

[questioneer]

I am still confused on how you are coming up with the round numbers?

As I alluded to earlier, DE, would be a 10 round tourney with the final being two rounds, with 32 players/Teams. That is not going to happen.

If you play Swiss with this many people Max., then what one would have is 8 pools of 4. 3 Rounds of swiss and the best record advancing to SE. that would be 8 teams. You will still get people dropping if they lose 2 games. Regardless, then in SE, you will have 3 more rounds, giving you a total of 6 rounds. The absolute MAXIMUM amount of rounds we can play in 2 days.

So, with that being said, I believe it is impossible to sweak in a 7th round...And I would have to go back and agree with V-Disc, SE is the way to go...Make it to the top three in the Mega, then you get your chance to play in the MASTERS, Swiss/SE...

Hope this helps.
GS:)

GS,

DE and Swiss Pools are two different styles. DE will not work because you would need 2-3 extra rounds for byes- too many, thats where you get your 10 rounds from- Mighty Airforce apologized for opening that conversation.

Swiss only requires 1 extra round. I'm sorry, when I meant 64 MAN I meant 64 TEAMS - my fault.
Ex. For a 64 TEAM tourney (like you have at GenCon)

Day 1: 3 games of Swiss play in 16 pools of 4. (3 rounds)

Day 2: The winners of every pool will advance to SE. So on the 2nd day you will only have 16 teams competing in SE. (4 rounds)

3+4= 7 rounds

If you have 6 rounds at GenCon, your splitting up the tournament over 2 days anyway. My argument is only that it CAN be done. I understand if you say that you don't want to do it- that's your business, but to say that it can't be done, is your opinion.

Ex. 3hr.45min. rounds w/15 min for reset= 4hr rounds

Saturday 8am-12pm = 5 rounds (I've even heard from other players that games went on to 4am)

Sunday 8am-4pm = 2 rounds

It can't be done???

GS, I'm not trying to twist your arm here. I'm not even asking you to change the tourney. You seem pretty defensive. Its OK, people are entitled to their opinions, but get the facts right.

Peace
Questioneer :)

[smo63]

GS,

DE and Swiss Pools are two different styles. DE will not work because you would need 2-3 extra rounds for byes- too many, thats where you get your 10 rounds from- Mighty Airforce apologized for opening that conversation.

Swiss only requires 1 extra round. I'm sorry, when I meant 64 MAN I meant 64 TEAMS - my fault.
Ex. For a 64 TEAM tourney (like you have at GenCon)

Day 1: 3 games of Swiss play in 16 pools of 4. (3 rounds)

Day 2: The winners of every pool will advance to SE. So on the 2nd day you will only have 16 teams competing in SE. (4 rounds)

3+4= 7 rounds

If you have 6 rounds at GenCon, your splitting up the tournament over 2 days anyway. My argument is only that it CAN be done. I understand if you say that you don't want to do it- that's your business, but to say that it can't be done, is your opinion.

Ex. 3hr.45min. rounds w/15 min for reset= 4hr rounds

Saturday 8am-12pm = 5 rounds (I've even heard from other players that games went on to 4am)

Sunday 8am-4pm = 2 rounds

It can't be done???

GS, I'm not trying to twist your arm here. I'm not even asking you to change the tourney. You seem pretty defensive. Its OK, people are entitled to their opinions, but get the facts right.

Peace
Questioneer :)

Questioneer,

I do know the difference between Swiss and DE. I understand your point. Oh, and what do byes have to do with it?

But we will not be able to play 5 rounds on Saturday. 4 rounds most of the time takes you past midnight...if you want to stay up all night after two previous days of gaming tournaments, I offer you the job...

So in short, you may get 4 rounds on Sat. and two on Sunday.

GS:)

[squirecam]

Saturday 8am-12pm = 5 rounds (I've even heard from other players that games went on to 4am)

Sunday 8am-4pm = 2 rounds

It can't be done???



Thats just too much.

Jake and I had a Revised Mega game las year end at about 2 am. The tournament was supposed to start at 8, but was a bit late. But we were there from 7:45 or so ready to play until 2 a.m. That was bad enough.

Luckily, the next game wasnt until 10 the next day. It is unfair to ask those people to get up at 7:30 after playing until 4 a.m.

Squirecam

[V-Disc]

Easy boy, :mad: if you read my earlier statement, I only said its a matter of preference. I respectfully disagree with the last post. I'm tired of debating now. I'll think my way, you think yours. Also "RARE appearences" doesn't mean I don't play the game. Bad assumption on your part. :(

Questioneer


Questioneer -

Yes...We will have to agree to disagree. I undertstand that you are making a case for your preferences; while I was making an argument for what seems practical. I was not trying to say the set-ups you proposed lacked merit in anyway; just that they would be tough to put in place at a CON.

Regarding the "RARE apperarences" remark: That was a bit of friendly chiding at not seeing you that often at gaming get-togethers in our area; nothing more.

Don't be a stranger.

[Frog]

As I follow this discussion, and find it very fascinating, I'm not sure I fully follow some concepts. Here is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong on what something means.

1) SE= Single elimination. You win, keep playing until there is only one winner.
2) DE= Double elimination. You must lose twice before you are eliminated
3) SWISS= random grouping of play. You rotate in a pre-determined order before play starts. Best records then either have a second way of determining winner (pts. etc) , or a face off after the Swiss round is over.

??????yes?????NO??????maybe so???????

[pwt1997]

I too, will echo that this has been a great discussion/debate.

A thought just came to me, and if it's already happening, please let me know.

For those of you that enjoy Memoir '44 from Days of Wonder, they made a tournament, and packaged it for any one to use at different cons (in fact, they made special scenarios for the WBC). Anyways, my question is this:

Can AH/WOTC come up with a sanctioned A&A tournament? That way, if anyone wants to run a A&A tournament at a con, it will be the same no matter what - and easy to package and distribute to those running the tournament. The parent company (AH/WOTC) gets to maintain the game's integrity, and assure that the game they sold is the one getting played (to a certain degree).

Now the question becomes, can a system be agreed upon that AH/WOTC endorses?

Thoughts?

PT

I thought about starting a discussion about bid placements, but I'll save that for another time . . .

[Yoper]

Here is a basic description of some of the possible formats. This is from the GM guidelines for anyone who is going to GM an event at the World Boardgaming Championships. Some of the info is specific to that convention.

The full document can be accessed at this link:

http://www.boardgamers.org/gmguide.htm

FORMAT
The most practical format is usually Single Elimination. It is the fastest and easiest because there are less players in each round. However, the adherents of some games would rather keep playing even after they lose once so other formats may be preferable if you:
* Can handle the added complexity and time requirements.
* Realize that you can't limit the number of entrants at start.
* Maintain a safety margin to ensure that your event will end no later than Sunday at 4 PM.

The most common choices are:
SWISS ELIMINATION [Swiss-Elim]: Any system using a number of preliminary rounds in order to advance a pre-determined number of finalists into a Single-Elimination [SE] format. It is often used in conjunction with Multiple Heats to advance any winner of a Multi-Player game, but the determination of finalists can also involve alternates in the form of best second-place finishers as required to fill out the field for ideal SE play; say 25 players for a five-player game or four players for a two-player game. A fair method of breaking ties for the last qualifying position should be in place in advance and announced on the event Preview. The swiss rounds need to adhere to a strict starting time schedule, but the SE rounds can be scheduled at the convenience of the players and/or GM (within limits). This format is highly recommended for games with a devoted following which would be disappointed by early disqualification from a SE format.

SWISS: Any format of a pre-determined number of rounds in which players with the best records are paired against each other in every round. A fair and pre-publicized tie-breaking system is very important. Players are free to drop out after losing a game, but the rounds continue for those willing to stay. Due to the time required, this format is recommended only for games with the most ardent following and is usually reserved for dedicated mini-cons where there are no other events to siphon off players.

SINGLE ELIMINATION [SE]: Whether in two-player or multi-player games, you play until you lose a game. Multi-Player games often advance the highest runner-ups also in order to field the ideal number of players for the next round; i.e., five or 25 in a five-player game. The criteria for selecting the highest alternate scorers should be announced in advance. Brackets should be established from the outset rather than simply pairing winners as they finish; otherwise players can time their games to avoid playing someone. The hardest part of SE is thus making the brackets. Should it be done randomly, seeded by past performance, or some other criteria? That is up to you, but we strongly urge these considerations:
* If the brackets are random, make a public show of lottery-style drawings to convince people they are truly random.
* Split the field into two brackets such that Pool A will meet Pool B only in the final. Then allow players to mutually exclude one other player so that they are in different Pools. This accomodation should be made so that frequent opponents are not matched together early - no one wants to travel 1,000 miles to play their brother or neighbor.
* Determine how many games you have. If there are insufficient copies, do not match the game owners with each other. Have the game owners set up their games and hold drawings to find each of them an opponent.
An advantage to SE play with fixed brackets over Swiss formats is that when two matched winners finish they can start the next round early. SE two-player game events are usually set up for Continuous rounds, but in reality are the most flexible when it comes to creative scheduling of the final rounds for the player's convenience. SE is the ideal format for long games.

There are two schools of thought on head-to-head SE pairings. The traditional approach is to match the best against the worst through each bracket so that in a 16-player event, the top rated player opens against the 16th rated player. This results in the fastest games, but has the unfortunate side effect of not being much fun for the newbies who get fed to the sharks in the first round. It causes lop-sided games that are less fun for both players and tends to diminish the field for an event over the years as new players are discouraged from returning. The more enlightened approach is to match players of equal ability. The drawback is that three of the four best players in the event will be eliminated in the first two rounds and that the road to the final will become progressively easier. On the positive side, those eliminated early will be free to enter other events. You need to decide what is best for your particular group. In a multi-player game, the GM should make an effort to separate family and friends to avoid unfair alliances born of familiarity. Convention badges always include the hometown of each player to aid in such grouping decisions.

DOUBLE ELIMINATION [DE]: Effectively, two Single Elimination tournaments run in tandem with a winner's and loser's bracket. Losers move to the loser's tournament to play other losers until they're eliminated by a second loss. Rarely used due to its length, it guarantees players at least two games. Best used with short, two-player games.

LEAGUE: A form of Swiss tournament in which the entrants are divided into divisions and play everyone within their division with only division winners advancing to Single Elimination play.

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 cannot 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 a two-round single elimination format. 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.

Entrants may play any or every day during the 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 (semi-finals) - 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 the next day. 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 semi-final game at a convenient time; however, all semi-finals must be completed by 1800 hours of that day unless ALL semi-finalists 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 semi-final game.

OTHER: Miscellaneous formats such as Triple Elimination or various point schemes are occasionally requested, but are not advised and rarely accepted. Any system which allows an undefeated player to lose the tournament simply because he faced stronger competition and didn't win as easily as others against weaker competition is discouraged. If you must use such a format, be sure to specify details in advance how the event is to be scored.

Craig

[V-Disc]

Yoper,

Thanks for all the information.

So what would you call the setup/format at Michicon?

[V-Disc]

Yoper,

You've mentioned WHY you wanted to come up with the WBC format. Fill us in on HOW you came up with this set of Victory Territories.

What I like about this format is the balance. You've got the Axis and Allies each with 12 VT's; the combined IPC worth of each side is 56 IPCs. If you take the lions' share of these, you win. Why did you set the bar at 3/4 of the VTs?

What I didn't quite get was why certain territories were on this list and others were not. There are, I think, a pair of the out-of-box Victory cities that got the ax: Karelia and Kwangtung. Why were these not used as VTs in your system?

Here's the complete list for the WBC system -

GERMANY - GER, W. Europe, S Europe, E. Europe, UKR, and Norway
JAPAN - JPN, FIC, Manchuria, Phillipines, East Indies, and Borneo

USSR - Russia, Caucussus, Archangel, and Novosibirsk
U.K. - United Kingdom, India, Anglo-Egypt, and Australia
U.S.A - Eastern US, Western US, Hawaii, and Sinkiang

Everything on this list makes sense to me; with three exceptions: Manchuria, Norway and Novosibirsk. What was behind the decision to go with these three?

See Ya!

[smo63]

I too, will echo that this has been a great discussion/debate.

A thought just came to me, and if it's already happening, please let me know.

For those of you that enjoy Memoir '44 from Days of Wonder, they made a tournament, and packaged it for any one to use at different cons (in fact, they made special scenarios for the WBC). Anyways, my question is this:

Can AH/WOTC come up with a sanctioned A&A tournament? That way, if anyone wants to run a A&A tournament at a con, it will be the same no matter what - and easy to package and distribute to those running the tournament. The parent company (AH/WOTC) gets to maintain the game's integrity, and assure that the game they sold is the one getting played (to a certain degree).

Now the question becomes, can a system be agreed upon that AH/WOTC endorses?

Thoughts?

PT

I thought about starting a discussion about bid placements, but I'll save that for another time . . .

We have been working on that since just before Revised came out. WotC really wanted to sanction AA for last years CON. But, seeing that there was a judication process for games that one needed to know the game well in order to judicate, they did not believe that was an option for sanctioning. Hence, one of the reason we came up with the VC Bonus and IPC victory condition. Now, a game can be determined without a judication process. The winner is clear cut. Either 9VC or the IPC victory. The only thing now, is making it official in the OM as sanctioned tournament rules. And that my friend, is up to WotC/AH...

At this time, I believe they want to see how this year pans out...then maybe next year...

GS:)

[Yoper]

Yoper,

You've mentioned WHY you wanted to come up with the WBC format. Fill us in on HOW you came up with this set of Victory Territories.

What I like about this format is the balance. You've got the Axis and Allies each with 12 VT's; the combined IPC worth of each side is 56 IPCs. If you take the lions' share of these, you win. Why did you set the bar at 3/4 of the VTs?

What I didn't quite get was why certain territories were on this list and others were not. There are, I think, a pair of the out-of-box Victory cities that got the ax: Karelia and Kwangtung. Why were these not used as VTs in your system?

Here's the complete list for the WBC system -

GERMANY - GER, W. Europe, S Europe, E. Europe, UKR, and Norway
JAPAN - JPN, FIC, Manchuria, Phillipines, East Indies, and Borneo

USSR - Russia, Caucussus, Archangel, and Novosibirsk
U.K. - United Kingdom, India, Anglo-Egypt, and Australia
U.S.A - Eastern US, Western US, Hawaii, and Sinkiang

Everything on this list makes sense to me; with three exceptions: Manchuria, Norway and Novosibirsk. What was behind the decision to go with these three?

See Ya!

V-Disc-
This all started when Greg Smorey asked earlier in the year about different ideas concerning the adjudication of tournament games. The set of conditions that were used last year at Origins and Gen Con Indy needed to be tweaked in response to how things went.

Greg passed along his thoughts about the situation. He talked about the problem with using just straight Victory Cities for determining the winner.

That started me thinking about the issue. I had a couple of early ideas on making the existing VCs have variable values, some worth one point, some worth two points, and capitals worth three points. I spent a lot of time trying to get these versions to balance out. I was not totally satisfied with the any of the ideas, but was unsure where to go with it. Greg then sent along an early version of the system he now uses. He and Larry Harris had been talking about the issue and had come up with this solution.

I could see that it was similar to direction that I had been going and was a good fix to the problem.

To me though, it didn't seem to feel exactly right. I never liked some of the choices for the VCs and the limited number of VCs narrowed the list of ones that could reasonably be captured. Games quickly degenerated into a race to get Leningrad and India, under the 8 VC conditions that were used last year. Even a bump to 9 VC conditions would only push the issue into deciding whether Moscow can be reached.

The variable values of the VCs in the Harris/Smorey system coupled with the IPC totals helps to mitigate the focused play of a VCs only game, but as I stated early, it still hinges on the use of the out-of-the-box VCs. I felt that there was more that could be done and I started from a different angle.

I looked at the gameboard and worked to come up with key territories for each country. I knew that there should be more key territories than the twelve victory cities that came with the game, but was unsure what number to go with. I decided to just start laying out control markers to see what I could come up with.

First was the UK: UK, Anglo-Egypt, India, Australia.

Okay. Seems easy. That's four, but is that the number I want? I decided to try it for the USSR. I could not easily decide which way to go with the Soviets, so I set them aside. I then went with the USA.

USA: Eastern US, Western US.

Hmmm. China? That's were Chungking would be, but it is just too close to the three coastal Japanese territories. I fudged the location of were Chungking is and went with Sinkiang. (Hell, if the WotC revision team can put Moscow in the Urals, why can't I move Chungking west a little?)

I finally went with the Hawaiian Islands to give me four. That was a little tougher but I was still moving along.

This train of thinking was lending itself to having twelve Victory Territories for each side. That is if I got four for the USSR.

It seemed like the logical path to be on because you couldn't just add one VT to each country to get more areas of importance. You would then have an imbalance in the number of key territories for each side. It would be two more for the Axis, but three more for the Allies. I figured there had to be an equal number for each side just like the original VCs. The next possible number that would divide the VCs/VTs into an even number for each of the individual countries was twelve per side (twenty-four total).

With that in mind, I then went to Germany. Wow! Look at that! The number of core European territories is- six!

Germany: Germany, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Balkans, and Ukraine SSR. Looks good!

Now onto the Japanese.

Japan: Japan, Manchuria, Kwangtung, French Indochina, Philippine Islands, and East Indies. Hey! Moving right along!

Now back to the USSR. There are many reasons why I found it so hard to come up with VTs for the Soviet. First is the fact that the map is so screwy when it comes to depicting the geography of the Eastern Front. Moscow should be in the Belorussia territory. That along with the fact that, unlike other countries, the loss of Moscow was not going to knock the USSR out of the war. The point is that creative mapmaking makes it difficult to come up with four VTs that I could live with.

My biggest disagreement with the Victory City choices also comes into play here: Leningrad!!!! Yes, it was an important city, but in the scale of this game, it doesn't work. Because of the way many of the games were playing out in my experiences and from the anecdotal evidence that Greg was relaying to me, Leningrad as a VC was a joke.

Now that I have gotten that out of my system, you will see my stubbornness not to use that territory as a VT in the proper light.

I started with Russia and Caucasus. I was stuck. What else was there? Karelia was out!!! I decided that Archangel symbolized the Lend-Lease that came in from the North Atlantic and that it was one territory farther away from Norway or Eastern Europe. Not to mention the fact that most Soviet players take back West Russia on the first turn and solidify their line of defense along the Archangel-West Russia-Caucasus north-south axis.

Now for the fourth territory. While Kazakh SSR was the path of the southern Lend-Lease route, I decided that the Novosibirsk territory was situated such that it was three spaces away from either a Japanese central drive into Asia or a northern Japanese drive through the Soviet Far East. I felt it balanced out the USSR from East to West better than Kazakh SSR.

Now I had the twelve for each side.

After the preliminary group of VTs was determined, I start to compare the two sides and how they would hold up during play. I quickly saw that the Axis were very compact, while the Allies were hanging out there. Yes, I had pulled back from using Leningrad, but had hung Cairo out to dry! I was not going to change the use of Anglo-Egypt as a VT, but I had to look at making the Axis a bit more vulnerable.

Germany was the most compact of the two Axis and I decided that there needed to be a change. I chose to make Norway a target, but I had to decide which territory would lose VT status. I decided that the Balkans was the least important of the continental areas.

Japan then came under scrutiny. What to add and what to take away? Adding a place that was hanging out there was easy. Borneo was another grape on the vine- ripe for plucking! Who would be the loser though? It came down to, in my mind, French Indochina or Kwangtung. I kept the one that was closer to edge. The one right next to the "Jewel of the Empire". I felt it meant more to the flow of the game than Kwangtung. Manchuria is important because of its position on the board and for the resources that it sent to the Japanese war machine.

With those changes, I came to my final list. It was just a coincidence that the IPCs for the VTs worked out to be the same.

As for the use of 18 VTs as a victory condition, I chose the 3/4 cut as a point where the game is pretty much won if you have and hold that many. Someone asked why I didn't use 16 VTs as the level to reach. Take the scenario in which the Axis have taken these four VTs: Anglo-Egypt, Australia, Hawaiian Islands, and Sinkiang. The only VT that has to be reached by going through another territory (China) is Sinkiang. So the Axis could have four of the Allied VTs, but they would have only gone up 9 IPCs in income! This is an unusual example, but a possible one.

Ultimately, I came up with this system so that the game had a better, more balanced flow. One that gets rid of the "screwy" gambits that seemed to be cropping up in tournament play. Having more territories that "matter" lessens the problem of one or two territories controlling the whole game. More key territories means that there can be more strategies for winning the game.

Another factor was the fact that at the same time all this scoring system discussion was happening, I was in communication with the former GM of the A&A event at the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC). I was trying to find out how he was going to run the tournament using the new edition. (It was not used last year since it had not been released by the beginning of the year (January 2004). WBC rules.) Since I was so insistent in my inquiries, he eventually asked me if I wanted to run the event. The rest is history!

Take all this into consideration when thinking about what goes into making a up a system for judging a game like A&A in a setting like a competitive tournament.

"I want more money! What? I'm a volunteer GM? Who came up with that idea? Aw, man!!!!!! This sucks!!!!!" ;)

Craig

[Yoper]

Just a side note- Make sure your posts are less than 10,000 characters long. Otherwise, it will be too big for you to post. ;)

Craig

[questioneer]

Questioneer,

I do know the difference between Swiss and DE. I understand your point. Oh, and what do byes have to do with it?

But we will not be able to play 5 rounds on Saturday. 4 rounds most of the time takes you past midnight...if you want to stay up all night after two previous days of gaming tournaments, I offer you the job...

So in short, you may get 4 rounds on Sat. and two on Sunday.

GS:)

You're more sensible than I thought. Right, with your schedule of tourneys, I guess that is the best you can do. I stand corrected. :o

Next topic: Get my rear end to GenCon next year!!!!

Questioneer.

[questioneer]

Thats just too much.

Jake and I had a Revised Mega game las year end at about 2 am. The tournament was supposed to start at 8, but was a bit late. But we were there from 7:45 or so ready to play until 2 a.m. That was bad enough.

Luckily, the next game wasnt until 10 the next day. It is unfair to ask those people to get up at 7:30 after playing until 4 a.m.

Squirecam

Thanks for the explanation, that brought me to the conclusion I stated on my last post. :o

Questioneer

P.S. Now, I know that GSmorey is not able to do any kind of Swiss with his schedule. However, I still think it is a slightly better way to play, but in reality there isn't that much of a significant difference. :)

[questioneer]

Questioneer -

Yes...We will have to agree to disagree. I undertstand that you are making a case for your preferences; while I was making an argument for what seems practical. I was not trying to say the set-ups you proposed lacked merit in anyway; just that they would be tough to put in place at a CON.

Regarding the "RARE apperarences" remark: That was a bit of friendly chiding at not seeing you that often at gaming get-togethers in our area; nothing more.

Don't be a stranger.

No offense taken V-Disc, I just like to banter with people on certain things. In reality though, I got too much time on my hands to be yapping on these posts anyway- it must be summer.

Q-ball :D

[questioneer]

As I follow this discussion, and find it very fascinating, I'm not sure I fully follow some concepts. Here is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong on what something means.

1) SE= Single elimination. You win, keep playing until there is only one winner.
2) DE= Double elimination. You must lose twice before you are eliminated
3) SWISS= random grouping of play. You rotate in a pre-determined order before play starts. Best records then either have a second way of determining winner (pts. etc) , or a face off after the Swiss round is over.

??????yes?????NO??????maybe so???????

Hey Frog, sorry to turn your post into a year long discussion on tourny formats, but yeah your right. I am a supporter of Swiss pool play which is 3 rounds of pool play and then the winners of each pool face off in SE. DE is too long, probably made for a several days.

Questioneer :( I'm getting tired of this thread, I wore myself out.

[questioneer]

Can AH/WOTC come up with a sanctioned A&A tournament? That way, if anyone wants to run a A&A tournament at a con, it will be the same no matter what - and easy to package and distribute to those running the tournament. The parent company (AH/WOTC) gets to maintain the game's integrity, and assure that the game they sold is the one getting played (to a certain degree).

Now the question becomes, can a system be agreed upon that AH/WOTC endorses?

Thoughts?

PT



Can a system be agreed upon, probably not. In chess the USCF sanctions all tourney, but different variations are allowed: Round Robin, Swiss and some SE. I can't see AH/WotC ever getting to that point over Axis and Allies. Style (SE, DE, Swiss) should be up to the GM of the tourney, but we should agree and just all try to use the same rules (LHTR with VC bonuses by Larry Harris). It would benefit all tourneys and we could work together. Greater interest and popularity for the game would spread.

Q-time :)

[Yoper]

I thought you were tired of this thread?;)

Craig

[questioneer]

I thought you were tired of this thread?;)

Craig

I am but you guys SOOOOOO interesting with this geeky stuff. Great explaination of your system. I understand a little better, the method behind your madness. The question is: Can you get everyone to agree with the choices you made for VTs. Good luck. Make sure you and the others at WBC post with plenty of feedback for your system. It will be interesting stuff

Q-baby :cool:

P.S. Maybe this thread will NEVER end.
(song) "This is the thread that never ends,
and it goes on and on my friend,
somebody started writing it not know what it was (Frog)
and everybody followed up with thoughts of theirs because...
This is the thread that never ends,
and it goes on and on my friend..."

[Yoper]

A&A geek? Guilty, as charged! ;)

Craig

[smo63]

You're more sensible than I thought. Right, with your schedule of tourneys, I guess that is the best you can do. I stand corrected. :o

Next topic: Get my rear end to GenCon next year!!!!

Questioneer.

I guess after going at it for 12 years now, I would hope that I have a handle on what can and can not be done at a CON in four days.

I do appreciate your commens and thoughts. If I could get a swiss in with the amount of possible players...I would love to. I even like the thought of a DE tourney, but the time is just not there...

Yoper Man...you are the meticulate AA guru...those last two threads. Man, print a book and make some money...thanks for all the hard work.

And yes, thanks for taking the time to sit down and thinking things out when I asked for some good ideas...IT IS WELL APPRECIATED. I could not have gotten were I have without the insights and support of great AA minds as yourself.

Peace,
GS:)

[V-Disc]

Germany: Germany, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Balkans, and Ukraine SSR. Looks good!


"I want more money! What? I'm a volunteer GM? Who came up with that idea? Aw, man!!!!!! This sucks!!!!!" ;)

Craig

Hey Partner,

Thanks for the insight; and for the attention to detail.

Your list of GER VTs in this post includes the Balkans. Everywhere else the WBC format lists Norway as one of the six GER VTs. Your post explains your decision to go with Manchuria and Novosibirsk. What happened to Norway?

P.S - Yes. You deserve a raise. Remember the lunch I bought you at Michicon? Hope it was tasty! Seriously my man, thanks for all the effort.

Game On!

[Yoper]

V-Disc-

"Germany was the most compact of the two Axis and I decided that there needed to be a change. I chose to make Norway a target, but I had to decide which territory would lose VT status. I decided that the Balkans was the least important of the continental areas."

What part of this paragraph isn't clear as to the status of Norway as a VT? ;)

It is a long post so you might have missed this info. :)

That sandwich was tasty!!! Thanks.

Craig

[questioneer]

After reading your God awful long post on how you got VTs, I am reconsidering your ideas. When I played your system, I was indifferent to it, however I still favored Smorey/Harris way because everyone uses it and it is a little easier to keep track of. However, your system increases the number of "Victory Cities" (Territories) so to speak in order for teams in tournaments to increase the chances of victory using the primary method of winning- gaining Victory cities (territories), which is much better than IPC victory.

In other words, in Smorey's/Harris system, most games will not end in a 9VC win. They will have count up IPC w/bonuses. This leads to a crazy, unstrategic, suicidal, insane, scrapping so I can win frenzy of IPCs in the last round. Not very pretty to watch.

Most games in your system (from what little I have experienced at MichCon), will actually end in a 18VT win. If there is not one side that has 18VT than you go to IPC victory, which shouldn't be often. Again, this may not be the case at WBC, but I know that you are going to take careful stats like you were doing at MichCon.

If 80-90% of the games end with one side having the 18VT to win and not have to go to IPC victory count, than this is a VERY good system. If evidence lends itself to a much smaller percentage like 25-40% or something then it is no better than Smorey/Harris system. (Why 25-40%? Because it seems that only about a 1/4 or a 1/3 of the games I have heard of in tournament play using the Smorey/Harris way actually win by 9VCs- most I hear have to use IPC victory w/bonusus).

In short...
If your system reduces the chances for the "mad IPC rush" in tourneys significantly, then your system must be considered for all tourneys. If not, well at least you tried, we'll laugh at you later. :D
If your system goes over well with good testing then all you have to worry about is getting guys like Larry Harris and Greg Smorey to agree with you on what territories should be "victory territories". Good luck!!! :)

Right on Q

[smo63]

A

In other words, in Smorey's/Harris system, most games will not end in a 9VC win. They will have count up IPC w/bonuses. This leads to a crazy, unstrategic, suicidal, insane, scrapping so I can win frenzy of IPCs in the last round. Not very pretty to watch.



Yes, most games will not end with a 9VC win...but I completely disagree with your theory, on suicidal insanity(well maybe in Yopers case there might be an agruement but...)

Yes, there are SOME moves in last turn to assure victory that would normally not be made, but for the most part, by this time, there is only one or two battles that occur to secure victory and the only difference is that they might happen a little sooner than one would anticipate...And I have yet to see a game were teams are sitting counting up IPC points before the last rounds to ensure victory and wasting time in the process. It is mostly known before you start Russia's turn what needs to be done...

I believe that in most tournament games with time limits, that happens all the time. Why wouldn't someone that knows the end is near with little hope to win, do things against the norm and go for a victory.

Have you ever heard of a hail Mary in football, maybe a pinch batter in the 9th in Baseball, pulling your goalie with 2:00 to go in hockey...?

I have and would?

GS:)

[pwt1997]

Great stuff here -

Reading the dissertation on VTs, and Smorey's defense of VCs, I wanted to add one thing:

Keep in mind that VTs changes the victory conditions of the game we all bought from the store. VCs do not. As a purist, this has to be taken into consideration when trying to make a tournament format that most A&A players will participate in. There has to be consistency from the game I bought and play at home, and the game I play in a tournament setting.

If you have to change the victory conditions of the game to make it work for a tournament, I suggest you head back to the drawing board.

Just my two cents.

PT

[Yoper]

1) The Smorey/Harris system is good because it combines the two variables into a nice balance so that the scoring is is not weighed too much one way or the other.

My VT system determines unfinished games by 1) VTs held/taken and then by 2) IPC increase. I will also be keeping track of the above information from each game to be used as tie-breakers in determining the Pool winners and for later use in determining the seeding in the SE brackets and for any byes that might crop up later in the SE play.

2) Greg- My first game at Origins was a perfect example of it coming down to the wire and me making moves as the Japanese to take the proper amount of territories, hit USA land units so that they could not take back territories, and blocking USA naval units so that they could not amphibiously assault other territories. These were not good long term moves but they worked within the tournament setting. Nature of the beast.

3) Paul- I love ya and I really appreciate your critical, yet constructive, criticism. The problem I have with your argument is the fact that just because it came with the game doesn't make it right or good. It just makes it first. I think that the VC system is flawed, as I have stated before. I came up with what I think is better and will continue to use it until I am shown that it is untenable.

I think that the game company and game designer should go back to the drawing board and rethink their choices! They are not going to do that without someone showing them that there is a better system. They probably will never change, or at least it will take another twenty years! I am not going to wait that long just to find out they have screwed it up again.

I am sorry that you do not like it, but I think that I am right. I hope that I can eventually win you over to my way of thinking. If not, well, I will still enjoy gaming with you and debating these kinds of topics. :)

Craig

[Mighty Airforce]

I've been following this thread with some interest. I have been trying to reserve judgement till I see how GenCon plays out, but I want to throw in my 2 cents on a couple things. I'd say I mainly back PWT1997's views. I'll try to give my reasons.


3)...the fact that just because it came with the game doesn't make it right or good. It just ...
This strikes me as a bit odd. If there's one thing all Axis and Allies players would have in common, it would be that they like the game they bought and play. Seems to me that changes should be as small as possible.

I agree some kind of change needs to be made in order to impose a time limit, but I feel that fundamentally, I'd like to see the changes be as small as possible to get the job done, maintaining the integrity of the game.

I am sorry that you do not like it, but I think that I am right. I hope that I can eventually win you over to my way of thinking.

Again, I think the best policy is to change the game as little as possible. For example, if I was to organise something, I wouldn't make sweeping changes just because I feel they are right. If I think fighters are too cheap, I wouldn't raise the price of them for my tournament. I'd strive to make only changes that are necessary.

This critisim might sound harsh, I'm not saying that I greatly dislike your system. I haven't played with your system. I might actually like it, but I disagree with how you justify your changes.

[Yoper]

Mighty- I would rather not change a thing if I had my way. It would make my life easier as a GM running a tournament.

But, when we were presented with a game that had some serious problems that came from a less than successful revision process, we need to make some serious choices.

They (WotC/Mike Selinker) did a poor job with the rule book. People recognized it and now we have the LHTR.

Greg Smorey saw that the out-of-the-box victory conditions would not work in a tournament setting and then spent time working with Larry Harris to find a solution.

I feel that the Victory Cities, that come with the game, are wrong. I have come up with an alternate set of victory condition. I have not changed any of the game mechanics, just the focal points of a side's strategy.

It may seem that I am being harsh or brusque. That is not my intention, I am just showing my passion for the game and for what I believe in. Paul is a good egg and I do not want to offend him in any manner.

Craig

[squirecam]

Mighty- I would rather not change a thing if I had my way. It would make my life easier as a GM running a tournament.

But, when we were presented with a game that had some serious problems that came from a less than successful revision process, we need to make some serious choices.

They (WotC/Mike Selinker) did a poor job with the rule book. People recognized it and now we have the LHTR.

Greg Smorey saw that the out-of-the-box victory conditions would not work in a tournament setting and then spent time working with Larry Harris to find a solution.

I feel that the Victory Cities, that come with the game, are wrong. I have come up with an alternate set of victory condition. I have not changed any of the game mechanics, just the focal points of a side's strategy.

It may seem that I am being harsh or brusque. That is not my intention, I am just showing my passion for the game and for what I believe in. Paul is a good egg and I do not want to offend him in any manner.

Craig

Woa !!

Easy there tiger.

Defending your method is one thing. What you're doing amounts to the Blitz bombing campaign.

There was an error in allowing the OOB HB rule to stand. This was rectified in the LHTR. But the VC and tournament conditions work perfectly well for Origins and will do so at GCI. Your method is different. Which is great and I support you in your efforts. But dont try to say that LHTR are faulty in some way. I've had enough of that crap with the negative campaigning enhanced cultists. The VC/IPC method works fine.

Squirecam

[Yoper]

Squirecam- "But don't try to say that LHTR are faulty in some way."

I did not say anything about the LHTR being faulty.

As for the Smorey/Harris VC/IPCs victory conditions that were used at Origins, I thought it worked fine. I just have been saying that it is still based on the out-of-the-box Victory Cities, which I think are less than optimal. The system goes a long way towards minimalizing the negative impact that the VCs have on the game.

"Blitz bombing campaign"? I am just stating my position.

Craig

[Frog]

Hey, I got to thinking about this discussion. I have a conclusion.

If someone were to win at Michicon, and get say 3rd place at Origins, wouldn't that show they were a well rounded player??? Someone who can win at many different settings and victory conditions??

Just a thought.

[Moderator Sinister]

Maybe this is crazy and not cost effective but could a tournament just use timers?

for instance...

Every player has 6 minutes to execute their turn. During the combat phase the timer is turned off and restarted on the NCM phase. If the timer goes off the player must stop, place his newly built units, and collect income.

Then it's a simple matter of counting VCs at the end of the match time? Highest number wins. Sudden death round if there's a tie. There can't be any stalling thanks to a timer system and if a team is losing they can "hurry" their turn in order to gain some match time?

This might not be a practical solution its just a theory. I would think this kind of approach would make each game very exciting and intense. I also think a simple "land grabbing" strategy designed to cash out an win on VCs might not work because you would have to hold these areas until the end of match time to win.

[V-Disc]

Hey, I got to thinking about this discussion. I have a conclusion.

If someone were to win at Michicon, and get say 3rd place at Origins, wouldn't that show they were a well rounded player??? Someone who can win at many different settings and victory conditions??

Just a thought.

"Just thinking"...huh? "Well rounded player"...indeed.

You do know we'll be gunning for ya now. I guess we'll have to declare open huntin' season for Frog!; giving new meaning to the phrase "amphibious assault".

[Frog]

"Just thinking"...huh? "Well rounded player"...indeed.

You do know we'll be gunning for ya now. I guess we'll have to declare open huntin' season for Frog!; giving new meaning to the phrase "amphibious assault".


I'm used to it. My big mouth usually gets the pot stirred and emotions high. I look forward to any and all competition.

[smo63]

Maybe this is crazy and not cost effective but could a tournament just use timers?

Sinister, we have spoke often about this subject and the same question has been asked many times. The answer to this point has been no. First off, WotC will not supply the timers. So, we will make some wanting to play provide them. That is not a good idea either due to the fact that you will get all different kinds and some might not work. And I will not supply them as well...

Then there is the issue of game play. Most people if not any, play with timers. The game was not intended for that type of play, hence one of the main reasons why we don't...

Hope this helps.
GS:)

[Moderator Sinister]

Sinister, we have spoke often about this subject and the same question has been asked many times. The answer to this point has been no. First off, WotC will not supply the timers. So, we will make some wanting to play provide them. That is not a good idea either due to the fact that you will get all different kinds and some might not work. And I will not supply them as well...

Then there is the issue of game play. Most people if not any, play with timers. The game was not intended for that type of play, hence one of the main reasons why we don't...

Hope this helps.
GS:)


Well WotC not suppling timers is a resonable excuse. They would all need to be the same kind of timer and in proper working order to ensure fairness. Cost and reliability could be a huge problem.

I'd argue the second point however. I'd rather be put on a timer and get further into the game (more rounds) than play the same standard 5 turns every match. Maybe I don't play enough competitively but I like the later rounds of an A&A game more than playing the first 3 and 4 turns over and over. I think Axis and Allies was a game meant to be played until there is a clear cut victor and not decided on 8 or 9 VCs where it's still possible that the losing side could turn things around.

In fact I'd love to see a tournament setup with 2 - 3 kinds of set-ups (1939, 1941, 1942) and you were handed a setup not knowing what it would be until you sat down.

Of course I'm not advacating a change for major tournaments just perhaps some ideas for innovative play.

[squirecam]

I'm used to it. My big mouth usually gets the pot stirred and emotions high. I look forward to any and all competition.

GCI in August.

Be there !!!

Squirecam

[questioneer]

I think Axis and Allies was a game meant to be played until there is a clear cut victor and not decided on 8 or 9 VCs where it's still possible that the losing side could turn things around.



Very, very true and since AARevised came out we have been debating on how to come up with balanced victory conditions for tournaments. The game with its OM and the LHTR is very solid. The problem is when you get to tourneys and our debates have been all based on that issue of TIME: # of rounds, timers, other victory conditions that can fit into the 4hr. time frame like IPC/w bonuses and VTs.

I support your idea for timers and just placing units and collecting income if you go past 6min., however it is not a popular one. The only other way is to expand the playing time to 5-6hrs. and that is not gonna happen at a tourney unless it has 4 or less rounds- I would like to try them both at a small scale tourney.

I do think that the best we have right now is the Smorey/Harris tourney system for victory conditions. However, I think that they can be improved upon- too many IPC victories I think. :)

Q-tip

[smo63]

Thanks for the comments guys...I know that many have their own ideas of how to run a tournament and I will be the first to say that what we do is probably not perfect either, but after years of seeing what works and what doesn't, one is extremely limited to what we can do.

There are factors that must be considered everytime we sit down to plan an event tournament and time is one of the biggest issues.

I would love to hear suggestions of the sort and I am always open to new ideas. Heck, that is one reason that things have always changed. For example, the Masters, changing the game from 8VC to 9VC with the IPC's...many of these ideas come from you guys the players. We just take them and fit them into a system the best way possible.

As for the timers, I personally have never played in a chess tournament with timers. But one of my good friends that is an old time AA player has. He has always told me that timers were a questionable at best solution to tourney play in AA...

So, whatever it is worth, again, thanks for the comments and we will continue using them to better the tourneys...

GS:)

[smo63]

GCI in August.

Be there !!!

Squirecam

Just over two weeks...it is not too late. If you are just considering it, go for it. It is a wonderful time and worth every penny. If anyone has any quesitons regarding the AA tourneys, let me know and I will get them answered...

GS:)