Kuniworth Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I really likes to play SC but either if I do it by TCP/IP or PBEM it takes time. However the rules in the PBEM-league means you play 25-30 games as allies without any bidding-system. Thats a waste of time on my part. So if this will stay like this I must unfortunately quit the league. Regards / Kuniworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Kuniworth: So if this will stay like this I must unfortunately quit the league. Me thinks you may have misread the fine print there. You will play an equal amount as axis that you will play as allies. Understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 17, 2003 Author Share Posted July 17, 2003 yes I understand, but frankly 25-30 games as allies without the bid is´nt my cup of tea as I see it as a waste of time if the players are somewhat equally good. Allies will lose and I just dont got the will or time for it. But maybe your rules will develop new strategies for allies to survive so we can drop houseruloes and bidding in the future. Till then you know my position on this matter. I quit the league. best wishes / Kuni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 For the PBEM league, the basic game isn't the one we will play everytime, mods will also be played. The decision on what to play is up the players involved in the match. The main reason for the league is to provide a large subset of players that were interested in PBEM, allowing a list to be formed of opponents, and a way to figure out who were advance players, thus the ability to group players by their skill level, with the bottom line being having fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oak Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 First, the rules and set-up for the PBEM List/League stand. Second, Kuniworth's view is that the Allies are at a considerable disadvantage in SC and can only win if given extra MPP to make up for that disadvantage. When I first started playing SC, that was my view as well. But, I've come to realize that this is not the case and that the game is quite balanced. If anything, the Allies probably have a slight advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Here my 2 cents: it depends on the player skills which side has an advantage or if it is balanced(both players equally skilled, I dont mean if one is more advanced as the other): - 2 new/inexperienced players against each other: Axis has a clear advantage, cause Allies need a clear strategy from the beginning to win. Axis have more mpp to make experiments. As long as Allies dont really know how to use their forces it is difficult to win for them. Allies have to play totally different than Axis, they are superior in number and mpp, but have some potentially strong weapons and higher mobility. - 2 intermediate players: When both players have learned how to play each side, then Allies have a slight advantage. The secret to success for Allies is reconnaissance and surprise. They can choose between a lot of different tactics and as long as Axis dont know the counter they succeed. In the first game against the opponent Allies have a good chance to surprise Axis and win the game, in the next game they should choose another tactic to win, cause there exists a counter to every strategy. Flexibility is important to win. -2 experienced players: When the Axis player knows every possible allied strategy and tactic + the according counterstrategy, then the balance shifts again towards Axis. As said before: Allies are inferior in number and mpp, their best chance to win is with their better weapons and the surprise factor in the original 1939 scenario. To surprise an experienced player is very seldom. Its only a slight advantage for Axis, but if both sides dont make any mistakes Axis would win - but every human makes mistakes, so the side that makes the biggest mistake looses, its a thing of setting traps and avoiding to go into an enemy trap . However, against an experienced player like Zappsweden or Rambo I would never play without a bid in a competition game. This evens out the slight advantage for Axis and also determines who plays which side. But in this PBEM league games are for fun and most players are not so experienced. After a few games everone should have learned how to play Allies and then the game is balanced. Until a player has learned all possible tactics, so that Axis are again in the advantage it needs a lot of games (50-100 depending on the opponents and learning curve). Therefore bidding doesnt seem necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oak Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Although the sides are assigned, that doesn't mean that the Allies cannot be given a MPP advantage. If we reach the point where everyone is at the level of Terif, Zapp or Rambo then we can set an agreed amount of additional MPP for the Allies. However, I think it will be a long time before that happens. It appears that we have quite a lot of beginners on the PBEM List, we a fair number of intermediate players as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oak Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Forgot to add that the whole purpose of this is to have fun. My thinking in setting this up is that everyone plays a bunch of games alternating between Axis and Allies. After everyone has had a chance to play everyone else, they will have an understanding of who they would like to play and the levels that everyone is at. The result should be that it is easier for people to find opponents for fun, enjoyable PBEM games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reepicheep Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Good stuff, fellas. Ultimately, the fairest method would be to use mirrored rounds- both players playing two games, one as Axis and one as Allies- and then compare the performances in both to determine a single winner of the round. Ergo, it would take two games to determine a single win/loss score. My main question for that would be tiebreaking in case each player, say, won as the Axis. What would count? MPP's per turn? Speed of victory? Low losses? Final score? Note that it would also encourage people to play games longer; for the longer you delay defeat, the better chance you have to win the round if you can do better as the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Reepicheep Now here is an idea we should seriously consider. Play two games, one each side, to determine who the "winner" is. Anyone want to tackle the difficult part about what the winning conditions are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oak Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Good ideas ... but let's keep things simple. Right now, the focus is on getting a bunch of people together playing SC via PBEM, and making it easier for them to find opponents. Many on the list (notice that I refer to it as a List, and not a League or Ladder) are fairly new to the game and looking for opponents that can help them enjoy this great and exciting game. As that list is developed and a good group of players is developed, we can then start organizing tournaments, ladders, etc. In setting up those tournaments and/or ladders we can explore the issue of how sides are assigned and the issue of advantage/disadvantage for one side or another. One option is the bidding system used by the Z-Ladder. Another option is the 2-game approach being discussed above. At the end of the game victory points are assigned and that seems to be the best criteria for assigning points to a win. If it is a draw, then there a variety of ways to measure results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts