Z-League house rule votings. EVERY Z-LEAGUE PLAYER PLEASE VOTE.

[zappsweden]

I am scrapping the current house rule and will put the house rule issue to a Vote. House rules is game behaviour (contrary to league behaviour), so every player have their say (vote).

CONDITIONS:

Since this is Z-League House Rules, only ranked (known) Z-League players can vote. At leist half of the ranked players must vote if changes are to be made.

1. Should Rambo Rome Invasion be forbidden (DOW Italy and taking Rome and Italy out of the war without Italy having one turn to respond)?

2. Should Italy DOW+landing (Italian Gambit) be forbidden)?

3. Should Russia DOW+landing on same turn be forbidden?

4. Should USA DOW+landing on same turn be forbidden?

5. Should Allies be forbidden to DOW on Low Countries on TURN ONE?

6. Should Allies be forbidden to DOW Spain before Axis have got their minors (Spain gambit)?

7. Should there be any other country where DOW+landing is forbidden on same turn (if yes, which countries) ?

99. Should there be any other house rules (if yes, what rules?) ?

[ November 06, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

#2 --- Opens up an avenue for the Allies. Changes the game a little bit. It's been so long since I've done that move. Lets lift this one.

The rest, I'll think on.

[Sombra]

Not a member of Z-League yet....

But "1" should be certainly forbidden and "3" perhaps...

Other houserules suggestions if you want some:

- No DOW and attacking the same turn.

- No DOW and seabore invasions the same turn

- Limit Airfleets a la "Limited game"

- No embark, disembark attack... (Suez, Tangiers...

- Veteran players should always loose their first game against beginners to not frighten them

[Dragonheart]

I already wrote my opinion in the other tread.

I would forbid everything.....as all mentioned things will be the reason for an early end of the game.

I would change the biddingsystem to a 1:4:8 system (GB:US:Russia)

@ sombra .soll das eine Anspielung sein?

[ November 06, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Dragonheart ]

[zappsweden]

post like this (else your votes wont count)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

99.

You can also add comments after your answer like

20. YES (blablabla)

I need clarity on the voting.

[ November 07, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Zappsweden vote...

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. No

99. No

Comments:

LC Gambit Turn One, Spain Gambit, Rome Invasion and Italian Gambit are too beneficial when UK start with bidding bonus MPP. In the original scenario (no bidding) Allies would pay a higher price to soften the French defence and go out on Crusades early on. The intension with bidding handicaps was not to enable extensive gambit playing.

For example, if Allies suceed with LC Gambit turn one and UK start with 250-400 MPP, Axis have NO chance to win on their own. They can only win if Allies do mistakes in the following turns.

[ November 07, 2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:

I already wrote my opinion in the other tread.

I would forbid everything.....as all mentioned things will be the reason for an early end of the game.

I would change the biddingsystem to a 1:4:8 system (GB:US:Russia)

@ sombra .soll das eine Anspielung sein?

You can use any bidding system you want in Z-League. The Z-League bidding system UK+Russia 1:8 is just the default setting, no obligation.

[ November 06, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Dragonheart]

1. yes

2. yes

3. yes

4. yes

5. yes

6. yes

7. yes

99. forbid embark/disembark bug

Concerning 7.

DOW and immediate land attack is allowed but no landings in the same turn of DOW

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:

I already wrote my opinion in the other tread.

I would forbid everything.....as all mentioned things will be the reason for an early end of the game.

I would change the biddingsystem to a 1:4:8 system (GB:US:Russia)

@ sombra .soll das eine Anspielung sein?

Yeah you know these defeats are depressing though I would like to enforce my last rule suggestion....Veteran players should always loose.

1. Yes

2. No

3. No (Depends on the bid level)

4. No

5. No

6. No

7. No

99. a. Limit airfleests yes

b. If 1,2,3 ,4 are forbidden than any DOW and seaborne invasion first turn should be forbidden.

[Dragonheart]

@sambra...na warst wiedermal ein paar Sekunden zu langsam

[Oak]

1. Yes

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

6. No

7. No

99. No. If particular players want particular additional house rules, let them agree before the start of the game.

Oak (Reid in Z-ladder and in real life)

[Oak]

As a comment:

The Rambo Rome Invasion has little or no risk, but offers a high reward. There is also no real defense. So, it should be banned. With all the other moves or actions there are disadvantages to potential counter-balance any advantages. I think it is important for players to be able to be innovative and creative in their strategies so as to make the game more interesting and challenging. There are clear risks or disadvantages (eg., increased USA or USSR readiness) associated with the Spanish Gambit, LC Gambit (especially on turn 1) and the Italian Gambit. That is why they are called 'Gambits'. If a player wants to take such a risk as part of their strategy then I think they should be allowed to do so.

I think Hubert has done an excellent job of creating a balanced game that allows for creative strategies. A decision by the Allies to declare war on the Low Countries, Spain or Italy has to be weighed against the delayed entry of the USA and/or USSR, and the risk that the attack will not go as hoped or planned.

Let's encourage -- rather than discourage --creativity and imagination.

[zappsweden]

I do not agree with you on the LC gambit (TURN ONE) issue Oak.

LC Gambit Turn One is a 50-50 chance i.e like rolling the dice and Axis can practically do NOTHING to prevent that wild lottery.

Yes, ofcourse 50-50 is a risk, but imagine the reward. Say, you play someone that beat you 95% of the games. Doing such a gambits not equalizes the chances but surely take away most of the tactical scope we have in this game. Why replace tactics with random rolls?

With todays knowledge about rules, a game where Allies succeeds with LC Gambit turn one leaves Axis with a situation impossible to win without OBVIOUS Allied mistakes in the following turns after the LC Gambit.

[ November 06, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Terif]

I am no member of the ZL, but if I could vote I would say:

1. Yes

2. No

3. (Yes) (only to make it possible for Russia to defend its northwestern part, but its no problem to even this out with a higher bid instead)

4. No

5. Yes (Its only a gamble, if it fails, Allies can surrender, since they have no real chance any more)

6. No

7. No

99. No

The vote is about the mandatory house rules in ZL. They should guarantee a balanced game (playability point of view !). Only strategies that leads to a huge advantage of one side and inevitable shift the balance should be forbidden. Therefore we only need minimum rules.

You still can use additionally every other house rule you want (if your opponent agrees) to customize the game for your needs. The mandatory house rules are only the framework to guarantee a fair game when nothing else has been arranged.

To protect USA via HR is not necessary, they have enough units at the start (+ get 180 mpp if attacked) and Axis have no chance to conquer it. Axis can only do some damage, but at high costs. In deed I can see no advantage for Axis when attacking USA, only disadvantages...But if they want to die there for nothing, why should we forbid it with a HR, its their decission.

BTW: Dragonheart: Only the Rome gambit can be the reason for an early end of the game. Every other strategy/gambit so far has its risks/advantages/disadvantages and only provides a small advantage if successful - if there would be no advantage, nobody would choose that strategy, but its not deciding or even ending the game .

Edit:

Oak: I fully aggree, except the turn 1 DOW at LC. This gambit/roulette play is no winner for Allies. It is only a small advantage for Allies if it succeeds (against veteran players). But if it fails they have lost automatically. I had already the "pleasure" that players tried this gambit turn 1 to achieve a little advantage and when it failed they surrendered and wanted to restart the game. Its better to forbid it in advance. It only creates a lot of trouble for both players.

[ November 06, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Dragonheart]

Originally posted by Terif:

I am no member of the ZL, but if I could vote I would say:

Just scribe in and you can vote.

[Terif]

Just scribe in and you can vote.

At the moment I am already subscribed at the PBEM League and the Panzerliga. At the moment I dont have the time to subscribe (+ do enough games)additionally in the ZL. In the Panzerliga you have to collect points to climb up the ladder so it doesnt matter which opponent to play. In the ZL you have to play the right persons to improve your rank. At the top positions most games will be against the same (2-5) opponents each game (either to achieve or defend the highest rank).

After enough games this is not so interesting any more, since the games/strategies are repeating when you only play the same people. What I like about the Multiplayer (Internet) option: to play as many different players as possible. They have a lot of new ideas and also do unexpected moves/strategies, which is part of the spice of the game for me.

I always try to develope new strategies and counters. When the point comes that this is not possible any more, then I will most probably stop playing SC. But at the moment it doesnt look like this will happen in the near Future .

[Curry]

.

[ November 11, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[Curry]

Terif,

Any idea from the Panzerliga site of when they will get their Enlish site up and working?

I like the idea of ratings instead of a ladder. I am a big hearts player and that is how all the card gaming sites are run.

thanks

[Dragonheart]

Curry, not before March 2004 i fear....but you can scribe in anyway, if you have questions concerning rules,language etc. you can ask me or Terif or even some other german players which are members of both leagues.

Would be a pleasure to help you.

[jon_j_rambo]

1) Yes

2) No

3) No

4) No

5) No

6) No

7) No

Zapp --- What's your major malfunction with the Spanish Gambit? Quit trying to play politican & slip your rules in. You did the same thing when you padded the Riga Landing rule onto of the Rambo Rome Invasion, that's pork barrell tactics. Now you try to add the LC turn #1 gambit? You know what, everytime somebody beats you with a strategy, it's illegal?

[ November 07, 2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Comrade Trapp]

1) Yes, the "Rambo Rome Invasion" should be forbidden.

2) Yes, the Italian Gambit should be forbidden.

3) Yes, the seaside invasion of Russia on same turn as DOW should be forbidden.

4) Yes, the invasion of the United States on same turn as DOW should be forbidden.

5) No, the Allied invasion of the Low Countries on turn 1 should not be forbidden.

6) Yes, the Spanish Gambit should be forbidden.

7) Yes, all countries with the exception of Norway and Spain.

99) While the Allied invasion of the Low Countries should be allowed, the Allies should not be able to launch a seaside invasion on the same turn as DOW.

Comrade Trapp

[ November 07, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Comrade Trapp ]

[Iron Ranger]

when you padded the Riga Landing rule onto of the Rambo Rome Invasion,

I think your referring to me, here.

[jon_j_rambo]

Okay, we can have another RRI: Ranger Riga Initiative.

die Legende >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sich verschatzen

[ November 08, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[imported_Rannug]

I'm not a Zappleauge member but I have used the first turn LC gambit many times and I've won games even when it failed and lost games when it worked as planed. Now I rarely do it because I find it's not so efective against better players but there is not reason to forbid it. The only thing I want to ban is the Rome gambit, all other things can be dealt through the bidsystem.

[Liam]

Zapp, I vote that we do away with all house rules

there is a counter for a every strategy

ALSO: we do away with bidding... Cause if there are so many gambits why do the Allies need them?

[ November 09, 2003, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]