AA Anniversary Tournament Possiblities?

What I would like to see in this thread are ideas and thoughts on how to have a tournament, i.e. structure, rules, victory conditions, etc. for future events.

All comments welcome!

Peace,

Greg, concerning Tournament action for the Anniversary Edition, I would like to offer this:
Use the 1942 Scenario.
Use the Option 1 Victory condition (13 Victory Cities).
Set play at 6 rounds. If victory after 6 rounds is not achieved the side with the most Victory Cities win.

Concerns:
Playing time. I can make 6 rounds in less than 5 hrs., but most cannot. The amount of time for a tournament round will need to be established, 5-6 hours I assume.
Number of players per team. 3 person teams?
18 Victory Cities. Do we eliminate 1 City to make it an odd number? Is that City eliminated for only figuring victory after 6 rounds, but not for the Option 1 Victory conditions?

I like 6 rounds as it opens up the game to more strategies, less predictable games.

Comments to these ideas should be made after some play testing. There may be a serious flaw in this thinking, but we will not know if we do not try.

VanGal

After having the game out for a week now with some playing and re-playing, an initial thought that maybe can be worked with.

This assumes using the 1941 set-up...no use of the bonus income - I think it will slow the game down....5 hours per game...tech is OK and if a bid is needed, fine...

Allies have 120 IPC worth of territory (Russia - 30, UK - 43, USA - 40, China - 7)
Axis have 58 IPC worth of territory (Germany - 31, Italy - 10, Japan - 17)

I assigned a bonus value of 15 IPC for each of the 3 capitals on each side, and a bonus value of 5 IPC for each of the other remaining victory cities. Allies have 3 capitals + 9 other VC for a total of 90. Axis have 3 capitals + 3 other VC for a total of 60. Adding that to the IPC on the board...

Allies - 210, Axis 118 (328 total)

To win, the Axis must get 1/2 of that +1 - 165 IPC. At 164 IPC, it is a tie and the Allies win. This means the Axis must improve their position by 47 IPC from the start of the game.

One other change that I think needs to be made - instead of using Ottawa a VC, change it to Cairo. Yes, this puts one more VC in play, but I think that is a good thing. I don't see Ottawa every being taken and held until the end of a turn...If not Cairo, to make it a harder for the Axis to get, try using Capetown.

By my count, if we exclude the capital cities, there are the 12 VC left - though I discount SF as one, because, again, I do not see that being taken and held - and if it is, it probably means the Allies are toast anyways. That leaves 11 VC to fight over - with some being more at risk than others, of course. Obviously, the Axis have a lot of targets to go after, and they can get their 47 IPC in many different ways - but that is what makes this new version of the game neat - if you completely ignore one side of the map - you will lose.

Many - though certainly not all - of the tournament games in revised came down to a last turn big battle where the UK/US would try to take WEU, GER and/or SEU. And the game hinged on how well each side added up their transports, etc. While that COULD happen here too - there is too much going on in other places to make that a strategy that you can go to every time. Plus - the Allies would have OTHER ways to deny the Axis those points.

At any rate, this is my idea - obviously some tweaking of the bonus values might be in order - though I would lobby to keep all of them the same - same bonus for a VC and same bonud for a capital. I think Greg and I and Jeff Auer are getting together this weekend to play and I may lobby for us to try this, just to see.

I invite comments of course!!

I think there is far too much disparity in the 1941 version.

I think Origins/Gencon should use the much better balanced 1942 version.

Squire,

Please elaborate a bit more. We just played again last night and we are trying to figure out the best scenario for tournament play...

Thanks,
GS

VanGal wrote:Greg, concerning Tournament action for the Anniversary Edition, I would like to offer this:
Use the 1942 Scenario.
Use the Option 1 Victory condition (13 Victory Cities).
Set play at 6 rounds. If victory after 6 rounds is not achieved the side with the most Victory Cities win.

Concerns:
Playing time. I can make 6 rounds in less than 5 hrs., but most cannot. The amount of time for a tournament round will need to be established, 5-6 hours I assume.
Number of players per team. 3 person teams?
18 Victory Cities. Do we eliminate 1 City to make it an odd number? Is that City eliminated for only figuring victory after 6 rounds, but not for the Option 1 Victory conditions?

I like 6 rounds as it opens up the game to more strategies, less predictable games.

Comments to these ideas should be made after some play testing. There may be a serious flaw in this thinking, but we will not know if we do not try.

VanGal

VanGal,

Thanks for the input. I like it. The only thing is limiting the round play. I just am not an advocate of that type of play. I am proposing 6 hr. games at both Origins and GEN CON two player teams. There will be qualifying rounds(8 games in all) on Thursday and Friday and the winners advance to single elimin on Sat.

Still working out the kinks on play and victory but that should cover things for time of play...

Peace,
GS

Charles,

Looking for more info as to why you think the 41 set up is so unbalanced? Who is the big favorite? I assume you think Allies maybe - I can see where the UK's large stock of money could be an issue....

We played 42 this past weekend, and it sure seemed that Russia had a lot more to worry about....

Mike

VanGal,

Thanks for the input. I like it. The only thing is limiting the round play. I just am not an advocate of that type of play. I am proposing 6 hr. games at both Origins and GEN CON two player teams. There will be qualifying rounds(8 games in all) on Thursday and Friday and the winners advance to single elimin on Sat.

Still working out the kinks on play and victory but that should cover things for time of play...

Peace,
GS

The problem, though, is that this interferes with the other tournaments. Were you not going to have the masters/mega? Because I imagine those who play Revised would still like to play AAAv. Yet, Revised is Friday/Saturday at Origins, and the Masters is Friday/Saturday at GCI.

I re-propose my schedule. AAAv on THURSDAY (and Friday if necessary), with the Finals on SUNDAY along with the other finals. This allows players to play in both AAAv and AAR Mega and Masters.

As to 41 vs 42, 42 is much more balanced. Japan does not have the overwhelming navy (with no real UK presence) and since the game starts "later" it is easier to manage Victory conditions and goals for players familiar with AAR.

Since you are only going to get 6 rounds or so (PERHAPS 7 if 6 hrs is the time limit), I'd rather see a full 42 game than 2-3 rounds of "warm up" where the AXIS smashes deep into Russia, and where the moves are probably more standard. Then you really only have 3-4 rounds as opposed to the full 6-7.

Charles,

The way I intend to do it is have two qualifying rounds on Thurs. and one Friday morning. Then, the Semis on Saturday afternoon and the finals on Sunday. Yes, there is going to be some overlap, but it is completely and utterly unavoidable.

Peace,
GS

SwampHQ wrote:

VanGal wrote:Greg, concerning Tournament action for the Anniversary Edition, I would like to offer this:
Use the 1942 Scenario.
Use the Option 1 Victory condition (13 Victory Cities).

VanGal

VanGal,

Thanks for the input. I like it. The only thing is limiting the round play. I just am not an advocate of that type of play. I am proposing 6 hr. games at both Origins and GEN CON two player teams. There will be qualifying rounds(8 games in all) on Thursday and Friday and the winners advance to single elimin on Sat.

Still working out the kinks on play and victory but that should cover things for time of play...

Peace,
GS

Greg,

I have been playtesting the AA5 for the last couple of weeks and analyzing it with a couple of players here in Michigan- Eric Christoff (an original playtester for the game) and Ben Ibach winner of Mega 06 and Caspian Sub moderator. I've only played it about 6-7 times, mostly the 41 version with and without objectives. Here are my early assessments:

1.) SBR rules need to be changed- Larry is working on an updated FAQ with a possible fix to this. (from his post on his site)

2.) At this early stage it seems like the 42 is a little more balanced. However, that is an EARLY assessment, that can change once we analyze the 42 version a little more.

3.) It seems that play must be WITH the National Objectives (for Italy's sake mainly) and WITHOUT the Tech (for obvious reasons).

4.) 6 hours is a great timeframe- you serve the game injustice if it is played in a shorter time than this.

5.) Your planned schedule looks great. Three qualifying rounds (Three games guaranteed I assume- trying to get the most wins- right???) with a Semi-Finals and Finals. I prefer the Swiss Quads you guys do at Origins with Revised as the best format, but this seems close enough. Can you explain more about the proposed format???

6.) As far as conflict of schedule with other tourneys- people are just going to have to CHOOSE to play AA5 over the others- tell em to "get over it and just play AA5!!" AAClassic is crusty old and AARevised is like playing "Candyland" compared to AA5.

7.) Option 1- 13 VC is probably what we will have to play though I like 15VC better.

VC bonus system- don't really like this system-we can probably talk about this in a couple of months when more playtesting has been done. This system should be used only if we really need it because of time. However, with 6 hours, I think 6,7 or even 8 rounds can be played and a winner can be determined.

My 2 cents,

Questioneer


P.S. This Game is AWESOME!!!!!!!- love playing it.

Questioneer,

Thanks for the comments...will review and look at these. Just went to Larry's site for an update on the SBR. Yeah, we think they are a bit powerful...

Hey, tell Ben I said hi. We missed him last year...

Until next time...

Peace,
GS

First off, congrats for the playtester credit, Greg! I am really enjoying the new game (yes, I DID have a Merry Christmas!), and I am looking forward to SGVII and some tournaments. I've only played solo, so far. My first impression is just the sheer time this game takes. I know that will improve significantly with experience, but it's pretty overwhelming right now. I'm all for a 6-hour time frame.

I have to say that I really like the 1941 setup (great choices here!), but it seems like we really need to do the 1942 setup for tournament play. This helps with the time issue (you're already into the game at the start), and it's much more similar to AAR. I think this will really help the transition--it's not completely different. I have no insights about balance. Eliminating NOs and Tech would also help the time crunch (although, again, I like these elements).

Certainly, we wouldn't want to go more than a 13VC condition, but there is even a greater chance that players will not reach this goal with the new game (I could be wrong about that, but that's what I see right now) in AAAE, so that means another point system and no idea when the game will end. We griped about this some for AAR, but it did work (better than judging), so there's no reason it couldn't work for AAAE, too. Maybe Larry can help us out on that, although it sounds like Mike is way ahead of the game!

I'm also a bit wary about making it 3v3. My gut says this is also increase the time crunch. I vote for keeping 2v2. After all, we don't really assign powers to individuals--it's a team effort (at least in my experience). Two players have been playing the three Allies powers for over 20 years--surely the Axis can be played in a similar fashion.

AAAE is a masterpiece! What a wonderful game! I can't wait to play it at a tournament!

Philip

P.S. - Here is a short review from my blog: http://revolutionboardgame.blogspot.com/2008/12/axis-allies-for-christmas.html

Phil,

Great to hear from you. How is your game coming along?

As for AA50, some things that I have decided: yes, they will be six hour rounds. 2 player’s teams; NO singles or 3 player teams. If you come solo, you will be matched up with someone. Sorry guys, I just don't see any benefit to having anyone play solo with the new game. Also, it gets more people to play and with 3, it might take forever...

No National Objectives and Bonus incomes and Techs are still up in the air. The SBR might be a problem and we will wait and see how that pans out with Larry. We really need to play out the VC's and see what a good number is. At this time, I am seeing 13 as extremely reasonable...If 13 is NOT reached in the time frame allotted, then a tie-breaker will need to be given...I was thinking along the lines of arm wrestling or a quick round of trivia? WWII of course... The set up will most likely be 1942 for reasons you and others have given. Time, time and more time. Being already into the game does help.

Obviously, there will be a bid. Most likely the exact same way as AAR just for simplicity of determining sides.

Scenario: '42

As for the rules used: I would go without the tech but would use the bonuses.

But that is just me.

I will give the idea of a scoring system some thought.

Craig

I thought of a VC bonus system. I posted it somewhere, or at least in an email. I will search for that...

But for this year it may not be necessary. A shorter/easier version...

The Allies in 1942 have 10 VC. The axis has 8. The allies have an advantage in teritories 100-78. (Difference of 22)

Every bonus city (except Los Angeles/Washington) is worth 10 IPC. So the axis need to EITHER to capture a VC, or gain 11 IPC (so that just taking China isnt enough). Count IPC at the end as in AAR and you are finished.

[LA/Wash are 0 so that each side has 8 "attainable" VC.]