1969 and ATG IV

[JOHNEIGENAUER]

A question recently came up in the ATG forum and I would like to post it here where there is not quite so much heat.

Someone stated that the huge talent pool made for less strategy because the abundance of players guaranteed great players at every position.

Another player replied that the opposite was true: the abundance of talent implied that MORE strategy was required.

May I have your opinions and reasons for choosing one or ther other?

Thanks,

John E.

[LMBombers]

In my mind there is no question that in a huge player pool like ATG there is much less strategy. Lets say you put a 8M 3B on your AD card and miss him. Boo-Hoo you only get a 7.99M 3B instead. In all other TSN/SOM games, and especially in a single year set like 1969, if you miss your 8M 3B the drop off could be 2M or more for the replacement you got instead.

Therefore much strategy goes into how your rank your players for the AD and which players you totally ignore by going for less hotly contested lower priced players instead. Lets say you decide to give up a certain position's elite players and plan for a lesser player that really fits your stadium well. You probably stand a better chance of getting that lower priced player in the AD which leaves you less players that you have to compete heavily for.

In ATG it doesn't matter near as much if you miss players because the next best player is virtually just as good. It is for this reason that ATG is one of my least favorite games here. I do play it occasionally but I much prefer 70's, 80's, 1969, 1986 & 20XX games.

[Risden]

[quote:6a5d583aa4="LMBombers"]In my mind there is no question that in a huge player pool like ATG there is much less strategy. Lets say you put a 8M 3B on your AD card and miss him. Boo-Hoo you only get a 7.99M 3B instead. In all other TSN/SOM games, and especially in a single year set like 1969, if you miss your 8M 3B the drop off could be 2M or more for the replacement you got instead.

Therefore much strategy goes into how your rank your players for the AD and which players you totally ignore by going for less hotly contested lower priced players instead. Lets say you decide to give up a certain position's elite players and plan for a lesser player that really fits your stadium well. You probably stand a better chance of getting that lower priced player in the AD which leaves you less players that you have to compete heavily for.

In ATG it doesn't matter near as much if you miss players because the next best player is virtually just as good. It is for this reason that ATG is one of my least favorite games here. I do play it occasionally but I much prefer 70's, 80's, 1969, 1986 & 20XX games.[/quote:6a5d583aa4]

What he said. :lol:

I think LM captured it well. I'd love to see the argument in which someone says that more strategy is involved in the ATG sets with the multitude of excellent options at every position.

This is also why I enjoy the player catalog sets with less talent. It is not only more realistic, but it is more challenging (and fun).

[durantjerry]

Definately agree. I could see someone missing almost evry pick in ATG IV and still putting together a competetive team. There are just more good players than can fit on twelve teams. The opposite is true in 1969. That may be a good ATG IV challenge fgor LM. He can let everyone else pick their team and he can put together a championship squad with the remains.

[buster j ratt]

Here if you are screwed you are screwed no strategy left ATG lining your somewhat similar team up for your stadium and your division takes a lot of thought

[Whamo]

It's practically impossible to get an edge in ATG4 by examining all the cards, because there's such an abundance of players. I'm sure some fine tuning is required to win, some special strategy, but I simply don't like it. In 2007 I have ones at every key position, and win a lot of games in a pitcher's ballpark. In ATG4 I have all ones, all over the field, pitcher's ballpark, low WHIP starters, and good relievers, and barely crack .500. In 69, I've won using good pitching and/or power hitters, with underachievers. It's more fun, especially since I was a 17 back in 69, so I remember the players. McCovey and Mays were so awesome in person. I feel really priviledged to have been able to watch them play, and I was a Dodger fan, worshipping Drysdale (RIP) and Koufax. I went to the Dodger's opening day this year, but haven't been back. The Dodgers owner charges too much for tickets, parking, and concessions. If he wasn't so stupid in signing over-the-hill free agents he wouldn't have to charge so much. And, now, he's turning Dodger stadium into a restaurant and mall for year round revenues. It seems all my favorite sports are being Californicated.

[Saasquatch]

i enjoy a shallower pool of talent as well; my favorite is 1969 (not shallow in starting pitiching though is it). I am not at all interested in atg, too many excellent players. However, i suspect that mangeing your team towards its strengths is necessary to win in a league full of great players; but the same is true in 1969 and you have to be careful about drafting and building your team in 1969

Saasquatch Piniella :shock: