not many folks playing alpha 2 anymore.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Also, have you tried fleeing with the Jap navy? So you’re going to lose sz6 and be convoy raided, why bottle up your Jap fleet, why not instead dominate the Indian ocean or move into the Med? Why put the Jap fleet in a position it can die in sz6? (I keep my fleet fast and lose, it never anchors somewhere to die)
Exactly, if the enemy fleet is too big to handle, avoid it, do an evasive dance around the ocean (doing something useful while at it) and don’t buy new ships (urgent blockers excepted)
Med is indeed not a bad idea either. -
The classic BS (surprise attack story) aside, America should not have a real battleship anyway. Yes, the British used cruisers and biplanes effectively against the Bismark, but they had real battleships as well. America had no real battleships and more-over, reducing the battleship to a cruiser effectively removed 8 IPC and 1 hit from the board, without drastically altering the setup. I am much more inclined to remove units than I am to add units.
BTW, I have a framed copy of the Navy Intelligence’s directive to shoot the next officer coming to warn President Roosevelt about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. I’ll see if I can get a specialist to scan it or if it will damage the ink to badly. The ink back then did not hold up well to sunlight, so it may not be scanable, but we’ll see.
Agreed on the parameters thing, but I would keep the new “ends” as effective cut offs. After all, there comes a point in which defeat is pretty much a sure thing and by then, it might be wiser to just end and start a new game so you have more samples and thus, better results on the data.
I do not see a distinction between game balance and a game breaking strategy. If the game is balanced, there is no game breaking strategy. If there is a game breaking strategy, then game is unbalanced.
Japan should maintain the largest possible threat it can for as long as it can. By doing this, it extends the time America has to spend in the Pacific and thus, gives Germany the maximum possible chance to beat Russia before America draws their forces out of Russia allowing Russia to push them back into Europe.
If Japan does not block a frontal attack, then America will sink their ships and thus, there is no threat in the Pacific. One does not need to wait around for China to push Japan out, once the Japanese fleet is gone, America can stop building in the Pacific using what they have to maintain naval supremecy.
If Japan does block a frontal attack, now America has to worry about countering Japan’s builds. Further, countering Japans builds is only part of the issue, as Japan is blocking an attack thus America must either move forward and lose Australian air support or build planes for an all out air attack on the Japanese fleet.
Essentially, putting out picket ships forces America to make decisions and delays the point in which America can withdraw and help in the Atlantic. I agree that throwing away 24 IPC a round for Japan is a losing proposition, but it is better than throwing out 2 or 3 carriers, 2 battleships, a cruiser, a dozen destroyers, a bakers dozen submarines and a wing of fighters/bombers and ending up paying the bank a dozen IPC a round in convoy damage.
I have been on both the receiving and dealing end of a Round 1 Japan attack. It looks awesome, until about round 4 when it becomes clear their advance is mostly on paper, there is no real purchasing power to that expanse.
I assume India is small for most of the game, it is only later that territories are liberated and annexed that India finally grows.
Australia is Australia, there’s really not a lot Japan can do to it on Round 1.
America, on the other hand, is just a monster. The longer you can prepare for the monster, the better your chances seem to be. (Remember, if you attack America on Round 1, America can immediately start reinforcing England if they choose to go that route.)
I agree, if there is no help for the entire game, Russia will fall to Germany. The argument is not that Russia can win, the argument is that Russia can last until the Allies have time to come save them.
Jimmy:
If you flee with the Japanese navy, you cede 11 IPC in damages a round to convoy damage, meanwhile, with no reinforcements coming, it is only a matter of time before you are cornered.
As America, I can easily keep enough submarines in the water to prevent you from building a new fleet. Further, if you run away, even if you go all the way to S. Africa, all you do is bring the Americans with you, one step behind.
Doesn’t seem effective, but go and try it! Let us know!
-
excellent, sounds quite effective to me. I would try and pull the allies away from the pacific, hoping to team up with the Italians/Germans and help them. I know sz6 is going to be convoy raided to death, in fact you would do that if you killed the fleet. So losing the fleet or saving it Japan will be convoyed….
-
Great. Would you try it and see if it works? Let us know.
I don’t think it would help much since all I believe you would accomplish is dragging the American fleet closer to Italy and Germany.
Also, keep in mind that the DEI, the northern coast of China as well as Japan/Korea can be convoy raided and probably will be until the territory is liberated. Just a thought to keep in your head, something to consider.
-
The Allies were victorious, lucky rolls on key battles and the Allies worked together better than last week.
The teams were the same, the score 1-1 next time we’re going to switch sides. -
Jen,
As the US with your all Pacific strategy, what would you do if Germany had wiped out the Royal Navy, on G2 purchased 5 subs with other equipment from the 70 IPC round 2 that is easily attainable with the destruction of France. By Germany turn 4 they could bring upwards of 8 Subs to attack the Cruiser in the waters off of Eastern US. The likelihood that one of the 8 hit on their sneak attack is ~97%, which would destroy both the cruiser and the transport at that point. With no Destroyer in the SZ101, no retaliation is likely.
On G1 3 subs attacked SZ106, 2 attacked SZ109. The two in SZ109 will get wiped out most likely in UK1. Assume UK navy in Mediterranean stays focused on Italy instead of making a dash to the Atlantic. G1 purchase of an AC, Sub and Destroyer.
With up to a 16 IPC reduction in the US income, that would force the US spend on the other side of the map. Those coastal waters off of the US are going to be ripe for convoy raids if the German player puts for a little bit of effort.
I believe Germany can afford to sacrifice that hardware at that point in the game to draw the US attention away from the Pacific. It would give the Japanese some time to forge into the DEI. This also assumes that Japan attacks only China in J1 and J2, with an aggressive J3 to attempt to take Hong Kong, Manilla and Malaya.
Hard for me to test this out since the aBattleMap crashes constantly and my boards are tied up with a game in progress.
-
had a game tonight but I drew axis and had a hard time convincing my opponent to try a strategy he wasn’t prepared for. :cry: As is we are at the beginning of G4 with germany having 13 trns, an army in Scotland and the hammer poised. Italy has taken the Med and is fighting in the middle east, and US has moved to Gib with a large fleet but very small army.
Largest aberration in this game was Russia stacking Amur with 18 inf 1 aa gun R1. After my J1 attack on Russia it postponed my attack on the allies until J3. Still the value in killing those infantry and the few dollars earned from Russia have made up for the 12ipcs and lost round. That being said, round 4 is when the real fighting will start and I will have to update after the next time we play.
-
Mantlefan, mine doesn’t crash anymore
1. Get the 10MB version
2. When you replace the file with the old one, you still have to manually delete the old file- you end up getting 2 files marked T40 and I think that is what make it crash.Kreighund,
Thanks for the fair direction given- everyone just needs to try the strat a few times- that’s what we need right now. I’m also under the assumption that you will try it a few times also. Jen has given MORE than enough info and guidelines for it. So I assume we will hear from you also- that would be most productive. That is what we are asking YOU to do also. There are already several people who agree with Jen and are seeing this in their games.
-
Quest, can u link the 10 mb version? I alrdy have wonkos 3.1 version, and i don’t have any other T40’s but it still crashes.
-
Quest, can u link the 10 mb version? I alrdy have wonkos 3.1 version, and i don’t have any other T40’s but it still crashes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22837.0
It the 3.1 version- lower resolution.
I can’t remember how I got rid of the other files, but I know I had to manually do it. It doesn’t replace them right or something- anyway after that mine has worked fine. That’s the best I can do to help. Ask Wonko of TMTM though.
-
@suprise:
The Allies were victorious, lucky rolls on key battles and the Allies worked together better than last week.
The teams were the same, the score 1-1 next time we’re going to switch sides.Yes. That is a pitfall of playing one or two games to test a strategy. However, LL and NL games are even worse precisely because (in a game with Krycheck) I had 100% odds of success in a battle for Tokyo America would have NEVER attempted in an ADS game, likewise in previous editions of the game, I have taken and lost battleships to 4 fighter attacks in one round, perhaps getting one fighter, perhaps getting none whereas in an ADS game a 4 fighter attack has a high probability of losing two fighters to a battleship.
Another problem is pulling it on someone who has never seen it before. It is very hard to base the validity of a strategy if the person you are playing has never seen the maneuver before. In subsequent battles they will generally see what is coming and be able to adapt to the situation, thus, ensuring it is strategy, not luck (well, at least more strategy and less luck) that makes the case.
I’d love to hear further evidence on how it goes, if you try it again.
-
Taschuler:
I have seen and dealt with German submarine strategies. It does draw some from the US away from the Pacific, in the short run.
One method of dealing with it is to have the British fleet (defined as any combat unit able to get there) attack SZ 101 and sink the German U-Boats while a destroyer(s) and American aircraft attack the Gulf of Mexico and sink the U-Boats there.
Given the range from Hamburg to Washington DC, it is relatively easy to see this coming, so staging for it can be readily factored into your game play. However, I agree, it does detract something from the Pacific.
Mantle,
I agree. The T40 module seems very unstanble and it is quite annoying to rebuild when it crashes during England’s turn, if you do not save on a routine basis.
I have not gotten the new one. I’ll wait a bit more, since it is not that annoying to me.
Mantlefan,
If you want to put your IPC where your keyboard is, I’ll be glad to play you in a best of 3 out of 5 games. I just need time to clear my plate a little, so do let me know if you are interested and we’ll make sure to keep the game links in this thread so others can follow the progress.
Typical game rules:
- No Technologies
- National Objectives - On
- Russo-Japan Non-Aggression Treaty - On
- Automatic Convoy Raiding - On
- No Bid
- ADS (The one provided here, so people can follow along.)
- ABattlemap (T40 Module)
etc.
-
Yes this forum has got a heavy handed moderator staff. /LOTS/ of censorship and most of it seems to be done on a whim, no rhyme or reason. Don’t think its only you though Mantlefan, we’re all having to take a taste of dictatorship. Still, I don’t see that playing a game vs Jen is going to be much of a test for her Pacific only strat. I think it’d be better tested by having many games between many opponents to see if it works. Rest assured all games I play as allies in the future will be using this rubric to see if it is effective.
-
Just post about the balance or play the game and employ the new strategy and test.
Play many games using the ideas and see if its true…validate it. see if you get the same result.
Everything else it to that end.
-
Mantlefan at first I tought you were really a “victim” but now I see that you’re really, and I mean really getting annoying. Jennifer thinks this strategy can’t be countered. Until proven contrary, she will say it no matter what. Either you prove her wrong by playing few games against her, or just calm down and take it easy.
-
Where did I say the game wouldn’t be played? WHERE? I said the reports would help make the test more meaningful, but now you say that I said that there should be no test. It’s absurd.
You said it by posting 1,000 times since it was first proposed that you should play the game and find out if it works or not. You waste everyones time with incessant off topic posts about why you should philosophize about how to test the game, except by playing it… All those paper thin excuses you make which become roadblocks to getting a test done by any means are nothing but protestations. Just start playing a game to get an idea how it works.
Somehow “using the best counter strat possible” means not playing a game, as well as playing less games to get to the best solution I can come up with is also automatically not playing a single game.
Somehow you invented this as a new tool to avoid a direct game, by talking about why one way is better than another is the same as not doing anything and avoiding playing out the idea….we call that another excuse.
In most fields of study I am familiar with, students get abstract foundational ideas before doing their practicum. If you send students in without any background knowledge they are not likely to have as meaningful an experience. It makes sense to get a foundation before doing the real thing, at least according to a couple hundred years of pedagogical discourse.
That’s just the problem, epistemological arguments of the foundation of knowledge theory are not what these threads are about, they are about a game and playtest is the best way to playtest. Arguing about how somebody should test an idea for you are just thin walls of words created to avoid what is a rudimentary exercise and if its a waste of time as you put it, then your probably not really into AA. Big words from dictionary notwithstanding.
Any further off topic posts are not needed, PM me and i can explain everything again to you. These threads have a specific goal in mind and its not anything related to what your posting.
-
One can use their analytical skills to their hearts content, but unless they are put into practive, they do neither the one thinking about it, nor the community any good.
I do agree, in some small point, that if the axis KNOW what is coming, they have the best chance possible to counter it. This is not fool proof, as the Russian triple in Revised and a KJF strat (same game) showed against NCSCSwitch, but it did give him the best chance possible (he lost, quit in a huff to be more correct. I can post the map again, if anyone wants it. Hilarious position on the board, IMHO, but off topic.)
However, I am thinking that in any game, known or not known, Japan is going to face an uphill battle against an aggressive America. In most games, where Japan isn’t expecting it, they don’t face an uphill battle, they face a shear cliff, IMHO. At least when they expect it, they can move to maximize the amount of time America is locked up.
Anyway, my game with Krycheck is one example. He conceeded, even though he attacked on round 1 with Japan and was still in a strong position. (Granted, he lost 4 undefended transports attacking Karelia because he failed to take into consideration a Russian scramble and he left Japan under-protected, IMHO, at least for a LL game.) There are others, but that is the most recent.
Of course, in all games I do not ONLY go after Japan. Sometimes I put a few destroyers in the Atlantic. (78 IPC = 9 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, if you have more than that, you have to build them in SZ 101 anyway, or get more expensive ships.) Sometimes (like a lot of the time) I get Brazil too. Eh. Minor things, not enough to change the over all game situation, I don’t think. After all, Germany may decide to get “cute” and try to CRD America, well, if you have a couple destroyers out there, CRD don’t mean squat.
Oh, and I am retracting my SBR run position. By the time you have time to dither around with his scrambled fighters, you may as well have had your money going into the Atlantic instead of into strategic bombers. IMHO. All the rest, as far as I can see right now, and with the last major opponent to the strategy not engaging in a test of mettle, stands until proven false. I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought. Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.
-
The reason I said to play 7 games is that one person can be the Axis 3 times and the Allies 3 times if by the time game 6 is just about over there may be some opinionated people out there telling you where you went wrong, either one of you. At that time choose a teammate,see if what they are saying can hold any water. Play all 7 games win loose or draw
Stop each game between rounds 7- 15 and see where it stands. This way you can try their strat. on them, they may have the solution when you turn their strat. on themselves.
This still may not be enough it would need all the dice to be even…… yuck … I like the variably, I think if the made a game where every nation was equal and any one of the 5 major powers could take over the world it would’nt be called AXIS & ALLIES
I think the Axis have to have the luckier rolls, less mistakes and be better teammates to win to me thats balanced I like it the way it is (except when I’m rolling like crap with Japan then I think why did they take my planes and Trans.)
One day I’ll download the map and try some online games. -
@Cmdr:
I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought. Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.
Well shouldn’t it be proving to be true, not proving to be false?
-
No. Due to the conveluted nature of a strategy game of this magnitude.
If you had to rigorously prove that each and every contingency supported your statement, you would:
A) go insane
B) never get every contingency covered
C) never have anyone read your treatise as it would now be the maximum permitted length of at least 3 or 4 full posts
D) have some twit say “you didn’t take into account that I magically know exactly what you are going to do three rounds from now, so I know to buy this item” types of arguments (which are strawmen, technically speaking. In a game, you would NEVER know what will happen three rounds from now, you can guess, you can make assumptions based on how the board currently looks that round, but you’ll never know exactly what is going to happen.)However, the converse is not true. If you state that a hypothesis is false, all you have to show is one instance of it being false. This is why it is the preferred method of mathematicians (and later scientists, the lazy b@stards taking our ideas and calling it their own…scientific method my arse, it’s the mathematical method! we came up with it first!). For instance, the statement that the addition of any two integers is an even integer is false because it can be shown that the summation of an odd integer and an even integer results in an odd integer. However, have you tried to prove that all integers when added to themselves are even? Yea. Good luck! No offense intended, we had to do it as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate the benefits of “proof by contradition” and why it was vastly superior to other types of proofs in some circumstances.
This game is one of those circumstances.
If one truely believes my statement that America is too powerful and thus should be dinged in some manner to make it possible for Japan to win the game through superior game strategy, then I want a “proof by contradiction.” One such argument has been made: Retreating the Japanese navy to the Atlantic Ocean. We have no details, but the hypothesis has been laid out and now we have something to test.
Suggested Topics
