TripleA version 2.7.14934 - Good luck and have fun!
2012 League Discussion
-
You can ignore the sub to attack my fleet TDJ 8-)
-
Under the unit profiles section for submarines, it states….Any sea zone that contains only enemy submarines does not stop the movement of a sea unit.
-
OK thanks guys. I am ashamed to admit I can never remember those sub rules, especially since they were change for AA50. Anyway, onward and upward.
-
@Cmdr:
We get back to the same question, Gamerman. Why should a higher ranked player ever take the challenge of a lower ranked player in your scenario? If the answer is, as I suspect, they would not, then you are suddenly forcing lower ranked players to play a lot more games to “catch up” to a higher ranked player so they can play them.
I’d like something where you have no idea how many points you have or dont have until the end of the season, or perhaps at 3 points along the season (April, July, September for example) and that way you have idea if you are playing someone worth more or less points than you and you are not looking for easy kills or avoiding easy kills because you have no idea who the easy kills are in the grand scheme of things.
And this is a 2012 discussion, it has no bearing on 2011. Look at the thread title. :wink:
Percentage is great, and I understand the desire that harder opponents be worth more than weaker opponents, but we need something that would encourage people to play, not punish them. I don’t want to see players refuse to play because someone they will risk losing 3 points instead of 1. It seems counter-productive. If you can GAIN 3 points and not lose anything, then you might have something. But the deal is, no one can LOSE what they have, you can only GET more. Then there would be no excuse for the guy in the number one spot to refuse to play the guy in the number 100 spot.
i agree
-
Doesn’t matter.
The point ranking system is merely a side-show and has absolutely no bearing on the actual league. It’s for fun and curiosity. If you don’t like it, don’t visit my rankings thread.
-
dont have nothing against your model gamer. we should always seek to evolve in the game and the league
cheers :)
-
Hopefully we can play one another in the league this year some time, Amon
-
Hopefully we can play one another in the league this year some time, Amon
i am not very much exp… but i keep growing in aa-41 8-) ok soon :))
-
Well, keep practicing!
I’m busy with 4 games right now anyway. -
2012 AA50-41 Tournament sign-up is up the the tournament forum.
-
Axis v. Allies
2012 results to dateAxis - 15
Allies - 5Average bid in Axis wins - 8.5
Average bid in Allied wins - 9.6People keep saying we don’t know how to play Allies.� Is it that, or is it that the Allies are really that disadvantaged?
Pretty sure very few if any of these games were with tech.� Not sure that would make a difference.�I’ve always thought the '41 scenario strongly favors the Axis, from the first time I played it.� I played Axis all year in 2011 and rode them to a 12-1 record.� Seems to me the best strategic move you can make is to choose the Axis!
Note:
2 of the 5 Allied wins came from Darth Maximus, who is 2-0 (hasn’t finished a game as Axis this year).
Note:
Bids in Allied wins were 8, 9, 9, 10, 12
Note:
Only 1 bid in Axis wins was greater than 9!Conclusion:� We are bidding too low.� At 9 or 10 bids, Allies are getting crushed, on average.
I’d agree, that bidding is probably too low. I typically won’t go much lower than 11 now. With 10, I can still place a version of the bid I like the most. 9 not so much.
-
I’ll repeat this: limit the bids to Asia (probably limited to 1 unit per territory as well). Asia is were the unbalancement is, so you should force the players to send the bid there.
1942 is another stuff: you must delete german IC from Karelia and send it to Novosibirsk (thus making it a true soviet IC), then you can start talking about bids, that probably should be limited to Asia as well
Oh, and redo chinese rules (just in case someboy cares about it) :roll:
With full placement unrestricted bids you only can get 2 results: the current Axis dominance or the ‘good’ old Revised ignore Japan strat. And for the record: 9-11 IPCs bids are waaaay low in AA50 :-o
-
I’ll repeat this: limit the bids to Asia (probably limited to 1 unit per territory as well). Asia is were the unbalancement is, so you should force the players to send the bid there.
Probably have a good point here.
1942 is another stuff: you must delete german IC from Karelia and send it to Novosibirsk (thus making it a true soviet IC), then you can start talking about bids, that probably should be limited to Asia as well
A little too radical for my tastes (rulebook has IC in Karelia, so that’s what everybody will play), but I’m just one person.
Oh, and redo chinese rules (just in case someboy cares about it) :roll:
Can’t make a post without complaining about China, can you? :lol:
With full placement unrestricted bids you only can get 2 results: the current Axis dominance or the ‘good’ old Revised ignore Japan strat.
OK, this is just not true, Func. I’ve played dozens of games of AA50 with Europe bids and Japan is usually not ignored. And Axis does usually dominate because that bid is too low, but note that if Axis has a bad G1 and J1 dice they usually lose (most of the time you don’t get that bad of dice, though. They are high percentage attacks)
And for the record: 9-11 IPCs bids are waaaay low in AA50Â :-o
That’s what my stats say!! If you want a 25% chance of winning with the Allies, just bid under 12!
I just won a game with 21 bid and I have a game with 19 bid against a solid player on this site (Lucky Lindy) that I have a strangle-hold on.
-
I just won a game with 21 bid and I have a game with 19 bid against a solid player on this site (Lucky Lindy) that I have a strangle-hold on.
I’d argue those were bad placements though. I believe both included a ftr.
A much better 19 bid would be: 1 inf Egy. 2 inf, 2 arm to some combination of Bel/Euk. You could even go 2 inf Egy, 3 inf, 1 rt to Russia (or 1 inf, 2 arm).
–--------------
I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.
And while Japan certainly can earn 50-60. You CAN STOP them. You need the big Russian NO though. But you can get that as early as R3-4.
With Russian bids you can potentially hold EPL as early as R2 with UK ftrs. � That kills 2 potential German NOs.
Its tough to limit bids. Any Asian bid for China would have to be probably double b/c the real early threat is Germany. The Allies must stop that first. Monster Japan doesn’t matter if Ger/Ita are camped out in Epl then Bel/Euk on G2-4.
I agree China was designed poorly. Not sure why you’d give them a ftr just to watch it get killed before they can use it. I think they’d be cool as a regular power but that would require some reworking of board and ipcs.
-
Its tough to limit bids. Any Asian bid for China would have to be probably double b/c the real early threat is Germany. The Allies must stop that first. Monster Japan doesn’t matter if Ger/Ita are camped out in Epl then Bel/Euk on G2-4.
Definitely
I agree China was designed poorly. Not sure why you’d give them a ftr just to watch it get killed before they can use it. I think they’d be cool as a regular power but that would require some reworking of board and ipcs.
Right. But I see Larry’s point that they shouldn’t function as a regular power. Weren’t they a mess? Disorganized, with infighting and stuff? And didn’t have as much technology?
Anyway, in 1942 they have NINE infantry. 1941 only four.
-
I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.
If you haven’t really played 1942, then you don’t really know AA50 that well. But there is a big problem as to why I don’t like to go back and forth playing '41 and '42. It’s because the turn order is flip-flopped between Japan and Germany. That makes it confusing for me to go back and forth.
I am 50-9-1 playing 1942
I am 19-4 playing 1941Half of those 1941 games were from playing this year
What I don’t understand is everyone saying 1941 is more popular, when nobody’s even really tried 1942 very much. As you can see, I’ve played waaaaay more 1942, but I’ve played both a lot. And I say 1941 is a novelty, for people who are tired of Classic and Revised starting in 1942
-
I’d argue those were bad placements though. I believe both included a ftr.
Which immediately annihilated a Japanese transport before J1 risk free, and helped Russia’s offense/defense for the rest of the game!
A much better 19 bid would be: 1 inf Egy. 2 inf, 2 arm to some combination of Bel/Euk. You could even go 2 inf Egy, 3 inf, 1 rt to Russia (or 1 inf, 2 arm).
Better for your style of play. Point is simple, Darth. Axis are winning SEVENTY percent of games with 9-10 bids. Enough said
And while Japan certainly can earn 50-60. You CAN STOP them. You need the big Russian NO though. But you can get that as early as R3-4.
I can get the big Russian NO early against inferior players. And getting it once at the cost of a tank is not the same as getting it for good. Sure, you can stop Japan if you go 100% Pacific with the Americans and throw the UK and Russia at them. But if you can keep Japan under 50-60 and get the Russian NO by Round 3 or 4 at the same time, then you are easily the best player on this site. Because 70% of the time, the Allies are LOSING. And if you can keep Japan’s income down and get the big NO with Russia, you would win every time as Allies.
With Russian bids you can potentially hold EPL as early as R2 with UK ftrs. That kills 2 potential German NOs.
This is another stinker about the 1941 scenario. Germany going right before Russia instead of right after. In 1942, the UK and US can never add fighters to an advancing Russian stack (which I view as cheese).
-
Its tough to limit bids.�� � Any Asian bid for China would have to be probably double b/c the real early threat is Germany.�� � The Allies must stop that first.�� � Monster Japan doesn’t matter if Ger/Ita are camped out in Epl then Bel/Euk on G2-4.
Definitely
I agree China was designed poorly.�� � Not sure why you’d give them a ftr just to watch it get killed before they can use it.�� � I think they’d be cool as a regular power but that would require some reworking of board and ipcs.
Right.� � But I see Larry’s point that they shouldn’t function as a regular power.� � Weren’t they a mess?� � Disorganized, with infighting and stuff?� � And didn’t have as much technology?
Anyway, in 1942 they have NINE infantry.� � 1941 only four.
I’d prefer better game play over historical accuracy.
I’d argue those were bad placements though. � I believe both included a ftr.
Which immediately annihilated a Japanese transport before J1 risk free, and helped Russia’s offense/defense for the rest of the game!
A much better 19 bid would be: � 1 inf Egy. � 2 inf, 2 arm to some combination of Bel/Euk. You could even go 2 inf Egy, 3 inf, 1 rt to Russia (or 1 inf, 2 arm).
Better for your style of play. � Point is simple, Darth. � Axis are winning SEVENTY percent of games with 9-10 bids. � Enough said
I’m agreeing with you on bids being too low.
Its a fair point on the ftr. � But what people might miss is by bidding to Egy or Europe you FREE up the US to be more of a player in the Pac. � They aren’t quite needed as much in Euorpe if Russia holds her own earlier, which bid units can help to provide.
I can get the big Russian NO early against inferior players. � And getting it once at the cost of a tank is not the same as getting it for good. � Sure, you can stop Japan if you go 100% Pacific with the Americans and throw the UK and Russia at them. � But if you can keep Japan under 50-60 and get the Russian NO by Round 3 or 4 at the same time, then you are easily the best player on this site. � Because 70% of the time, the Allies are LOSING. � And if you can keep Japan’s income down and get the big NO with Russia, you would win every time as Allies.
That wasn’t my argument. � What I’m saying is it can be done. �  Not that it is done every game or easy to do. � I’ve said the Allies are bidding too low. � And MINIMALLY I’d bid 11. � I’d gladly take more. �  :-D
Obviously there are KGF that work and KJF that work, etc. and different routes to victory.
But a player also has to look at the board and see what is important and what isn’t.
Persia is important, Brazil is not. � Kaz/Novo is important, Stc is not. � Epl is important, Bur is not. � Etc.This is another stinker about the 1941 scenario. � Germany going right before Russia instead of right after. � In 1942, the UK and US can never add fighters to an advancing Russian stack (which I view as cheese).
It goes the other way too. � If Germany goes after, then UK and US can liberate territories for Russia meaning they can collect income with no units needed. � That was obviosuly the cas in both Classic and Revised. � Ex. UK liberates Kar and Russia can still place there.
-
And US can grab Balkans after Italy, giving Axis no chance to stop the big NO
Yes, big difference between 1941 and 1942 scenarios. I would think people would want to play 1942 for a change. -
I can’t really speak to 42 I haven’t played it much.
If you haven’t really played 1942, then you don’t really know AA50 that well. But there is a big problem as to why I don’t like to go back and forth playing '41 and '42. It’s because the turn order is flip-flopped between Japan and Germany. That makes it confusing for me to go back and forth.
I am 50-9-1 playing 1942
I am 19-4 playing 1941Half of those 1941 games were from playing this year
What I don’t understand is everyone saying 1941 is more popular, when nobody’s even really tried 1942 very much. As you can see, I’ve played waaaaay more 1942, but I’ve played both a lot. And I say 1941 is a novelty, for people who are tired of Classic and Revised starting in 1942
This is porbably true, the novelty part. But with G40 being out, I’m pretty sure people would play an Axis and Allies 1938 game or A&A 1935 etc (lol!) too. :-D
I think the Anniversary edition was a good idea, but should have been the replacement for Revised and not just a limited edition. You could have an initial release of limited edition (special box, pieces, etc), but then keep going with Anniversay because now if you want to play the '42 scenerio you can just play Revised (which was fairly balanced - bids of 8 to 11) or now you can play Spring '42. I haven’t played that yet, but IMO that should have fixed all the balance issues of Revised, so in theory it should be the best '42 version out there especially since they had 4 yrs of on-line play of Revised to lean on for balance issues.
I just think there might be too many games in general (and released in such a short time frame). AA50 and G40 get tons of play here, and I’m pretty sure Spring 42 gets play on Triple A and is the starter version for new board game players. My gut tells me AA50-42 might have missed its window to gain heavy on-line play. Unless it is played heavily on DAAK or AAMC or one of the other clubs.
I’d probably lean towards pushing Spr 42 over AA50-42 just because at least you can go out and buy Spr 42. That’s assuming Spr 42 is better than Revised. I’m not against AA50-42, but just think it lost some impact witht he release of Spr 42.
Suggested Topics
