Sorry, but I really should have quit the instant we got new players, I had a mind too, I don’t really know why I did not.
You made the challenge, not us.
I made a 1 on 1 challenge, after the game started you brought in extra help.
Whatever. I’m just here to play. All my games right now are group games so I don’t have to make a move everyday as I’m too busy.
If you want blood, that’s fine, but for the next while I am doing group games.
@Cmdr:
Sorry, but I really should have quit the instant we got new players, I had a mind too, I don’t really know why I did not.
You made the challenge, not us.
I made a 1 on 1 challenge, after the game started you brought in extra help.
to be fair, you accepted the 3v1 when you could of easily said no.
Did you guys want to start another group game?
I prefer 1v1s actually. Hard to coordinate otherwise. Thanks for the offer.
What about you vs ghr2 and myself?
I’d be interested in that, but I actually care for Alpha 2 quite a bit more than Alpha 3. The games of A3 I’ve had haven’t shown me that the changes were much of an improvement. In my opinion it’s actually less balanced.
Although if you’d like to continue to test out Alpha 3, I’d be okay with being Allies.
Alright, I’ll start up a thread tomorrow.
Jenn’s version of Sealion was interesting, but I think the one we developed for Alpha 2 much is much better as it leaves less UK ships alive.
I prefer 1v1s actually. Hard to coordinate otherwise. Thanks for the offer.
Exactly.
And yes, I could have said no, and as I said, I should have - or at least demanded for the game to pause until such time as I could get a partner or two for myself. But I really am not a group gamer type person. I only participated once in a 2v2 tournament and I wanted to kill a really good friend by the end of the second round of play for not doing what I wanted him to do.
Still, you have to admit, we started as a 1v1 game that turned into a gang against Jennifer game which is not what was originally stated. And this is mostly for posterity’s sake so Jim here doesn’t try going around saying he’s the greatest player that ever lived (I am not saying you would Jim, but I know a few players who would change the parameters of a game and then declare that they were far superior because the other person couldn’t keep up with all the changes.)
Generally speaking the strategy has never failed to produce results. Both London and Calcutta fall every time it’s employed. Notice, I did not say the Axis win every time!
The real issue comes in when others know what you are going to do before you do it. Take the Americans up in SZ 16. No way in hell they would be there in a normal game. In this case, the player knew I couldn’t sail back and achieve the objective at the same time. In other words, he knew exactly what I was going to do and the only way to adapt the plan was to scrap the plan and create a new one - which violated any kind of test of the plan itself!
Russia played as it normally does, and for that I give Jim010 a lot of credit. He knew what I was going to do and could have dropped a bunch of Mechanised Infantry like Corrigan and Noll did to capitolize on my being stuck with one plan and one plan only.
I think England did not play as normal - knowing what was in store for it. (Who would put a destroyer out there south of Sumatra? In all the games I have seen and played, I have NEVER seen one there no matter what Japan does.) England almost always hits SZ 97 as well on round 1, before they know what is happening on Round 2, so cuddling up to Gibraltar is not exactly down a normal game’s lines.
I guess what I am saying is you cannot test a strategy if your opponents know you are testing a strategy. As much as they might try to say they are not letting the knowledge of what is going to happen effect their turn, it is impossible not to let it effect you pro or con. I do think that given a normal game, 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 3, that the Kill England First strategy will work 90% of the time (based on the worst battle being 90% odds, all the rest are higher.)
In a normal game, if I saw America move to SZ 16 and England to Gibraltar, I would scrap all my plans of British Conquest and shift immediately over to destroy Russia first with massive fleet builds to slow the Americans down. Shift over to turtle on the other side of Gibraltar as long as I can hold out so that America cannot get a foothold early. (This is the only way to deal with an England that is completely turtled as you cannot win and be in a strong position afterwards, you can win and you will win, but you’re out of position with a weaker stack because your enemy knew what you were going to do and you did it anyway.)
Now, I’m willing to have a FAIR fight. 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 if someone is interested. But this 3 on 1 when I have half a dozen other games going is not going to work.
Alright, I’ll start up a thread tomorrow.
Jenn’s version of Sealion was interesting, but I think the one we developed for Alpha 2 much is much better as it leaves less UK ships alive.
It does leave less British ships alive, but it’s harder to pull off since you can get more British units to England. In other words if England turtles, you don’t have 90% odds like you do in Alpha 3, I think you are down to what, 55% odds?
I’d be interested in that, but I actually care for Alpha 2 quite a bit more than Alpha 3. The games of A3 I’ve had haven’t shown me that the changes were much of an improvement. In my opinion it’s actually less balanced.
Although if you’d like to continue to test out Alpha 3, I’d be okay with being Allies.
I think Alpha 2 is as unbalanced in favor of the allies as Alpha 3 is unbalanced in favor of the Axis.
6 IPC bid for England puts the game on an even keel, as England now has the defensive power to stop an early Sea Lion. Sea Lion can still happen, but not on Round 3, it’ll have to be Round 4 and that gives Russia more time to play.
well, to be honest, i might of doen the sz16 even if i did not know ur plan purely because you were in such an awkward position with ur navy put of reach to return home and japan being open, also, 13 trannys does keep the uk worried about sealion, its almost a given to expect one with all the mass naval builds.
@Cmdr:
I think England did not play as normal - knowing what was in store for it. (Who would put a destroyer out there south of Sumatra? In all the games I have seen and played, I have NEVER seen one there no matter what Japan does.) England almost always hits SZ 97 as well on round 1, before they know what is happening on Round 2, so cuddling up to Gibraltar is not exactly down a normal game’s lines.
I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree here.
When I play as England, and Sealion is threatened on round 1 - which is standard - I do what gives me the most options. That means I run to Gibraltar. As long as Germany plays and builds normally, i.e. naval builds, I will never hit 97. I will never just hand London to Germany.
And the Destroyer in the Indian Ocean was fairly normal as well. It couldn’t do much in in the Atlantic/Med. It would have more use to me as a blocker in the Southwest Pacific than in another theater. I also wasn’t sure what Ghr2 was going to do with the French destroyer - I usually use it as a Pacific blocker as well.
At no point did I do anything with British units that I would not have done normally. They were fairly standard openings.
Generally round 2 is accompanied by a naval base in Kwangsi - I did not do that this game for other reasons (just as I failed to leave a few planes on the carriers like I usually do as well, which would have helped with that weird destroyer placement.) I had never seen the destroyer put there, it is (to be honest) the weirdest move possible and I can only see it being marginally effective if you planned to sail back to the cost of malaya and put something else on the coast of Burma.
Germany almost always goes naval build, so what you’re saying is you almost never attack the Italian fleet. Okay. I can buy that. One reason I like the 2 transport build instead of the destroyer/submarine build is that 3 transports for Germany really is not a whole lot and it looks like it forces England into a panic to race home. (Note, in any typical game, even this would not help you!) Killing the French fleet with Italy would have been better than what I did, though.
Eh, look at the crush england thread we can discuss it more there.
:roll: My God, Jenn. Let it go. Are you really this competitive? I play 1 v 1 and group games all the time. Player join in or drop out all the time. I never complain. As for telling everyone that I beat Jenn, do you REALLY think I care? Have I gone out of my way to challenge you? I post to have a game with ANY player. If you happen to be the one that answers the call, fine.
There are those I won’t play with, and those are players that have abandoned a game with me, or are whiners. You got beat because of sloppy moves, not because there were 3 players. If anything, you had the advatage, as we could not coordinate among ourselves well.
And whats up with the posts? I’m seeing posts pop up where there weren’t any. Am I missing something?
@Cmdr:
I prefer 1v1s actually. Hard to coordinate otherwise. Thanks for the offer.
Exactly.
And yes, I could have said no, and as I said, I should have - or at least demanded for the game to pause until such time as I could get a partner or two for myself. But I really am not a group gamer type person. I only participated once in a 2v2 tournament and I wanted to kill a really good friend by the end of the second round of play for not doing what I wanted him to do.
Still, you have to admit, we started as a 1v1 game that turned into a gang against Jennifer game which is not what was originally stated. And this is mostly for posterity’s sake so Jim here doesn’t try going around saying he’s the greatest player that ever lived (I am not saying you would Jim, but I know a few players who would change the parameters of a game and then declare that they were far superior because the other person couldn’t keep up with all the changes.)
Generally speaking the strategy has never failed to produce results. Both London and Calcutta fall every time it’s employed. Notice, I did not say the Axis win every time!
The real issue comes in when others know what you are going to do before you do it. Take the Americans up in SZ 16. No way in hell they would be there in a normal game. In this case, the player knew I couldn’t sail back and achieve the objective at the same time. In other words, he knew exactly what I was going to do and the only way to adapt the plan was to scrap the plan and create a new one - which violated any kind of test of the plan itself!
Russia played as it normally does, and for that I give Jim010 a lot of credit. He knew what I was going to do and could have dropped a bunch of Mechanised Infantry like Corrigan and Noll did to capitolize on my being stuck with one plan and one plan only.
I think England did not play as normal - knowing what was in store for it. (Who would put a destroyer out there south of Sumatra? In all the games I have seen and played, I have NEVER seen one there no matter what Japan does.) England almost always hits SZ 97 as well on round 1, before they know what is happening on Round 2, so cuddling up to Gibraltar is not exactly down a normal game’s lines.
I guess what I am saying is you cannot test a strategy if your opponents know you are testing a strategy. As much as they might try to say they are not letting the knowledge of what is going to happen effect their turn, it is impossible not to let it effect you pro or con. I do think that given a normal game, 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 3, that the Kill England First strategy will work 90% of the time (based on the worst battle being 90% odds, all the rest are higher.)
In a normal game, if I saw America move to SZ 16 and England to Gibraltar, I would scrap all my plans of British Conquest and shift immediately over to destroy Russia first with massive fleet builds to slow the Americans down. Shift over to turtle on the other side of Gibraltar as long as I can hold out so that America cannot get a foothold early. (This is the only way to deal with an England that is completely turtled as you cannot win and be in a strong position afterwards, you can win and you will win, but you’re out of position with a weaker stack because your enemy knew what you were going to do and you did it anyway.)
Now, I’m willing to have a FAIR fight. 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 if someone is interested. But this 3 on 1 when I have half a dozen other games going is not going to work.
Nah, I don’t think you care that much - but on the off chance you did… (I’m specifically targetting certain lunatics that troll the boards across the internet that love nothing better to pick up on things like this and use them forever more to try and slander people. No one in specific, just random trolls and lunatics.)
Anyway, Alsch was asking how I could land 21 planes if I attacked India. You do it with an Airbase in Kwangsi, it allows you to land in Yunnan, Burma or Sham State, and of course, you have the 6 planes that can land on carriers as well. Part of the “trick” is to buy planes with Japan starting on Round 2 to get your mobility back after sacrificing 2 to the Indian AA Guns and maybe 2 or 3 more so you can have a ground unit left to “control” India.
I have made this resolution before, but I am going to make it again: I am never going to play a game that tests a specific strategy where I have told my opponent what I am going to test. I think it invalidates the test. I wish we had signatures too, that would be my new one!
But, you didn’t tell us what you were going to do.
Your moves did predict it, though. And I do Sealion myself all the time, so I know the tell tale signs. It’s not just buying a CV and 2 TTs that gives it away.
Yes - our moves were fairly standard. You could have turned right around and done Barbarossa if you wanted. I would have had several things I know I would have done on UK 2 in that case.
But, you didn’t tell us what you were going to do.
Your moves did predict it, though. And I do Sealion myself all the time, so I know the tell tale signs. It’s not just buying a CV and 2 TTs that gives it away.
I was under the impression this was a test of the strategy. Therefore, I had to do what I did with as few modifications as possible to ensure I did what I did… (like boats in SZ 113 which is still in range of England.)
I did not realize this was a game “for fun” in which case I would have demanded one of your partners get on my side of the table…I didnt ask and discouraged it because I thought we were testing the specific strategy and I didn’t trust you three to do it right. To be perfectly blunt.
:?
I asked if someone wanted to play a bid game. You answered the call. No mention of Sealion was made. No one expected you to play that, but you did make it obvious that was what you were going to do. All mves were predicated on that.
My Russian moves were made to stand in Epl and advance when you took London if I had the opportunity to do so and to counter attack in Leningrad if you aborted London and went after me. I wasn’t completely convinced you were going to go through with Sealion, so I had to account for the choices you had.
If you want to play again (no play test, just play) ok. Get a partner and lets go again.
