Pointlessly Broken

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Imperious:

Don’t mind Vorbeck1914, he has a history of posting arrogant threads like " hopelessly broken" when people just continue to use bids and have no issues.

Yes, it’s so arrogant to post that a strat is broken after playing several games with it on TripleA often with multiple observers who were universally at a loss for Allied counters.  :roll:

So far the best counter that the most vociferous skeptic (a self-described “expert,” for what it’s worth) has come up with has USA’s odds of survival at less than 30%, and that leaves out
1. The difficulty of getting ANZAC inf included in that stat (forget getting 4, even 2 has its challenges) to W USA.
2. The possibility of Japanese bombardments.
3. The incredibly important ability of Japan to buy 1-3 bombers J3 to use J4.

I made a claim based on careful obervations and discussion with other players, and so far the continuing evidence has supported my claim. All the while, I have been asking and looking for even better strategies than my attempts for both sides, admitting that there were probably more efficient moves than mine (and being shown so by Zhukov’s innovations, btw). That is SO arrogant, while coming into the thread acting like it is beneath one’s dignity and like the noobs in the thread should be so thankful that the “expert” has come to share his genius and ignoring everything already posted (while getting so shredded doing the “best possible” Allied strat that he quits after J2) is not arrogant at all.  :roll:

What’s truly arrogant is to ignore posts and posts of evidence showing the dire situation the Allies are in and posting “It wasn’t broken” while providing 0 evidence to support that claim. (Well, maybe it’s more of a troll)

Which games did these “people” use bids for Pac 2e? Who won?  What were the basic strats that saw the most use? How much were the bids? Were they for US land units? Did Japan move to SZ 14 like this thread describes in any of them? Were bids used in Pac 2e for US land units before this thread?

Probably it would be best for all if you just admitted your very presence in this thread at all is merely waiting for opportunities to attack me due to our history. But it would be almost as good if you just went away, you clearly are not interested in adding anything productive.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Hard to say on the bid issue, I think a DD could help  by pushing it back to J5, but I’m hesitant to look into that for two reasons; first, in the couple games where it was pushed back to J5, Japan still had odds in the 70s, (I think I wrote a little bit on this page 3 or so), and second, Krieg made it sound like setup changes were a last resort, which a bid basically is (and bids wouldn’t be official anyways). Reason three (I know I said two), is that if in 2e the mainland strat is as good as it was in OOB, the US bid will not solve the mainland problems. However, I haven’t really seen any reports on the traditional strat for 2e, but unless it is even easier for Japan than OOB, this USA crush seems to need to take precedence in the order of fixin’.

The bid is surely at least 12, possibly 14 or more.  If there was an 11-12 ipc land unit bid to the USA, then they could have around 65% to counter W. Canada.

If that is sufficient to fend off Japan, then they wouldn’t have to sacrifice their fleet.  However, if Japan so much as fakes an intention to Hollywood, then the first USA buy needs to be all land units.  This is all less than ideal for Allies and would need to be rectified by a bid to China.

The inf/art bid on WUSA would have some use to Allies, but not the kind of direct immediate use you would get from bidding that inf/art to China.

I don’t have any principled objection to using bids to fix this.  After all, it’s normal to place bids in the place where you need extra units.  But the bid itself would have to be pretty high.

17-18 bid for Allies?  That’s what I’m thinking but only experience could flesh it out.

However a rule change isn’t objectionable in itself either, as long as we’re aware we’ll still be using bids to achieve game balance.

-Give USA 5-10 extra AAs (not sure 5 is enough, but 10 probably is).
-Give USA a “Militia Movement” inf bonus if Japan invades North America
-Restrict Japan’s pre-war movement to 4/7/16/24/23/33, or at least restrict the movement of Japanese land units to those boundaries.

The last suggestion, while definitely useful, is the least effective because USA still has to all of their surface ships on USA1 as blockers.

OR we integrate USA’s vulnerable predicament into the bid structure.  Kind of a raw deal for novices, but experts would get to have some fun playing Hollywood!

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

With that bid as USA I would personally still block Alaska to be safe; Japan could concievably just transport into W USA J4 if Alaska is held, although you are right in that it would make it MUCH harder for Japan.

Good point about USA still needing to buy all land. More USA defense would mean that USA has to use less blockers like you said, which makes the 14 move less devastating.

I am not saying that people who use bids are playing it wrong, I am simply saying that bids won’t be the solution for fixing the official game. I don’t recall much discussion about bids in Alpha 2 global, and I don’t recall much evidence behind that claim that KJF was too powerful (and lo and behold Alpha 3 seems universally accepted to be too easy for the Axis). I know playtesting wasn’t super thorough on Pac 2e, but at the same time, I have some confidence that there can be a fix that will make bids not absolutely necessary. After all, if we can find a value of a bid that we are confident will fix the game, why can’t we find a rule change or two that also fixes it? Am I guaranteeing that the next fix will make bids unnecessary? No. But with some examination of what Japan’s fortunes are with the mainland strat in 2e (which I have seen nothing about so far on the forums), I think there is a pretty good shot of getting a balanced game.

I was thinking of adding 10 AA a while ago, but that isn’t very subtle.  :-) It will do the job on the USA crush though. Perhaps if the Japanese move a land unit to West USA, USA can spend a free (50?) IPC on land units immediately to defend, kind of like the militia you were talking about. That way there is NO way USA could use the extra units against Japan unless Japan triggers it, and then  the focus can shift to the mainland strat if need exists.

If anyone knows of any play reports from Pac 2e where Japan does the traditional strat, if you could post some links it would be really helpful to the discussion.

[atease]

How about a few UK land troops in Canada to help balance the odds? Without industries or transports nearby, their only purpose would be to improve odds of USA in winning that battle. Basically the same solution than in Europe with the french units in London.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Imperious:

What’s truly arrogant is to ignore posts and posts of evidence

Thats just it. The ‘posts and posts’ are from you where evidence does not count because you posted it. You take too much liberty with the truth and quantity does not have a quality no matter how many times you post.

That’s arrogant.

Liberty with the truth? Where? Please provide evidence supporting your claim. (This is the point where IL’s arguments fail, when actual evidence is brought into the equation.) I have backed up everything I have said, and in fact I could have taken an even stronger position, and the evidence would have still supported that, especially since Zhukov’s Japanese moves were posted.

What’s really arrogant is to support your insulting and baseless trolling personal attacks with 0 evidence and act like your personal credibility is enough. Looking at Lucas McCain’s account shows us that your credibility is nonexistent.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@atease:

How about a few UK land troops in Canada to help balance the odds? Without industries or transports nearby, their only purpose would be to improve odds of USA in winning that battle. Basically the same solution than in Europe with the french units in London.

That’s an interesting one; it’s hard to say but it seems like they are of even less use to USA than the AA guns would be for an offensive strategy, but still quite effective for defense.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

With that bid as USA I would personally still block Alaska to be safe; Japan could concievably just transport into W USA J4 if Alaska is held, although you are right in that it would make it MUCH harder for Japan.

Good catch.  Lol so much of the problem is related to Japan being 3 spaces from SZ1.  The Japanese could put their main fleet in sz1 on J3.  But ideally Japan wants to be in sz10 on J3, so if they can’t hold both that’s an inconvenience, since the combined Allied fleet might be a threat to the Japanese fleet w/o the benefit of air support.

If the J4 landing is unstoppable, I guess USA could sacrifice 3 naval units to block Alaska. Reason enough to increase the bid even more.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Maybe a game where the competitive players’  bid ends up being around 4 or so after lots of playing is balanced enough, but if we start getting into the 20s, which it sounds like, I think as long a Larry and Krieg are willing to make a rules change, I think the change would be for the best.

To me a major problem here that I don’t think has been addressed is how easy this USA crush is. There’s really not a ton of adjustment that needs to be made while running it.

[gamerman01]

You don’t need a bid in the 20’s to stop KUSAF from working too effectively.  You’re just trying to make your case that you are so brilliant that you found a glitch in the game that needs a bid of 20+ to fix and that the creators of the game need to change the rules because you are so clever.

But as Zhukov has repeatedly pointed out, as I have also, the game is already a bit unbalanced in favor of Japan - always has been.  So you can cook the Allies with KUSAF.  Big deal - you can also cook them by wailing on China and the UK, and then ANZAC.  OOB was much more imbalanced, and J2 and J3 attacks made no sense, although the designer of the game wanted it to be a hard decision.  This is all VERY well documented on these boards.  One guy studied these matters much more thoroughly than you are right now.  Kaufstick was his name - he’s from Ohio.  He also posted about these matters EXTENSIVELY on harrisgamedesign.com.  You can probably read all about it on either website.

Other people who have ideas that clash with yours seem arrogant because you yourself are so proud and stubborn.  You won’t listen to IL’s pointing out that maybe you are arrogant.  You arrogantly argue with him about why he must be wrong, or point out negative things about him, as if that proves that you are not arrogant.

I’ve already demonstrated that a couple of infantry is all that’s needed.  I see you are all talking about the need to park in Z10 on J3, thanks to my ANZ infantry strategy dramatically changing the odds, if Japan does not park in Z10.  Zhukov is making a lot of the same conclusions that I did (and I acknowledge that he is taking it much farther and working on strats, which I couldn’t because you wouldn’t work with me).  Zhukov happens to be one of the other elite players on this site.

[gamerman01]

That said, the whole game is quite silly.

Russia doesn’t exist.
UK fleet is trapped in Z39 and can’t go west.
There is no Canadian army whatsoever.
USA doesn’t have the ability to shift resources within its own country.  You’re playing with half a USA with no flexibility.  Ground units from WUS can’t go to CUS or get away anywhere.
WUS is a capital, and the USA ceases to exist if it is captured.

The whole game is just unrealistic, and we only played it in 2010 while we were waiting for the other half to come out in September.

I understand the fun of trying to solve a puzzle, and I’m not laughing at you guys for doing that.  But vonLettow, you shouldn’t have been such an a-hole when I came along wanting to enjoy trying to solve your puzzle.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

a couple of infantry is all that’s needed.  I see you are all talking about the need to park in Z10 on J3, thanks to my ANZ infantry strategy dramatically changing the odds, if Japan does not park in Z10.

3 inf would probably be enough to give above average odds on a USA3 attack on Western Canada.  The extra 2 inf from Aussie would help USA a little more, but that depends on the unproven possibility that z1 and z10 can’t be held simultaneously.

USA would have to buy land units USA1 and they might have to sacrifice 4 blockers if the J4 amphib attack from Alaska (supported by air in Alaska) is unbeatable.  Rather then that, I’d prefer to just spend more bid money on USA inf, and discourage Japan from trying or faking Hollywood at all.

With a bid that high (18+), at least the game should be playable.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Gamerman, Zhukov gave his opinion that a bid of 17 and 18 was looking right, and then it looked like he was thinking the bid needed to be increased even more. It’s only 1 more inf before that bid of 17-18 is in the 20’s. Since he has actually shown that he has talent in this game (rather than putting up an easily defeated strat while calling it the best possible strat for the Allies), he has shown that he actually knows what he is talking about.

Where are your play reports detailing that Pac 2nd edition is too easy for Japan going the traditional route? I am not saying it isn’t too easy, I just have seen 0 evidence actually related to that yet.

Maybe you haven’t been around lately, but IL looks for any opportunity he can to attack me due to an unfortunate series of embarrassing run-ins he had with evidence I have provided in the 1914 forum. If his presence is anything other than a troll finding excuses to try to make me look bad, he hasn’t shown it.

Of course it MY fault that you were not able to come up with the strats before Zhukov even though you just quit the game we were playing after J2. � :roll: I “wouldn’t work with you” when I spend 3 hours trying to accomodate your pushiness to start play by forum and then after I post my J2 you just drop out? � :roll: I “wouldn’t work with you” when I repeatedly offered to play live at a time that works for you, while you repeatedly refused to even try it?

Had you read � the thread or been present in a few TripleA playtests, you would have seen that Japan parking its fleet in SZ 10 is nothing new. Neither is ANZAC attempting to get inf to W USA. You come after me for allegedly acting like I invented this strat (which in the very first post it’s clear I was not saying that at all), but it’s totally OK for you act like the idea of moving ANZAC inf to W USA is yours. � :roll:

You STILL haven’t acknowledged that your analysis was erroneous because it did not account for the J3 bomber(s) purchase, the potential for Japanese bombardments, or the ability for Japan to fairly easily block at least 2 of those ANZAC infantry.

You say that a couple of inf are all that is needed. That’s a far cry from you coming on a few days ago like you would shortly be trashing some noob and showing no changes were needed like you acted like you were going to do . That also doesn’t address the claims you made about it being too easy for Japan going mainland. You still haven’t addressed how a few US infantry helps with the potential problem of the mainland strat. You still haven’t addressed why you claimed that this strat doesn’t matter because a bid was needed anyways, but then said that the bid should go towards US infantry. You ignore this questions, but then have the audacity to claim that I am the one not reading YOUR posts. � :roll:

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Gamerman01:

I understand the fun of trying to solve a puzzle, and I’m not laughing at you guys for doing that. � But vonLettow, you shouldn’t have been such an a-hole when I came along wanting to enjoy trying to solve your puzzle.

Oh really? That’s what happened?

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Honestly, this is all quite a lot of hassle to test a strat in a game that I am not convinced more than 11 people worldwide actually play. I am literally the only person I know of who hosts pac games on TripleA. PM me when you have a 2 hour block to test this out. I see no point in waiting for forum posts constantly when it is much easier to play live.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

I was up intially for trying it once, but after twiddling my thumbs for the past two hours while getting exactly 0 rounds of the game in where we could be at round 6 in a live game, I feel severely frustrated and like I am wasting my time.

Constantly checking back in the forum is cool if you don’t have the time to lay aside a couple hours to play or if you are a notoriously slow player, but I want nothing to do with it. It’s been almost half an hour since I posted the issue I was having with dice, and in that half hour we could have done a round.

Gamerman, again, lmk when you got a few hours. It’s nothing personal, but I am very frustrated for this immense waste of my time.

I then posted the J1, finally.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

There it is. If this starts stretching into days what can be done in a couple hours I might just bow out.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is it possible to unsubscribe from the dice emails spamming up my inbox without unsubscribing from the dice service? I want to make sure before clicking the unsubscribe link.

@Gamerman01:

Just create a rule in your e-mail program to automatically route all e-mails from “MARTI” to a separate folder, and then they won’t be filling your inbox.

Dude, quit your whining!

First of all, there are a lot more than 11 interested players in the world.
Second of all, Krieghund is about to change the rulebook after one player presents a strategy, with no demonstrations?  And now you’re not willing to play a game or two on a format you’re slightly unfamiliar with to prove it?

What’s the deal, man?  Are you for real?

@Gamerman01:

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re doubting your bullet-proof strategy now!

If it’s so great, put in a little time to prove it to all of us other A&A fans!  This game has been out for 2 1/2 years (it’s still basically the same thing).  If you can’t wait a week or two to play through a game claiming that it’s all busted, I don’t know what to say.

@Gamerman01:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

There it is. If this starts stretching into days what can be done in a couple hours I might just bow out.

:? Not showing a lot of belief in the strategy you spent hours typing out for everyone to see.  Put up or shut up.

Yes, that’s all you were doing, trying to enjoy solving the puzzle. After I spend 3 hours trying to accomadate you, you call me a whiner and telling me to put up or shut up because I was frustrated for doing in 3 hours what takes me 5 minutes in a live game. And yet I am the A-hole.  :roll:

[Karl7]

What happened in the match off between Von Lettow and Gamerman?  Did it conclude?

[gamerman01]

Way to stir the pot, Karl.

Why don’t you just go to the thread and read our conclusions on that thread?

[Zhukov44]

At this point I see no effective counter.  For the game to be playable, Allies need to insist on a bid (presumably 18+) and at least 11-12 ipc of it should go to land units for USA.  That gives USA a chance at countering Western Canada on USA3 if Japan lands in British Columbia with up to 24 units on J3.

However, if Japan can get hold of Alaska on J2, then they have a chance at taking out USA via a J4 landing (with 24 units plus aircraft).  But in that case Japan can’t use bombers bought J3 in the attack, so surely its odds will be less than 95%, perhaps as low as 50-60% depending on whether it’s possible for Japan to hold sz10 on J3.

It’s worth testing out the latter strategy to see if USA needs to sacrifice the blockers on USA1 to hold Alaska in order to survive.  If they do, I would probably want an additional inf or two added onto my USA bid to persuade Japan to try to win using another strategy (and to not have to sacrifice the USA navy early in the game).

Naturally that isn’t the last word…I’m running short of ideas for the time being but I encourage others to try to find a way to prevent USA’s defeat that doesn’t require the 15+ ipc bid.

[gamerman01]

Well if that’s truly the case (although I think a 9 bid of 3 extra infantry is sufficient - I did not spend as much time studying as you), then that’s pretty pathetic, because the KUSAF is much MORE viable than it even was in OOB.

I thought 2nd edition was supposed to be an improvement.

[ch0senfktard]

@Gamerman01:

I thought 2nd edition was supposed to be an improvement.

Well, the Alpha rules were tested with Global in mind, so… yeah…
I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

[gamerman01]

@ch0senfktard:

I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

Exactly.  Jeez, put in another couple of hours and tweak the E40 and P40 setups.  If it works for global, it ain’t gonna work when you slice off the other half of the board.

I’m sorry, but it looks like just a money-grabbing technique to me….

Although it’d be fun to play a couple games of E40 some time…  Like I said, it only made sense to play a bunch of games of P40 when we were still waiting for E40 to play global.  Ah, well.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

@ch0senfktard:

I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

Exactly.  Jeez, put in another couple of hours and tweak the E40 and P40 setups.  If it works for global, it ain’t gonna work when you slice off the other half of the board.

I’m sorry, but it looks like just a money-grabbing technique to me….

Although it’d be fun to play a couple games of E40 some time…  Like I said, it only made sense to play a bunch of games of P40 when we were still waiting for E40 to play global.  Ah, well.

E40 came out pretty good.  Shorter than Global; it plays well live.  While I think it favors Allies, a pro Axis is extremely difficult to beat.  So it’s basically even, with a slight advantage to the more challenging side.  It’s a better game than OOB where Germany played Sea Lion every game.

With Pacific, the Allied player needs to be either more skilled or more lucky to win.