Don’t take anything Agent says personally. That is his posting style. He is very harsh on what he considers inferior strat or weak moves.
Yes I am the Simon Cowell of Axis and Allies, or I am really Simon Cowell :wink:
Maybe, lighten up the tone slightly. It has been a while since you posted here and not everyone is familar with you and your style.
Well its not that I try to hurt people’s feelings or step on their toes but this is how I’m used to writing. When you write a persuasive argument you have to believe in it and leave no doubt to anyone else that you believe in it. Yes I am right until someone can make an argument that persuades me otherwise, and it can and does happen as there is substantial elacity to what I say.
Example, if an 8 inf bid must be split (6-2), then would that not encourge PAfr? Which is what we want, right?
Not necessarily I could see an 8unit bid of PE being fairly equivalent to the same for PAfr. Now what you choose to do with it is a matter of preference but if I assessed myself as inferior to my opponent I’d probably go for PE.
Even with a 22-23 bid, you can make a powerful PE play BUT if you must give Japan 2 inf, then with a 23 bid (6 inf, 1 arm) you immediately have to look at 4 inf, 1 arm for Afr and 2 inf for Man. Because if the 4 inf and 1 arm were in Europe it could be very problematic for the Germans.
Right which is basically a NO PE rule so why not make it such and simplify it. Remember that if it were found that even a 24-26 PAfr bid was not enough then with a 9unit bid you might again find PE to be a problem. For example, the 2unit bid to Asia negates PE for a 21-23 bid but for a 9unit bid 27+ I might try a bid of 5inf-Ukr, 2inf-EEuro and 2inf-Manch and this would be stronger than any PAfr combo you could throw at me.
DM: thanks for your disclaimer. However, posting like that is not a "style." Generally, disrespect is reserved for 12 year-olds. I don’t mind that AS countered my points, it was how he presented them. Baker showed that it can be done in a tasteful way, per your examples. I might be tolerant of that tone if this were AgentSmith’s weblog, but it’s definitely not the case.
And other than refuting every point you made what did I say that was disrespectful? I looked and couldn’t find any instance where I called you a newbie and the worst I found was when I said “Now I know you don’t know what you’re talking about” which was about an extremely questionable move. Yes its very likely that some of the Newbie mistakes I detailed are ones you make or have made but what a lot of newer posters do not understand is that for those of us with a great deal of experience it is quite easy to tell how much of it someone else has by what they write. Also, I can’t tell you how often someone comes to a MB w/o any or much online experience and procedes to tell everyone how “inexperienced” they are. In your own message there was more than a slight intonation of that and I’ve always felt that it is better for people to learn the truth earlier rather than later. Home experience is almost worthless compared to online experience, and to really improve your game you need to be extremely open to what others here are saying.
As the Axis I haven’t gone after the US with Japan for probably 100+ games to show how rare this is, and I’ve probably only played 1 in a 100 maybe less where this did happen(excluding endgame scenarios). Out of the 100-125 games I’ve played lifetime of A+A I’ve also only seen the very heavy Asian play once or twice. This too should tell you something about them. And when played neither of these were successful.
On the other hand, I’m not rooted in convention and have a few thoughts on certain things I’ve not seen discussed here.
Which is probably why you felt disrespected. Playing at home against 1-2 other people allows you to be complacent and play the player not the game. If you know your opponent will never make a KwangBang then you are not going to place very much importance on the threat of such a move. However, when you start playing dozens of other people each with their own proclivities you’ll find out what is more close to the truth.
The reason I like a PA bid is to take the convention (the game is up to Germany vs. Russia, i.e. it’s all up to Russia - which I disagree with) and turn it on its head. Fine, give me a PA bid of 30+, that would be a fantastic game.
Yes well okay that’s where we disagree the game is entirely built around the Germans versus Russia there is no simple way to get around that meaning but for major changes to game dynamics the game will always be about what is in the center of the board.
And as for a 30ipcs bid in Asia I have not doubt that it could be beaten easily as I think a 26ipc bid for Africa is not a slam dunk either.
First off, the reason Japan is powerful, yet restrained, is not because they have the 2nd or 3rd most pieces on the board
No this is entirely the source of their strength along with being the furthest away from any Allied center of power ie a Capital.
Second, for the very generic things I said, I don’t understand how all of the specific counters you said would take place in the same game
B/c it is a very generic bid the best that can be done with it is to push to Novo take it and hold it forever. Specifically what will happen as seconded by Baker is that Britian will not be widdled down too much b/c it will replace Asian IPCs with Africa or even European ipcs. So you can assume to see most of what I detailed almost every game. Secondly, I believe I game my R1 plan which you should assume you’d see in almost everygame and would if you played me. These are an attack on the Baltic, SpainSz, and Ukr. This means Germany loses 1ftr and likely has to sack 1-2 more on G1 to kill the Uk fleet which is not what you want to see on G1.
Russia may not be a punching bag, but they aren’t a punching glove
Totally disagree! Russia can and should be played to be powerful. They are far more dangerous than Britain or the US is seperately and maybe even combined.
and the Allies are susceptible to the same overexertion as the Axis. I’m not going to charge in blindly with inadequate forces. So, you have to kill troops to make a bid successful?
Yes and no the Axis is the protagonist and therefore must defeat the Allies failing this the Allies should exhaust the Axis evertime.
A bid must, MUST, get you territory or force the Allies to play into a corner so as to give the Axis a window. For example, in PE bid the Russians are backed into fighting exclusively in Europe and therefore the Japanese and Germans should benefit.
Do you understand the word "whittled?" Because you’ve proven what I said with the second sentence. It doesn’t mean blown out of the water, it means a gradual loss of territory/IPC. Which is exactly what Japan needs to do. 25 IPCs won’t get them much of anywhere, and they need to move with superior initial forces. Wake up. And where in Asia would UK build 1 inf 5 arm to push Japan back if Japan has evicted UK?
Right but do you understand that Germany will quickly lose Africa to the UK, and that the only Asian ipcs the UK should lose is India, Aust and NZ? Japan can be kept out of Africa and for this reason it means the drain on the UK stops at 28ipcs which if Japan tops off at 48ipcs is still quite a bit, and since Germany loses Africa and FinNor they will be at ~28ipcs as well.Â
Persia and Syria are in Asia. You take India, you move on. It’s not a hard concept. If Germany is still in Africa, even better. With a PA bid, I can take Africa too, so why bother with a power Africa?Â
But do you understand the difference btwn taking and holding territories. Geographically speaking Syria and Persia are considered part of Asia but Japan cannot reach Syria without going through either a sea zone or Persia. The problem with Persia is that it is too close to a major center of production/distribution of Karelia and Moscow. To keep Japan out of persia all the Allies have to do is make it a deadzone with either British or Russian troops in Cauc which cannot be attacked. Then with armor in either Karelia or Moscow they can attack without giving up much on defense. So for practical purposes Syria is part of Africa and Persia is unreachable for Japan. You might sneak a few units through early on but these will be isolated and destroyed and there is no long term gain in that.
With a PA bid, I can take Africa too, so why bother with a power Africa?Â
No they can’t b/c it is extremely cumbersome for Japan to get troops into Africa b/c they have to go by sea and in doing so they cut themselves off from their supplies in Japan as well as exposing their fleet to attack. Trying to stack Persia is also problematic b/c like India it means softening up in Novo against Russia which means Russia can breathe which means Russia can put inf in Kaz and hold arm in Karelia to attack. This means Japan goes to India-Russia goes to Kaz, Japan goes to Persia-Russia attacks. Russia only needs a handful of Infantry to do this and Japan must overcommit to compensate allowing Russia to do likewise. If you go to Africa these troops with either be attacked or quickly isolated and are extremely difficult to reinforce which means this advance is unsustainable.
Japan can pressure the US if the US is focused on reinforcing UK/Russia, as Baker outlined. I’m not saying defeating, I’m saying pressure. It’s all about the distraction. I’ve stalled the US as Japan and kept them mostly out of Africa and Europe before, it’s not difficult.Â
No there is not distraction b/c the US has an advantage in NAmerica against Japan and always will. As the US all you have to do is build guys and send them to Europe its that simple. If Japan tries to get cute and go after Panama, Mexico etc then that’s great b/c that costs them more than it does the US b/c it means moving out of range of Tokyo for several turns, and even better if I start even modest air builds I can force the Japs to send some cap ships to protect their transports which means either they can’t go to Africa or I can attack their merchant fleet in Tokyo by air in Russia/Novo. Aust, Nz, Hawaii are all lost causes so I don’t even bother defending them and wouldn’t be distracted.
My question to you is that if you’ve seen everything in A&A, and that it really is just a “yahtzee” that you say you don’t like but admit it is, then why do you play?
I believe what I said is that PE as it is currently played is a yahtzee move.
And where in Asia would UK build 1 inf 5 arm to push Japan back if Japan has evicted UK?
Don’t forget that armor are extremely fast moving units, and that armor stationed in Cauc can strike as far as India. So by this reasoing it only takes a tank 2 turns to go from being dropped off in Finland to India, and only 3 to go from production to India. As Baker noted don’t think the Brits can’t reach Asia. Now obviously the British doing this will not by themselves be a serious threat to japan, but if Japan is stacking Novo after a PAsia bid then I would definately consider using the British this way b/c 1)the Germans are weak, and 2) the threat on Asia might allow Russia some breathing room which once gained will swing the game by potentially making Novo a long term deadzone. If Japan concedes India all the better.
Or the UK could do this by itself by blitzing from Karelia through Caucasus into Persia. On the next turn India and possibly other territories may be open to attack (including any IC’s you might have there).
Yes my point exactly, and might I add this is a good way to deal with an opponent who goes crazy with ICs including building one on turn1. If you can threaten them you can force the Japanese to defend these and not their front against Russia which opens space and opportunites for the Allies against Japan.
I don’t expect to have someone jump down my throat because I’m discussing things that I’m new to and they are not.
But I am not trying to “jump” down your throat only directly challenge some of the contentions your gameplay is built on so that you might understand ‘why’ to change them rather than conforming to a new orthodoxy which will not make you better. IMO its always better to get the honest truth sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, I had to play a lot of games before I got this b/c most players would not be honest in their discussions about strategy and would cloak or couch what they said to keep their strategies to themselves. In otherwords they wanted the benefit of discussing strat but wouldn’t really give much away of what made them successful. I could discuss strategy without saying much but what would be the point. I think I have given a very clear insight into my thought processes which make me conclude that Japan versus the US is bad for Japan and why the Asian bid is not viable. I’ve not just told you the how this is so but also the why which is far more valuable and which I often find lacking for other strategy discussion forums.
