@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)
Fixing the PowerEurope hole
-
Sorry to jump in late.
I’ve not really played with bidding, but I could see it necessary when you get in a game with expert players.
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points. One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes. If you bid me 3 arm, 2 inf for Japan, then that’s a definite. Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about. When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force. Even a meager bid to them can bring large results. Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany. That’s very dangerous for the Allies. UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies. If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem. You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable. Baker, in the case of your scenario, I’m not sure what you were expecting Germany to do. They may decide to strengthen the front and hit a weaker UK. The best thing about A&A is that there is plenty of room to maneuver, and the more fluid your side is, the better you tend to do. Can’t do anything about those bad roll days, though. When someone finds out about that, let me know.
In another thread, I proposed giving straight cash rather than actual units placed, as has been mentioned here. It may help to sustain certain strategies by going this route and help balance things. But as pointed out, that’s a major G1 buy. Perhaps you could do a combination of those two, or allow the placement of new units under certain regulations (no more than 1 new unit per territory). Or, allow IPCs that can be used only to upgrade existing units, i.e. spend 2 IPCs to upgrade an inf to an arm. That could get interesting, and adds somewhat of a gamble to the upgrade.
-
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points.
No an Asian bid is largely unworkable perhaps with 30ipcs(maybe more) but for that price I could just bid into Africa and get Africa along with Asia. Further, I’ve seen games lost as the Axis where the bid was 25+ mostly in Africa and no one here seems to be saying that Asia is better than Africa so it seems very possible to lose a game with an Asian bid of 30+
One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes.
Big deal! If you aren’t building extra fodder ships for your fleet then you should count on losing your fleet should you get too lucky/unlucky in Pearl and if you lose this battle fleet count on the US or Britain taking away your island IPCs even if you have ICs and a large Asia bid Japan losing 8ipcs in SE Asia will be a huge loss over time.
Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about.
Yeah right b/c you do something that Baker doesn’t with an Asian bid. In fact there is very little you can do with this bid but push towards Novo so in my mind its nothing but a bluff and a poorly executed one at that.
When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force.
Yes yes Japan is very powerful, but not as much as Germany and in terms of the most powerful in the game only somewhat ahead of Russia in third but a lot more so than Britain in 4th and a lot more so than the US in 5th. I know how to play Japan and its not to overbid them in order to make a bunch of yahtzee attacks on J1 which will either make or break you. The only reason I’ve ever understood for a large Asia bid is so that Japan can make a bunch of unnecessary and irrelevent battles that won’t in the long run matter much. Russia pulls 3inf arm from the East to Novo and 2inf to Yakut so japan can attack 2inf in Yakut and Sink but in doing so they likely lose 2inf themselves and don’t take any territory that will absolutely be held that is I can counterattack. China regardless of the bid is lost and the Brits in India can be more effective if moved somewhere else including Sink, Persia, or Africa. But considering your bid Sink is eliminated as is likely Persia but this only means that the Japs aren’t really killing any troops with their bid only taking ground which they would have anyway.
Even a meager bid to them can bring large results. Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany.
No friggin way! Yes Japan will get a very strong push in Asia but largely b/c the Allies will fall back to a more defensible position there largely conceeding it when confronted with such a large force there. At the same time with little to nothing bid to Germany in either Europe or Africa the Allies will not have to spend much if any effort to recapture Africa from Germany and karelia will be safe for a very long time. The only likelyhood for Germany japan to link up is if Germany can take Karelia b/c the rearguard pressure of Japan gets to be too great. However in such a scenario the Russians probably just fall back to their capital(b/c that should always be defended as first priority) at which point the Japanese will not be strong enough for probably 4-5 turns or so to hold and have to fall out as a response. If Germany tries to move into Karelia it is a dead zone and will get attacked losing troops it cannot afford to replace w/o holding Africa. What I think you underestimate is the responsiveness of a good opponent to not just force you into a game you don’t want to play and their ability to avoid getting attacked in unfavorable situations. That is sometimes retreating can be more effective than defending a meaningless deadzone. Even if I’ve been outplayed and there is a likelyhood that even upon falling back to my capital I will lose a turn or two later I will still do it b/c it forces my opponent to overextend himself and enter my deadzones. The mistake most noobie players make is they assume Russia is a punching bag when in fact they aren’t.
UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies.
First of all the UK only has one assest in Asia and that’s India both Persia and Syria are geographically close enough to a center of power that they can be defended from Europe and Africa respectively. As for Aust I love it when Japanese players do this, and IMO this is really the only reason to make an excessively large Asian bid. The drawback is that you probably have to ignore Pearl and in doing so risk your fleet in the short and longterm. japan w/o a battlefleet to protect its transports is a paper tiger even with ICs b/c they cannot threaten Africa, and they cannot protect their southern island colonies which while only 8ipcs are worth taking back if unopposed by a Jap naval pressence in the Pacific. Most of the time it can be done with the most minimal of commitments as well.
If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem.
How is the UK being wittled? All I see is India, Austrailia, NZ and perhaps Persia under threat. However the UK should gain Libya, Alg and possibly FinNor to offset this. Even modest projections show Britain should be at ~26-7ipcs or 8-9inf a turn. Or to steal from myself in another thread the UK can build some inf for a few turns then switch to 1inf 5arm. At which point I can roll Japan back in Asia by threatening its flanks and cyphoning off its strength to India/FIC.
You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
Now I know that you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about! Japan can never “pressure” the US. Simply put the US can produce to much and Japan is too far away. Even if Japan rolls up Asia as you propose they are going to top off at about 48ipcs a turn or 16inf a turn which only leaves about 8inf a turn to go to NAmerica. The US on the otherhand can easily produce between 10-11 units a turn. What’s more even with a great Asian push to start the game in the long term japan will need more than 8inf a turn to Asia to cause Russia any real problems. Remember you don’t win the game just by gaining a lot of ground but by consolidating that and defeating one of the Allies namely Russia. Anything which detracts from this is irrelevent.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable.
Not me. I’ve seen just about everything there is to see in A+A. What a lot of newbies overlook is that while the game does have an almost infinate amount of variations only a few of these will lead to victory b/c victory in the game is narrowly defined as defeating a rival alliance. If the game was merely to compete and everyone one worked for themselves then some of what you said might be true but then again I doubt anybody would be giving Japan and Germany bids.
In another thread, I proposed giving straight cash rather than actual units placed, as has been mentioned here. It may help to sustain certain strategies by going this route and help balance things. But as pointed out, that’s a major G1 buy. Perhaps you could do a combination of those two, or allow the placement of new units under certain regulations (no more than 1 new unit per territory). Or, allow IPCs that can be used only to upgrade existing units, i.e. spend 2 IPCs to upgrade an inf to an arm. That could get interesting, and adds somewhat of a gamble to the upgrade.
Why? My suggestion was simple, flexible and allows for more variety of game playouts. Your’s ties the game to R1 dice rolls which is always going to be problematic but for LL. In which case b/c no bid is made they will become the dreaded standard, and so ultimately so will the bid amount and the playouts that are dictated from this.
-
In response to your post, Agent Smith:
I don’t have the time to breakdown every single thing you wrote.
Like I said, I’ve not really played with bids, but I’m not a noob. In fact, I don’t know why you are getting belligerent about it. I also understand that this a PE thread, but the topic of PA was already discussed, so I thought I might mention a few points. 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.
Now, I doubt your experience with Japan, on either side of them. First off, the reason Japan is powerful, yet restrained, is not because they have the 2nd or 3rd most pieces on the board, but that there already are deadzones around them. It’s a blessing and a curse, but it buffers them from Allied advance, usually. Most of the time it makes the allies concentrate elsewhere. 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. Not possible. They may be viable counters, I’ll give you that. But like I said in my first post in this thread, a flexible strategy is the best. You move, I consider it and roll with the punches. Third, I responded mostly to Baker’s specific counter of NC’s proposed PA bid. I know NC has a very different approach with Japan, but I was offering some insight to Baker specifically based on what he said.
Russia may not be a punching bag, but they aren’t a punching glove, 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? Nonsense. You just end up taking the “same” territories that you took the last game and every game before that with less losses, and possibly in better time. I also understand the concept of retreating & consolidating - without them you would lose quickly.
[q]How is the UK being wittled? All I see is India, Austrailia, NZ and perhaps Persia under threat.[/q]
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?
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?
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.
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? Japan distracting the US IS relevant. Extremely relevant.
My suggestions were merely suggestions. They weren’t meant to supplant yours. And no, they wouldn’t bring the game back to a “yahtzee” standing. I know you haven’t tried the things I suggested. Why don’t you try them and then see - in this case, “try” would mean multiple times, not once. I’d love to try them now, but it’s not possible. Maybe you can catch a game with Switch.
-
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points. One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes. If you bid me 3 arm, 2 inf for Japan, then that’s a definite. Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about.Â
A mainland IC is less flexible and can deliver less goods (three tanks vs. 4 infantry) than two transports. Their only advantage is they can deliver at a location closer to the battle lines. But they have the disadvantage of free SBRs from the UK and US…so you will need spend an additional 5ipcs for an AA gun. Since your idea seems to be taking Asia more quickly, I think you would be better off selecting forces instead of ICs, where you can directly attack on J1. Â
When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force. Even a meager bid to them can bring large results.  Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany. That’s very dangerous for the Allies. UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies. If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem. You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
Agent Smith already addressed this point, that the UK will not be reduced to nothing. Particularly when the Allies take back Africa which will happen nearly as quickly as UK loses its Asia/Australia holdings. What I am saying can be done with a PAsia bid is to simply contain Japan, then take out Germany. Germany without a bid is not a serious threat. Containing Japan, even with a very large bid (AS says 30+) is easier than it seems for the reasons I pointed out earlier…even with a PAsia bid, the Allied reinforcements arrive in Moscow before the Japanese forces.Â
Also, I think my statements with regards to the economies also are valid. If the game goes long (and the Russians can stall for a long, long time) the Axis needs an income at least equal to that of the Allies for any hope of victory. With a PE or PAfrica this might be possible…but it isn’t possible with a PAsia as the Axis doesn’t hold or gain any extra territory.
And don’t think the UK/US cannot reach Asia…it is not that far fromKarelia/Moscow to the rest of Asia. The US and USSR could knock out your forces at Sinking (or Novo if Japan gets that far) and the UK can then send its tanks through most of Asia. 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). This could be a real headache for Japan to recover…not because of the forces used to do so, but because of the time lost for Japan.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable. Baker, in the case of your scenario, I’m not sure what you were expecting Germany to do. They may decide to strengthen the front and hit a weaker UK. The best thing about A&A is that there is plenty of room to maneuver, and the more fluid your side is, the better you tend to do. Can’t do anything about those bad roll days, though. When someone finds out about that, let me know.
I cannot see anything that Germany can do… Even though Russia will need to divert troops to Asia more quickly than in a standard game, Russia can afford to do this and still (with Allied help) hold Germany in EE trading Ukraine. Germany will be kicked out of Africa in a couple of turns by the UK/US (as the Allies I invite Japan to try to send forces into Africa :evil: ) and will be stuck in defensive mode in Europe. Maybe Germany at some point will try a desperation hit on Karelia…hoping for the equivalent strike from the Japanese side…or maybe Germany will stay defensive in Europe hoping for Japan to do something. Maybe Germany will try to push infantry through Ukraine to Caucasus…but this leaves EE, Ukr, and Caucasus open for easy strafing from Karelia and the Allies should be able to retake Caucasus and Ukraine. But unless the dice were bad or the Allies played poorly, I don’t think this will win the game for the Axis.
-
I want to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.
Jermofoot,
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. And yes, according to him his way is always the right way. You’ll get used to it. :-DAgent,
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.Both,
Lets make sure we don’t attack the players or their experience. Lets stick to the strats.A simple post of:
“I’ve seen that many times…and you can counter by…”is much better than this type of post:
“you’ve clearly never played anyone good…b/c that move is so weak…”They get across the same idea, but in two very different ways.
One highlites your exp, the other degrades the other players.Now keep up the good strat talk! :-D
-
@AgentSmith:
Maybe if you mandate that Japan must get at least 2 units of every bid???
I think that would be unnecessary and dangerous as it dilutes PE too much. IMO PE is the weaker players best road to victory against a strong opponent.
But was that not one of the points of the thread?
Aren’t we trying to dilute PE?Example, if an 8 inf bid must be split (6-2), then would that not encourge PAfr? Which is what we want, right?
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.
-
Baker: thanks for your response. It offers some insight into some of my strategies. I think the difference here is that I don’t get to play often, so I don’t get to test certain “standards” that are assumed by many in this community. On the other hand, I’m not rooted in convention and have a few thoughts on certain things I’ve not seen discussed here. I hold back expressing those in case I might be able to use them. :-) Also, I didn’t think any of your statements were invalid, I was just enjoying the discussion of them, in good style. I’d like to discuss your new points as well, but not at this time.
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.
AS: I respect your experience and strategy, and love to hear ideas - just like everyone else’s. I may not have the advantage of years of play or months of posting/reading on this forum, but that’s exactly why I’m here. 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. Like DM says, tone it down a bit, and I am glad to read whatever you post.
-
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.
-
Yes I am the Simon Cowell of Axis and Allies, or I am really Simon Cowell
LOL!
You should try to be the Paula Abdul of A&A. :-D
-
You should try to be the Paula Abdul of A&A.
Are you auditioning Corey? :-D Ya know I could really coach you up wink wink nudge nudge.
-
:-D
-
I believe you can also address the issue of game balance through the type of bidding, as much as you can through the amount of bidding.
I’m unconvinced as the primary design of a bid system is not to perfectly line up the game so that winning is 50/50 but rather to create varied playouts. That is the best way to balance the game would be to remove Allied units rather than adding Axis ones but while this will create balance at some point it will also create only one possible outcome for every game. That being the case once one even minor battle goes against you, you can either concede or roll yahtzee. I have never seen this advocated as an ideal outcome for any bid strategy or ruleset. Secondly, all rulesets and bids must answer the fundamental question of quantity. One of the main flaws of 3rd Edition rules is that they enter into the equation a set of rules which are presupposed to help the Axis such as 2hit bb but this is not challenged and thus the question becomes do the rule changes make the game more unbalanced and more likely to favor only 1 bid style.
My personal preference for bidding is for auction bidding with declared placement, as was done in Spring’s DB1 and is done in AAWC’s Omaha DB.
while I think auction bidding has some aestic advantages over closed bidding I think that it doesn’t do enough to answer some fundamental problems. For example, when I did play actively I considered 23 to be the winnable PE bid not b/c it would always win but b/c it was large enough to win without giving an opponent a potentially “unbeatable” amount for a bid. At the same time I was extremely convident that I could handle a Power Africa and thus a split or Asian bid of as high as 26, concieveably higher perhaps. So considering this if PE were outlawed I could very comfortably start an auction bid at 25 and never be too concerned about giving an opponent 24 as I consider it not enough. As I said auction bidding is advantageous for its aestic gains, mainly that inexperienced players who might be willing to foolishly undercut someone by going 22 or lower will get staked with more than they would otherwise, but the question remains can they really use a unit they did not plan for or concieve the need/use of.
You allow for and foster the ‘different’ bid.
Yes! and good that you put this at the top where it belongs based on the importance of its consideration.
Auction bidding provides a slight ‘strategic’ advantage to the first bidder….namely the lower rated/ranked player…who can first bid at the margin of the lowest they feel comfortable playing axis.
Yes but even with auction style it still comes down to knowing where the boundary between too little and too much lies. A good player will stop and not cross it even if he might give up more to an opponent.
If there is a wide rate variation of lowest to highest, or the opponent is unknown/unfamiliar, the higher ranked player can avoid the yahtzee crapshot of a low rate jimmy simply trying his luck at PE against him. This is again an advantage to declared placement…and auction bidding…simply bid lower. Yet you don’t automatically throwout the same number non-PE bid, as you do in blind bidding.
Again I’m not so sure about that. A blind ‘jimmy’ could always bid PE @ 23 and dare the other guy to go below him. I don’t know that under 2nd Edition rules either a PE or an African Heavy approach this will be enough. The mistake that I think is assumed in some of these rules in AAWC is that it the lower ranked player will necessarily be the worse player. Regardless as I consider 22 PE to be just a little on the soft side I’d rather face I top player like that than with a normal complement of a bid.
Yet, PE bids can be accepted and often are when the opponents know each other and respect that some semblance of stategy is expected……and the purpose it not just a yahtzee attempt at some cheap points.
And I think this is a lot of what is wrong in the PBEM clubs which is that there is an expectation of familiarity and there should be no such thing as an honorable bid. When you start getting into such relativistic concepts you are apologizing for your own complacency not the ineptitude of the other person.
The reverse is also true…if someone is simply a one side specialist…you can often force them out of their game if you really want to through the reverse means.
Except that one could argue that PE requires very little specialization as compared to the overall skill it takes to win as the Allied side.
There are at least 50 ways to lose an Allied game but very few to stop the rhino for charging in PE once it gets going.The ‘surprise’ effect of blind bidding isn’t much of a surprise as an experienced player has likely faced all the possible combinations of ‘normal’ bids. Hence, I don’t think you lose much by eliminating this surprise.
Yes its very overrated I find.
If you are looking at innovation you should be playing at AAWC with its 7 different databases/rulesets, and although different luck settings aren’t adopted within the club per se, you can download and play the multiple luck settings add-on, that will allow you to play anything from full luck, to medium luck, to low luck/no luck.
Well there is no doubt that the AAWC has been on the vanguard of new rules sets and potential changes. However, I’ve always seen 2 flaws with BOP/Spring in this regard. First you have to play on the CD, and many there are religiously CD players and some people have legit reasons for prefering PBEM so that narrows the field some. Secondly, while sets like Kremlin and the various D-Day beach named sets have tried to grasp these issues I’ve always felt there was a lacking of refinement of the ideas contained within them. For example, Omaha, Gold, Utah, Juno all have strengths and all have weaknesses and while it is probably not possible to reduce them all to one “perfect” set I think synthesis and reduction is needed to streamline gameplay which is not to say I want a 1playout ruleset but one where you can quantify players of different sets against one another.
-
Straight Up :-D
Could this get any gayer? 8-)
Suggested Topics
