@Jacob16 full scramble 110, sub fights in 106, sub in 111 fights first round and then stays again only if safe.
2016 League General Discussion Thread
-
The main thing is that it is a huge improvement on mere win/loss records. You had the potential for much bigger disparities then. If you can get all these tier M’s to play you and wax you, then bravo :-)
I’m not trying to come up with the best rating system ever devised, the system was created to reflect strength of schedule. If you’re a tier 3 and you’re better than that tier 1 who’s always playing M’s and losing, then challenge that bugger to a game and defeat him. Even one win will go a long ways towards correcting the difference. If he refuses to play you because he’s gaming the system, then he sucks.
I do appreciate the thoughts and I understand the points -
Since I assume regularkid’s stickied thread isn’t for discussion, I just wanted to say thank you for the update! I keep accidentally buying marines when I wanted Infantry.
-
my plesh. yah, the more distinct marine images are helpful, and the color change for vichy france is nice too.
the link for the optional download that adds these cosmetic upgrades for g40 balance mod (second post): http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0
-
@Infrastructure:
One other note on rule adjustments for balance.
This probably falls under realism more than balance, but what about changing the victory conditions a little. I like 8vc in Europe but 11 axis needed globally and 6vc Pacific but 11 needed globally? This isn’t really much harder than it is now, but removes that crappy Japanese complete sell out move for Europe victory…Could work. But two things come to mind. First, I’m not sure the “japan sell out” is really what makes Axis overpowered in the vanilla game. Occassionly, you do see games where Japan patently abandons its position in the Pacific to aid Germany. But, speaking from my own experience, it seems like the more common (and better) strategy is for both Axis sides to pursue their own objectives very aggressively, leaving Allies in the horns of a dilemma–if they go KGF, Japan wins, if they go KJF, Germany wins.
Also, I think you’ll find that the Balance mod makes the strategy your describing less viable than in the regular game. Among other things, the money that USA would earn from achieving its additional NO in the Pacific early game could be used in Europe (that’s 10 Pus per round, not to mention Phillipines money). So Germany has an added interest in seeing Japan play its traditional role in checking US advances there.
Just my two cents.
Hi regularkid, I have to support Infrastructure’s opinion here. The way this Axis strategy works is that each Axis power works aggressively towards victory in their home theater in early and mid game. Then for the end game they all go against the theater in which victory is more likely. If this endgame only takes 2-3 turns, economy does not really matter, even if US manages to take capitals in the abandoned theater… their production centers are so far from VCs so they just don’t have time to bring all that money into fight.
Have a look on this game for an example: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37309.new Japan just ignored economy altogether… it lost all DEI islands in Turn4 and never bothered to recapture any… economy is not important when you aim at early victory. In Ita6,Ger7 all EuroAxis planes jumped to Pacific to target India.
1st edition rules had a flaw that strongly motivated Allies to throw all resources into a single theater, so the designers changed the victory conditions for 2nd edition. Now, however, there is an opposite flaw in 2nd ed. that motivates Axis to throw all their resources into a single theater in the end game.
This is what I currently use in my house-ruled games: If ever German or Italian unit end turn on a Japanese owned territory, or Japanese unit ends on German or Italian territory, or they land a plane on others side carrier, or they attack a VC on the opposite side of the map, then Axis need 13 VC globally to win the game. So Axis have a choice here: if they just play in their home theater, then 2nd edition VC’s apply, but, if they chose to collaborate actively, sending resources to the other theater (for example Germany sending a bomber to pacific) then the VCs switch back to the 1st edition version.
-
Nerq, thanks for the comment.
I’ve been following the BM game between you and Gamerman. I think the game is atypical of Balance Mod games since it was played without 4 of the Allied National Objectives that were included in the mod. My personal view is that giving up these four NOs puts the advantage squarely with Axis. Yours is also the only BM game i have seen that ended (?) in a India crush by Italy/Germany. I think that makes the game extraordinary in its own right (wp!). I wouldn’t characterize that a a recurring problem with the game (vanilla or mod), since its something I rarely see.
-
Nerq, thanks for the comment.
I’ve been following the BM game between you and Gamerman. I think the game is atypical of Balance Mod games since it was played without 4 of the Allied National Objectives that were included in the mod. My personal view is that giving up these four NOs puts the advantage squarely with Axis. Yours is also the only BM game i have seen that ended (?) in a India crush by Italy/Germany. I think that makes the game extraordinary in its own right (wp!). I wouldn’t characterize that a a recurring problem with the game (vanilla or mod), since its something I rarely see.
Fair points, giving up 4 allied NOs make indeed some difference. In my games though, Axis putting it all into a single theater is not that uncommon… bombers especially can be pretty much anywhere in 2 turns… and are useful in providing extra defensive fodder in VC that have to hold for the last turn of the game.
Anyway the BM is a good step forward, it definitely feels more historically accurate than OOB. Rich Russia and spawning Chinese are especially brutal for Axis… without that gamey move against India, it would look quite desperate for Axis I have to say.
-
A little too eager to draw conclusions I think, using a single game that isn’t completed yet.
Excellent response by kid, I think.
Now I’m a party to this too, so I get to put my 2 cents in.- I’m not sure -4 NO’s is too many. 1 game is not enough
- I am facing the perfect storm.
a) I accepted a game with an unknown entity (Nerquen) who has very little league history. Usually this means an easy win.
b) Nerquen clearly is an experienced, accomplished player who has played very, very well (as kid said with the wp)
c) Overall the dice probably haven’t been all that bad (hard to remember when playing multiple games at once) but I definitely got ripped in Tobruk and at least 4 battles in SE Asia early, which is the main reason I have this vulnerability at all. I lost Egypt on I1 to really bad dice in Tobruk. This allows Italy to make the gamey move on India so early. India is weak because of terrible dice in SE Asia, over and over again. Nerquen played very well to take advantage of these dice. - The game is not over. I feel disrespected for Nerquen to basically be dancing on my grave that I’m not in yet. (again, kid acknowledges this with a well placed question mark) I would love to comment more on this but of course I can’t, because the game is not over
You’ve been a swell guy Nerquen, so I am quite disappointed at all these remarks on a game that isn’t done yet and where you know you got great dice in the key places (again, tip of the cap for exploiting very well), and you know you ambushed me because you have almost no league history
I was here to make my Russian move, and probably would have been done now…. :|
-
Sorry Gamerman if you took this personally, I apologize. I just wanted to support Infrastructure’s opinion, as our game is actually a good example of a case where a change in victory conditions would be pretty important. I wanted to oppose regularkid’s earlier post where he claimed that typically this is not an issue. In our game possibility for Germany and Italy to cheaply jump into Pacific has in contrary huge impact on the balance. Anyway, you have actually played very well and managed to cause major problems for Axis in both theaters even with unlucky dice you have faced and of course the outcome of the game is not decided yet.
-
Thanks, that’s the nerquen I’ve been getting to know :-)
Crossover can be wicked, but I knew all this when agreeing to terms of the game and still think they are fair. Too bad for me my first game of giving up NO’s to “balance” the “balanced mod” is backfiring, but I think it is an unusual game as kid is also saying. No disrespect to your good strategy of going for quick Axis win - even without 4 NO’s I think that’s the right idea -
Just got Germany looked at - time for the Russians to wreak some (meaningless?) havoc
-
This is what I currently use in my house-ruled games: If ever German or Italian unit end turn on a Japanese owned territory, or Japanese unit ends on German or Italian territory, or they land a plane on others side carrier, or they attack a VC on the opposite side of the map, then Axis need 13 VC globally to win the game.
I haven’t played with it yet, but I’ve been thinking (for more than a year) 8 VC’s for Japan to win would be good (adding 2-3 more VC’s, like Sumatra or Java, Manchuria, Panama? Alaska?….) So no penalty for crossing over, and it’s harder to get Japan victories -
Anybody is not having issues with the dice server? Gmail and hotmail do not work for me.
-
Anybody is not having issues with the dice server? Gmail and hotmail do not work for me.
My latest game started hit the spam folder in gmail initially, so look there and let them know that one of the rolls is not spam. I also flag it as “important” since I use the account almost exclusively for dice. After that, the receipt of die roll emails went back to normal for me.
Hope that helps!
-
It helps. Yes, it’s in the spam. Thank you.
-
Wow. Axis domination so far this year.
2015 win pct was .544 but
2016 win pct is .584 so farIf you’re playing a master, you’d better have a big bid as the Allies. 27-1, .964 win pct pretty much says it all. Nearly guaranteed - I mean, the dice are gonna give you a win more than 3.6% of the time, right?? :-o
The Axis advantage is showing up in every single tier, except #3, not so much. But there has been a significant number of games played against much higher tiers, and I haven’t taken the time to see if players disproportionately took the Axis in those games
Before you get too excited about the balanced mod actually being balanced, I think the sample size is way too small. A significant number of those games had unbalanced skill/experience on either side of the board, too, I think…. Jury is still out
-
Before you get too excited about the balanced mod actually being balanced, I think the sample size is way too small. A significant number of those games had unbalanced skill/experience on either side of the board, too, I think…. Jury is still out
Too late! Already super excited! 24 games of Balance Mod played so far. 12 Axis victories. 12 Allied victories. Wooohooooooo!
-
I can’t imagine why anyone is playing without the balanced mod at this point. It’s just overall better, even if it may not be perfectly balanced (which is probably not possible in any case).
-
Yeah, fixes some major beefs
Like China being so easy to conquer. USA being too poor. Adds excitement to Italy, India, and ANZAC…. More money for Russia… MARINES! and tones down the horrible conquer capitals rule - what’s not to like? -
Fully on board, too. It’s just better, plain and simple.
-
Its not possible to drive to two pro-axis neutrals with a mech? Algeria and Morocco in the same turn vichy style
Suggested Topics
