Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 3 transports; Remaining resources: 5 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Politics - Japanese Japanese takes Political Action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Russians from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians: Changing Relationship for Russians and Chinese from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians: Changing Relationship for Russians and ANZAC from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians: Changing Relationship for Russians and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Russians: Changing Relationship for Russians and UK_Pacific from Neutrality to Allied Japanese takes Political Action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and British from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and UK_Pacific from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and ANZAC from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Dutch from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Japanese and French from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Germans and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Italians and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and British from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and UK_Pacific from Concordant to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and French from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and ANZAC from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for British and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for UK_Pacific and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for ANZAC and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and French from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Allies from Neutrality to Friendly_Neutral Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Allies: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Axis from Neutrality to Unfriendly_Neutral Trigger Russians Allied Americans 5: Changing Relationship for Russians and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Combat Move - Japanese Trigger Japanese Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Japanese 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe Japanese take Anhwe from Chinese 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Chahar Japanese take Chahar from Chinese 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from Kwangsi to Yunnan 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Manchuria to Hunan 1 fighter moved from Kiangsu to Yunnan 1 cruiser moved from 20 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 bombers moved from Japan to 37 Sea Zone 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 6 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Okinawa to 19 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Manchuria to 19 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 19 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 19 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 6 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 33 Sea Zone to Philippines 1 fighter moved from Formosa to Philippines 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 19 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Manchuria to 19 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 19 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 20 Sea Zone to Kwangtung 1 tactical_bomber moved from 6 Sea Zone to Kwangtung 2 fighters moved from Japan to Kwangtung 1 fighter moved from Okinawa to Kwangtung 1 tactical_bomber moved from Japan to Kwangtung 1 destroyer moved from 6 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 tactical_bomber moved from Japan to Kwangtung 1 carrier and 1 destroyer moved from 33 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 3 infantry moved from Kiangsi to Hunan 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsu to Yunnan 2 infantry moved from Korea to Amur 1 fighter moved from Korea to Amur Combat - Japanese Americans scrambles 1 units out of Philippines to defend against the attack in 35 Sea Zone Battle in 35 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 3 destroyers, 2 fighters, 1 submarine, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports Americans defend with 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 submarine Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Japanese Japanese win with 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 3 destroyers, 2 fighters, 1 submarine, 1 tactical_bomber and 2 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 24 Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 submarine Battle in Philippines Japanese attack with 1 armour, 1 artillery, 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 airfield, 1 harbour and 2 infantry Japanese win, taking Philippines from Americans with 1 armour, 1 artillery, 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Casualties for Americans: 2 infantry Battle in Hunan Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Chinese defend with 3 infantry Japanese win, taking Hunan from Chinese with 2 fighters, 1 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 3 infantry Battle in Yunnan Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 5 infantry Japanese win, taking Yunnan from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Japanese: 3 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 5 infantry Battle in Kwangtung Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 infantry and 3 tactical_bombers British defend with 2 infantry; UK_Pacific defend with 1 harbour Japanese win, taking Kwangtung from UK_Pacific with 1 artillery, 3 fighters, 2 infantry and 3 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for British: 2 infantry Battle in 37 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 bombers and 1 cruiser British defend with 1 battleship Japanese win, taking 37 Sea Zone from Neutral with 2 bombers and 1 cruiser remaining. Battle score for attacker is 20 Casualties for British: 1 battleship Battle in Amur Japanese attack with 1 fighter and 2 infantry Russians defend with 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Amur from Russians with 1 fighter and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for Russians and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for Americans and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for British and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for UK_Pacific and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for ANZAC and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for French and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for Dutch and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1: Changing Relationship for Neutral_Allies and Mongolians from Strict_Neutral to Friendly_Neutral Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1 activates a trigger called: Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Olgiy Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Dzavhan Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Tsagaan Olom Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Central Mongolia Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Buyant-Uhaa Trigger Allies Friendly With Mongolians: Setting captureUnitOnEnteringBy to Americans:French:British:ANZAC:Chinese:Russians for territoryAttachment attached to Ulaanbaatar Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 1 activates a trigger called: Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2 Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Olgiy Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Dzavhan Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Tsagaan Olom Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Central Mongolia Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Buyant-Uhaa Trigger Japanese Conquer Russians Territory By Mongolia 2: Russians captures territory Ulaanbaatar Non Combat Move - Japanese Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to French Indo China: 1 infantry EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to Shan State: 1 infantry EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from Siam: 2 infantry EDIT: Changing ownership of French Indo China from French to Japanese EDIT: Changing ownership of Shan State from UK_Pacific to Japanese EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode 1 fighter moved from Amur to Japan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Hunan to Kwangsi 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers moved from Kwangtung to Kwangsi 2 bombers moved from 37 Sea Zone to Kwangsi 1 mech_infantry moved from Manchuria to Anhwe 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Philippines to 35 Sea Zone 2 carriers and 1 submarine moved from 6 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi 1 artillery moved from Jehol to Chahar 1 artillery moved from Shantung to Jehol 2 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 3 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Anhwe 1 infantry moved from Manchuria to Jehol 2 infantry moved from Korea to Manchuria Place Units - Japanese 3 transports placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Japanese collect 39 PUs; end with 44 PUs2016 League Post Game Results Here
-
If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
-
If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
I get where you are coming from, but if you know you will steamroll an opponent at +20, you can always give them a higher bid to make the game more challenging. Like I said before. It takes two to tango. Personally I enjoy the challenging games the most as winning or even losing such games is much more full fulling.
-
If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
Assuming the pro-axis imbalance persisted for individual games, wouldn’t your idea make rankings a less reliable indicator of actual skill (including initial bid making) because
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie
-
I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
I’m always curious to hear Masters’ perspectives on this: Assuming equally matched players skill wise (say, tier 1 or higher), how much would you say Allies are worth for a bid?
-
In case 2 very high skilled players play a BO1 for the championship and assuming both at fully confident with their Axis play I believe 30+ bids are necessary.
I also think the reason many players still take the Allies is because losing with Axis is somehow more painful. When taking the Allies there is still that excuse in the head “well, axis is overpowered anyway so I chose the harder way and I can blame Larry”. When playing Axis there are NO excuses, “Larry gave you the advantage and you still messed it up, you failed”
Something like that I guess^^
-
You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie
Assuming that happens, the bid would go up alot faster than it would under single games. The reason Allies still win alot of games is because some players (f.e. Adam514) are good enough with Allies that they can overcome the Allied disadvantage against all but the most skilled opponents. Anyway, those players who could score Allied wins in this scenario (going 2-0) would be, correctly, ranked the highest. Eventually, the bid would get up to the point where the Allied win % approaches 50%, making it difficult to win with the Axis as well.
See the TripleA ladder ratings for a concrete example of what I’m talking about.
-
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
-
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
-
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
agreed. would love to see some M/E games using BM
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37131.60
SouL (x) over dawgoneit (L)
Absence of over a month.
-
The Allies are even losing no-shows! What are the odds?
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37131.60
SouL (x) over dawgoneit (L)
Absence of over a month.
He is in the hospital SouL. At least that is what I read somewhere in this topic.
-
Oh, that’s right. Thanks Soulblighter. Well, if his opponents agree to let him finish any of these games, don’t worry, it’s not hard to undo the results - just let me know if a result changes
-
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
agreed. would love to see some M/E games using BM
Prefacing this by saying that I currently suck at A&A and am new to the forums, so my input can only go so far…but every game I lose, I get better and learn new things…so is it possible that the best Allies strategies still have yet to be uncovered?
For those of you that know Smash Brothers Melee, everyone thought Jigglypuff was the worst ever so none of the pros ever played as her and strategies for Jiggly were never fully-developed. All of a sudden, a pro started playing Jiggly and found out she was actually pretty freaking amazing and new strategies were born. Axis is, generally speaking, more enticing to play because they get to force the action instead of constantly having to be on the defense. That being said, more time has probably been put in to finding the best ways to play as Axis, leaving the Allies underdeveloped.
Of course, the counter-argument is that someone always has to be Allies, so if there were good Allies strategies then someone would’ve figured them out by now (someone didn’t always have to play as Jiggly, which is why she was in the background for so long). And I’m defining “good Allies strategies” as strategies that would lead to a 50/50 win split. So if the best players play one game as each side with a fixed bid (of 30 or however high they need to go), then Allied strategies would be unearthed or it would be clear that the game is completely broken with no sweet-spot, no matter how much you bid.
-
Enjoyed your post very much,
Game is definitely not “completely broken”
I was thinking about this recently - I think what you’re seeing out of the top players playing the Allies is pretty fully developed and about as good as they’re going to get. Like you said, 30 - the Allies probably just need about +30 for a bid if you don’t make any other changes. That’s putting 1 unit max per territory. If you play that there is no maximum to the number of bid units to a territory, I would think the bid would be substantially lower than 30 -
Adam514 (Axis) over BerntBernt (Allies) Balance Mod
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37517.105
-
MrRoboto (Allies) over Shin Ji (Axis) in a Balanced Mod game.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37540.new#new
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37529.135
StuckTojo (Axis) defeats Talleyrand19 (Allies +18)
nothing like losing several 98% battles in one game
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37414.180
Talleyrand19 (Axis) defeats DefinitiveS (Allies +23)
-
JuanSpain over Me1945 (Allies +26) Play off 1/4
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36902.210
Suggested Topics
