@theROCmonster:
wrath the problem with your statement here is that you are basically saying these players who play thousands of axis and allies games against thousands of opponets wouldn’t revise their strategy to all sorts of different forms. Say in revised if Japan lost a couple planes and some sea units on turn 1 and built 2 factories US could go pacific. Otherwise US goes all out germany. People that play thousands of games realize this and can instantly counter every move their opponet makes. A game with two experts is like a giant chess board, with both players Looking to counter on a possible minor mistake or capitalize on their 4 turn ahead thinking that chess grandmasters use. Great axis and allies players play the same way. They don’t do they exact same thing everytime, except for russia. The best way to play is play off of what your opponet does, and I know Zhukov knows this as well as many other posters on this thread. Bids are needed to balance games. Otherwise the game wouldn’t be fun at the expert level as whoever got allies in 1941 version would loose most games. Yes, low luck is a different game than dice since you can assure most outcomes and not get hosed in big important battles, but great players always start on dice for a hundred or more games before playing LL. Dice gets you started in the game and can give you the since of “what if I get unlucky here what do I do”, while LL gives you the idea as to what attacks are better and what units are more cost effective and why at a deeper level than dice. Lastly would you want to play as the allies in 1941 if you know you are going to loose most of the time? and if your answer is yes, why would you want to be on the loosing side?
1. If you play thousands of times vs opponents that play the same strategys you, can play a million games and it still does not prove its the best strategy. If you don’t agree with my statement well I recooment to read a couple of pages from one of my favorite books called the black swan (author X. Taleb yes he’s an arab intellectual).
2. We don’t talk revised here, its like comparing how you play doom compared to counter strike. We dont talk about chess here since its not even remotely the same. Instant counters aint the best counters, and your comparison to grandmasters are redundant they make mistakes all the time. And for sure there wouldnt be players like Kasparov and Carlsen that destroys grand masters.
3. The difference isn’t just you can assess losses, the losses are much higher in low luck. This is an huge factor since axis have to push the game and make a lot of battles from the start of the game.
Also you don’t have to adapt to volatility and have backup plans that is an huge skill factor and those players that go the same opening in low luck compared to dice don’t play good enough in my opinion.
True the hose factor is important whats more important is to chose your battles and maybe not taking all battles you can go with rather take the battles you can afford to lose unless you been playing badly and got to gamble. Its all down to something called equity in poker terms its a profitable lesson if you don’t understand what I’m talknig about.
I strongly disagree with that LL is deeper then dice, thats for me an absurd statement since in a game where the best option is murky (dice) is much harder to master then one where its mathematically guaranteed (LL).
As I look at it a game with more correct strategically options are harder to master and you got more options in dice since the best strategy is losses dependent depending on the opening rounds. Since allies are the reacting side with position they benefit a lot from this. This is in my opinion a much more important factor then the oh I migth get hosed, because losses are higher in dice compared to LL the allied side get more options availible depending on how the initial battles go. Also the strategic reserv in the game is air units and air is the one you balance battles with, axis got way more air units and thus get a bigger bonus from low luck. That destroys the balance in the game in my opinion. It also takes out a lot of skill factors and replaces it with I got a good memory/opening book. Sure there are lots of people that prefer that since they just play to win and lose every game, since they miss out on developing themselves.
4. I state the game is balanced. For me your statement is totally absurd saying that I’m on the losing side most of the time since I claim that both sides win about equal OOB, dice, if you play the proper strategys. I’m actually saying you only win 40 ish % of the time as allies if you go all in europe without a bid, go figure.
5. I’ve had great fun playing tripple A where I’ve spent all games except one on suboptimal strategys where I’ve been theoretically on the losing side but hey I still won like 80 % of my games since people can’t adapt or in my opinion play well enough. My main goal has been to build two factorys as britts and whomp japan, let germany take Moscow and then still win the game. Playing the optimal strategy again after I’ve been playing it for years vs better opponents then most on tripple A is boring and probably someone will start to copy it. The latter I find very repulsive since I think you guys should look beyond your linear clown play, and base it on “ooh I need a bid to balance the game” and actually try to research other avenues, avenues I’m claiming is there THAT BALANCES the game.
6. My next project is to play on tripple A and see how far down I can go with negative bids and still win the game, I bet I can fid some joe blow from idaho where I can get the bid down to 10 for axis and still win the game.
7. And no I’m not even going to comment on your name dropping, and if you where going to name drop pick the best players to name drop.
