How will we calculate battles without a calculator?

@tmartin if the sea battle fails and the Transports weren’t hit during the combat,
at the beginning of the next Round,as the attacker, you can choose to retreat the Transports. They can retreat one SZ from which they came into the battle . There might be 2 or 3 options , depending how many routes were taken to arrive at the SZ.

The units that were going to unload would still be on the Transports , of course .
It would be up to the other side to attack them on their Turn and try and sink them .

@Lousy-Lions

Please elaborate.

@ShadowHAwk:

Well since you have to take odds a 75% odds is pretty decent though.

The 25% when you lose is more devastating, cumulatively, than the 75% when you win.  In the 75% when Allies win, Axis usually does well enough that Italy can easily mop up in 97 and avoid getting convoyed.  The tuv loss to Axis can be small to none when we take the counter into account, although a successful 97 attack constrains Italy strategically.  But in the 25% when Allies lose, that’s a devastating defeat for Allies and hard to recover from.

It’s hard for Allies to bring enough material that there isn’t a good argument for an Axis scramble.  Still, if you bring 8-9 units (including the ac) then that might be scary enough that Axis won’t want to take the risk and prefer to wait till G2 for a (comparatively) low-risk counter.

If germany does 110 without the BB but with 1 sub 3 figs 3 tacticals 1 bomber they also got 80% of winning if the UK scrambles. Would you take the 20% odds as allies? Why would the axis take 20% odds and be considered smart.

Mostly yes, because the tuv exchange would be more favorable to Allies.  But in some cases UK might need to hold back (especially if 111 is a better scramble option).   There’s more upside to the 97 scramble with those odds because Axis wants to prevent the Allied convoy.

I personally like at least 3 subs for G round 1 so that I can strafe 111 and keep my bb while taking out UK’s turn 2.

@Make_It_Round:

I think it is possible, however tedious, to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game, and to guess at one’s enjoyment threshold in terms of these.

It is utterly impossible to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game because each “meaningful choice” is a product of the other “meaningful choices” that were made previously. Furthermore, each “meaningful choice” is then subject to all of the possible dice outcomes, and thus multiplied by all of those possibilities and then multiplied by all of the “meaningful choices” offered by the various non-combat possibilities as they are determined by the dice outcomes. As you can see we get into these massive factorial situations where we are multiplying massive exponentials by even more massive exponentials until what is essentially infinity.

To make a comparison: In chess there are only 20 possible moves to make on the first turn. (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves) The opponent is faced with the same. So the possible combinations for the opening 2 moves (1 each) in chess is 400. None of which are absolutely stupid. there are 8,902 possible moves by 2 each and by move 7 there are almost eleven MILLION possible positions. That’s without dice, with only 2 players, with a much much much more limited scope for unit movement, no scope for adding units and far far fewer spaces.

Now you asked about the “meaningful choices”. Some work has been done in this regard in chess and it seems that in the average game of about 30 moves (moving a single piece at at time. There are over 4.5 MILLION games outcomes in smart competitive situations. Now, multiply that by the factor of dice, multiple movement of units, game spaces, purchases and the fact that most AA games will see over 100 times that 60 units move factor and you have an utterly infinite combination of outcomes.

Which is part of the reason it is so much more entertaining than chess.

…or maybe just because we get to play with little tanks and planes.

I think you can, and here’s a situation:

You WANT the cruiser dead, but you NEED (as in if you don’t get it you’ll lose the game) 3 of your 5 subs to do whatever. Perhaps mount an attack on some transports defended by 2 destroyers. So you defend with 2 subs, knowing that come whatever dice you have 3 subs left to do sub stuff. You still have the 2 to defend.

Unlikely?
Totally.

Possible?
Possibly.

@Cmdr:

@thatonekid:

you really cant take haw j1 can you?? i mean, theres 2 inf and 2 figs there, if they only have 1 trns full of people, then the odds are likely not in their favor.

Yes you can, out of the box Japan may bring:  5 ground units (4 from Japan, 1 from Carolines) and 3 shore bombardments since the only “enemy” ship is a transport.

American only has: 2 Infantry, Fighter, Tactical Bomber, Strategic Bomber to defend with.

It’s only like 33% odds, but I’ve seen some people go for Sea Lion or an attack on a massive army with less odds of success.

thats true, but i dont play with OOB rules.

Found Reply#6 that refers to Canadian shield…i.e. operation Hollywood. They credit me and my friend for independently publishing it first :) Search for Hollywood.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6090.0

I’m looking for the original on Avalon hills site if its still there…have to remember my password and old email address. I’ll post it in Revised if I find it…Kind of cool, people became serious about a KAF strategy.

EDIT:
Here is the AA50 plan I put on Board game geeks since you were curious. Its the third post.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/455961/what-is-next-to-mexico-on-the-other-side-of-the-bo

Here is a recollection of the original Hollywood plan, look at the bottom post by Iron Chef…my screen name on Avalon hill was Original_james back in 2004.

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-135650.html