G40 League House Rule project

@Gamerman01:

I read about 6-8 different sentences of the treatise as I skimmed over it, and pretty much everything I read was, I’m sorry, completely ridiculous.

my eyes glazed over after i read the first three sentences…  no offense eggman, i have ADD.

@Boldfresh:

my eyes glazed over after i read the first three sentences…  no offense eggman, i have ADD.

Says the guy who scored all 6 A+'s at the University taking difficult pre-med classes

@Gamerman01:

@Boldfresh:

my eyes glazed over after i read the first three sentences…  no offense eggman, i have ADD.

Says the guy who scored all 6 A+'s at the University taking difficult pre-med classes

must be what led to my ADD.  :lol: :lol: :lol:

@ Bold - Now that makes sense.

Eggman, on the other hand……

It’s a good thing you have an open mind, because until it’s changed you’re not going to stop losing.  Maybe you should study a couple of games between tier 1 players

India and ANZAC are NOT pushovers in the first couple rounds for Japan.  Their capitals are jusssst 1 space too far away…  Japan can build naval bases but they’re still just too far away for a good strike, because a destroyer blocker stops them every time.

I rarely lose India, and have never lost Moscow a single time yet.  I have never lost New South Wales.  I have given away London on a silver platter and am VERY confident I will easily win that game without getting London back, maybe ever.

Now I am intrigued by one of your points.  Perhaps everyone’s playing the Axis wrong.

@Gamerman01:

With all due respect, Eggman, could you spare us your wisdom until you at least have a winning record?

I don’t see why that would be any kind of requirement.  People with an even lower record than mine feel pretty comfortable posting their advice without anyone telling them they have to prove themselves.  And in a different post, Zhukov44 brought up the old saw about learning more from your losses than your victories.  In that regard, I have plenty to offer people who don’t want to repeat my mistakes.

I hope you can see that your statement doesn’t make much sense.  Will I earn the right to post if I focus my efforts at beating the people on the bottom of the rankings list just to get my win ratio over 50%?  Logically, that is what your implying but I’d like to think you don’t really mean that.

Keep in mind that it is also very easy to find things that went wrong.  If I lose, I’m not under any illusions why.  The real challenge comes from finding the strategy that doesn’t rely on I hope my opponent makes a mistake.  This is why I’ve been focusing on playing the Allies exclusively- their optimum strategy remains a puzzle to be solved.  Given that the content in the forums discussing Allied strategies is far weaker than that for Axis strategies, I would think that the current state of play for this game bears me out.

@Gamerman01:

India and ANZAC are NOT pushovers in the first couple rounds for Japan.  Their capitals are jusssst 1 space too far away….  Japan can build naval bases but they’re still just too far away for a good strike, because a destroyer blocker stops them every time.

Perhaps, but that is a far cry from being overpowered.  Unless the UK decides to DoW on turn 2, Japan can sail right past their blockers and still hit India J3.  Since I don’t see this happening in a lot of league games, I can admit there must be some drawbacks to this attack that I’m not seeing.  But even if you don’t do the India attack, too much of their income can be taken away with Convoy damage for them to pose a major threat.

You also don’t need to take Sydney to keep ANZAC down.  Holding Malaya and threatening a landing will force them to make trade-offs on how they spend their money that keeps them down in the short-term.

The Problem with Japan can be simply put as thus:

To destroy ANZAC and/or India decisively and hold the DEI, Japan must push major forces south, which will allow the US the opportunity to move right into sz 6 and then strangle Japan to death.  :-P

In this regard, the favorite US strategy of late is fire off fighters from WUS to land on CVs from hawaii to hit sz 6. Something tells me the designers didn’t think of that.  Or maybe they did?

It was not a requirement, it was a suggestion that I thought logical.  I did not mean any offense, and no, I don’t think you should worry too much about your win/loss record and pick weaker players to prey on, you’re right.  I think you should just be maximizing your own enjoyment, and I understand that sharing your experiences, strategies, and opinions are a big part of the enjoyment.

Keep in mind, however - As Dave Ramsey (financial guru) says, you don’t ask a fat person how to lose weight.

@Karl7:

The Problem with Japan can be simply put as thus:

To destroy ANZAC and/or India decisively and hold the DEI, Japan must push major forces south, which will allow the US the opportunity to move right into sz 6 and then strangle Japan to death.   :-P

In this regard, the favorite US strategy of late is fire off fighters from WUS to land on CVs from hawaii to hit sz 6. Something tells me the designers didn’t think of that.  Or maybe they did?

Karl, you are sounding real smart today.  Probably has something to do with hitting 20 games this year plus your experience in the past.

I’m DANG sure the designers didn’t think of A LOT of things!!!

@Karl7:

The Problem with Japan can be simply put as thus:

To destroy ANZAC and/or India decisively and hold the DEI, Japan must push major forces south, which will allow the US the opportunity to move right into sz 6 and then strangle Japan to death.   :-P

In this regard, the favorite US strategy of late is fire off fighters from WUS to land on CVs from hawaii to hit sz 6. Something tells me the designers didn’t think of that.  Or maybe they did?

The problem I’ve had with moving into SZ6 is that you can still get hit with a Japanese counterattack if they parked off SZ36 with the Naval Base.  If you didn’t also secure Korea to give your fighters a landing spot, you could be in for a rough time in the battle if you’re keeping Carriers alive longer than you might otherwise.  Japan can also just leave a ship or two hanging out in SZ6 so they have the option of hitting your Carriers with Kamikazes if you move in and weren’t clever enough to avoid it.  I ran into this problem in my second game with Jeff28, no matter what I bought for the USA Pacific fleet he would still have >90% odds to wipe me out if I moved into SZ6, which he basically left empty.  It takes significant naval spending to be able to survive being hit with the entire Japanese air force + navy in one battle.  In that time you’re basically giving Germany a free pass on the Europe board.

Yeah, but while Japan is dicking around in sz6 Anzac and India are running wild in the DEI or SEA.

Let’s take the strategy discussion elsewhere, please.  There are plenty of boards for that.
Go to the Global 1940 forum and start a topic there.

Updated

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

Seems I miscounted a bit before…

Allies 59
Axis 62

Completed Axis wins by tier to compare to Allied wins by tier

For example: tier 1 players have taken the Axis 52 times and the Allies only 41 times.
tier 1 players have a .788 win pct with Axis and .756 with Allies

Any way you look at it, in the 121 games played so far it looks like each side is getting their share of the wins (almost all games have had small Allied bids)

Updated with the latest Eggman result

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

I am proud to be the worst tier 1 player. :)  I was axis both times against 15 bid allies.

I think 3-11 is fine.

I am playing from high bids down to low bids. Going to help facilitate this bid gathering data.

@Cow:

I am proud to be the worst tier 1 player.

Well then you’re proud of something that doesn’t exist

Jeff and Wheatbeer are both tier 1 and are lower than you

Updated

Hank soars on big win

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

Sample size is too small in this ranking format. I feel like however someone does against me makes them a tier 1 if they beat me or tier 3 if they lose. Kinda weird, maybe it’s a chess thing.

With the dice results could be all over the map, a good player could lose to me or a bad player dice me to death.

Should be more games to get ranked.

@Jeff28:

Sample size is too small in this ranking format. I feel like however someone does against me makes them a tier 1 if they beat me or tier 3 if they lose. Kinda weird, maybe it’s a chess thing.

Nope, not a chess thing.  I don’t think you really understand how this works.
If someone plays 2 games against you and splits them, they will get 2 points.  Divided by 2 games is 1.00 PPG.  Yes, if there’s only a couple of games played then the ranking is likely to be inaccurate.  After 5-10 games, though, we get a pretty good idea of how good you are.

With the dice results could be all over the map, a good player could lose to me or a bad player dice me to death.

Of course.

Should be more games to get ranked.

I guess it’s time.  I said earlier that the minimum would be raised from 3 after we had more results.  I guess we’re at that point now.

You now have to have 5 games completed to be ranked.