I just beat the computer in three turns…

@Linkon:

Newbies will commonly separate armor (1 space back) from infantry due to the perception that inf is better on defence.

The reality of the game for veterans is that the biggest stack rules, so the better action is to place both together and everything else you got into the biggest stack you can make.  The armor still has the 2 move reach for rapid deployment on your next turn.

A similar thing happens with bombers and fighters, but not as much.

yes the bigger stack rules but you can always avoid them. depends on whether you’re fighting a war of attrition. japan should realize it’s going to lose (in beginning) most of its land territory because it needs to consolidate–as you allude to–all of its forces on one territory. otherwise they would lose the units AND the territory.

I agree with everyone who said start simplier and work from that.

But I think the Rus-Ger dynamic really gives a pretty look at the overall game.  And for an AI, I don’t think looking at units is the best way to start.  I think LL rules  where an
“aggressive AI” attacks with a remainder of 2
“mederate AI” attacks with rem of 3
“defensive AI” attacks with rem of 4

Would work for combat purposes.  although that can easily be exploited by a human.

But that kind of goes out the window without a goal in mind, which mean holding specific territories should be priority 1.
And for that I suggest re-valuing the key ones, similar to concept IPC value but more pronounced and strategic.

Here are the key territories and my proposed Values:

Germany
Ger - 20
EE - 12
Ukr - 6
WE - 6
SE - 4
Fin - 2

Russia
Mos - 20
Kar - 12
Cauc - 6
Eve - 2
Novo - 8
Kaz - 2

Thus you get 12 territories for a total of 100 pts.  So a calculation at the end of each rd of who holds the most points could be shown to have the lead.

Ex, Ger lost WE and Fin but holds SE, Ger, EE, Ukr, Japan took Eve and Kaz But Russia holds Novo, Mos, Cauc so the Axis total would be 46 and the Allies would be 54.  Showing the Allies leading the game.  which I think could hold up since post Japan’s turn Russia still holds Novo.

A secondary equation tied to this that adds up all units within these key territories and calculates their defensive value and offensive value.  Since form all of these territories you can get to Kar, you could probably calculate how many turns of purchases it would take to:
(for side that does not own kar)
1)  be able to attack Kar and take
2)  be able to attack kar and take and HOLD from a counter.
(side that does own kar)
3)  continue to be able to hold kar
4)  find ter with most enemies units, is an attack or strafe benefical (based on LL attack rules)

Example, If units are equal at 100 Axis and 100 Allies, but Allies earn 80 and Axis earn 60.  It wouldn’t be to hard to say, well in 10 turns the Allies will 900 pts in unit strength vs. 700.  Perhaps that gives the Allies the needed adv to attack and hold.

I think the first order should be to set up the inital “rally points” or key territories that MUST be held.  But I do think it would be easy for a human to exploit.

The real adv for the AI would be it could calculate it’s army strength much further down the road provided it was set right.  Which I admit would be very hard.  But I think if you work with some initial parameters you might be able to do a pretty good job.  I’m thinking if you assume all other territories except the initial 12 I laid out are “bonus”, you could then have the AI “assume” it’s income for 5, 6, 7 turns based on the LL playing style you give it.  Yet when their turn actually comes around they maybe able to buy some thing more b/c they hold half of Afr as well.  But for your initial Calcs you don’t really need to take all that stuff into account.  I think Less would be more in this case and would actual build a strong AI.

I’m just thinking of how I play now and I treat everything but those 12 ter as secondary, and it works for me, Infact I even treat half of those 12 as secondary.  Position I think would be a greater asset for a strong AI, not IPCs or even army strengh (if it is out of position).

Using three boards is basically an alternative to having to write down all the info instead.  I think a btter alternative and keeps the game much more playable.  It helps if you have a third (neutral) person that can moderate between the three boards.  This can also help keep encourage each player to keep game turns short.

Imperious Leader gives a good example of the three board play with his Jutland game.  It’s under the “Other Axis and Allies Variants” section

Hard to say. 2 junior but equal players might always end up with an allied victory. 2 medium but equal players might end up with an axis win most of the time. 2 experts and equal end up with allied victories.

3rd edition helps allies more then axis IMHO.
RR and German rockets alone might be enough, if not give germany jet power (ftrs defend on a 5). Somebody at our group coined the term piranha for a German jet fighter. Couple of those in a stack of infantry adds some back bone! No rolling 4 times each always missing, they always take a bite!

BB

Guest, methinkest thou wasteth thine index fingers.
This thread has been inactive for over 6 months.
I think the original guest has learned his lesson and then some.

Look elsewhere on these fora for a good discussion.
In fact, try “General Discussion!”

Computer win? Isn’t that any oxymoron? Kinda like Lebanese government or Islamic Democracy.

Sadly, the v133 patch does not fix everything and there are still a lot logical errors to be dealt with. For instance, for some reason I can still have more than one AA gun in the same territory. It is not these errors that enrage me (anybody can avoid these problems by just not performing them), but the horrid AI in the game and the sudden crashes (the later being somewhat corrected in v133).

Everything seems pretty standard for an Allied victory, but with Russia, I am passive in the Far East.