Looking to purchase axis and allies revised edition

@redrum I am very short on time as I am leaving until Sunday so please allow me to simply point you to this thread, where all of this has been discussed and clarified in depth:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/989/aa-revised-minor-bug
We have a Github issue for this here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/4133

Thank you for your understanding.

@Slip:

WBC Rules

These are the rules my group plays with too.  It gives a much better playing experience than playing normally IMO.

It prevents the typical “stack heavy” style that dominates OOB Revised at the highest levels, although obviously you still need to stack heavily to win.

@The:

I’d say hit the Solomans with maybe as much air as you can send (if it reaches), but if it can’t reach safely, hit that area with everything you got. Those are the closets transports. The WUS ones are 2 turns away. Hit Solomans, but buy more air for a) defence and b) hitting power because when you go south, he’ll move north/northeast into your path to block you, really putting a cramp in your plans to come back to the defence of Japan.

And if you could post a map or something of what you face, that would be great. But kill transports. Battleships can’t transport men anyway!  :lol: :-D

GL

Thanks, that’s what I was thinking. My focus is Russia while they’re super weak. I can hit his loaded carrier, and trans with 2 BB’s, an AC and four planes. That should do it, and I can take two hits and won’t mind losing a couple planes.

I anticapted his blocking move too and was considering buying planes. I think I’ll buy 1 plane and all land forces.

@Krieghund:

It’s true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren’t, they’d dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can’t afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can’t.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany’s so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there’s no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn’t sound like a very fun game, does it?

The strategy you’re describing sounds perfectly viable to me.

GK for that!  LOL

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

There has been some extended discussion of adding additional nations in the House Rules area, which would be the correct venue for such discussions :-)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=41.0

:oops:  Oops, my bad.  :oops:
Definitely was not thinking in revised.  Sorry for wasting your time - but use the strategy in the unrevised version is you get a chance.