HOLY CRAP, I’m not reading all of that! You’re complaining about PBF being inconvenient, but you have no trouble bitching and moaning for a huge, whole diatribe!
Fine, don’t make your next 2 moves. Maybe you didn’t call me a jerk, but I’m calling you one right now. And that’s being nice. Thanks for wasting freaking 4 hours of my time today.
Krieghund, whatever you do, don’t change the rules for this blow-hard.
@Imperious:
I knew vonLettowVorbeck1914 would find a way out of this. Rename this thread ‘Arrogance pointlessly Broken’
AMEN
HOLY CRAP, I’m not reading all of that! Â You’re complaining about PBF being inconvenient, but you have no trouble bitching and moaning for a huge, whole diatribe!
Fine, don’t make your next 2 moves. Â Maybe you didn’t call me a jerk, but I’m calling you one right now. Â And that’s being nice. Â Thanks for wasting freaking 4 hours of my time today.
Krieghund, whatever you do, don’t change the rules for this blow-hard.
20 mins explaining myself vs playing a game with an arrogant feller who really does think he’s god’s gift to axis and allies?
Easy choice for me.
20 mins explaining myself vs playing a game with an arrogant feller who really does think he’s god’s gift to axis and allies?
Don’t talk about yourself in the third person.
@Imperious:
20 mins explaining myself vs playing a game with an arrogant feller who really does think he’s god’s gift to axis and allies?
Don’t talk about yourself in the third person.
IL, don’t pout because Saber (edit: Sword) came up with this strat before you did. I know it’s super important to you to have thought of things before everyone else, but life goes on, as the saying goes.
(Btw, how do I know he came up with it before you did? Because if you did, you would have made sure EVERYONE you could find not only knew about it, but also knew that it was YOU who came up with it.)
IL, don’t pout because Saber (edit: Sword) came up with this strat before you did. I know it’s super important to you to have thought of things before everyone else, but life goes on, as the saying goes.
(Btw, how do I know he came up with it before you did? Because if you did, you would have made sure EVERYONE you could find not only knew about it, but also knew that it was YOU who came up with it.)
Don’t place your failures on my lap. Take ownership of terrible ideas that get proven wrong.
To any observors: PLEASE feel free to comment directly to this thread if you have any ideas about what should be done next by either of us, or what should have been done differently.
We are both TRYING to play the optimal strat for Japan and the Allies both. If we can both play an optimal strategy, then people won’t have to play a lot more games to figure this question out. It’s POSSIBLE we can settle the issue one way or the other with a single game, but only if we’re making really good moves.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29837.new#new
Link to the game between vonLettow and me
vonLettow did make a J2, so the game is indeed being played
I will be making the Allies 2nd round moves within hours
I invite suggestions for improvement of Allied or Japanese play directly to the thread - see quote above
Copy of my thoughts/conclusions from the game thread:
I’m not seeing a way to stop the landing of 24 ground units on British Columbia on J3.
This means Japan can attack J4 with 16 INF, 7 ART, 1 ARM, 11 FTR, 8 TAC, and 2 BMB. I don’t think that fact can be changed.
However, it is possible for the Allies to get some extra defense to WUS.
- Buy 5 INF US1
- Buy BMB UK1, TP ANZ1
- Buy 6 INF US2
- Buy naval base for Samoa UK2
- Move 2 loaded transports to Samoa ANZ2
- Buy 5 INF, AA, ARM, 3 FTR US3
- Fly in UK bomber
8- Fly in 3 ANZ fighters- Transport 4 ground units from Samoa
The 4 ground units from ANZAC can probably be stopped? by parking some Japanese fleet in Z10. However, some ships will be needed to protect 6 transports that will be moving into Z1. But maybe the US fleet is sitting in Z10 protected by potential scrambles. I don’t know if the Japanese player would attack the US fleet, but if they don’t, the 4 ANZAC units cannot be stopped from making it to the US on ANZ3.
If ANZAC ground units are stopped, then the Allies are defending with 21 INF, ART, 2 AA, ARM, TAC, 11 FTR, 1 BMB
Assuming 1 fighter shot down by AA, the odds are 95% chance of taking WUS. Median result is Japan survives with the tank and 13 aircraft. Upper quartile is 17 aircraft, 3rd quartile is 9 aircraft.
However, if you have 4 ANZAC ground units on top of that, for a total of 25 INF, then
the odds are only 72.8% chance of victory. Median result is Japan survives with 7 aircraft. Upper quartile is 11 aircraft, 3rd quartile is FAILURE - game over. 70/30 percentile has Japan winning, but with only 1 or 2 bombers remaining.If the Allies build maximum defense builds with the USA every turn, fly in a UK bomber and 3 ANZAC fighters, and get 4 ANZAC infantry in, the Allies have a very good chance of winning. If WUS falls but Japan only survives with a handful of planes, the Allies still have a good chance of winning.
As Zhukov pointed out, P40 has always been unbalanced in favor of Japan. Running the “traditional” strategy of going after India and China first should still be successful a higher percentage of the time than going KUSAF.
In other words, the game is not “pointlessly broken”, it just needs a small bid like Classic, Revised, AA50, and G40 all need.
A couple of infantry go a LONG way to definitely making this strategy a poor one. A bid of 6 or 9 putting 2 or 3 infantry in WUS should deter the Japanese player from even thinking about it.
Krieghund, I don’t think that any significant rule changes are needed to prevent this tactic. Japan has a really good chance of success (probably better chance than if she goes straight for WUS, bid or no) going the traditional route anyway - with no rule changes or bids.
That’s my opinion after many hours of study, and playing with VonLettow
Happy gaming, everybody!
In other words, the game is not “pointlessly broken”, it just needs a small bid like Classic, Revised, AA50, and G40 all need.
A bid is a fix to what is broken. IMO, if it NEEDS a bid to be balanced, then the game without the bid (the official game, the game all the tests used) is broken.
Bids are not official and never have been (and I doubt they will be instituted here as official), so are you asking for 2 or 3 more US infantry added to the setup? Recall that Krieghund was hoping to avoid setup changes.
Bids work fine for players in the everyday situations, but from what I can tell they are not a realistic option for an official rule (as in what would be in the rulebook). Krieghund, please correct me if I am wrong.
Wait a bit before you say that Japan has a better chance with traditional Calcutta/Syndey. If the allies are selling out (like they are in your game at the moment) to protect USA, it will be even more of a cakewalk for Japan once they do take W USA. Like it seems you said, the ANZAC trns can be blocked fairly easily.
The game had a bid before, and not due to a failed discovery on your part.
@Imperious:
The game had a bid before, and not due to a failed discovery on your part.
Not really sure what your point is. Would an allied bid of 9 for this game really have been spent on 3 infantry for USA before Sword rocked my US military? Was a bid for allies an official rule?
I don’t see why saying the game is fine with a bid means the official game is fine.
Dude, you are out to lunch.
Like I said, if needing a small bid makes this broken, then pretty much every Axis and Allies game I’ve ever played was “broken”, with Classic being the worst.
Like, what’s your point?
Of course Krieghund would like to avoid changing the starting setup. No, bids aren’t “official rules” but EVERYBODY uses them on this site, in leagues, tournaments, every single game. We don’t go around saying all the games are BROKEN.
Do you get some thrill out of announcing that there’s an elephant in the room?
Like it seems you said, the ANZAC trns can be blocked fairly easily.
I ALSO said that perhaps the USA fleet staying at home in Z10 as it did in the Sword game might be enough to get the ANZ transports in. THERE IS INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE NOT READING OR COMPREHENDING A LOT OF THINGS I POST, EITHER. In the Sword game, Japan didn’t attack the fleet until J4.
Another thing that needs to be considered is if the USA should send their fleet south and not tangle with the Japanese at all, since we have agreed there is nothing they can do (unless they can see the ANZ reinforcements in safely). This could make a big difference for the Allies in the post WUS era.
Our game was the very first I’ve ever tried in this edition against this strategy. Naturally, I would change a couple things.
There is no need to send the 3 UK air all the way up to China.
There isn’t a huge need to immediately send a single UK bomber to WUS. That money would probably be better spent preparing for war with Japan after J4.
So 3 ANZ fighters and possibly 2 loaded transports are really all the other allies need to send up.
Now you need to play games out to conclusion with players who know what they’re doing, to see if Japan can really even win more than 60-70% of games this way.
60-70% because that’s about the percentage they win without a bid, playing traditional strategies.
I guess I don’t get what we are talking about anymore. “Axis and Allies Pacific 1940” with 3 extra infantry in USA might be a perfectly decently balanced game, but I don’t see how the fact that you seem to think those inf need to be added means that the actual, official, game is fine. If the game needs a bid to not be broken, then it is broken without a bid.
3 Alphas for Global suggests to me that Larry likes to try to balance games without players needing to resort to a bid, especially since no rulebook I have ever come across for A&A games even recommends bids. Maybe everyone does play with a bid, but it seems to me that Larry and Krieg are looking for a game that can be balanced without a bid.
Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.
The need for a bid actually has nothing to do with your strat.
R e a d t h i s s l o w l y a n d c a r e f u l l y
Japan wins 60-70% of the games WITHOUT using “your” strategy.
If the ANZ infantry can slip in on ANZ3 (which they can IF the USA doesn’t waste ANY boats, but collects them all in Z10 and if Japan decides not to attack them or is unable to sink them all) then it doesn’t look like Japan can win 60-70% of the games, which would mean your USA first strat is actually a failure. Even without any bid.
I suppose the next test you need to do - and you certainly don’t need me for it - is to keep ALL US boats in Z10, and try to get the ANZ transports up there safely. Even if that can’t be done, as I ALREADY SAID you need to play several games to COMPLETION winning all necessary victory cities and then tell us what percentage of games Japan is winning. If it’s not a higher percentage than they win anyway, then the USA first strategy is nothing but a sub-optimal idea.
Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.
Then every Axis and Allies game ever made is broken. Do you really expect the designers to come up with a setup that is exactly even?
Dude, even in CHESS you don’t have a 50/50 chance of winning. White has the advantage because it moves first, even though it can only move one piece and all the pieces on both sides are the exact same and in the exact same position.
By your reasoning, chess is broken.
Like it seems you said, the ANZAC trns can be blocked fairly easily.
I ALSO said that perhaps the USA fleet staying at home in Z10 as it did in the Sword game might be enough to get the ANZ transports in. THERE IS INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE NOT READING OR COMPREHENDING A LOT OF THINGS I POST, EITHER. In the Sword game, Japan didn’t attack the fleet until J4.
Another thing that needs to be considered is if the USA should send their fleet south and not tangle with the Japanese at all, since we have agreed there is nothing they can do (unless they can see the ANZ reinforcements in safely). This could make a big difference for the Allies in the post WUS era.
Our game was the very first I’ve ever tried in this edition against this strategy. Naturally, I would change a couple things.
There is no need to send the 3 UK air all the way up to China.
There isn’t a huge need to immediately send a single UK bomber to WUS. That money would probably be better spent preparing for war with Japan after J4.So 3 ANZ fighters and possibly 2 loaded transports are really all the other allies need to send up.
Now you need to play games out to conclusion with players who know what they’re doing, to see if Japan can really even win more than 60-70% of games this way.
60-70% because that’s about the percentage they win without a bid, playing traditional strategies.
Just look at the map in the game you are playing me in now. The USA fleet going home gets smashed J3 no sweat. Japan can hit with the 4 planes from the carriers plus 4 planes from japan plus 2 bombers from Japan. Add 4 more planes onto that if I had moved the carrier from SZ 6 (the only reason it was in 6 is because I wanted to hedge my bets in Hong Kong) Â Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Sword game wasn’t the US being attacked on land the same turn it was being attacked in SZ 10? If that is the game I was thinking of, Japan attacked to draw the scramble and then retreat (while winning W USA with extreme ease), or not get scrambled and wipe the American fleet out.
I am wholly unconvinced the USA just retreating it’s fleet does any real good. It would be useless as an offensive force (perhaps individual ships can take out blocks, but it can’t harm the body of the IJN, and as I wrote up before, The allies stacking one sea zone may prevent Japan wiping out the combined fleet, but Japan can always just go around until the stack is on a capital’s SZ. Had you read anything of what I posted before you came into the thread, you would have seen why it is important for the US to block at least Alaska and probably also the Aleutians.
I am not sure why you are arguing against your planes going to china and your UK bomber buy, those were your moves in the “best” allied strategy, not my moves. You said the strat was the best one the allies could put out, but now say you would change a few things. Get offended if you must, but I feel like we have wasted a game then since you could have just read my posts and noted a few things that have already been tried and what the Allies’ situation is once USA falls.
Apologies on not being able to read all your posts; when you post several in succession, I often respond to the first, and then in the middle of responding to the second, you respond to my response to the first, and then the last one or two get glossed over as I go from there. I myself will try to combine more together for easier tracking. But for me to put forth serious effort to read everything you write, you need to show me a little effort in doing something other than blowing off the 4 pages posted before you came in the thread.
Please try to imagine how frustrating it is for me to play a game where you make mistakes as the allies that I have already noted in the thread as being critical to avoid (or at least explain in detail why you did not make those moves) (at the very least Alaska needs to be blocked, I am more certain of this than anything else in the situation). If you want to experiment some strats without an Alaska block, please do so on your own time and upload the game. If the Allies then stop Japan without an Alaska block in your tests I would be happy to see if there is anything I would have done differently as Japan, and then try a game from there if I think so.
The need for a bid actually has nothing to do with your strat.
R e a d  t h i s  s l o w l y  a n d  c a r e f u l l y
Japan wins 60-70% of the games WITHOUT using “your” strategy.
If the ANZ infantry can slip in on ANZ3 (which they can IF the USA doesn’t waste ANY boats, but collects them all in Z10 and if Japan decides not to attack them or is unable to sink them all) then it doesn’t look like Japan can win 60-70% of the games, which would mean your USA first strat is actually a failure. Â Even without any bid.
I suppose the next test you need to do - and you certainly don’t need me for it - is to keep ALL US boats in Z10, and try to get the ANZ transports up there safely. Â Even if that can’t be done, as I ALREADY SAID you need to play several games to COMPLETION winning all necessary victory cities and then tell us what percentage of games Japan is winning. Â If it’s not a higher percentage than they win anyway, then the USA first strategy is nothing but a sub-optimal idea.
If the need for the bid has nothing to do with this strat, then why do recommend that the bid be placed as USA land units? Do they really do much more than prevent the USA crush? How do those US inf realistically help the allies when the Japan goes the traditional method? It seems to me then that the change needs to either stop the USA crush from being so effective, stop the traditional strat from being so effective, or do both at the same time somehow.
Please keep in mind that if USA pulls the whole shebang back to SZ 110, Japan will be hitting it with 6 ftr 6 tac 2 bombers plus the whole IJN on J3. A scramble in that situation is free ftrs for Japan. Will pulling the whole fleet back mean that Hawaii will not be blocked? This may mean UK will need to build an airbase on Samoa.
Maybe that bid is a perfect fix, but it is still a fix to what we both seem to agree is broken.
Then every Axis and Allies game ever made is broken. Do you really expect the designers to come up with a setup that is exactly even?
No, but I also don’t expect them to be satisfied with a game’s ruleset when they know that in order to make it balanced, players have had to resort to bids.
It sounds to me like Larry is not satisfied with how the official game stands. You may be cool with bids to fix things up and that is fine, but what is so bad about an official change if it is something the designer is willing to do?
I think it’s pretty cool that over the past couple of years, Larry has tried to fix the game to make it balanced instead of just saying “screw it, I got your money, just bid for whichever side has it rougher.”
For clarity, from the Axis side, the key part of this move, the Japanese move to 14, was done by Sword. When you put “your” in quotes (in the top section) like that it seems like you are trying to make it sound like I am claiming I invented this, when in the first darn post I say that it came from someone else.
I am starting to think that a few other people have done this in 2e well before Sword did it against me, but they knew better than I did about posting it. To post it would mean being belittled by the experts and have them dismiss your games summaries without even reading them while they make the same mistakes you mentioned in your summaries.
Having looked at the Sword game, it does seem fairly hopeless for the US player. Japan’s ability to drop the small fleet in SZ14 means you can’t prevent them from getting the Aleutians J2. This means you can’t prevent the Canada attack J3 so US goes down J4. This is way too fast for the UK and ANZAC to do anything meaningful. I was curious as to what happens if the US player isn’t limited by their factory output: if you swap out the 6 Tank buy for 12 Infantry, Japan’s odds only drop from 97% to 87%.
The UK and ANZAC only have 3 rounds of moves they can make to try and help the US. The UK is completely too far away to do anything at all. A Samoa Air Base might allow the TAC + Fighter from Calcutta to get to W. USA on UK4, but this means you delayed the attack until J5, which I don’t see happening. ANZAC can dump in 3 Fighters + 4 Infantry or 4 Fighters + 2 Infantry. If Japan doesn’t show any interest in Hawaii or the other Air Bases, then you don’t need anything in Samoa to get this support over there. Japan could also use blockers of its own to stop the ANZAC TTs from arriving, but I don’t see this paltry amount of aid as doing anything.
I think this illustrates my earlier point about relying on the in-house team to do anything: if they shipped a game and went through several rules updates and still didn’t catch moves like this, it doesn’t leave me brimming with confidence they will identify a correct fix. Game designers are notorious for getting so locked in to how their games should be played that they are often blind to options anybody coming in fresh could see.
