Well all you saw in this game was an udder and complete beatdown by completely one sided dice. Worst I have ever seen. So im not sure, if you were watching the game, how you could give any credit to cow. The dice get all the credit for his win as far as im concerned, and that is an objective assessment.
Can you show dice stats to prove it, accounting for all battles? I would be interested to see that.
Unnecessary… totally blatantly obvious, start to finish and everywhere in between. :lol:
Not being rude omega it was a short game just have a look.
yes the dice were bad,
but you guys also made mistakes, and did a lot of risky moves that I would not have done because I am a more conservative player
when you do a risky move, and get bad dice, yes it sucks and you can complain and all, but you are also greatly at fault for choosing a risky move over a conservative one
this is even true when it is the best move to make due to other considerations, like a high payoff, etc.
Omega, I rather doubt that anybody spends as much time as you think they do on these games. If you’re inexperienced you may spend more time, but once you play a few games and get your butt kicked you learn quickly and can be competitive without spending hours calculating every possibility. Of course, being competitive doesn’t mean you’ll win, but as you gain experience you will get better.
yes the dice were bad,
but…
With all due respect, when the dice are this bad (worst I have ever seen and I have played hundreds of games) there is no need to put the but…
yes the dice were bad,
but…
With all due respect, when the dice are this bad (worst I have ever seen and I have played hundreds of games) there is no need to put the but…
As I said my money is on whoever you face in the final beating you two straight. :-D
Not being rude omega it was a short game just have a look.
The stats would be interesting to see. We could calculate the odds, e.g., 1 in 200
1 in 20,000 I would estimate. Dont know a generally accepted method to do it by or I would have suggested it… :-P
Really doesnt matter. We will see how the finals go.
1 in 20,000 I would estimate. Dont know a generally accepted method to do it by or I would have suggested it… :-P
Really doesnt matter. We will see how the finals go.
The 1 in 20,000 is extremely hard to believe.
1 in 20,000 I would estimate. Dont know a generally accepted method to do it by or I would have suggested it… :-P
Really doesnt matter. We will see how the finals go.
The 1 in 20,000 is extremely hard to believe.
well, that’s my estimate. prove me wrong.
I kept my options open throughout the game. I made sure Japan always had attacks lined up for the next turn. Protected my transports. Did lots of attacks with overwhelming odds. All and all I like what I did in the Pacific.
Russia bought mech/armor which forced Germany to go barb, otherwise that would roll into China and possibly secure the Burma road. Plus the odds on london were not good enough to conquer it and expect enough survivors to turn around and hit Russia hard.
Italy I gave up on right away. It was just a decision I made on round 2 when I saw all that Russian mech. I just wanted to make sure Russia did not get any NOs and that Germany could focus on Russia.
~
The reason I scrambled my one fighter on Japan against 2 fighters, was because I knew if I won that the full carrier buy would not be very effective. That was a very big upset which set America back big time. I should have kept a second fighter on Japan. I realized that shortly after posting before you guys went, but I wanted a no edit after posting game.
Some of my buys were a little off - I got a naval base too soon for example. A couple of misplaced moves with one or two units. It did not matter so much in the end. My one fighter defended Japan. Two air units not able to make India might not be necessary after all. The naval base a turn early would have been purchased the next round or two anyway.
Overall a fine example of Japan play.
I am more of a VC win or bust kind of guy. Prefer not to play long income games unless I have the incentives to do so. Trapped Russian Siberia infantry for an easy Siberia experience is hard to pass up on… even for me, so yeah I took it for the income and delayed my progress on India.
:lol:
Guess thats more of an admission of guilt than I would have expected. Perhaps you do realize how badly you would have lost if the dice hadnt bailed you out from a to z.
The rolls for this game are about even (see attached file). The timing of occurrence is skewed such that Axis won more battles than the Allies.
Interesting, interesting!
what is this file?
the allies got above expected odds on ONE battle in the 6 rounds. the axis got above average on EVERY battle in the 6 rounds.
what is this file?
The file contains dice statistics for the whole game. The average roll is 3.6 for both Axis / Allies and the distribution of 1s, 2s and 3s is more or less even.
It’s clear that many battles were very unfavorable to the Allies (e.g., the Japan scramble, the Chinese stack attack, the attack on Italian Navy), but the overall rolls don’t show this.
what is this file?
The file contains dice statistics for the whole game. The average roll is 3.6 for both Axis / Allies and the distribution of 1s, 2s and 3s is more or less even.
It’s clear that many battles were very unfavorable to the Allies (e.g., the Japan scramble, the Chinese stack attack, the attack on Italian Navy), but the overall rolls don’t show this.
lol - so what you are saying is the average die roll for the axis was equal to the average die roll for the allies, but the distribution of the critical battles skewed low for the axis and high for the allies?
Yes.
Also a 3.6 average for the axis is better than a 3.6 average for the allies… considering I am rolling more 4s. The average dice is not the same as the hit count.
