please don’t take that the wrong way guys - you will understand more after the post game discussion. you have played a phenomenal axis game, completely within the ruleset. which is what we have to play by. it’s just a shame a match as great as this one has to end the way it is going to end.
we did make one potentially big mistake in this match when we attacked the neutrals. however, even if we had not done so, i think a similar result was probably inevitable. we actually did have victory within our grasp if a couple small things had gone our way (namely the 2 airstrikes in n italy and greater southern) but victory never should have been within our grasp, in fact, our chances could have been completely snuffed out long ago by what i will tell you after we are done.
we just got really lucky in china. i need to pause and ask if you would like to use your low luck reroll. but more importantly, i would like to ask if hank and love would like to continue the game after Larry’s (in my opinion flawed) victory condition rules give them the technical victory. :-)
No on both counts :)
(I envision myself taking a bit of a break after the league season ends and will probably only play the finals here)
if i had to guess, i would guess you guys (being the A&A geniuses you are) are well aware of what i’m going to tell you, you have just never shown it as far as i can tell. until just now, that is.
ironically, my LL reroll suggestion is probably what lost the game for us (unless you would not have made the amur attack without it).
not much help from the dice here at the end. watch us succeed in egypt only to have it negated by the LL reroll.
anyway, i rolled for UK but the thing locked up trying to post so ignore the second set of dice coming.
Definitely not the droids I was looking for. For some reason my phone hasnt been letting me post the map. Should be coming soon hopefully the next 1 to 2 hrs. Dice second time were even worse!
as much as I hate unevenly divided luck, those LL rerolls are a bad idea, even if it sounds good initially. sorry for posting so much here, will desist until game end ;)
Bold, I am sorry but the way your are talking is just weird.
One thing, take it for granted:
You can admit your opponents played a great game a 100 times. As soon as you directly and indirectly claim the game you played (Allies +16 or 18 or so) is imbalanced by the rules, you immediately nullify the appreciation of your opponent’s performance. Period.
You CANNOT at all try to argue, twist words and believe you can solve that problem by using language. This is beyond language but 100% controlled by emotions.
And the emotions of the human nature only feel that your acknowledgment of their performance is completely devaluated by your complain about the game rules, nullified, non-existent by your complain. No arguments, no language, just emotions. You can write what you want, the result is the same and it is the same for every person on this planet (mentally ill people maybe excluded).
So you need to decide: You either got outplayed by better opponents (in case you still want to acknowledge their performance) OR the game is imbalanced (which 100% excludes acknowledging a great performance).
This is black or white my friend, trust me and don’t try to justifiy you once more, you already did more than once, nobody wants to hear another justification, just make your choice;)
@alexgreat:
as much as I hate unevenly divided luck, those LL rerolls are a bad idea, even if it sounds good initially.
I agree Alex. They are less of a safety net and more of something you plan to use to ensure your turn works out exactly how you wanted it to go. Definitely a strategic decision on our side to agree to them, but I don’t think I would want to play this way in a regular game.
Make it a normal, regular reroll, if reroll is what you want. Would improve chances, but not guarantee anything, and could even backfire.
There you are, broke my own intention of not posting anymore…
@alexgreat:
Make it a normal, regular reroll, if reroll is what you want. Would improve chances, but not guarantee anything, and could even backfire.
I find a lot of players will do this automatically if an attack goes really bad (ie/ you had 95%+ chance of winning with multiple units and instead your opponent keeps multiple units). I think if you are playing for fun and/or for the challenge of the game, then this is something you do naturally.
@alexgreat:
There you are, broke my own intention of not posting anymore…
You’re hooked. It’s too late to turn back now :-P
Bold, I am sorry but the way your are talking is just weird.
One thing, take it for granted:
You can admit your opponents played a great game a 100 times. As soon as you directly and indirectly claim the game you played (Allies +16 or 18 or so) is imbalanced by the rules, you immediately nullify the appreciation of your opponent’s performance. Period.You CANNOT at all try to argue, twist words and believe you can solve that problem by using language. This is beyond language but 100% controlled by emotions.
And the emotions of the human nature only feel that your acknowledgment of their performance is completely devaluated by your complain about the game rules, nullified, non-existent by your complain. No arguments, no language, just emotions. You can write what you want, the result is the same and it is the same for every person on this planet (mentally ill people maybe excluded).So you need to decide: You either got outplayed by better opponents (in case you still want to acknowledge their performance) OR the game is imbalanced (which 100% excludes acknowledging a great performance).
This is black or white my friend, trust me and don’t try to justifiy you once more, you already did more than once, nobody wants to hear another justification, just make your choice;)
Not following your logic jdow. Thats like saying science and religion are polar opposites and fundamentally at odds. They are not, they have some areas of overlap and other areas that are completely mutually exclusive.
here’s the map.
i’m playing for the moral victory possibility of taking egypt in the original roll (before the fatal LL reroll is invoked). if that were to happen, we would be favored in this one. yes, i know, hank may not have vacated philippines if we had a chance to take egypt. but still, if allies could get egypt, it would be their game to lose.
either way, it was a great game - i felt like chances were very good i would learn a lot in this game and boy did i. i know hank is taking a break after this, but i would be happy to finally play you a league game AWN. if you’re up for it.
cheers
either way, it was a great game - i felt like chances were very good i would learn a lot in this game and boy did i. i know hank is taking a break after this, but i would be happy to finally play you a league game AWN. if you’re up for it.
cheers
by the way, in the league game, i’d be happy to give you the bomber plus 8 with the allies.
or bomber plus 9.
JDOW, let me try to put it another way…
If you have two competitors riding in a 000 mile cycling race and one is riding a 10 kilogram bike and the other is riding a 30 kilogram bike, and the guy riding the lighter bike wins, do you think it would be terrible for the slower biker to say great ride - you did beat me on a lighter bike but nonetheless, you rode a fantastic race, probably the best race i have ever seen. i think the winning rider, unless they have a very fragile ego, can accept the compliment without feeling like his ability to ride is being brought into question or thinking that the other rider is trying to say they could have ridden the bike even faster. it’s just a matter of fact statement, not from emotion for me, it is just a revelation about game balance as related to victory conditions that finally totally struck home. i had long suspected it but hoped i was wrong, but i do not think i am. i will of course test the theory further, hopefully against hank and awn. i we had played the axis, they may have still beaten us… but i doubt it. and that is not me saying i think i can play the axis better than they can (i highly doubt that), it is only speaking to game balance. going back to the bike analogy, if i was that slower rider, i dont’ know if i could have ridden faster over 500 miles than he did on the light bike, but i may have been able to win on the lighter bike. :wink:
cheers
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.7
Game History
Round: 14
Purchase Units - Italians
Italians buy 2 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 3 PUs;
Combat Move - Italians
1 infantry moved from Yakut S.S.R. to Buryatia
Italians take Buryatia from Russians
1 infantry moved from Western Germany to Denmark
Germans take Denmark from British
1 mech_infantry moved from South West Africa to Rhodesia
Italians take Rhodesia from British
Combat - Italians
Non Combat Move - Italians
1 transport moved from 80 Sea Zone to 81 Sea Zone
3 fighters, 2 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Southern France to Southern Italy
2 artilleries moved from Southern France to Northern Italy
2 aaGuns and 2 infantry moved from Western Germany to Northern Italy
1 bomber moved from Novgorod to Egypt
Place Units - Italians
2 aaGuns, 1 airfield and 1 fighter placed in Egypt
1 destroyer and 1 transport placed in 97 Sea Zone
Turn Complete - Italians
Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 2
Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 97 Sea Zone. Rolls: 6,6
Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 105 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,3,6,3
Italians collect 40 PUs (2 lost to blockades); end with 43 PUs total
Objective Italians 4 Control Iraq Or Persia Or Northwest Persia: Italians met a national objective for an additional 6 PUs; end with 49 PUs
Objective Italians 2 Roman Empire: Italians met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 54 PUs
Territory Summary for Italians :
Evenkiyskiy : 1 flag
Yakut S.S.R. : 1 flag
Timguska : 1 flag
Kazakhstan : 1 flag
Buryatia : 1 flag, 1 infantry
Belgian Congo : 1 flag
Trans-Jordan : 1 flag
Egypt : 1 flag, 2 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 1 bomber, 1 factory_minor, 1 fighter and 1 harbour
South West Africa : 1 flag
Kenya : 1 flag
Anglo Egyptian Sudan : 1 flag
Rhodesia : 1 flag, 1 mech_infantry
Tanganyika Territory : 1 flag
French Equatorial Africa : 1 flag
Syria : 1 flag
Denmark : 1 infantry
Northern Italy : 2 aaGuns, 2 artilleries, 1 factory_major and 2 infantry
Southern Italy : 1 airfield, 3 artilleries, 1 factory_minor, 3 fighters, 1 harbour, 5 infantry, 5 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber
Karelia : 1 flag, 3 mech_infantrys
Bessarabia : 1 flag
Novosibirsk : 1 flag
Portugal : 1 flag
Turkey : 1 flag, 1 factory_minor
Mozambique : 1 flag
Saudi Arabia : 1 flag
Angola : 1 flag
Greece : 1 flag
97 Sea Zone : 1 destroyer and 1 transport
Iraq : 1 flag
81 Sea Zone : 1 transport
Northwest Persia : 1 flag
Persia : 1 flag
Spain : 1 flag
Production/PUs Summary :
Germans : 60 / 78
Russians : 10 / 0
Japanese : 64 / 69
Americans : 63 / 89
Chinese : 6 / 8
British : 23 / 26
UK_Pacific : 0 / 0
Italians : 42 / 54
ANZAC : 8 / 10
French : 5 / 0
Dutch : 0 / 0
Mongolians : 0 / 0
Neutral_Axis : 0 / 0
Neutral_Allies : 0 / 0
Neutral_True : 2 / 0
JDOW, let me try to put it another way…
If you have two competitors riding in a 000 mile cycling race and one is riding a 10 kilogram bike and the other is riding a 30 kilogram bike, and the guy riding the lighter bike wins, do you think it would be terrible for the slower biker to say great ride - you did beat me on a lighter bike but nonetheless, you rode a fantastic race, probably the best race i have ever seen. i think the winning rider, unless they have a very fragile ego, can accept the compliment without feeling like his ability to ride is being brought into question or thinking that the other rider is trying to say they could have ridden the bike even faster. it’s just a matter of fact statement, not from emotion for me, it is just a revelation about game balance as related to victory conditions that finally totally struck home. i had long suspected it but hoped i was wrong, but i do not think i am. i will of course test the theory further, hopefully against hank and awn. i we had played the axis, they may have still beaten us… but i doubt it. and that is not me saying i think i can play the axis better than they can (i highly doubt that), it is only speaking to game balance. going back to the bike analogy, if i was that slower rider, i dont’ know if i could have ridden faster over 500 miles than he did on the light bike, but i may have been able to win on the lighter bike. :wink:
cheers
i don’t think your analogy helps explain your point. it would be easier to just to say what you mean.
but for some reason i feel compelled to correct your poor analogy.
using your bike analogy you would have to add to the fact that both riders have ridden both bikes at least 20 times before and know the strengths and weaknesses of both bikes.
both riders now feel that one bike is better than the other. so they decide a fair way to run the race is to have one bike get a head start. they decide that they will bid back and forth to see how much of a head start is needed to make the race fair. they go to an internet forum and spend 6 pages to get to the point were both riders think the race is fair.
now you can continue with your analogy if you like, but it would probably be easier to just way what you mean.
Now im confused. I started out by saying qhat I meant and jdow got all confused. So I tried an analogy or tqo to help him. :lol:
Anyway, I learned something in this game, as I said. Preaumably the reason u refuswd to play me all year until I was out of the tournament…. smart move by the way. I was actually thinking the game was pretty even at initial setup, which it is for a certain type of game… that is, a game without any significant type of crossover. After a game of no crossover, you did it when you needed to, and thats game. More later.
In the meantime, I hope u will now agree to play me some league games. I need good competion to learn.
