Game History
Round: 8 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 2 artilleries, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 9 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 1 transport moved from 21 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shantung to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Jehol to 20 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 fighters, 1 infantry, 1 submarine, 2 tactical_bombers and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 36 Sea Zone to Paulau 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 6 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Shantung to Kiangsi 1 artillery and 5 infantry moved from Anhwe to Kiangsi 3 artilleries, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangtung to Kiangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to Kiangsi 1 marine moved from Kwangtung to 21 Sea Zone 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 marine and 5 transports moved from 21 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 8 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 8 infantry and 1 marine moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 fighter moved from Japan to 22 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Japan to 36 Sea Zone Combat - Japanese Battle in 22 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport Japanese win with 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Japanese: 1 submarine Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer and 1 transport Battle in Kiangsi Japanese attack with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 9 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Chinese defend with 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Japanese win, taking Kiangsi from Chinese with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 25 Casualties for Japanese: 6 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Battle in 36 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports Americans defend with 1 destroyer Japanese win with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer Battle in Paulau Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Americans defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Paulau from Americans with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry Battle in Korea Japanese attack with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine Russians defend with 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Korea from Russians with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 aaGun moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 aaGun moved from Anhwe to Shantung 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 1 infantry, 1 marine and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Paulau to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to 6 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 22 Sea Zone to Davao Place Units - Japanese 3 infantry placed in Shantung 2 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry placed in Japan 1 destroyer placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 1 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 42 Sea Zone. Rolls: 1 Japanese collect 44 PUs (1 lost to blockades); end with 44 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 47 PUs Objective Japanese 4 Control Dutch East Indies: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 52 PUs2017 League Post Game Results Here
-
I’d say around 60 would be fair.
About the need for such a massive bid, I can go on for a long time but here are the main points:
1. Axis air starts off huge and it will always be in a great, centralized position: Since Allies are split into more individual nations than Axis are, they all need to more or less consider the following: what if the bulk of the Axis air were suddenly focused on this one nation/area? For example, this can affect if Russia should buy artillery to deadzone a certain territory, since Germany can always send some of its air to help defend it, and then the Russian art buy gets turned useless (if Germany breaks through Rostov for example).
Another important example is the necessary Allied fleet to be able to stand up to German air in order to be effective in landing troops in Europe. If Allies don’t spend enough on protection, Germany can just shift air around and perhaps buy a couple and deadzone the important sea zones, hence preventing unloading. If Allies spend enough on protection, Germany can simply ignore the fleet. The landing will be smaller and/or later, allowing Germany to deadzone the land territories easily with a land purchase. This is only one example of the required fine tuning and efficiency the Allies need to remotely stand a chance vs a competent Axis player.
2. Extremely powerful Axis canopening: Italy canopening for Germany/taking territories and then being stacked by Germany renders Russian offensive and defensive possibilities to nearly nothing. Only Anzac can potentially realistically counter it, but they have a handful of units in that area. For Japan, German bombers prevents the Allies from being very threatening in the Pacific while giving Japan huge opportunities. Nothing close to this magnitude exists for the Allies. It’s always the powerful nation (US) going before the weaker one (Anzac).
3. Transports not defending: it makes effective fleets extremely costly especially for US, since their tps are often a one time use.
4. Axis easily taking enough territories to surpass Allied income by round 6-7, and then waiting patiently for the last few desperate Allied moves until the Allied surrender: this is related to costly tp fleets and not enough Allied income. It’s the Allies that need to rush to get in there and try to prevent the switch in the income advantage, but it takes many turns to get things going for the US for example.
All in all, the effort I put into my Axis games compared to my Allied games must be about 1:25. You need a near perfect Allied play to stand a chance against the Axis, with the most efficient buys and moves possible and being right on the knife’s edge to losing in one theater in order to maximize damage in the other. Everything needs to fit together like clockwork, and for that you need to accurately predict what the Axis will do right down to their buy. One bad US buy and it’s essentially over against a good Axis player. Meanwhile, my Axis are on autopilot in most cases.
Sorry for 500 words :lol:.
-
With a 50 bid, that gives the Allies so many moves to block Axis openings.
I’d be looking at:
ftr Scotland
Sub SZ98
DDs 110 & 91
art Sudan and Alexandria
Tank Egypt
Anzac TT off NZ
art Kweichow and Suiyuyan
ftr Moscow
ftr MaltaThat’s gotten only to the mid 70s so you could use more than half of that.
Yeah, with 50 you can stack Yunnan, keep most of the UK fleet alive, cripple Italy and do some miscellaneous stuff like inf in New Guinea.
-
Except the ng inf is illegal under standard league rules. No other land unit in the territory. Or am I confused about that one?
Most players would tolerate it though.
-
BTW thanks for the 500 words.
I’ve had players still hit 111 and 110 in spite of a fighter bid on Scotland. Costs them most of the Luftwaffe when the UK scrambles. Which weakens your point 1.
So I guess you would hit 91 and 110, but with the dd in 91 that one can go bad.
-
Except the ng inf is illegal under standard league rules. No other land unit in the territory. Or am I confused about that one?
Most players would tolerate it though.
You are correct
-
I’d like to know how Adam’s German airforce can “deadzone” Allied Atlantic seazones and also focus on the Russians. Throughout his 500 words, the biggest key for the Allies was…… missing :-)
No wonder you have so much trouble winning with the Allies - you don’t seem to understand one of the most important things that they should try to do. I’d explain it, but since you are already supremely confident and believe that you have already found optimum play for all situations, there’s no need.
I have won against very good Axis players with bids of 8 and 10
won a league championship with the Allies with a bid of 12
won a league playoff game with the Allies with a bid of 28, with Axis resigning in round 6You would lose against yourself more than you win with a 50 bid?? No wonder JDOW beat me in the playoffs - my bid was only 25 :roll:
-
I consider my Allied play to be among the best I’ve seen, and I would lose more than I win if I played myself at 50 bid.
It’s getting stuffy in here.
Seems you’ve won too many games against weaker players to stay humble.
Allow me to point out, since you don’t, that you are 0-1 in league playoff games. Might be a little premature to anoint yourself God of A&AI also find it funny that I keep reading you saying you’ve “never seen” this or that, and I’ve seen it several times, and do some of these things myself. And I don’t play anywhere near the # of games you do, nor do I watch others’ games - it bores me. I have a lot of success playing A&A too, you know. Maybe you haven’t seen the full spectrum of A&A play yet. Maybe you should stop talking like you have.
-
ohhh shots fired!!! this could get interesting fast!!! maybe adam needs to show you around his axis in vanilla? :evil:
-
there’ve been a lot of exhanges/disagreements between you two in recent times, i think the best way to settle some of those arguments is to battle it out in a best of 3 series or something like that. maybe one series in vanilla to start out with, then follow with a BM series. i think it’d be an enjoyable game for the community to see the former champion play against the world’s current top player.
-
It would definitely be interesting to see Gamerman01 +50 vs Adam514……
-
It would, but I think we’re both done with 2nd edition
I don’t like switching back and forth between rulesets - I’m all Balanced Mod now
And 2016 playoffs have started - game with VonAlba starting soon
I don’t think Adam wants to play me anyway. He obviously likes to win, and win easily (as do I)
I play the game for fun, not to prove anything.But my Allies +50 would definitely win more than 1/2 of the games against perfect Axis play
Oh, I just saw he said +60 is fair. That’s ridiculous. And yes I’m talking 1 unit per territory -
I guess you need +60 when you don’t know the importance of islands
-
MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif
-
And yes I’m talking 1 unit per territory
I wonder if it was wise to implement the 1 unit per territory rule that was adopted? Perhaps if we hadn’t changed our bid rules to this the game might have been better balanced w/lower bids? I think one could easily argue that this rule change “watered down” the bid and is why a 20+ bid was soon to be the norm?
Adam or G Man, do you think if stacking was allowed, that bids could be lower and effective in terms of balance?
-
Adam & Gamerman, let me add, as someone who has been playing here a long time, your results are very impressive!
-
Yeah bids would be lower without that restriction, but games would be less fun since bids would be stacking 5 inf in Yunnan for example, which breaks that area of the map.
It was interesting to see that you think I like to win easily.
-
@JWW:
Adam or G Man, do you think if stacking was allowed, that bids could be lower and effective in terms of balance?
Yes, I think we just don’t like the cheese that can result, like a 21 bid making 7 infantry on Yunnan.
Ah, now I read Adam’s reply and see he says the same thing :-)
Adam, you are so cool when you agree with me :-D -
For the record, I wasn’t at all confident of taking down Adam with a 50 bid. Thought it would be an interesting game though.
Curious about one thing, Adam: Are a J1 DOW every time player in G40?
-
For the record, I wasn’t at all confident of taking down Adam with a 50 bid. Thought it would be an interesting game though.
Curious about one thing, Adam: Are a J1 DOW every time player in G40?
Yes, unless the Allied bid was something that discouraged it enough.
-
One G40 game where I was Axis, Omega1759 bid a USSR fighter and flew the 3 planes to Yunnan USSR1, with an inf bid too. I didn’t DOW as Japan and still only killed one inf! Axis conceded round 10.
I guess that’s the kind of bid you are referring to. Maybe it doesn’t have to be quite that extreme.





