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 PUsLeague General Discussion Thread
-
This is not an argument to not care about your ELO.
I totally understand we’re competitive gamers and when we put a single number on our success it means a lot.
If it helps, remember that from the impersonal “league’s perspective” the top reasons for a rating, in order of importance to the league, is
#1 To maximize Fun
#2 During regular season, players have a good idea the strength of their prospective opponent. Helps a lot in choosing an opponent.
#3 Decently accurate playoff entry qualifications and seeding
#4 Great way to measure whether and how much you’re improving
#5 Sense of satisfaction, bragging rights, etc -
I will say if I was playing PtV low luck I can’t imagine Axis would get a bid. I would definitely want a bid to play Allies. I believe with a 0 bid you can be at 100% odds for Sealion on G3 with a naval buy G1 (CV, DD, tp) and 11-transport buy G2.
That’s with UK bringing the Gibraltar + Malta fighter back and building 18 infantry + a fighter for London.
-
@axis-dominion Here is a breakdown of BM4 game results that I pulled from the results spreadsheet. Player 666 is 1 win and 20 losses for players with ELO above 1800. You should be able to beat him 95% of the time if he has not massively improved in recent times. ELO looks to be working in this instance.
Looking at your record (since 2020), you have a weakness against low ranked players and it wasn’t primarily due entirely to bad dice. Against the Simon (ELO 1394), you were distracted by other games and didn’t move additional planes to reinforce the main Russian stack, and he got a bit lucky in the 60/40 Bryansk battle that couldn’t be recovered from. Without that mistake it looked like you would have easily won the game. In the other noteworthy loss against me (ELO 1497), you could have easily won if you played more conservatively instead of offering battles which were dicey.
If you want to maximize your ELO ranking, the 1900+ ranged opponents is probably your sweet spot as the occasional blunders hurt you in the matches against inferior players. Sadly that only gives you 3 opponents who will help you improve or maintain your ranking. The challenges of being one of the best in the world…

-
Boy you sure were right when you estimated 95% off the top of your head! That’s great analysis, and great memory of past games.
-
@gamerman01 Quickly estimating a 95% is the strength of the ELO system, as @Arthur-Bomber-Harris noted. Even ELO should mean 50/50 win rate, being evenly matched players. A 500-point advantage is ~91% win rate.
Re: The new ELO-based ranking system
@MrRoboto said in The new ELO-based ranking system:
Now the Factor F is important: I set it to 500.
This means, that a player with an Elo rating 500 higher than the opponent is 10x as likely to win the game.Our ELO system would be more accurate if we had a larger pool of players, as one of the issues that has been pointed out is that there is a very small pool of players.
Smaller sample size, less precise data, larger standard deviation in the results.
The top ELO guys can play against only a few others that give them a big chunk ELO for a win, but those players are also the most likely to give them a loss.
However, this is also true in games like chess, DotA and StarCraft, where the ultra-high ELO/MMR players have to play and win lots of games against lower-tier challengers to move up only 100 points in the rankings.
And for the MMR systems, usually the top world players are in the 7k-8k MMR range, so 100 points is only a 1.5% improvement vs a 5% improvement at 2000 ELO.
-
@Stucifer I find it fascinating that we probably only have a decade before a good AI is developed for Axis and Allies, one that can consistently beat the top players. Even an AI that can identify all major weaknesses 3 turns ahead would be a massive tool to take gameplay to a much higher level. Moscow falling a turn earlier is a game changer.
Chess has mostly managed to keep their top ranks honest, but I don’t think we will be able to maintain the League for very much longer. We are counting down the days of top human players.
-
I agree. The one I use seems to now have learning mode on now. I talked A&A 6 months ago and it didn’t know much. Now it does. A lot.
-
Counterpoint:
AI might be able to make the “best moves”, but being a dice game and not chess, it cannot “always win”, unlike a chess supercomputer.In chess, there is no unknown outcome. Taking a piece will always result in taking the piece. That is not true in Axis & Allies, and never will be.
One of my friends’ dads used to play chess with a guy that was ranked. The dad could only win when the other guy was drunk (which was frequently enough).
Chess is a game where the better player, if better enough, ALWAYS wins. A&A as this entire thread has been discussing, is thankfully not. I play A&A in part because I find games where I can lose to someone “worse” than me at the game and I can win against someone more skilled to be more enjoyable, personally.
-
And if the promised AI productivity boom actually materializes we should all have more free time and money to travel and reconstitute the league as an over the board league. Stucifer presciently already has the PTV board printed for us.
-
@Stucifer said in Post League Game Results Here:
I will say if I was playing PtV low luck I can’t imagine Axis would get a bid. I would definitely want a bid to play Allies. I believe with a 0 bid you can be at 100% odds for Sealion on G3 with a naval buy G1 (CV, DD, tp) and 11-transport buy G2.
That’s with UK bringing the Gibraltar + Malta fighter back and building 18 infantry + a fighter for London.
This seems like a fairly damning assessment of ptv. Someone might want to think about a version 2.
-
yep, in ptv SL is much easier, i got it 3 in a row and almost a 4th but stu decided it wasn’t worth it.
-
@crockett36 said in Post League Game Results Here:
@Stucifer said in Post League Game Results Here:
I will say if I was playing PtV low luck I can’t imagine Axis would get a bid. I would definitely want a bid to play Allies. I believe with a 0 bid you can be at 100% odds for Sealion on G3 with a naval buy G1 (CV, DD, tp) and 11-transport buy G2.
That’s with UK bringing the Gibraltar + Malta fighter back and building 18 infantry + a fighter for London.
This seems like a fairly damning assessment of ptv. Someone might want to think about a version 2.
More of a damning assessment of LL IMO. PTV is by far the most balanced and dynamic of the the 3 global variants.
-
@crockett36 said in Post League Game Results Here:
This seems like a fairly damning assessment of ptv. Someone might want to think about a version 2.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing but did not want to comment as I have only played PTV once and it was a very early version of PTV. I know it changed dramatically after that.
If the game seems balanced as some are saying here, even with the fall of London, that is probably due to a strong Russia.
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in Post League Game Results Here:
@crockett36 said in Post League Game Results Here:
This seems like a fairly damning assessment of ptv. Someone might want to think about a version 2.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing but did not want to comment as I have only played PTV once and it was a very early version of PTV. I know it changed dramatically after that.
If the game seems balanced as some are saying here, even with the fall of London, that is probably due to a strong Russia.
in my experience so far with SL, and i might have more experience with it than anyone else so far lol, russia in OOB/BM makes significantly more progress against G than in ptv… seems like G is able to push the russians back out of europe at some point. maybe others have had different experiences and disagree, or maybe i’m doing something wrong, but that’s what i’m finding. i remember in most of my global sea lions my russia would just kick ass and become unstoppable
-
OOB and BM both have vastly higher bids in favor of Allies though. Apples to apples PTV is the most balanced and maybe there needs to be an adjustment to the bid but that’s an indictment of the players, not the game.
-
@mikawagunichi said in Post League Game Results Here:
OOB and BM both have vastly higher bids in favor of Allies though. Apples to apples PTV is the most balanced and maybe there needs to be an adjustment to the bid but that’s an indictment of the players, not the game.
Not a huge sample size and I’m not going to stand behind it, but this week as you probably know, I tallied the last 18 months of PTV in the league and the Allies are ROMPING.
Just because the players’ perception is the Axis need about 10 or 12 doesn’t mean it’s accurate. The actual results show that the Axis have won 42%, again, the past 18 months.
With my point being not that 42% is really very accurate, but my point being that the jury is very much out, on whether PtV is “the most balanced”
-
@gamerman01 How much would the average PTV bid need to change in order to exceed average BM bid? (In absolute value)
-
@mikawagunichi Only about 15, at the most
-
as axis in ptv, i have found strong european naval presence, supporting italy to take gib and egypt, has been the most effective so far. i did this against adam in both games i played him so far and in both games i was winning. the first i ended up losing as my japanese play was on the weaker side and made some bad decisions and got punished by the dice, with adam taking advantage of these weaknesses and opportunities by swinging his european navy and spamming subs. in the second one it was very similar but i played a much stronger japan so i moved on to win that one.
-
and btw in that first game i won several major battles on the europe side including smashing his entire atlantic navy at gib, and i thought for sure i would win, but allies in ptv are definitely more resilient.





