Game History
Round: 3 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 3 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Politics - Americans Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Western United States Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Western United States Combat Move - Americans Trigger Americans Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Americans 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima Combat - Americans Battle in Iwo Jima Non Combat Move - Americans 1 artillery, 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima 2 carriers and 4 fighters moved from 7 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Western United States to 10 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 10 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands 1 fighter moved from Aleutian Islands to Siberia 2 bombers moved from Alaska to Siberia 1 bomber moved from Western United States to Siberia 1 armour moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Gibraltar 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 86 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 86 Sea Zone to Brazil Americans take Brazil from Neutral_Allies 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone Place Units - Americans 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone 1 transport placed in 10 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 infantry placed in Western United States Turn Complete - Americans Americans collect 53 PUs; end with 53 PUs Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 63 PUs Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 68 PUs Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 73 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed Chinese buy 2 infantry; Remaining resources: 2 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter and 11 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar Chinese take Chahar from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar 1 fighter moved from Chahar to Suiyuyan Combat - Chinese Non Combat Move - Chinese Place Units - Chinese 2 infantry placed in Suiyuyan Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 8 PUs; end with 10 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers and 2 fighters moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Egypt to 97 Sea Zone 2 destroyers moved from 81 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Tobruk to Libya British take Libya from Italians 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Egypt to 98 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Trans-Jordan to 98 Sea Zone 2 artilleries, 2 infantry and 2 transports moved from 98 Sea Zone to 76 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from 76 Sea Zone to Ethiopia 1 battleship moved from 76 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Egypt to Ethiopia Combat - British Battle in 97 Sea Zone British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers, 3 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber Italians defend with 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports British win, taking 97 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is 55 Casualties for British: 1 tactical_bomber Casualties for Italians: 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports Battle in Ethiopia British attack with 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Italians defend with 1 artillery and 3 infantry 1 armour owned by the British retreated to Anglo Egyptian Sudan Italians win with 1 artillery and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is -8 Casualties for British: 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Casualties for Italians: 2 infantry Non Combat Move - British 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 2 fighters moved from West India to 80 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from 97 Sea Zone to Egypt 1 fighter moved from 97 Sea Zone to Malta 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to Egypt 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to United Kingdom 1 artillery and 4 infantry moved from Iraq to Persia 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Iraq 3 aaGuns, 1 armour, 1 artillery, 9 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to Eastern Persia Place Units - British 1 carrier and 1 destroyer placed in 80 Sea Zone 1 infantry placed in Persia 2 infantry placed in Egypt Turn Complete - British British collect 33 PUs; end with 33 PUs Turn Complete - UK_PacificLeague General Discussion Thread
-
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.
-
the third and most recent game between us i got sea lion’ed, but i ended up having a substaintial > 700 tuv lead and felt i had the advantage, but his axis was still strong and continued making gains… there were some blunders and we had some disagreements that we couldn’t settle so just ended up scrapping the game. but it was a fun one, but also very long one with no end in sight.
-
I’m wondering if we examined the elo of the top 10, would we discover that they played and play the Axis plus 65 percent of the time.
-
Man I think PTV players would be tripping over themselves to play axis at +18. 3 TPs/subs
Suggested Topics
