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
-
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
-
Path to Victory, right?
I just added up Ghostglider, Adam514, General Disarray, Axis Dominion, 666, Peirce, and ArtofWar. FOR THE PAST 18 MONTHS ONLY
In total they took Allies 39 times, Axis 31
General D wants the Allies and took them 6 times and Axis only 1
Peirce wants Axis and took them 6 times and Axis 0
So those two offset.
About bids for PtV, and it being the most “balanced” because of small bids chosen:
We don’t have enough sample size, not even close, to make any conclusions about what a proper bid should be.
Most of the games completed over the past 18 months should be thrown out of consideration because the stronger player almost always wins. I’m seeing that no matter what side is taken by who, the stronger player wins - almost always.
The rest of the games, which are few, just don’t tell you anything about bids because there are waaaaay too many other variables. -
The 42% Axis statistic I dropped last week, and the fancy colored bar graph in the statistics section of the ELO rating sheet?
Horribly misleading!
How much the Axis win is largely a function of who likes to take what side. Maybe that’s what @crockett36 was looking for. Top players took Allies 39 times to 31, and, guess what, the Allies have been rolling the past 18 months.
The fact that stronger players are winning more games is not a strong indication that PtV is “balanced” close to zero.
I’m convinced that rather, it’s a strong indicator that PTV is big enough and complex enough that the results are not very sensitive to a bid.
To be clearer, I doubt that we would have much different results between a -30 bid and a -8 bid. The skill of the players and the magnitude of the game overpower it. -
@gamerman01 I definitely agree with the point about lack of insensitivity to an bid. The absolute bids are too low for it to be sensitive in the first place IMO.
But, (and no offense) the recent post mortem on the OOB playoffs in which it was declared the game was over after G1 would never happen in PTV outside of absolutely insane dice. The board is bigger, the strategies are more diverse, and there are far more opportunities to recover from bad dice.





