League General Discussion Thread

Axis Dominion is a fantastic Axis and Allies player.

But he played the league POORLY. Que India Jones and the holy grail scene.

What a failure! (rubs it in with glee - this might sting a little… or a lot)

That is where he lacked the -skill- to make a good decision. Selecting his opponent. 0% luck was invovled in that bad, horrible read, and look at him now! blaming dice!

I encourage you all to have NO sympathies for any man who was clearly, and caculatingly preying on the weak, and the deseperate. No sympathies for a man who was looking for low homework and easy wins… but who took his eye off the ball and VWHAP. Allowed a circumstance to exist where a Toddler with a gun got him.

The more I think about it, luck was not involved. And more Skill was involved in having the balls to roll for moscow, and well as seduce a power player into a false sense of security, in order to extract a 30% chance at their failure.

AD being a power player, -never should have allowed a circumstance- to exist on the board as it did, where his opponent could pop him in the jaw in such a way.

That has nothign to do with luck folks, and no one ever loses due to “dice”.

Yes. This is how it is.

i think LL might be the only way forward for me to play lower ranked players in the league who are fairly skilled but like to take the big swings; otherwise i should just enjoy non-league matches with them.

top tier players will almost never take such big swings, and that is why they’re at the top. they are able to win fairly consistently through patient positional play and maximizing odds.

losing to a lower-ranked risk-taker is just too punishing when you’re at the top playing with a very different kind of meta.

I’m not a fan of LL but it might be the only way forward in this case.

@axis-dominion I do wish “medium” luck was playable over the forum.

Its great F2F. Basically, each battle you can choose LL or dice for the duration of that specific battle (as attacker and defender independently)

Making some outcomes obvious and controlled, but others, occassionally wild when you need a chance to cause some pain!

@Gargantua said in Post League Game Results Here:

Axis Dominion is a fantastic Axis and Allies player.

But he played the league POORLY. Que India Jones and the holy grail scene.

What a failure! (rubs it in with glee - this might sting a little… or a lot)

That is where he lacked the -skill- to make a good decision. Selecting his opponent. 0% luck was invovled in that bad, horrible read, and look at him now! blaming dice!

I encourage you all to have NO sympathies for any man who was clearly, and caculatingly preying on the weak, and the deseperate. No sympathies for a man who was looking for low homework and easy wins… but who took his eye off the ball and VWHAP. Allowed a circumstance to exist where a Toddler with a gun got him.

The more I think about it, luck was not involved. And more Skill was involved in having the balls to roll for moscow, and well as seduce a power player into a false sense of security, in order to extract a 30% chance at their failure.

AD being a power player, -never should have allowed a circumstance- to exist on the board as it did, where his opponent could pop him in the jaw in such a way.

That has nothign to do with luck folks, and no one ever loses due to “dice”.

Yes. This is how it is.

garg, where did you come from, or crawl out of lol. not sure you made any sense but yeah i mean when the opponent is fairly skilled as peirce is, you can’t rely on not giving them any odds at all. that’s just not realistic… at some point, practically speaking, they will have a 1/3rd chance with maybe poor avg tuv and then they’ll take that swing. unavoidable.

@axis-dominion my phone has this thread on notice.

and it started blowing up so I was -summoned- lol

in looking at the yugo battle.

This isnt so much just look. Look at the debrief

Battle in Yugoslavia
Germans attack with 12 armour, 16 artilleries, 1 bomber, 6 fighters, 25 infantry, 5 mech_infantrys and 4 tactical_bombers
British defend with 1 fighter; Americans defend with 2 armour, 1 bomber, 11 fighters, 3 infantry, 4 marines, 2 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber; Russians defend with 3 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 12 armour, 3 artilleries, 8 infantry and 12 mech_infantrys
Russians AA 2/9 hits, 1.50 expected hits
Germans roll dice 28/67 hits, 25.00 expected hits (+3)
Russians roll dice 26/60 hits, 28.67 expected hits (+2)
Germans roll dice 22/41 hits, 17.83 expected hits (+4)
Russians roll dice 19/35 hits, 19.50 expected hits (nil)
Germans roll dice 11/22 hits, 11.50 expected hits (nil)
Russians roll dice 9/13 hits, 8.50 expected hits (+.5)
Germans roll dice 10/13 hits, 7.17 expected hits(+3)
Russians roll dice for 2 fighters in Yugoslavia, round 5 : 1/2 hits, 1.33 expected hits(nil)
Battle score for attacker is 138

Germans plus 10 hits over 4 rounds of battle.
Russians pls 4 hits over 4 rounds of battle.

Italian preamble strike was plus 2.5 hits.

yes, the axis benefitted by -some- luck factor, but in a certain context it doesnt actually seem that crazy? ?? $138 loss seems more a reflection of the defense composition (expensive units?) than any other factor.

Painful, agreed. but when you factor how both sides were over par for hits, he only got 8 more hits on 150 dice total dice than the opponent, spread over 5 rounds of total combat.

it seems plausibly in the realm of expectability.

Am I missing something??

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Post League Game Results Here:

That dice was tough, but I would say that Pierce made the right decision. About a 20% of a game-ending outcome, another 30% where he loses a bunch of ground units but retreats his air without a massive game-affecting outcome, and 50% where he loses a bunch of ground units and is now in big trouble. I would take that gamble against a top player like Axis-Dominion (which is why he doesn’t play me any more).

made the right decision for the short term, to potentially strike a win against the top player. yes.

but on average, unless he really is a master of luck, this will not get him the kind of consistent results which makes for a top tier player. it takes being a top tier player to know what makes one, i guess.

50% chance i lose a bunch of ground units and am in big trouble? no thanks every time.

@Gargantua It was a 15%-outcome for the Axis. Certainly not an unlikely outcome.

We all have had far worse dice beatdowns in pivotal battles. Those 1% outcomes in Paris on G1 are awful, and all of us have had 0.1% results that just seem implausible.

it’s not just this battle lol the entire game was a luckfest for the axis, starting from g1.

If I may speak in the assembly of the greats, I did mention earlier somewhere that players who are keeping an eye on the numbers would conclude that it is not worth it to risk play lower-level players. However, if one benefited by x, x being a positive number that was calculated by both level difference and the size of the bid, it might actually incentivize such play. And breathe life into the league.

Another incentive for creativity and daring would be an allied and an axis ranking. They do this on 42 online. Top Allied players, top Axis players. Not sure how to do that.

With all due respect @axis-dominion , and you’re obviously one of the true greats here, I think you may be too quick to jump to conclusions on some things. A few weeks ago after the Adam sub spam game you were predicting higher bids would be needed to play Axis, now it’s the Axis are overpowered due to SL.

How do you know Peirce will continue to be a gambler in the future? He hasn’t declared that he will like some on here, and at the rate he’s racking up wins against good players, his confidence and ranking will both climb to the point where he feels that HE is the better player (or at least near-equal) in many games and has no need to gamble.

And lastly, over the long run you should be happy that players want to take sub 50% changes in key battles, that will favor you more often than not. And since you’re a fast pace of play player, you can surely play enough games to get the law of large numbers working in your favor.

Forgive me, but…am I wrong to be more impressed by playoff results than an elo number?

If the elo number goes all the way back to when the game first came out, the strategic thinking at the time was probably more primitive or juvenile. The metas and scripts basic or even erroneous. I would not presume that champions of the past would be champions in 2025.

Perhaps elo ought to be broken down into 5-year eras. Btw, what would the battle of Midway look like on a battle board, using a battle calculator? And what would be the percentage of the result of the Miracle at Midway?

Guess that’s a downside of the ELO based system. In the old system, you could only lose 4 points divided by your number of games. At least you know exactly how many points you have put at stake when you start the game.

Checking the results tab, you’re 3 and 2 this year. Assuming that is against 4 M players and 1 tier 1 player, that would be 5.1 avg points. I think that would tier E, which is also where you are on the ELO system.

I reckon just a few more games and maybe it will average out. I would hope so.

@axis-dominion Love all of this dialogue here!If you’re formally resigning the game, happy to re-do that battle with LL on (for that battle), and see where it takes us. I’m new to the Forum, of course, and very new to PTV, but I’ve been playing BM for many years, and I really like the PTV map. Happy to put my

@axis-dominion … happy to put my theory to the test. Shall we do this?

@peirce said in Post League Game Results Here:

@axis-dominion Love all of this dialogue here!If you’re formally resigning the game, happy to re-do that battle with LL on (for that battle), and see where it takes us. I’m new to the Forum, of course, and very new to PTV, but I’ve been playing BM for many years, and I really like the PTV map. Happy to put my

By posting here, I think @axis-domination DID resign the game - did I miss something? Most people post something like “so-and-so wins, will played”, but it seems in the heat of the moment this did not occur. :)

BTW, here are the entire dice stats. The TOTAL dice rolls look entire fair. However the distribution for Axis rolls is skewed slightly lower, and Allies slightly higher. What can you do - it’s a random number generator, given enough rolls it will start to look fair for each power, but will vary slightly with low sample size.

@axis-dominion I got lucky that battle, no question. But the Sea Lion you complained so much about was a 97% battle in my favour. I was sure enough about winning it that I diverted a bomber to try to knock out the seaport at Gibraltar (which you shot down with your AA - your own luck). Frankly, I’d have readily traded the above-par result (~20 TUV above odds) in London for damaging that port any day. It allowed USA to threaten Germany and Italy at the same time for the rest of the game, which was huge. Far more than an extra couple of fighters.

You also got your own luck in plenty of battles, but I didn’t want to rub salt in the wound. The nature of the game is that one has to take risks - calculated risks - to win, and that’s what I did. But that final battle wasn’t a hail mary - it was a tactical choice to hobble the threat of the Russian/US advance in Eastern Europe.

@axis-dominion Ready when you are.