@the_good_captain I think your assumption is correct. For myself at least, I can say that current outlook in the game is a big part of risk-assessment. I would say that a 27% chance of glory are good odds when you think there’s a 1% chance you would win the game.
It’s a part of the decision making, but surely not the only part. In the case of the 27% battle, I felt it was a good thing to do. If it were a 5% battle, it could be considered bad gamesmanship. You have to stay realistic and have a reasonable chance on a good outcome and a good outcome should always bring you a good gain in the game. Also, if you have to try a risky one to try to get back in the game, try it on a fleet. Single hits or misses can bring about huge IPC swings.
This battle would have been particularly entertaining if the 20% on Birma would have worked, but that was a big ask.
@hansworst right, thanks. Also, even with the optional rules calibrated the way we have them, I don’t believe this game is balanced. It seems to be significantly imbalanced in favor of the Axis. Any thoughts on that? (open question to all)
A couple of thoughts in addition to Hans:
I promised my train of thought regarding the American attack on the Japanese fleet: like you said, the Allies weren’t likely to win. So I had been looking for opportunities that might turn the tide. I knew beforehand that this winning this one battle wouldn’t be enough to turn the tide, even if wouldn’t lose a single plane. But we had to start somewhere.
From a more local point of view, winning the battle wasn’t that important. You needed 2 transports and a protecting fleet to maintain your island factory logistics, and even I won big you would be left with the nucleus of a new fleet, and opportunity to rebuild. So it was more a TUV-driven attack, where I hoped that your losses would be bigger than mine and you would be forced to spend money on ships. For the battle itself, I noticed that the expected TUV change for a single round of combat wasn’t too bad (minus a couple of IPCs). So that made me willing to see how the first rolls would turn out. And if things went south, I had the attacker’s advantage (i.e., I could retreat if I wanted).
Regarding the balance of the variant we just played: I think you’re a better player than I am, but under the ruleset we used, I think I will win most games against you if I can play with Axis.
Generally: I supposed you could try to offset pro-Ally rules (e.g. no interceptors) with pro-Axis rules (e.g. technology) but I think the net result will always be that one side will have some advantage. So that got me thinking: if it is true that every variant of the game is unbalanced one way or the other, maybe that’s not so bad. Players can pick the version of the game they like, discuss if they are going to use bids or not, and pick sides. For example, a game group might like using interceptors and technology. In time, their bids will converge on a number that promises a more balanced game.
For the ruleset we just played, I’m not sure what bid I would offer to take Allies. 25?
@ozymandiac I nodded through that entire thing and then nearly had soda blow out my nose on the last sentence, …25?! wow, you think its that bad?
Haha. It was just an initial guess. I’m sure it would go up or down depending on the following gameplay. By the way, I made my estimate based on two common restrictions that you can place only 1 unit per territory, and that the territory must already contain one of your units. So you can’t just place 8 inf in Karelia.
@ozymandiac I do agree with you Ozy, a small bid wouldn’t make a difference. It’s comparable to for example the British Battleship and transport surviving G1. It’s still advantage axis, even if that happens.
Catching on to Ozy’s words, that even a blow-out victory on the IJN-Italian fleet wouldn’t have turned things around, it seems that a bid of 25 with restrictions would be the least allies need. I mean, the axis haven’t even tried hard or have had to resort to taking any form of risk in the past 4 games.
Putting the imbalance aside, I don’t feel that we have made the most of our allied game. We didn’t find the punch or the surprise move this game. As SU player I was very happy with the 5 IPC from Scandinavia. It didn’t help the UK and the US players though. What are your thoughts on that Captain?
@hansworst I agree about us not having made the most of our Allied game. I feel/felt the same way. I have not hit the point where I am not learning new things or seeing new things as the Allies in each game. Even now, I have a concept I just realized in a PBEM game for USSR. I’m not as convinced that the Allies have it so bad yet. It appears that way but…
…after my 100th+ game of classic in 2019, I realized that the “great equalizer” was the German players willingness to expose his main army to something like a 40% chance of destruction (closer to 50% when playing excellent opponents) over the course of 2-3 turns. If the allies dont bite at these slightly unfavorable opportunities, the axis can reliably get the economy and TUV damn near to par and then its anyone’s game…
…to make that work in Classic requires an unconventional strategy that does not have an allied equivalent in Anniversary '41 however. But I’m not drained of ideas yet so I can’t concede a bid is necessary yet.
If I did kneel to a bid at this exact moment in time, it would be +6 Allies with UK inf in Egypt and Chinese inf in Yunnan. It almost comes off as ‘neglect’ that this wasn’t part of the at start setup. I agree that a higher bid may be necessary.
grind out another game or are you guys spent?
also, for the record I made two embarrassing blunders in the previous game. I missed the ability of the USA bomber to hit my carrier and then land in the solomons, and I totally botched my early axis win in Africa by mismanaging a move or forgetting to move my two German tanks.
Im posting this as a record for myself primarily. Even with two noob mistakes under my belt and the loss of the Axis fleet to a 27% chance, the Axis still won handily. This is big fkn problem.
I wonder if the allies should go balls out to keep the Italian fleet corked in the Med. Not sure.
@the_good_captain I would say the allies have to go balls out to make a big impact where it counts and not a weak impact everywhere. Problem with that is that you basically hand over economic power to the axis and an experienced player will always see the mass-attack coming. An uncontested Japan will become a monster and an uncontested Germany will simply walk all over SU.
A well placed bid would really help slow the axis down in some strategical places. I find Egypt a real weak spot in round 1, so one could say that 1 or 2 infantry there could already help restore balance. Make Italy and Germany work for the African income.
@the_good_captain I think this was the last game for me, at least for the time being. Thanks for the good games.
