L23 2nd Ed OOB AndrewAAGamer (X) vs farmboy (Allies+60)

@andrewaagamer I disagree with your assessment, Andrew. Against equal opponents, it is worth rolling the dice in Yunnan on J1 with that type of stack. If the Allies get more hits than the Axis on turn 1, retreat. You likely only lost your ground units. Maybe one or two planes if you are really unlucky.

If Japan is ahead on the dice after the first turn, they likely will win the territory without losing their uber-important bombers. It is a major blow to China as they might not be able to stack on Yunnan on J2, and a huge blow to Russia as they lost those critical planes that are necessary to defend Moscow and strike surgical counterattacks against German invaders.

Having the ability to retreat after seeing the results tips my recommendation towards Yunnan strike for equally-matched opponents. Definitely avoid against vastly inferior foes. Curious, based on my skill level, what did you think your chance of a W was at the start of the playoff match? 85%?

@arthur-bomber-harris If Japan really needs to go for it, than that is the way to do it. And you should be able to save most if not all the air. But I’m still probably not going to do it, unless I’m convinced that this is a game deciding battle (and I don’t think it is). One reason is that the battle is evenly matched in the first round, and the odds of coming out of it knowing that you will win will be less than the odds of actually winning. So you will often have to commit to the second round likely without having significantly improved odds. And of course you forgo the safer attack on the battleship for a riskier one that might either fail or cause significant attrition. Its also a set back to trade Japanese land units in a loss given how relatively scarce they are.

I’m curious what you saw as your other mistakes Andrew. I gave you several battles on the mainland with odds of better than 90%. I did so thinking these were likely going to be pyrrhic. In that while you would almost certainly win, you always had to go all in and would lose scarce ground units and/or trade air for inf and so would ultimately be in a weaker position in relation to the US or the other stacks I had on the mainland. I don’t think you were ever in a position where you could likely take and hold India or Yunnan. But given the situation, maybe you had to go for one of these and hope the dice helped.

Things have become a bit of a blur now but I had some thoughts on how it might have gone differently. Until I grabbed the Caroline Islands you were really efficient at ferrying land units from japan to the mainland. But I think a mistake may have been not building 1-2 more factories early in the game to keep producing land units.

And in Europe, you traded away the Italian and German fleets very early. In the long run, they are not going to survive, but I think you would have been better off making me go for them. Its not always easy to get enough allied force to feel that one can safely do it, and as long as they are there, I have to worry more about the threats to Egypt, Gibraltar, London and my landing on Norway and I may have had to play a bit more conservatively as a result.

@farmboy said in L23 2nd Ed OOB AndrewAAGamer (X) vs farmboy (Allies+60):

@arthur-bomber-harris If Japan really needs to go for it, than that is the way to do it. And you should be able to save most if not all the air. But I’m still probably not going to do it, unless I’m convinced that this is a game deciding battle (and I don’t think it is). One reason is that the battle is evenly matched in the first round, and the odds of coming out of it knowing that you will win will be less than the odds of actually winning. So you will often have to commit to the second round likely without having significantly improved odds. And of course you forgo the safer attack on the battleship for a riskier one that might either fail or cause significant attrition. Its also a set back to trade Japanese land units in a loss given how relatively scarce they are.

All of this is correct, and I would not attack as Japan because of it. The risk is way too high. Add in the opportunity cost of not being able to kill the BS in 37, and it isn’t worth it. The Axis are still the favorites. Japan has other options to win (or just help Germany win) than to risk a coin flip on the first turn.

And if this battle was really game deciding, the Axis could just lower the bid - though my 1st 13 in bid will be going to this. So my question is how does this change the bid?

@andrewaagamer If I remember correctly, @oysteilo used it too. He came close to winning too, but came up short. I’m guessing though that he might have played a bit more conservatively with the allies, retreating in situations where he may have been able to risk holding his ground.

Because I know Andrew does a J1, I am putting a good chunk of the bid in support of the Yunnan move and to defend India. In this game, I think the art in Amur was wasted and I could afford to drop a sub on the Europe side and another land unit without losing too much. After that, it feels hard to give things up.

I have updated my self on the discussion here. I am sure farmboy is correct abd i should have made a stand at places where i retreat. However, if defender (allies) only have 10% as farmboy suggest my DNA tells me to back off just because of the attackers advantage of retreating. Exactly what the limit is here is hard to say at least for me. Maybe 30% win is good enough for allies in many situations, but dont underestimate the power of going for it and retreat.

For the bid, I am convinced the allies should bid at least 2 art if not 3 in soviet far east. I think that is one of the reason i lost against Andrew. The soviets lost all income, with the art it would definately have happened much later.

+12 in soviet far east
+23 for the yunnan stack
+10 for scotland
+12 for 2 subs 106 and 110
+3 inf ng

@oysteilo If the axis do start attacking Yunnan and I’m finding the cost of it higher than the benefit, I’m adding another fighter too. I haven’t done this move a lot (I htink this might be the second time) because I haven’t used this approach in BM. So right now I’m willing to play this with a bit more risk just because it strikes me as a high risk move for the axis.

And just to clarify the odds, when i give the axis 90% (or better) odds, the goal is to create situations where there was allied pressure somewhere else and, if he went for it, he would always have traded units that he was going to need elsewhere. The point is not only to rely on your opponent’s playing conservatively but to create conditions where in the context of the whole board, victories are pyrrhic. In the pacific the Japanese player often is relying on a tonne of air, but lacks ground troops, an outcome is that they often trade the land units they need to hold and take territory on the mainland, or lose air that give him the edge in those battles and help keep the US fleet on the outside.

I think this is good stuff, but also to some degree basic knowledge. A few examples would be helpful here!

the axis attack on yunnan is a no brainer in a no bid game, it is also a no brainer as long as bids are not placed here or to support yunnan. Yunnan should not be attacked by axis if bid 2 fighters and and 1nf, 1 fighter and 1 inf is also questionable

i ask of examples where allies should make a stand at 10 or 20% chance elsewhere (not yunnan) I agree making a stand is a good move, but I am unsure about 10-20 % chance. Of course if this means disaster elsewhere I 100% agree. Can you pin point examples? i am just curious!

1. The only place where I would make a stand at 20% chance or lower would be Moscow, Egypt, India, any China stack, and a key blocking place in the Middle East where you are defending in depth so the weakened stack won’t be able to continue the charge very far.

2. agree with the 3 art bid the soviet far east. It has rendered Japan very weak in Asia.

3. do opponents actually allow you to do the inf in NG bid?

4. 13-23 is good for yunnan stack depending on the strength of the opponent. More bid for a weaker opponent who might yolo it.

5. I like having another 10 bid for ground units to help out in Africa as the game is a L if the Allies get diced on UK1. Happened to me even with a big bid.

@oysteilo In this game, in round 5 I keep Yunnan stacked despite Andrew having about 90% odds. The reason is because in winning, on average, he loses half his air and all his ground units in South East Asia. Even if the roll is above average for him, its a heavy loss that he can’t afford if he wants to take India or keep the US fleet out.

In my experience, the allied player (including myself) has often retreated, because we get too nervous about odds like that and miss what the implications are for the game.

As the game goes on, I give him more options either in Yunnan, Burma, India, or Manchuria and Jehol. Sometimes the odds are closer to a 100% and the TUV exchange is closer to 0, but there is nothing he can go for which, even with a positive tuv exchange doesn’t actually put him a weaker position. He is either losing scarce land units, or trading air for inf and both benefit the allied position in the game.

I don’t know if that helps concretize it. And sorry this may not be anything new. Its been something I’ve come to what I think is a much better understanding of in the last few months and so I’ve been a bit excited about it

And just to clarify the odds, when i give the axis 90% (or better) odds, the goal is to create situations where there was allied pressure somewhere else and, if he went for it, he would always have traded units that he was going to need elsewhere. The point is not only to rely on your opponent’s playing conservatively but to create conditions where in the context of the whole board, victories are pyrrhic. In the pacific the Japanese player often is relying on a tonne of air, but lacks ground troops, an outcome is that they often trade the land units they need to hold and take territory on the mainland, or lose air that give him the edge in those battles and help keep the US fleet on the outside.

I think this is one of the major keys to beating Japan - it has very limited production capacity and few starting land units. Japan doesn’t have enough units to do everything it wants if the Allies force them to fight for every bit of land. An early example of this is the Allies taking Sumatra and Java on the first turn. It prevents Japan from walking in with just an Inf. It is also why I’m a fan of keeping the 20 Russian units in the east - to pin some Japanese units in the north.

Looking at this more, I think the Allies can hold Yunnan through J2 with a bid of 13 - if China builds Inf instead of Art and the Russian starting tank & mech move there.

@farmboy said in L23 2nd Ed OOB AndrewAAGamer (X) vs farmboy (Allies+60):

@oysteilo In this game, in round 5 I keep Yunnan stacked despite Andrew having about 90% odds. The reason is because in winning, on average, he loses half his air and all his ground units in South East Asia. Even if the roll is above average for him, its a heavy loss that he can’t afford if he wants to take India or keep the US fleet out.

In my experience, the allied player (including myself) has often retreated, because we get too nervous about odds like that and miss what the implications are for the game.

As the game goes on, I give him more options either in Yunnan, Burma, India, or Manchuria and Jehol. Sometimes the odds are closer to a 100% and the TUV exchange is closer to 0, but there is nothing he can go for which, even with a positive tuv exchange doesn’t actually put him a weaker position. He is either losing scarce land units, or trading air for inf and both benefit the allied position in the game.

I don’t know if that helps concretize it. And sorry this may not be anything new. Its been something I’ve come to what I think is a much better understanding of in the last few months and so I’ve been a bit excited about it

j3(1).tsvg

Here’s another example from a game I played with ABH. We traded Yunnan the first turn. I stacked it on turn 2 knowing he would kill it, but it had to be done. If the Japanese stack makes it to Burma, India is finished. The Chinese and Russian land units took one for the team. Japan “won” the battle by 33 TUV, but the threat to India was eliminated.

Let me just say how excited I am about this discussion. My interview with Andrew has spurred higher Allied bids across the site. This Yunnan stack and the artillery in the Soviet East have breathed new life into OOB.

1. A strong China is slowly, but surely a defeated Japan!
2. A strong China begins with Russia help turn 1.

This information will spread and influence play, just as Gibastion has transformed the Med/Atlantic strategy. I’ve always thought Japan should be priority 1. Easier to trip up.

All that being said, Andrew you deserve kudos for a stout defense. Even at the end, a false move by Farmboy might have led to Allied defeat in the Pacific Ocean. Granted, at that point the Chinese were so strong that getting back on your feet would have been difficult. Extraordinary game people!

@crockett36 I still don’t think the Allied bid should much exceed 50. Andrew is starting to face stiffer opposition which is figuring out the weaknesses. Yunnan being able to hold on J1-3 is a killer economically for Japan. It isn’t possible to accomplish without such a high bid that can be spent in the Pacific instead of necessities such as a Scottish fighter, additional sub(s) in the Atlantic/Med, and a little bit more to hold onto Africa.

Being able to combine the strong-China plan with a strong Russia in Siberia is so challenging for Japan. They need to abandon any hope of holding onto China and focus on capturing India as soon as possible, and then winning the map in Europe. This is a radical change from any strategy in a non-bid game.

@govz I had given up all hope of a victory in the Pacific for Japan in that game. With so much effort to win on that side of the board, I knew the Axis would inevitably win in Europe.