Posts made by 03321

Those frood links are on low luck default and not accurate with what IL says are included in the battles.  For instance, on Frood you have 5 inf 1 arm defending instead of 5 inf 1 art in Karelia.  It also doesn’t work for the last naval battle as the transport cannot be used as fodder in AA50.

@Imperious:

Hopefully we can hear about defender retreats in this version and less potent AA guns

Actually I read somewhere that one of the techs (radar I believe) increases AA guns to hit on 2 instead of 1.

@captainjack:

I don’t mean to ask a dumb question, but what it “IIRC”?
Thanks.

If I Remember Correctly.  or some variant meaning the same

And from what I’ve read it’s 2 trees each of 6 techs, if you get a 6 on one of your tech rolls (you now purchase researchers that continue to roll for techs each turn if they don’t succeed) you roll for one randomly like in Classic.  You pick which tree you want to roll in, one being for land units the other for air/sea.

From the GEN CON Anniversary Game thread at the swamp:

Also, there are bonuses that are for optional play. These will need to be tested as well. Bonuses such as if Germany holds X amount of territories, they get a bonus of 5 IPC at the end of the turn. All countries have these bonuses but we did not play with them at GEN CON…

http://aaswampform.forumandco.com/gen-con-anniversary-game-f23/gen-con-anniversary-game-t15.htm

That sounds kinda like the same bonuses everyone’s been talking about.  So, if they’re optional Italy’s back down to 10 production w/o optional rules, lol?

Yes, in the context I was speaking the semi-decent price is in the future, as you were speaking of Risk Anniversary Ed.  If AA50 goes out of print for good and rises to crazy prices I don’t think it will be the standard global AA game.  Though, with the internet making it all pretty much free anyway (play-by-forum etc.) I could be wrong.

So, have I been assuming wrong that the damage to production capacity of a complex is the new single effect of SBR rather than an addition to the straight loss of IPCs?  That’s how I interpreted Greg Smorey’s summary.

Also, does anyone know how many VCs are supposed to be held in order to win?  Might want to find that out before making assumptions on whether the game is skewed in favor of Axis/Allies.  And balance could be as simple as changing the required VCs by 1.

What are you replying to?  That has nothing to do with my post, except the very last snippet where I said I’m waiting to decide whether to buy.  And I’m poor.  So yeah, I’m waiting to see if Revised -> AA50 is anywhere near the upgrade (game-wise not piece-wise) that Classic -> Revised was.

@Imperious:

I just bought 2 more copies of AA50… now i got a total of 6 ordered.

Everybody who loves AA must buy this game. I will sell out and you will be sorry. Remember Risk 40th anniversary edition?

you could not even buy the game when it came out and it grew to like $150 on ebay from $50 bucks.

AA50 will be the new standard for Axis and Allies global series of games. Just wait and see.

How will it become the new standard global AA game if it becomes unavailable to most people (at a semi-decent price) like you say it will?  Sounds rather contradicting to me.

And I have not been too blown away by what I’ve seen so far (pics from here/BGG).  Sure it’s a decent map, but I suppose I was expecting more.  Definitely waiting to see/hear more before deciding to buy or not.

Italy 16, Germany 38, Japan 30, Russia 24, UK 33, US 42

@U-505:

Yes, we both know that sexual harassment will always exist. But the difference between us is that you think because it will never completely go away that it’s ok to passively accept it right now while I think it needs to be fought constantly to make it as rare as possible.

Fight it, by all means, but this thread was never about whether or not sexism in general should be fought, much less harassment.  It’s about what entails sexism and whether it is imbalanced enough in American society to be worth more government intervention than already exists on a general level (signs/bathrooms) not on a personal level (harassment).  I’m pretty sure we can all agree that sexual harassment exists and is wrong, so why even bring it up?  It doesn’t prove anything relevant to the debate.

My favorite thing, though, is how adamantly you fight against female subjugation and objectification.  And yet you’re greatest compliment for female Olympians who have worked for years to be seen as serious athletes is…@U-505:

I think toned women are ultra-sexy

@U-505:

And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right?

That’s the plan. Are you arguing that we somehow NEED sexual harassment in US culture?

If you think that there will be a day when there is no sexual harassment anywhere in America then you’re living a dream.  To quote you…
@U-505:

Well, I’m so glad that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. It took thousands of years but it finally joined racism, murder, rape and assault in going completely extinct ever since the US government outlawed it in the late 20th century. Whew. I can live a happy peaceful life now.

It hasn’t happened.  And it never will.  Do you really believe that someday we’ll live in a perfect Utopia without violence?  It’s impossible.  If for no other reason than that good can’t exist without bad, and the idea of a Utopia is that everything’s good…perfect actually.  There will always be a certain amount of violence, period.

There is NO way to treat different people exactly the same.  Men and women ARE different: naturally, culturally, socially.  And it’s good that way.  Not because one is better than the other, or more entitled.  Because being different is fun, without it there would be no point in life.  We would all just be programmed beings that never did anything wrong.  Like someone mentioned, we could all just be turned into one sex after birth.  Make us all one race, too.  All one size, one shape, one set of genes.  Sounds wonderful, you’re right, we should all be the same.

I agree, amphibious assaults should be at some sort of disadvantage with bombardment only narrowing the defender’s advantage a little, rather than being a normal battle with bombardment making it advantageous to amphib.

@LT04:

I never used them at first I was stuck in my classic mindset.  Now that I have doen the math to find out that 35 IPC’s of INF/ART split will take out 35 IPC’s of ARM I think I’m hooked.

Well, you can’t just look at inf/art being more cost-effective than tanks alone because tanks also rely on infantry as fodder.  But having 1 artillery per ~3+ infantry is certainly good IMO.

For 40 IPC worth of units attacking 11 inf:
7 inf, 2 art, 2 tanks (1 IPC leftover) - win 50%, avg. loss of 31 IPC
5 inf, 5 tanks - win 46%, avg. loss of 32 IPC
8 inf, 3 tanks (1 IPC leftover) - win 40%, avg. loss of 32.5 IPC
8 inf, 4 art - win 57.5%, avg. loss of 30 IPC
6 inf, 3 art, 2 tanks - win 57%, avg. loss of 30 IPC

For 40 IPC worth of units defending against 5 inf, 1 art, 5 tanks:
7 inf, 2 art, 2 tanks (1 IPC leftover) - win 43%, avg. loss of 32 IPC
5 inf, 5 tanks - win 40%, avg. loss of 33.5 IPC
8 inf, 3 tanks (1 IPC leftover) - win 50%, avg. loss of 31 IPC
8 inf, 4 art - win 47%, avg. loss of 32 IPC
6 inf, 3 art, 2 tanks - win 43%, avg. loss of 33 IPC

More in-depth than just 35 IPC of inf/art vs. tanks.  But that’s still too much of a vacuum.  It doesn’t take tank movement advantage into account.  Nor successive battles (such as losing all your inf in an 8 inf, 4 art attack and having 4 art with no inf to support).  In a single battle with infantry to support and use as fodder, artillery are certainly better for the cost than tanks in attack, until you get to a certain amount of inf/art without tanks, which is beginning to show with 8inf/4art being about equal to 6inf/3art/2tanks.  Comparing 8 inf, 3 tanks vs. 8 inf, 4 art shows that, given fodder, tanks are better defending than art for the cost.  So a mix with heavy builds of infantry is still the best.

If they’re going to bombard and only bombard I don’t think they’ll bombard as a 2.  If they did and that were their only special as a 3/3 they’d have to cost 12 IPCs, no more. @14 IPCs you could buy 2 BB for 2 IPCs less than buying 3 cruisers.  In head-to-head the BBs will win 75% of the time, the cruisers will survive less than 20%.  In large-scale battles the differences are still there, and the 1 extra punch from the cruisers (3@3=9 vs. 2@4=8), doesn’t make up for the 2 free casualties taken on the battleships, no matter how much fodder (transports lawl) you have.  Even at 13 cost, 3 cruisers only save you 1 IPC over 2 BB and again aren’t as good.  With a 2 bombard the 3 cruisers will have a bombard punch of 6 vs. the 8 of the 2 BBs.  Even with a 3 bombard the cruisers are slightly better for bombarding, but I don’t feel that would outweigh the naval superiority of battleships.  It seems you are undervaluing the fact that the extra hit taken on the battleship is completely free, meaning you lose no punch at all, where the losses on a cruiser drop your punch by 3.  So the table of ‘this unit has this many hit points/atk value’ doesn’t show the full value of each unit when comparing BB to other ships.

But, personally, I don’t think the only special thing about cruisers will be another bombard ship.  Maybe they are, who knows.

But @12 IPCs, a 3/3 cruiser with ‘3’ bombard, would be about even with a 20 IPC 4/4 BB taking 2 hits with ‘4’ bombard I think.  Facing off 3 battleships (60 IPC) vs. 5 cruisers (60 IPC), would give a 12 punch with 6 hits to take (3 free) vs. a 15 punch with 5 hits to take.  The 3 battleships would win 2/3 of the time.  And again, in large-scale battles those free hits will still certainly come in handy.  However, the cruiser now has enough advantage in bombardment (15 punch vs. 12 punch @ 60 IPC worth) to be worth considering.  But again, considering that in this case the only advantage of cruisers is 1/2 kill worth of punch in bombardment after spending 60 IPCs, I just think cruisers will have something else, possibly combined with a ‘2’ or ‘3’ bombard.

And if you think I’m questioning your 20 IPC cost for BB, I’m not.  I have always felt 24 was too expensive, as has almost everyone I think.  Which reminds me that spending a lot of IPCs on one BB for someone like UK might still not be advantageous in a single round, when trying to keep a steady flow of troops moving into Europe.  So maybe 12 cost for cruiser as a 3/3, ‘3’ bombard would be good.

@U-505:

“When I talk to the lieutenants now, or captains, most of them have never experienced an incident of sexual harassment,” Corbett said recently. “It happens, but hopefully it’s happening to a lesser extent.”

Yes, HOPEFULLY.

And some day there will be absolutely no sexual harassment anywhere in US culture, right? Wait…no.

@U-505:

Hmmmm. Women being forbidden to perform some duties in the military. Kind of takes dumps on the “double standards favor women” and “more men have died in Iraq” things.

Dump? Actually…

@frimmel:

…Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short.

…it was explained in the same post if you read a sentence further.

You know what? It’s sexist that a man should ask a woman on a date.  And that a man should ask a woman to marry him.  And that men being gay is looked down upon while women being gay is HOT STUFF.  And it’s sexist that women carry babies, and that men have to shave their faces every day.  Oh…wait…no…it’s natural.  Just like a shark eating a fish isn’t species-ist, it’s natural.

No, women being subjugated/harassed/abused isn’t right.  But women being treated the same as men and men being treated the same as women isn’t natural.

@Lynxes:

• Italy: 20 IPCs, Germany: 35 IPCs, Soviet Union: 28 IPCs, UK: 32 IPCs.

• Naval unit costs: BB 20 IPCs, CV 15 IPCs, CA 14 IPCs, DD 10 IPCs.

• CV: defence down to ‘2’.

• DD: attack/defend ‘2’.

• CA: attack/defend ‘3’. Special ability: shore bombardment at ‘2’.

• Subs: may only be attacked if a DD is present in attacking force.

I think German production will be more like 40+, with Russia possibly at 30, and UK possibly 34-35.

Your Cruiser unit is severely underpowered for its cost.  Considering you can practically buy 2 subs for 1 cruiser at that cost…And BB would be better for the cost as a bombarding unit AND as a naval attack unit.

IMO, something more balanced would be: DD 9 IPC cost, 2/2 (anti-sub capability) ; CA 12 IPC cost, 3/3 (+bombard? or maybe something completely new).  If they give it a good enough special ability then maybe it will be closer to a 14 IPC cost, but a ‘2’ bombard is certainly not worth it.

@Perry:

• CV sits in BEN, to stop BB Bomb if amphib

By that you mean sz 35, right? If it is you should not have ‘immediately amphib egypt’ as a choice, since that would be impossible.

@Cmdr:

I wonder how many of the Russian Fighter votes are influenced by experiences in Classic Axis and Allies where the Russian fighter was incredibly more important than it is in Revised.

I’d guess no more than voted British bomber simply because it costs 15 IPCs to the 10 IPCs fighters cost.

No, all units have to enter combat.  The battleship cannot bombard Egypt on Germany’s 1st turn.

Edit to clear up:…the transport can, however, drop troops off in Egypt during combat movement.  These troops land only if the sea zone from which they were dropped is cleared without losing the transport.

Picked Russian fighter simply because a UK fighter to me is as good if not better than a UK bomber (defense+attack, and landing on carrier to defend navy, also it’s not too difficult to get a landing in Norway or land on a carrier where fighters can launch to W Eur, Germ, E Eur anyway).  And I’d certainly rather have a Russian fighter than a UK fighter.