Best posts made by Adam514

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Adam514 OK… Adam, I didn’t realize you went this many years back in the league.
I gave a short and exciting bio on MrRoboto as he returned, here’s yours.

2015, 25-5
2016, 42-1
2017, 18-2
2018, 25-3
2nd place in playoff, losing only to JDOW who won back to back championships (was in his prime)

2019, 17-1
Won the championship, going through 666, ksmckay, and our very own Axis-Dominion

2020, 13-1
2021, 10-1
2022, took a break
2023, 5-0

That adds up to 155-14, a 91.7% win%
93.75% since January 1, 2019

That is unquestionably the best record the league has ever seen. Each of those losses were against top competition, proving my experienced observation that strategy/skills/experience can overcome all kinds of luck. I didn’t see a single loss to a less than great player.

Thank you for the bio gamer, it’s good to be back.

L24 BM4 Playoff Finals Adam514 (Axis) vs farmboy (Allies+22)

2023 BM championship won by farmboy!

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41099/l24-bm4-playoff-finals-adam514-axis-vs-farmboy-allies-22/182?page=8

@666 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Could AI beat our top players in BM or PTV, low luck, no tech? I say no way….

Maybe in 15 years there’ll be off-the-shelf AI that you can tell to learn and practice the game and it’ll be 3000 ELO. Perhaps unbeatable in low luck.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Interesting, many things to like here.

Re: Mongolia the change makes it simple but it also nullifies Mongolia if the USSR wants to help China. Perhaps the new rule is too simple.

At first glance, I would have thought these changes would make it hard to win as Axis. But your play testing is that it is quite competitive? Hmm.

Are you sure you want to allow ICs to be built on Sumatra, Java, Borneo and Manilla? Perhaps unlikely to happen, unless Japan is getting hammered.

Don’t really follow why N Italy no longer connects to W Germany or France. Was the former just to prevent the W Germany -> Egypt flight? Or why Iwo Jima was moved to be a border island. Or why each of the money islands is now worth 1 less. I doubt making Siciily <-> Rome a walkable connection was a good move.

A couple of things I don’t think went far enough. No convoy zone in SZ5? No Canada as a playable power? Keeping plunder on first capture? No paratroopers? Still able to produce non-capital ships without naval bases?

Don’t really love the style of the new borders - they look like they were drawn by hand. Perhaps that’s a taste thing.

Particularly like the Med changes though. Crete & Malta become more important.

That was the thinking behind the new Mongolia rule. Everything should hinge on the DOW. Plus it’s simpler.

Balancing comes later. From our preliminary playtests, Allies have the advantage. But as time passes and more Axis strategies are discovered, that may change. Same thing happened with Global and BM.

ICs cannot be built on islands, same rule as G40.

N Italy not connecting to Western Germany is for a bunch of reasons. Namely, it makes the Western Germany aircraft placement worse for Med operations. It puts a bit more room between territories in Western Europe which was necessary especially with the new scramble rules. Iwo Jima offers a decent base of operation in some cases for the Allies in the North. DEI got a reduction in production value because they were worth too much in our opinion. Too much of a swing depended on the DEI. Why is the Sicily-Rome connection not a good move?

There is a convoy zone in SZ5. Canada as a playable power is a very bad idea, it further splits the Allies for no good reason. If UK Pacific and UK Europe are still essentially the same nation, it doesn’t make sense for Canada to be separate. Not good for gameplay either. Plunder rules stay yes. No paratroopers for now, if you have a suggestion for their implementation we’ll read it. Yes don’t need naval bases to produce any ship. Already axis-dominion said the current rule is limiting.

@gamerman01 said in 2024 League Rules:

Bidding - is normally used to ensure that both players are satisfied with the side they will play.

Default settings for bidding:

Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone.
The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.
China can only add infantry
The term “unit” includes facilities as described in page 27 of the Europe 2nd edition rulebook, therefore facilities may be added with a bid, and another unit may be added to a territory with only a facility.

According to the bidding rules, they don’t explicitly prevent the bidding of land units in sea zones with transports/cruiser/BB. Is it legal to bid land units in sea zones?

@farmboy said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

The rules say this:

“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.” (this is from page 36 of the Europe rule book)

If you go to page 15 it restricts the movement of neutral powers so that they cannot enter the territory of other powers (friendly or otherwise) until they are at war.

So soviet units must stay inside the Soviet Union on the pacific map (which includes Burma and India) until they are at war with Japan.

I’m fairly certain that this was not changed for BM, but others can confirm.

Precisely, same in BM.

@Martin said in League General Discussion Thread:

I did not understand what you were talking about with “recreating games”, until I noticed that only the game history is shown in these old threads but not the saved game posted.

How did that work? Were the saved games only shared by email and not posted?

Re-creating must be a nightmare with millions of edits…

They were deleted to make space on the site.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@wizmark said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?

Perhaps because it was the last one to be added - it was the change from BM2 to BM3, with the reasoning that Axis were getting bids and needed some help to rebalance the game. Then as game play evolved, allied bids started going up and up. So the entire rationale for it being added is no longer valid.

The changes we made are mainly for gameplay, not for balance. I haven’t thought that Allies were superior to Axis at any point in the development of BM. We started from unbalanced G40, changed rules and NOs to improve the game and end up with BM4 which is more balanced than G40 for sure, but perfect balance was never our Nerd Herd objective. Whatever imbalance exists is perfectly handled by the bidding process between both players, and a decent bid (10+) is a positive aspect and keeps the game fresh.

The Iwo Jima and Okinawa NO adds a bit of importance to otherwise ignored portions of the map, and is in line with the rest of the Pacific island NOs with the same goal.

@barnee Very different, so interesting in its own way. Online pushes strategies a lot further.

@Pejon_88 As oysteilo said, you need to have a chance of picking up the fighter after combat, or else the move is illegal. So you need to sent at least 1 combat unit against the hostile sea zone to be able to send out that fighter.

Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

There is a bit of a threshold to get going with P2V. Primarily the different map (Russia and China) and land- and carrier-scramble changes the dynamics of the game quite a lot.

I belong to the apparent sceptics regarding the division of z38, but after having played a few games I’m not really opposed to the change anymore. I feel it does make things around the islands more interesting, for both sides.

I believe there’s a more serious issue regarding Japan. It was @Ghostglider who showed me this in a game of ours. Because of the extra scramble-options grabbing first Queensland and then Sydney in the early game is very powerful. The thing is that Japan can quite easily force the hand here, since US isn’t ready for the challenge yet.

This might be a bit of a flaw regarding strategy and balance. I don’t really see how it can be avoided and then there’s a scripted path for japanese superiority, which would be bad for the game.

I don’t think it’s in Japan’s best interest to go for Anzac if it’s appropriately defended, they’d need to trade basically everywhere else to take out Anzac. It’s a bit like Germany always being able to get decent odds on UK if they max it, but it’s a losing move since it leaves them too weak to stand up to Russia.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

If a bs gets dmg during CM, may it still unload a marine during NCM?

No because it participated in combat, not because it is damaged. Same principle applies to transports.

@MrRoboto said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

@mr_stucifer said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

I am not sure how, but think it would be awesome if we could implement a possible Bid allowance into drastically different ELO games. Say a 500+ rating difference could get double the usual bid but have the game be worth half the points. This might promote playing between the extremes in skill levels, if useful.

I support this idea. And I think together we can find the sweet spot.

My idea would be to take the average bid up until that game.

And then for every bid above that average, the ELO change could be multiplied by 2%.

Right now in BM, the Allied bid is 18.3 on average.

If I play Axis and give my opponent +30, thats 12 more than average.
If we are at the same ELO level, I would usually gain 40 for a win or -40 for a loss.

Factoring in the bid, I would gain 401.12 = 49.6 (so 50) points, I would only lose -400.76 = 30.4 (so 30) points for a loss too.

An example for players with different ELO rating:

A 1800 wins against 1500.
Ratings change +16 and -16.

With a bid that 12 higher than average, that changes to:

+20 and -12

Or a 1800 loses against a 1500
Usually that is +64 and -64.

But with a bid 12 higher than average, that changes to
+80 and -49

Do you think that 2% per bid is too high or too low? Quite right?

I don’t think rating changes should be dependent on bid. Both players consented to that bid, presumably for balance reasons. It’s what both players are satisfied playing with. No need to put a rating factor on that.

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

I have an idea for a new unit. Of course off-sets things, so perhaps not realistic, but here goes: Russia can purchase militia for 2 IPC each, which got 0 attack and 1 defence.

We’d want to head away from massive stacks and we’re also not keen on different units for different nations.

@axis-dominion PTV rising star??

Global and its variants were purposely designed with a weak Russia. That said, I don’t see an issue here. If Germany invests most of its efforts on Russia, it will succeed in breaking through. If not, Russia will hold. With UK help, Germany can even have trouble breaking through with 100% against Russia, so be careful what you wish for.

That said, if you want to play a game with a strong Russia, play Path To Victory. Russia is stronger, but also has more responsibilities (in the East against Japan), so more dilemmas.

Good game!

If your targeting of the Italian can openers had worked, that combined with the low amount of remaining German land units would have made it quite hard to get through Russia.

German air got good results on attack, but on its few instances of defense they got caught lacking.

My money is on Axis for the championship game!

@trulpen Italy is by design, rest have already been fixed if you reinstall the map.

@farmboy said in L24 BM4 Playoff Finals Adam514 (Axis) vs farmboy (Allies+22):

@Adam514 That was an interesting G1/J1. I’d say outside of 110, the dice were pretty good for the axis. But the outcome in 110 was obviously great for me and certainly the most signficant. And then the decision not to go for Yunnan. Really changes the game and I didn’t expect my one inf bid to do that. I had thought it might encourage you to go for a J2 or J3 but not to avoid Yunnan. I’ve been slow in playing because I had a hard time deciding on the allied moves as a result.

My first no unit loss J1DOW, beware ;).