I think this strategy depends upon Russia not thinking about it. What it means is they cannot put so much effort into KAR/FIN/NWY.
I managed to pull it off in my game against A44BigDog. The Italian suicide got a good result (3 hits, better than the 1.83 expected) - giving me a 95% chance of taking it with 2 armors or better.
Russia had good defense rolls. So I only took it with 2 armor by sacrificing my fighter and bomber.
Now he’s still got a chance to take it back, but it’s going to be hard.
There is also reputation to consider (aka the “I’m Crazy” strategy). If your aggressive moves cause your opponent to act more defensively, you might be able to push them harder on their borders. For instance if Russia (or Germany) has to focus on defending GER or MOS/CAU then you have a better chance of taking valuable countries like FRA/KAR.
Ok, so maybe people can wait a round or two to say if I should have done it on the game against A44BigDog.
People could comment on the other game though, as the task is done and I lost the battle. The negative consequences are pretty obvious. There are some positive consequences too - Germany is really pushed into Russia’s territory. On second thoughts, that time I didn’t do the Italian suicide attack, my odds were slightly on the low end and I shouldn’t have done the attack. I
So far it looks like I’ve got an 80% chance of taking and holding CAU if I go almost all out. Maybe 85% if I go all out (and commit the Italian fighter to the suicide attack on CAU for the extra 0.4 hit).
Downsides: Allies could gain back what I take in terms of France or other parts of Europe, Africa, generally a stronger UK (they’d hold India one more round and also Australia), and possibly get one or two NOs that they wouldn’t otherwise get. It’s really hard to predict this though.
One of the larger theoretical questions is if I’m the type of player who wants to win 80-85% of my games (I know this might sound a little ambitious, but my record is pretty good), should I engage in risky strategies or am I better off building up a longterm advantage with small gains? (People can comment on this).
Unfortunately this move isn’t as easy to analyze as the direct sacking of a capital. If you can get 30% odds on taking a capital, it is often a good idea to do so because the reward is so great - so long as you won’t lose too many planes.
Yes, but the situation is still roughly the same. Axis has better position, and starts from an economic disadvantage in income.
The power of statistical analysis is that you can something down into main causes. And I think Unit IPC value is a primary cause of the game outcome (whereas I think the changes you listed are less significant). I guess people don’t like talking about it because it is more fun to consider all the possible strategies.
I think taking and holding CAU in G2 can be a viable strategy.
Russia often stacks CAU but without enough people to hold it against a determined (or slightly lucky) attack, and then lacks a counter-strike force.
The goal is to take CAU with 1-2 armor. Russia can only counterattack with 2-3 infantry.
Then Japan has to either take Persia out, and/or land 4-5 fighters in CAU for defense against the UK.
If Germany holds CAU, it can build 4 units/turn (vs Moscow building 6/turn) and with some reinforcements it should be able to hold it for the rest of the game, while getting all three NOs. It should make it very easy for the Axis to win.
Take 1
You can see this game where I tried it and failed. Russia held on to CAU with a single bomber (a lucky bomber that hit twice on defense!). I had about 68% chance of winning the battle and figured that at least he’d be forced to take the bomber casualty to increase his chances (but he didn’t).
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16771.new#new
Take 2
I’m considering using this strategy a second time against A44BigDog
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16764.new#new
Italians suicide amphibious assault it - hopefully kill 2 units (cru, bat shell + inf and art).
Germans hit it with everything. Have about 85% chance of holding it with 2 arms. Then you’ve got only 2 russian infantry to counter attack (10% odds for you).
Then before UK hits, Japan can strike PER and land 3-5 fighters in CAU.
Downsides: risky. You neglect Africa and other places.
Waiting to rush Russia with a stack of armor positioned in EPL, using the Italians to open up a path to CAU, KAR, or MOS on G3 or G4 might be a much better strategy.
This thread is getting off topic. Any comments on my unit ipc total hypothesis?
Looking for a game. 1941. Tech optional. I think there should be a bid for the Allies.
I’ve only played two games, so I’m taking a risk here, but I think there is good evidence that the game is weighted in favor of the Axis.
In the Revised version, after the first Russian turn, the Allies would typically have a total unit value of 75 more than the Axis.
In 1941, at the start, the Allies have only 4 IPCs more of units.
I did a statistical study of the Revised version and found that each gain of 1 ipc in total unit value for a side increased the probability of winning by 3.9% (see http://www.campusactivism.org/blog/node/189). Territory held is also important, but I think the territory balance is similar in the two games (the Axis starts out with less). Typically if an Axis player’s units would equal the value of an Allied player’s then they would have won the game in Revised (I’d guess 95% chance against a player of equal skill).
The Allies need more IPCs to run an Atlantic convoy. While Japan can get overstretched, I think the Axis generally has a stronger position.
I’m looking for a game 1941. If I’m playing the Allies I want a bid - maybe 8.
I’m looking for a game. 1941. No tech. I’ll bid 3 for the Allies.
I’d prefer to use aBattlemap.
One of the problems of an Italian fleet is the lack of airforce. Therefore the fleet won’t have any attack potential.
By contrast, a German fleet can be combined with 5-6 planes. This is part of the reason why I would get an aircraft carrier in the Revised game on G1.
One of the big questions is “How Easy is it to Hold France”?
So defending subs can dive before the battle begins. Does an attacking destroyer stop this ability?
I’m looking to play my first AA50 game. 1941 and probably play with the National Objectives. I don’t care whether we do tech. I’d like to use ABattlemap.
Any takers?
I’m working on patch for AACalc to include the changes from AA50.
I’m currently being a little lazy and overwriting the values from the Revised game with those for AA50 (as you can still use the original frood.net simulator for Revised).
Note: I haven’t actually played AA50 (and thus am not familiar with all the rules), but I’m hoping to do it soon.
This is the “quick and dirty” version. I haven’t tested it much.
http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/
Changes so Far
-Added cruiser unit
-Changed IPC values for units
-Changed SUB defense to ‘1’
-Changed TRA defense to ‘0’
-Put transport last in the OOL
-Put cruiser in OOL (Attacking default - CRU is after FIG, Defending it is before FIG)
-Added Cruiser bombardment
-Changed attack/defend values for SSubs and JFighters
-Let defenders killed in bombardment fire back
-There was a bug with cruisers not dying, but I think I fixed it.
Changes Left to Do
-Figure out subs
(Updated based on suggestions)
Bugs
-Battleships don’t act like they have two hits. I broke this. It works fine in the frood.net version. Try one battleship versus another.
Testing
-Sea battles need testing.
Things you Need to Do to Make Sure it Works
-keep transport last in ool, or just take it out completely of the battle
-make sure bombardments is equal or less than number of land units
What else do I need to do?
Previous Thread on this issue:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14976.15
One day I might write a triple A file parser. Then I could automatically collect the data (manually input is a bit of a pain). Well that’s if Triple A stores summaries on a by round basis - which I doubt. Does it? I need unit-IPC totals at the end of the Russian turn, for every round of the game (starting R1).
Was the paper arguing that this is true for the first round of combat, and where smart attackers know when to call it off? I didn’t quite follow the paper since the whole Mr T thing was distracting.
Intuitively I’d guess that the size of bad luck depends mostly on force composition. If the attacker uses planes, sure they can lose big. If the defender has planes, they can lose big too. Defenders can also lose really big if you take their capital (or to a lesser extent if you take WEU or SEU).
For single round combats, most of the time attackers can retreat if they see their luck going bad after the first round - and that makes a huge difference.
The formula gives you rough estimate. Here are some cases where it can be biased.
Imagine that according to this formula you are behind.
If you got behind by being unlucky, then this formula will predict a lower chance of your victory than what is actually true (Ex. my game against ncscswitch where I recovered from what I thought were long odds of around 1 in 20 - the long odds weren’t as low as I thought they were.)
If you got behind by bad strategy, then this formula will predict perhaps a roughly equal chance to that which is actually true (this is my guess - I’m not entirely sure about this).
If you got behind despite being lucky, then this formula will predict a higher chance of your victory than what is actually true.
–-
If you take over a game that is behind, the average player (taking over a losing side) will have a higher chance of victory than what this formula predicts (since players who get behind in the game aren’t as good, unless they got behind due to bad luck).
I’m having trouble too. Check the server load if you can.
I tried pinging it and my requests timed out.
Frood might be having some trouble currently. My opponent tried registering a game and got a bunch of php errors.