Best posts made by Amon-Sul

I ll call it off here.

U were better
I resign

If I ve won this game it would be one of the greatest win ever. But Ur win is totaly deserved. After that Norway foothold I had a lot of luck in some battles. I didnt deserved to win.

Its hard playing the axis, I must say.

With allies its smoother haha

@JDOW

What do U think about this strategy (rd 2 neutral crush) and this game?

Is it viable, or should I resing from further testing and improving it :grin:

@pejon_88 said in Post League Game Results Here:

@trulpen and @Amon-Sul thank you guys. Was maybe the most unique game I have played and against the most unique opponent :)
It was very even throughout many rounds. One additional thing I think made a difference is that Germany never was able to take Caucasus and Volgograd.

Yeah, i tried, and held but wasnt able to make a foothold there. I tried with the Romania IC and the Black Sea fleet to pull dudes there, but I failed. But as U said, I was close at times. It prevailed to Ur side.

@gamerman01

Do we have statistics for 2023 - percentage of wins by axis, and the same for allies

OOB
BM
PTV

and overall?

thanks

@Panther said in League General Discussion Thread:

FYI:

The developer(s) of TripleA decided to call version 2.6.14748 ‘stable’.
So this is the version you get when you move to
https://triplea-game.org/download/

Also please note
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1699993

What does the New version brings?

@Panther said in League General Discussion Thread:

@ All

Please use the TripleA support category
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/28/triplea-support
to further discuss TripleA related topics.

I just wanted to inform the league players about the new version and did not intend to distract from league topics.

Thank you.

sorry panther and thanks

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@regularkid and @Adam514 we have some requests for bm4.2, see below… i think many in the community would like to see battleships and cruisers have the same price improvements as ptv

and also fig - tac correction

if possible

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in [League General Discussion Thread]

and also fig - tac correction

if possible

Meaning fighters to 11 and tacs down to 10?

I hope there are several others who agree and that this could just maybe possibly be adjusted.

And I’m not even talking about PtV where I have no recent experience, but it would seem with so many additional scramble opportunities that a 10% increase in fighter cost could be an improvement there also

yes i agree that figs and tacs shouldnt cost the same.

Fig can intercept, is more useful on ACs / airfields etc.

I am of course speaking about BM ,

minimum is making figs and tacs cost even, and that should be 11, not 10

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

for simplicity, i wouldn’t mind just bringing over the PTV changes as follows:

1. bombers back to 12 but attack at 3 instead of 4 (not sure if this way of nerfing them is too big of a change, vs the bump to 14)
2. figs and tacs both at 10
3. cruisers 11
4. battleships 18

then the two games are more aligned which makes it easier for ppl to transition between them

agree with U

we need a fast BM upgrade, let say 4.2.

and for some future upgrade, we can prepare 5.0 with time and discussion of how 4.2 is doing in practice

@surfer said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.

It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region.

Very good post. I forgot them too.

People mass cheap fighters , and we definitely need more aa guns. Something must be done.
They need to be more effective (shooting 4 planes) or cheaper (3 IPC )
or both (shooting 4 planes and the cost of 4 IPC)

Maybe keeping the same price, or raising to 6 IPC but each 1-2 is a hit ?

Or is it too radical ?

just one more comment about aa guns

It seems to me that the greater level of the player, the greater use of aa guns

Best players tend to avoid risky battles (not just big ones, but small ones too) and achieve victory over strategic dominance, and thus avoiding the dice related cases in which luck can prevail on the opponent`s side.

That said , in games among very good players (and i think that the general level of play on this forum is really big and growing) aa gun cost of 5 IPC isn`t that much expensive i would agree.

As for the side thing, since the allies use aa guns more , a change it that perspective would lean more to their side - but since they are bidding already maybe it wouldnt be such a bad idea, like the negative impact (on the allies) of making fighters expensive and tacs cheaper about which Farmboy has spoken

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in League General Discussion Thread:

of practical proposal, I would have cruisers cost 10 and battleships c

Just one note on this great post.

I think we all agree that its normal that we buy more subs and dds then cruisers and bats.

But is normal that my opponent and I play 18 rounds and we buy 0 cruisers and 0 battleships.

I think it isnt.

And that just happened in my latest game.

ANZAC aa guns were doing trouble to Japan too in the islands

so, they can be tricky, i agree

what abut transports? we dont mention them? need any correction ?

its not smart to hasten, but also its not fun when u re not fast in play

i need to find proper balance :)

i have an impression that the game is at least round 3

and we are UK 2

what a rollercoaster so far :D

I ve expected the most interesting of our interesting game so far, but this game has lead us furthest and its just the second round

we have a totally new situation, especially in Europe and I look forward seeing what is to come

Godspeed :)

Not to mention loosing 99% battles a few Times

Its starting to be frustrating

But i ve learned a lesson. Need to be prepared for that dice NeXT time, Bring a tranny more or dont go into it, unless u can secure the navy

But of course in Shan state where i brought 3 inf i lost bome

So i just have to be prepared for worst

Or take the risk and count that the outcome wont be in my favour

@fasthard said in L24 BM4 Fasthard (X) vs Amon-Sul (L+24) Game 4:

@Amon-Sul dices had fun after 1st round…
In total an average result I think.

At the moment with the experiance I got esp. durling the last month playing via forum I’m not a big fan of not bidding a uk sub in 98 and not go for taranto. I’ve got the feeling that it’s last to long to get another good change to sink the Italian fleet…
Or maybe I did not got how to do so…

Yeah, dice roller coaster
In the end i think both sides can be content

Germany destroyed a UK navy and kept a few planes
UK had -20 TUV and it could be worse , destroyed bunch of Germany s precious planes

Game goes on

AS for the Taranto thing

It is a question of a long term debate

Top players dont go for it (even with the sz 98). Exception is Gamerman, he often does it, but not always.

The reason why top players dont go for it is RISK. They avoid it as much as possible. Also there is loss of AC and risk of a Sea Lion.

They usually move to sz 92 and protect their navy and Gibraltar

@fasthard said in L24 BM4 Fasthard (X) vs Amon-Sul (L+24) Game 4:

@Amon-Sul I hope it’s ok. I don’t like to end the game early, but I feel that there are no options to win the game.

On the Europe side (even if the hail mary to Moscow would success) there is to few support to conquer the russians. Italy looks fine, but can’t threaten anything.
The Japs are toast, no possibilies to get to the money, no land units to make progress in the main land. Anzac will go to Malaya, Russia enters the North. Eighter I pump up the factories to have units on the main land or I’ll build up a new navi, but both is not really possible…

I agree with U. U could continue, but it would be uneasy to escape the fall of the axis.

I am on one side feeling little bad for winning because of the dices in sz 42, but i think i overall played a really good game with all the nations on board.

I am especially proud on Russia for keeping so much money for so long, for defending both Novgorod and Bryansk, defending Rostov, deadzoning (exchanching ownership of) Ukraine, Western Ukraine, Eastern Poland and Baltic States for so long.

I also think I surprised U (even myself :D) with buying all that inf, and not sending a single unit to Yunnan.

On the other hand it helped Japan taking India, all though i was clumsy with USA going for Carolines and making an empty threat to Japan and Korea (with no subs and enough air).

Dices aside , I am glad how I came up with the idea of the Java attack on rd 6.

I think i played a really good and balanced game and deserved this win.

I also think , that concerning our four games , a score of 2-2 is somewhere realistic too.

I had to admit i had luck in this game (not just sz 42, but some small battles earlier) but i was also unlucky sometimes (1 / 4, 1/5 hits with air brought along) but i had a plan of reducing the risk outcomes to minimum (after that Java disaster with ANZAC in the last game , and some others i forgot them ).

I made a mistake of attacking Italians too early in Eastern Africa,

Of what I am not sure is your attack on UK navy with Germany.

On one hand it helped Italy become a little godzilla, and put UK at bay for 4-5 rounds, but on the other, it reduced Germany`s capabilities in the East.

It is hard to evaluate it for me, but i would say it did not had much effect on the game outcome, since in that battle both sides lost a lot.

Concerning pure IPCs, i think the axis pulled more from that (+TUV from that battle , and the IPC that Italy took in a few rounds, and UK did not).

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7

Back in 2012, we still used battlemap!!!

Oh man… the memories of trying to move 40+ mega stack and having the program freeze!

Yikes!

I never understood People who played battle map

I played early versions od triple a, and no matter how imperfect it was, still much better then battle map IMHO