Posts made by axis_roll

@DarthMaximus:

@squirecam:

@DarthMaximus:

I think it is very possible to “disguise” a KJF all the way up until US 1.

Infact, I now use pretty much the same opening for the Allies (R1 and UK1) then decide on US 1 which route I want to take.

Yes, you can disguise it.

But what AR and I was saying is that to take maximum advantage USSR 2, troops need to be placed in certain areas, which if put there, gives Germany not subtle hints on what you plan to do.

If you dont do these moves, you can still KJF, but it wont be as strong, since your USSR troops are not put in the best spot to exploit a japanese opening.

Squirecam

I disagree (about the strength of the disguised KJF that is)
In the strat I use, Russia has nothing to do with Japan anyway, so it is of little concern to me.

UK and USA would have to get after Japan pretty damn fast and hard ….

I think it’s best to keep Japan from ever getting going.   Japan with only mid-upper $30s income gives the US economic/production advantage time to get after Japans navy.  USSR is right there to thwart Japans opening round expansion… UK forces are limited while US takes a bit to get there.

These leads to Russia doing the early dirty work, UK keeping Japan honest and poor by holding India and possibly trading FIC… USA comes in to either force Japanese Naval purchases or swoop in on the big islands (or both).

I am NOT saying that KJF MUST use Russians, in fact, I imagine it’s possible to have Russia take on Germany full force (with a strong slow w/d from out east) wiht UK help as much as possible.

KJF can have several flavors, often times they are successful simply because the Japanese player has never seen said flavor before and then fails to properly react.  A seasoned Revised Japanese player, IMHO, can withstand the UK/USA KJF pressure.

@squirecam:

AR,

You going to Greg’s spring gathering??

Squirecam

I don’t have the time to travel to a tourneyment.

It’s hard enough getting an hour or two here or there for a PBEM game, although I can swing a Friday night every now and then with my gaming group for some FTF.

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

What I dont agree with is that it is “less optimal”. Certainly, given tournament conditions, KJF is valuable, but IMHO it is effective in time limited games or to 10-12 VC games.

Squirecam

I think you’ve missed my point, I said if Germany makes the appropriate counter moves to an initial KJF Russia 1 move, then KJF is less optimal.

I didn’t say KJF is generally less optimal.

@Quijote:

Now THAT is finally a valid point. I admit that if UK and USSR move agressively on turn 1, the ICs may not be defendable.

Thus, the caveat to this strategy is: It will not be viable unless you can defend both ICs. But since you won’t actually build them until AFTER both the USSR and UK have made their moves, Japan can adjust.

If the UK destroys the Japanese trn in sz 59 and reinforces India, AND USSR stages 6 inf in Bury, and/or moves an arm/ftr into range, then buying 2 ICs is definitely not a good idea.

If, however, only one of the above happens, then you should be able to reinforce the IC that is in danger of being taken, and set yourself up for a succesful Asian campaign from J2 on.

You just contradicted yourself.

BEFORE you said against a KJF, two ICs was still good.

Is sounds like you are you reversing your opinion… are you?

If that’s the case, then the two IC buy is a conditional good buy, right?
I can agree against a KGF move, it might be a good move.

I contend 1 IC J1 is enough… get some more transorts to go get those inf from your islands, for expansion purposes (read Australia, new zealand, Africa?  even America pressure).  Another IC won’t accomplish these key aspects to allow maximum Japanese expansion.

@Sankt:

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Hmmm… many allied players make the decision to GO KJF only when Japan have poor dice or the allies have the hot hand.

My contention is it’s way easier for the allies to contain Germany early and then spill over into stopping Japan when she gets close enough to Moscow.

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

@Quijote:

The principal idea behind building 2 ICs early on is that I would not need to shuck any additional troops to Asia from Japan. With 6 land units (mostly tanks) built in my ICs each turn, the extra IPCs would be spent on planes, subs or destroyers.

that’s 30 that’s almost the equivilant of 4 transports.  4 transports move 8 units, IC’s drop only 6 (albeit, could be 6 tanks, where 4 transports could only move 4 tanks)

I guess if the allies are not pressuring Japan with USSR/UK, this might not be a bad play.

IC’s are fixed, whihc commits Japan to defending certain territories, which can be determinental.

@Wazzup:

@axis_roll:

There’s two perspectives on this.  One is, as you state, extra pieces are added to initial game set-up to even the score.

Another bidding system (called the FIDA bid, initials of a number of online A&A clubs), splits the bid into at no more than 50% of the bid can be added as initial set-up extra pieces; the rest is cash to be split amongst Germany and Japan (you can give all the $ to one side if you want)

An example FIDA bid would be 15:  inf, tank in Libya (Germany), $2 to Japan, $5 to Germany.

Actually, in FIDA, this bid would not be allowed.  the Inf/tank is 8 IPC, which is more than 50% of the 15 bid.  In this example, you would be able to place inf, rtl at the most.

Whoops!!

Math error… math error.

Thanks for pointing that out.  My description says <= 50%, but my example was incorrect.

@axis4ever:

Thanks guys…that helps

If my friend and I want to be the Axis…there’s no point in bidding though since everyone will just bid 1$…

What would be a fair amount of money to expect to receive for the Axis to split…$15?

This is counter-intuitive, the axis lose in your games most of the time, but everyone will bid only $1 FOR them?

@axis4ever:

We want to be the Axis powers up front and yes, it’s difficult to win with them. Therefore, do we just like, get extra pieces to even the score?

There’s two perspectives on this.  One is, as you state, extra pieces are added to initial game set-up to even the score.

Another bidding system (called the FIDA bid, initials of a number of online A&A clubs), splits the bid into at no more than 50% of the bid can be added as initial set-up extra pieces; the rest is cash to be split amongst Germany and Japan (you can give all the $ to one side if you want)

An example FIDA bid would be 15:  inf, tank in Libya (Germany), $2 to Japan, $5 to Germany.

I didn’t know they had that many carpet munchers in the middle east!

@ncscswitch:

@ericajordan:

Axis can be defeated despite heavy advantage without “Bid”……What is a Bid?  Some type of unneeded compensation to the Allies?Â

Actually it is an amount of extra cash (about $25 IPC’s, plus or minus a few) that is given to the AXIS before the game even starts to make the game last more than 4 turns and an Allied victory.

One would have thought that Mensa people could figure out you need to help the weaker side to balance a game….

@frimmel:

When you roll 2 dice together there are 36 possible outcomes. 24 of those outcomes do not contain a one. When you roll one die there are 6 possbile outcomes 5 of which do not contain a 1. I do not know the math for 3 or more but I think you get the idea.

That’s all fine in games where the outcome is based on more than 1 single 6-sided die (like craps)

This is not the case in A&A.

Again, there is no statisical difference from rolling 1 die twice or 2 dice at the same time if I were rolling for 2 defending infantry.

ok, I know this will be painful, but I’ll bite.

Please use logic to effectively characterize randomness inherant in dice rolling.

Did I really just ask Pagan to ramble….?!
I must be losing it.

@Imperious:

One thing that should be followed:

All the dice should be rolled together… rolling 2 dice has a much different result than rolling one at a time.Â

That’s the most absurd thing I’ve read in this whole thread.

I don’t think we can use logic or sliding scales or even philosphy to effectively characterize the randomness that is inherantly involved in dice.

Yes, over time, averages will prevail, but in any battle, any outcome can occur.  Likely that 99 tanks will lose when attacking 3 inf?  not very, but it IS possible.

@froodster:

But is there anything that does not fall under skill or dice? I can’t think of anything other than if mistakes can be considered to have an element of chance.

Yes, an element of chance.  I’ve been trying to convey this idea as this discussion has raged in the three forums I frequent.

Should I put an extra inf in ukraine after I’ve taken it to fortify it?  Will players of equal skill make this same determination of non-combat reinforcement… I mean what is the right decision?  If I put a third inf into ukraine on the premise that 3 inf = 1 hit… that’s logic and skill and all that happy horse poop.  What happens if when these defenders ALL gets hits (3 for 3!)… was I THAT smart to realize that add 1 inf to a stack of two would make the difference in holding Ukraine?

I just as soon could’ve gone 0 for 3 and ‘wasted’ an extra inf.

Will players of equal skill make this same decision about adding/not adding the extra inf EVERY time?
Probably not.

Is this a decision that stems from a players skill level?  maybe… I sometimes get a feel for a particular territory.  I am saying there is a definite element of chance involved in this game.  Is this luck?

back to semantics again…

Personally I do not this is is possible that two players can have the exact same skill levels (i.e. they would make the EXACT decisions regarding all moves/buys/reinforcements/placements of units.  There for the premise of this poll is flawed, or more likely, unattainable.

And I created it  :)

@froodster:

Philosophically, I can’t prove that my brain really exists in my body, or that I’m not living in a dream. But you pay your money and you take your chance.

Thanks for the laugh.

That’s why it’s so silly to study Philosophy… :)

I’ve tallied up the votes from three A&A sites (http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=149&PID=772#772, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8840.0, and http://www.axisandalliesworldclub.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004346).

100…9
…90…4
…80…3.5
…70…5.5
…60…9
…50…11
…40…9
…30…8
…20…8
…10…1
…0…1

69 votes.  One site only offer 5 poll choices, so categories were in units of 20 (hence the .5 votes)

Typical bell-type curve right around 50%, but several votes(9=13%) for 100% luck.  I think these people totally bought into the concept of two exactly equal players, hence everything is determined by luck.

Thanks all for voting and/or discussing.

what makes a good R1 buy?

Depends on:

Your R1 attacks:

• if they’re a bit risky or go badly, a good buy would cover this risk

Your R1 EOT positioning:

• if you are going KJF, you might want the mobility
• setting up to support/take back india (tanks helpful)

Your OVERALL allied gameplan:

• will russia just survive or be agressive?

You need to measure a buy against these factors.

@mateooo:

Anybody though about this for a house rule.
Each player gets one redo through the course of the game.
In the last 8 games I have played, the side that had the good rolls Round 1 (Russian taking UKR hard  or getting whomped in UKR, or Germany getting really bad rolls taking back UKR or really good rolls), won.
Seriously. Every single game! This included 2 tourney games and several games from here, DAAK, and FOE.
Now, not everyone takes UKR Russia first turn, but this has happened a lot in the current tourney. Just check out the first round games.
My idea is that one time per game, a player can choose to reroll a combat (or maybe just one round of combat), to keep a silly <1% battle from deciding the game in the first or 2nd round.
UK losing 3 planes trying to take out the Baltic fleet, Germany losing the BB and TRN first turn (been there), Russia losing its entire force taking UKR (Ive done that), Germany losing its entire force trying to take UKR back, without inflicting a single casualty (dont that too), Japan losing its entire force trying to take out PH (wow, thats familiar).

Nothing lamer than a game being decided in the 1st or 2nd turn, not by good or bad moves, but by crazy dice.

Mateooo

A valiant idea but one that could have perverted consequences, completely opposite of your intentions:

I might be MORE willing to take a low-risk/high reward battle merely because I now have TWO chances for it to work.

Like taking out the Alied fleet.  I go into a 30% win odds battle to take out the fleet and (rightfully so) get clobbered!

I hollar “UNFAIR DICE”, reroll and then roll right over the navy.  Now if the allies haven’'t used their Must Re-Roll card, they would be screwed.