@froodster:
So my opening - 1 AC 1 TRN 1 Ftr 2 Inf - was a gamble that I didn’t realize for some reason - since I didn’t kill the UK DD in G1, leaving it free to attack my new TRN and AC in SZ 14. Considering the new TRN was the whole reason for buying the AC, JWW could have neutered 24 IPCs of my G1 build with one lucky shot by his DD. Fortunately, I survived, but that was close - don’t think I’ll do this exact opening again!
No ftrs on your Med carrier?
sure sounds allot like risk management to me more than LUCK… IMHO.
@Sankt:
Let me drop a bone to you guys… this just happened in a 5-player game I’m playing here on the forums.
It’s US3 and Japan has just dropped off units to w.can leaving 3 trns in sz63. My bomber is stationed in novo and I decide to be a daredevil and give it a go. All 3 trns sunk and bomber lives. Landing on midway with 1 inf for protection. Japan also has 1 trn in sz60 and 2 inf on Japan, no air in range. Now…
Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.
No, you managed your risks. Perhaps you felt that taking out the transports was:
1). Too big of a reward to NOT take the 22% risk
2). The only way to get back into the game (if you were behind)
3). You probably felt that the bomber would not live so you didn’t worry about defending him in Midway.
22% is a high outcome percentage… you WILL see these results. Now if you posted something like a 2-4% outcome, then I might call that a bit lucky.
I would say your opponent took a calculated risk as well that didn’t pay off for him. If he could afford the transports, then perhaps he was ok with that risk. If losing 3 transports may now cost him the game, then he took a bad gamble (unless he is losing). he then mis-mangaged his risks.
I don’t think there’s any difference between the two terms… I just think that it’s a mistake to assume that “equally skilled” players are both perfect players.
how did perfect players get brought into this?
The premise was two equally matched or equally skilled (as close as possible in reality, EQUAL PLAYERS is merely a theory here).
It’s like saying two equally matched Coaches…is that possible? I know comparisions like this are made all the time with regards to athletic games.
If the ‘equal skill’ bothers you, please vote anyways what ever percentage you think luck is involved in a game.
yeah, I think this “2 players of equal skill” really confuses the issue. You’d probably be better off wording it: How much does luck influence the outcome, as an average of all the games played, between players of all different ranges of skill?
I want to know the role that luck takes in a game… not wins/losses because of skill level.
@rjclayton:
Or, if you are only interested in those games between two equally matched opponents, then call them equally matched. I think that’s better than “equal skill”. Most people will immediately understand “equally matched”, but I think the hangup here is definitely “equal skill”.
excuse me, but I don’t know the difference between equal skill and equally matched.
Can you further elaborate how those are not the same thing?
As close to ‘players of equal skill’ as possible… reality <> theory here
@froodster:
One other issue is simply production - can Germany fill 4 transports in the baltic and 3 transports in the Med every round? That’s 14 Inf (42 IPCs), leaving not much for heavier stuff. And is it efficient to be dividing your pressure between Karelia and Caucasus?
Heavier stuff???
How about just STUFF… Period.
Yes that’s alot of transport capability… and I know you won’t use it all in most cases, but can you afford to build less/few ground units on G1 and then turn around and take even more OUT if europe on the following turns?
That’s the smell of an Allied blood letting tickling my nose…
AAMC took a pretty good whacking a few months back. PHP is not too secure (or at least the version they were using) I notice that FoE used PHP as well.
I am happy to report that AAMC is well on their way back!
i would switch Karelia with Caucasus. Holding Karelia gives you income and position (keeping allies at bay: Archangel and Norway).
Caucasus is good, but a later, hope to take target… especially against a KGF allied game plan so prevalent in Revised.
If I can chime in….
There are keys that were briefly mentioned but not taken into account:
1). Russias buy
2). The amount of russians left alive in West Russia and Ukraine.
3). Russias non-combat on R1
If Russia is pressuring the Germans out east, a fleet may not even be an option.
How good is the Russian player? Does he recognize that the German fleet buy on G1 causes Germany to be ground unit poor, and now Russia can/should be willing to throw units at Gemany (even at a loss) to begin to bleed Germany dry.
When Germany buys a navy, you are not really forcing the allies to do all that much differently. Axis game plans that force the allies to react usually work better. The allies are going to build an Atlantic navy regardless. But now Germany is not buying what she needs/usually will buy: ground units.
This is a tricky dance Germany is attempting… my experience has been that unless the allies mis-play their reaction to the German navy, or Russia is weak in the eastern theatre, then this is a poor long term game plan.
@CrazyStraw:
I use a much clearer font.
Thanks for the chuckle
@ncscswitch:
And I have now spent 58 days, 10 hours, 54 minutes out of the past 14 months logged in to this site…
Oh
MY
GOD!
2 months of your life posting/reading this site!
Hi this is my first post so I apologize if this has already been asked somewhere.
I was wondering on average how long it takes for people to Finnish a game. I hear people say it takes them about 5 hours and I am amazed because When ever i play with my friends it takes us around 16 hours. AT first I thought it was because there were 5 people but even when i played 1 vs 1 it took us 12 hours. Is this how long it normally takes for people or are my friends and i just really slow?
a good pace we’ve found is about an hour a round… this included drinking, talking and eating.
the game is a social event for us as much as merely just a game.
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
What is wrong with a theory of risk management???
Nothing, not a damn thing.
I had said the same thing several posts before Crazy Straw….
except i said I manage my risks…
@ncscswitch:
Crazy Straw I think hit on a key term… Risk Management.Â
yep… his brilliant one post insight was not lost on you, for sure…
Â
unfortunately it still seems like heavy uk/usa pressure on germany to free ussr up to push back at japan seems to be the best
unfortunately, I agree. Revised plays out like classic, with the most of the US chain going though northern Africa instead of the classic Norway chain.
If you’re looking for a more strategic rules set with many, many different playouts, try A&ARe or “Enhanced”. See http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339
Lately, Russia. I’m exploring different options to the Inf-max purchasing plan. Russia is the key to Allied victory - if you lose it, you’re on a sinking ship. I like the challenge of trying to do more than just “hold out till somebody saves me”.
~Josh
I like Russia too… ever try the 4 inf, 3 art R1 buy?
Certainly helps to set up those Kar-Belo-Ukr dead zones…
or more agressively followed up with some tank buys, pushes into EEU or Balkans
Really in the end luck can be the deciding factor if you win or lose.
There will always be key battles that can go horribly wrong and are hard to recover from, and against a equaly skilled player can cost you the game, even against a weaker player can cost you the game.Doing Pearl and doing 0 damage and taking 3 hits, you can even lost that battle without doing any damage at all.
If germany or russia get incredible luck ( happened 2 me more then once ) that can almost deside the game.
Russia attacks both fail to hit anything and germany hitting 90% of the shots, will put you in serious risk with russia.
Same with germany failing to down a single UK ship first turn is also verry verry unhealty.
Or the altime favorite attacking a country with AA guy and the gun killing 5 out of 6 planes.Those things can deside the game pretty soon if the opponent can capitalize on those things. Especialy with big stacks luck can become a big factor losing your russia or EEU stack without doing significant damage to the other side will lose you the game without you having anything to do with it.
You’ve described some very extreme outcomes… these do not happen very often (but they can!) I agree with earlier posts that although there are major set-backs, these battle outcomes CAN (and have been) overcome and one can still win regardless of those battles.
Generally, most of the battles in the game (and think about it from a total number of battles in an entire game perspective) come out within reasonable expectations.
With smaller numbers, you will have the potential for results to be many standard deviations from the norm. However, I do not think this variability (or luck or whatever you want to call it) amounts to estimates as high as 90% of the game.
It is these slightly off exact results which make the game so challenging, IMHO. React to them in the right manner and you’ll become a great A&A player…manage those risks!
I think for giggles, I will start some polls on other A&A MBs to see what percentage of ‘luck’ players think exists in A&A.
My prediction: 50-60%
Anyone care to help me word the poll question (perhaps we should start one here), with the answer from 0-100% in increments of 10%.
Like poker, A&A is a skill game.
Luck has very little to do with who wins long term.
I concur
I think alot of this game has to do with managing risks. Â
Yes, Ukr on R1 does not have the best odds. Â
There’s a good prize when you win (kill German ftr, sometimes even take the land ($ and force Germany to retake). Â Personally, I think the prize if worth the risk. Â
If the risk doesn’t pay and I lose ukraine, is the game ‘over’? Â Doubtful.
Why? Â You could say because it’s so early in the game.
I would say it’s because (unless I am extremely desperate), I don’t hang the outcome of a game on one battle.
I manage my risks…
