Posts made by Corbeau Blanc

And you assume no Bomber was shot down during the SBR.

I would dare say this for bombers:

• It’s 12 ipc a piece. If even one got shot down by AA, Germany can already rest easier.
• They do an average of 3 ipc dmg per bombing run, they’ll have to run more than four missions to have a plus value above 12 ipc.

Hell, if I knew building a France IC would get my opponent to go heavy on SBR, I’ll build it if only to see less cruisers/fighters in the sea with maybe an added bonus of seeing my AA gun take one or more of the bombers out. Snake eyes anyone? :P

5 infantry is not a big price to pay to bait an opponent in weakening it’s fleet. Plus they not bombing Italy either which would be way more effective.

You might as well base your axis forces in East Poland rather than Ukraine.

• From there, your italian can opener will be effective against both Belorussia and East Ukraine.
• Your additional tank forces will reach it in 1 turn from Germany
• Most importantly, you threaten all 3 IC of Russia, masking your intended target and forcing Russia to divert forces, quite probably to abandon Karelia.

I am assuming you are using mostly tank forces here.

Being conservative and considering sinking UK’s fleet.

Germany
T1-  31ipc  IC, AA gun - 1 fighter    
T2 - 50ipc  13 infantry - 1 fighter
T3-  55ipc  15inf - 1 fighter
T4-  50ipc  13inf - 1 bomber
T5-  45ipc  15 inf

Italy
T1- 10ipc  1 fighter
T2- 15ipc  5 inf
T3- 20ipc  5inf (5ipc)
T4- 20ipc  5inf 1 fighter
T5- 15ipc  5inf

Uk can only build 8 units a turn.
In my experience, Germany income gets higher than that if well played and you should be able to max out prod at least 2-3 turns.

SgtBlitz, your pretty much spot on this one.

Increasing Germany production really helps win the game.I favor like many the France IC. Besides, you can still have the planes to keep allies on their toes. 1 plane and 14 infantry is around 52 ipc. By round 6-7 you should have hordes of infantry backed up by a strong aviation.

Problem for me is that it makes for long and boring games. I been aiming lately at faster campaigns even if it means a bit more risk since most players I go against are conservative ones. This shakes them to the core as they xpect you to think like them in terms of 100% safe battles. I say any battle above 75% odds should be taken or you’ll drown in a 12 hours game :)

Just out of curiousity, did you notice you are pretty much alone with your friend Pin to flame down my low luck strat with an argument based on a dice odds method  ?

Yet still insist my strat would be at 45% by multiplying Egypt, Ukraine, East Poland using that very same method, when the goal of the strat is to hold Leningrad/Karelia. All that while you just told me that for your method to work, we need to weed out unrelated batlles? Some consistency would be welcomed…

After that, you still can’t see how comparing 3 battles in the strat  with dices and using your very own method are above 80%… And still can’t admit Karelia battle itself is at + 90% while Egypt is at 75%…

I’m not forcing anyone to use that strat but there is no way you will come here telling me I don’t know my maths, the diference between lowluck and dices,  and then add the insult to the injure by serving me that garbadge method that suddenly put to the test became ''not as detailed as any of us would like"

End of story.

Butcher, I’m not speaking here of dices odds for one round of combat, which are imho accurate.

If you need to weed out some battles from an overall turn odds calculation, it just confirm it’s useless for an overall turn calculation. It’s a contradiction in itself. I explained in details how you need to attribute a clear value to your overall goal and for each battle within that goal for it to make any sense.

I was reffering to the ‘‘statistics’’ of the triple A odds calculator. When i see 100% chances with dices, I get jumpy. We speaking of dices like you said, there is always the remote chance you will fail. 100% does not exist. So no, I still don’t think that calculator is accurate as a tool for what you trying to achieve. It’s a simulator of 5000 battle and does not even always return the same value each time it’s ran. Try it, you’ll see. % deviation goes as high as 5%, immagine multiplied overall several battles and your numbers are totally skewed…

I’m not talking of low luck here so stop bring that up, i’m talking of your odds formula. Pin, any monkey can use triple A.  Multiplying each battle odds together to get an overall % is not hard either. Your overall % might be right mathematically but it does not means anything outside of the context of each individual battle even if you feel that number is right. Can you get that concept?

You dodged every one sentence where i demonstrated how each battle was also a different variable in itself as well as the overall goal is a varibale that you absolutely ignore in your equation.

Your formula yield a number 0.x but that number means nothing. There is simply 2 ( or more ) variables you did not assign any value to:

Overall = ?
BattleX value =
BattleY value =
etc for each additional value.

Butcher at least understood my point and answered to leave battles that have a different value outside of the equation. So then, what’s the point of even using that formula in the first place. It just serve to prove it’s useless.

Determine a value to your battles and your battle plan first. Algebra is part of maths. I gave you an easy exemple how to do this when wanting to know how much Ipcs territory value your likely to hold in the end of a turn.

I’ll repeat it since it is THAT point I want you to reply to:

Declare the variables first, 3 battles, 9 different variables:

BattleY = Y * Yodds
BattleX = X * Xodds
BattleZ = Z * Zodds

Yodds = 0.30
Xodds = 0.45
zodds = 0.80

Overall Goal = X+Y+Z = 9 ipc
Y = 3 ipc
X = 2 ipc
Z = 4 ipc

BattleY = 0.9 ipc
BattleX = 0.9 ipc
BattleZ = 3.2 ipc

Your chances are to reach least 5ipc upon your 9ipc Overall Goal. Now you have an indication of something relevant  Still,  even tough the ‘‘correct maths’’ says 5 ipc odds, that we know our 5ipc is the right number and we beileive in our formula, that is maths and everyone here grasp the concept, it woul still be wrong.

You must still take into account the fact thoses territory values are not fractionable ( yep, it means the perfect formula would have additional variables ). Insult as you want, cry to the gods if you beileive in them, you would still likely only gain 4 ipc.

I am a software devlopper in real life and beileive me, when i see someone come around with a math formula and say: ‘‘look, just calculate it, you will get the same numbers as me’’ I know that guy just see his formula, his numbers and never figured there are other varibales to consider in any algorythm.

The longest part for me when I code, is declaring each variables and assuring myself they mean something. If thoses are wrong, and even if they are right but unnessary, that your code is correct or not, it will feed itself on irrelevant data.

So sir, that’s my end point. You can easily convince me your equation are right for dice odds in each individual battle, you can’t however convince me they are relevant on a global picture without determining more variables and adding them to your equation. IF you don’t understand that now, I see no point in pursuing the conversation.

Set the game up, i never played pbf but why not. I’ll play your dices, NOs.  However, no bids and no techs.

Derailing your thread… wow…Then WHY the hell did you come yapping about your dices and statistics when you knew it was a low luck based strat? And THEN starts another thread STILL using my strat as an exemple and try prove it wrong, AGAIN talking about dices when it’s a low luck strat?

Let me tell it to you short, with dices you don’t say a 100% attack move on Caucasus and a 20% attack on Congo is an OVERALL strat of 20% odds… it’s two different battles with way different importance, one is at 100% and the other 20%. Caucasus WILL 100% likely get trough ( if we beleive what that triple A sim says) despite you multiplying by Congo’s 20% odds…

I’m not saying your odds per territory are wrong, I’m saying multiplying odds of different battles is WRONG and gives no relevent idindication whatsoever. Geez!? Multiply the odds of eating apples by the odds of eating oranges all you want, it will still be the same separate number of apples and oranges eaten at the end until you eatablish a common denominator, ex saying they are fruits.

You assume all battle worth the same, that a battle is a fixed value when it’s a different variable for each battle. Taking X and Y are different battles , you can’t determine odds until you determine X and Y value even if you know the odds.

How do you determine the value and importance of a battle? Thats up to you, let’s say for exemple sake you would do it on territory value as that common denominator and want to know how many ipcs you are likely to hold in the end of turn. It’s basic maths, (4 100%) * (120%)  would at least tell you you have 100% chances to achieve 4.5 ipc of your objectives. Which means 4ipc sure and 20% chance for 1 more ipc. Now that’s a bit more relevant as an overall turn overview…

You could do that with units involved, how many you destroy or lose, and other variety of values for each battle but bluntly saying you just multiply all battle odds equally without considering the battles worth themselves makes no sense at all. Going around saying its ''how maths work ‘’ won’t change that fact.

P.S: Quoting: “a retard that sack his best deffensive units in a battle thats not huge in his favor”.  I think you really need to lose a game against me, I’ll see if I can make the time…

Now, let’s not talk about low luck and especially NOT about my strat.

Let’s talk about dices:

Your overall multiplying odds method is still facing the following flaws:

• It consider all battles as equally important when they are not.

6 battles, one of these is really minor but at 50% , 2 are average ones you can lose at 75%, 3 are major ones in which one cannot be lost, all at 90%. If we take this method, we are at an overall 41%. Yet, the very word OVERALL does not makes any sense here.

• It does not consider possibilities like straffing or special stuff

Straffing is self explanatory, this is 0% odds to win, yet it’s a battle and an objective in itself to kill x ennemy units. Also, do your odds consider how a Battleship, a destroyer or sub abilities can mess a fight?. Does it consider both planes can be lost at sea on a sinking carrier? I don’t even scratch the surface here.

• It does not take in account the fact you CAN choose the order in which you do your battles.

When you are gambling on holding a territory but must cut down ennemy transport or possible counters, you resolve cutting the ennemy line to your objective first. Once you won that battle, you know what to do in your main battle. Even if that Main battle is at 90% odds and the sea battle at 85%, it becomes a whole 0% because even that sure win is a loss. So you can’t say bluntly it’s 76.5% odds. Also you can minimise your losses in that main battle since there is no point on taking it after losing sea battle.

• It’s based on triple A simulator.

We talking about dices here. Your odds are fine but the human factor cannot be factored in theses sims. In low luck, it does not really matter, but with dices comes the mythic word: Luck. Statistics or not, there is hardly anyone reckless enough to send several planes over an AA gun even if odds tell him only 1 plane should be lost… Octopus refers to it as the ‘‘Wild’’ and he is right, you CAN get several 1s. I seen 5 of theses once. The only roof to maximum hits is the number of dices rolled and that’s another story even if that Triple A simulator tells me it’s 100% win, you can still lose… You can miss all your attack regardless of number of dices and the ennemy can hit on all his own… That Triple A simulator does not factor theses remote things, 100% odds does not exist with dices, yet that sim gives you that.

All in all, my point is to take each battle separately. Multiplying odds of several battles with different importance, conducted in a different order and based upon a simulator that gives you 100% odds for dices roll without considering special factors is simply wrong.

I think this great for judging dices odds on ONE battle.

What is wrong with your strat exemple, or should I say MY strat, is that :

• It does not reflect in any way a lowluck setting in which context the strat was written
• It does not consider possibilities like straffing
• It does not consider the casulaties taken by the ennemy
• It does not consider the importance of each battle but rather try to multiply the sums of all moves as if each battles are equally important ( which is simply UNTRUE )
• It is based on triple A simulator
• It does not take in account the fact you CAN choose the order in which you do your battles. Calling off an attack after a failure somewhere else is possible. You can retreat when there is no point…
• Are you willin to take risks, if not, did you read the alternative plan?

My goal in that strat is simple, Take and Hold Karelia.

There is only 3 Battles in there that are MUST win and they must be resolved in THAT order.
Using low luck, I will use triple A calculator like you did.

• 1st : Sinking the BB/TR ( Pull out a sub, and send the bomber if you are too scared with 85%. It will be 100% )
• 2nd: Taking Baltic States ( it’s 100% odds, not 96.3%… )
• 3rd: Taking Leningrad 92% odds ( it’s not 79%, sim it again )

So anywhere between 78.2% to 92% odds of success…

Also let’s be clear, while you would try to round up your odds in thoses 3 battles to 92% by sending bomber on the BB, my bomber would go to Leningrad making it 100% instead and I’d risk the whole thing at 85% ( 100% x 100% x 85% ). Why? Because i’d resolve the sea battle first and already would have a clear idea either or not go the whole ten yards aka straffing or taking it.

Still, let’s take a look at WHY it is 100% win sending the bomber. Your Bomber, fighter and one sub  fight against a BB.  If we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’, the battle is at 93-97% when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck. There is NO way around it.

Let’s do the “maths”: 4+3 = 7. That’s 1 automatic hit, and 1/6 for a possible second hit. PLUS 2/6 for the sub in yet another possible hit. Let’s say everything miss and the damaged BB hit back. The sub goes, another automatic hit goes in, the BB hit back again before sinking, the fighter goes. Worst case scenario, still 100% win.

Now, Why is Baltic States 100%? The fact is that in low luck you have a minimum and maximum number of hit you can do as well as the notion of automatic hits. 3 russian inf will invariably yield 1 hit vs the german 2 inf/3tanks. Even if you would not roll anything for germans and Russia would hit every round despite losses, it would go like this:

2inf/3tanks vs 3 inf
1inf/3tanks vs 2 inf
3tanks vs 1 inf
2 tanks win, worst case scenario.

It’s not odds, it’s a SURE thing as far as winning. The odds are there to estimate how many losses you will sustain in the attack.

The strat was written in the context of low luck, so I will not debate it outside of the context.

Edited: typo and missed sentence.

I’ve read that thread and sorry, it’s BS…

Pin multiply odds of all battles, be them minor ones or major ones on equal footing without even grasping the whole pictures or considering the ennemy is still receiving casualties ( He did not even consider possibilities like straffing and low luck ).

Hell, if all my battle were at 100% and one with no real importance was at 50%, he would tell me my whole strat is at 50%.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Let’s be clear ( And I really tought I had been), I don’t play dices when evaluating moves.

The Karelia G1 , coupled with a full frontal eastern assault, whipes out 50% of Russian troops. One of the goal is to kill thoses russian units right there. That’s their biggest starting stack. You also get all your NO’s.

Countering the northern sea zone route is possible. First, the northern route for reinforcement is not before UK 2 since you do sink the BB/TR. To prevent UK to drop on UK2 directly in Karelia simply by blocking norway sea zone with the German BC by G2 ( And yes, you did protect your baltic fleet G1 with an AC, the strat depends on it ). UK have to fight the BC to pass trough which prevent any amphibious assault in the next zone. Sure, they can drop non-combat in archangel and remove 5 more ipc from Russia. And it’s not R2 that will be able to overtake the germans.

Round 1 and round 2, Karelians speaks German if you know a little bit how to play. So tell me how ultimately Egypt is better than 2 rounds of 5 IPCs in NO’s, a 2 units prod IC and an AA gun you really can hold?

You don’t even need Egypt for the Italians NO. It’s  3 out of  Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, Gibraltar . Also it’s only 5 IPC.

Just position Japan to drop either in Egypt or Trans-Jordan by J2. With 4 of their planes and anywhere between 2-4 transport full of units, UK troops will get cut down before they even reach Persia. So why on Earth would you sacrifice all your German/Italians units to get one round of 5ipc for Italians? Especially when you just told me 10 IPC worth of German NO, an IC and a free AA gun while whipping out more valuable russian troops is a worst move than Egypt… I’m puzzled out, seriously.

Egypt G1 will never be a good move in my book UNLESS you are FORCED to hit it to protect the Italian fleet ( exemple, you did not have forces to hit the sea zone 12 Uk BC/DD ). Even then, it’s 53% odds if UK uses BC/DD, bomber + fighter, might as well force UK’s hand in that move. Japan can very well hold on Egypt/TJ for Italy while being shielded by the canal if Allies should venture a fleet in med. More I think of it, more I’d welcome that UK1 attack.

East Indies is Japanese by turn 1 and UK plays after… If a Japanese player don’t take East Indies J1, he deserve to lose.

Also, If you can hit german transport with british boats near Gibraltar, something is way wrong with German player.

A USA factory in Norway is not a bad move, It’s been discussed around. I’m not so sure about UK building up there. But then again, I feel a German player that does not protect or contest Norway / Finland by either establishing a baltic fleet or at least move some forces up there is really asking to lose.

An AC round 1 for Germany will put some hurt to your strat and it’s not an uncommon axis move. In one of my game, I went overboard with a battleship and destroyer for Germany round 1 and still won. It actually worked pretty well.

Butcher, you can take and hold Karelia. Just keep your 2 poland tanks in reserve and move them in non-combat to Karelia once Baltic States is taken. Allies can’t take it back R1 if you know what your doing.

As far as Egypt goes, it’s easy to retake from Germany with UK 2 trans-jordan inf and bomber. There is maybe 1 german infantry left down there and 2 italians after such a fiasco.

OR you can just elect to sink german transport if i drops in Egypt on UK turn before it gets cover from Italians, this cuts german reinforcement right there…

All in all, you are left with no troops to defend against UK/USA landings in Moroco and possibly no German reinforcement. It’s a popular but bad move. Italy will enjoy it’s NO one turn faster but in most case, it will last for 2 turns while delaying one turn can ensure you keep your Italians NO the whole game.

Buy 3 bomber with UK turn 1, sink it turn 2 with 4 bombers.
That’ the best way I found.

Completely stupid, I own almost all A&A version except aniversary which is sold out…

Triple A was great since we could play from far away against other folks in different countries!!!

Damn it, if I want to play the board game with friends I will do so with the boards but theses games happens once a year!

Finding opponents is hard, triple A was giving us this!

I’m totally angry  :x

reading http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14698.15

3 quarter of the players answering the survey will throw themselves in Egypt round 1.

YET,

• Egypt G1 with bomber : 75% odds to win
• Egypt without bomber : 35% odds to win

I find it way weird that most Axis players says it is an ‘‘imperative’’ move when my own exemple of an attack of Karelia to hold an IC at higher odds 80% gets flamed down.

If you gonna take Egypt, do it turn 2 with Japaneses. This will save valuable German troops to defend vs US/UK landings in Moroco. Deal with Transjordan troops asap. This let you slip Italian and/or german transport into Indian Ocean round 2 to grab valuable ipcs before allies can react. You can even bypass India/Australia with japan and let Germany or Italy take it.

Found an interesting article

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq39-1.htm#anchor521073

Seems USA lost more subs than I tought due to air planes attack and many cases does not involves a destroyer…

So, I really don’t see either why you could not take subs as casualties.

@Octopus:

Another things I just thought of. If China is ignored for a while, it provides safe haven for Russian units or Allied aircraft to land in Chinese territories and mount attacks (or threaten to attack) in spaces they would not normally be able to use.

China is not like sending forces to Australia (where once they land it takes a while to get back to the front). The forces roll on and take ground (making it a worthy endevour in my opinion).

Do China!

Why did I not tought of that…?

@Corbeau:

But that’s not the real danger, China infantry can be beefed up by allies planes and they could be used to screen an allies attack force. It gets even worse if a russian AA gun makes it way down there as well.

@Cmdr:

I think your math is off.

7 Cruisers = 84 IPC
3 AC + 4 Fighters = 82 IPC

His maths are fine, he said:
7 cruisers and a BC ( 20 ) for 104  ( which is exactly the fleet you proposed.)
3 AC and 6 fighters for 102

That sub can be fun to use coupled with Russian bombers, as a marauder very late game in the Indian Ocean ( around round 5-6 ). Could even get deadly serious for Japan with 2 more subs and bombers stationed in caucasus.

Anyways, it’s not a very useful peice but can in worst case be played as canon fodder if germany uses subs later on.