@DizzKneeLand33:
I understand what you are saying. At the same time, perhaps my experience is a bit different as I started playing tournament chess about 30 years ago. When I retired as a life master (U.S., not FIDE), I learned a few things (or few hundred lol). One, I will forever remember all of the rants and raves about this position or that being a losing position. Well, not necessarily was the position lost. Difficult to defend? Perhaps. But, then a high level player could sit down and easily defend the position that looked “lost”.
There is a difference between having an advantage, and having a WINNING advantage. Learning how to defend is how I became a master. I could attack with the very best of the best, but then when the attack went south or it was a position when I never had the attack, well, then I would fold in earlier days. But when I learned how to defend, to tenaciously defend and put difficult questions to my opponents who had the advantage, then and only then did I actually achieve my best level of play.
So, I do understand what you are saying when you say that you are not going to make your opponent earn every inch of ground he or she already rightfully deserves. Then again, “deserves” is a bit of a charged term. If your opponent “deserves” to earn the win, then he/she should graciously play on. This game is SO FULL of undiscovered possibilities!
Let’s just put it in perspective… chess consists of 64 squares and 32 pieces. Now, if there are so many possibilities to defend there, then think about THIS game which has more squares, more pieces, and DICE. :)
I believe that you have an advantage. I also believe that the German capital is under NO immediate threat, the Italian capital even less so, and then there is Japan. I would think it appropriate to at least continue play as Axis until one of my capitals falls. The rules say all three, and I know that is overkill (unless some weird VC thing is happening).
I’ll post here what I’ll edit the 20 IPC’s to before too long (have a few work emails to attend to) and we can go from there. Oh, and as a final note, I have no idea who really has the advantages in this game quite yet, which is why you are graciously playing me this series. So, you could be completely correct in your assessment – once again, no disrespect is meant whatsoever, my friend. :)
Well, I know that positional advantage is usually more important than unit and income advantages but, in this case, I have such a massive income and unit edge that I can leverage them into a positional edge pretty easily. You are an excellent player judging by you AA50 play, but I think you’re a little overwhelmed by the increased scope of Global in that you are making quite a few mistakes:
You left me with the option of sinking 3 undefended Italian TP’s with UK aircraft this turn.
You also let China get behind your advanced Japanese units which allows me to sandwich them between China and Russia while still being able to produce units on the Chinese front lines.
You don’t have to defend Europe as heavily as you are. As long as Germany and Italy keep enough units behind to retake France every turn and trade Belgium and Southern France, they can afford to let the Allies keep Normandy because they will never get past the coast. Because Germany has so many units in Europe it let the Russians be aggressive everywhere and collect an amount of income that the Axis can’t afford to allow.
I don’t have a problem will playing this one out for information purposes, but there’s also no harm in starting a new game (I thought we were going to be playing quite a few for practice purposes, anyway) when one becomes lopsided.
