Posts made by dondoolee

I just have a feeling it is going to feel like devolution.  I mean each world view of AA has grown in scope and grandeur, while the game has gotten richer in gameplay.  I may find it very difficult to take a step back.

It is kind of like those civilization PC games, everytime a new “main” one comes out I just can’t go back to previous versions as it is a series that has continually gotten more rich and complex in a good way, while still being easy to grasp.  I’ll buy it, but I am kind of dreading it, espcially since it is being released so soon after AA50.  I would be sad to see AA50 die or take a back seat.

I hope they do an updated AA Europe and throw Italy in along with some other revisions.

It is fun to see far reaching effects like that in this game.

@Funcioneta:

First, someone should fix a broken game. Then, we could talk about a global approach. But probably one of the reasons AA50 is so broken is because the global approach (also called KJF) is not a option if allies want to win, and the other is because a KGF approach is not a option to win (and is even worst) :|

To be honest, I am thinking ahead to the next world version of AA and not really AA50.  So far AA has evolved wonderfully I think, I am just wondering if it is even fathomable for a multi theatre game to exist in the AA format/ philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

When speaking of the center of the board, I think in every version of AA the 3 most “valuable” (in terms of practical stratagy) territories have been Cauc, Egy, India.  Those are the territories around which the gameplay revolves around in my opinion.

Probably not for AA50, though I think it is a step in the right direction.  Using the same basic game mechanics of AA, is it possible to come up with a model for this game where there could be balanced multi theater play on a regular basis?

Example being: The allies could win against germany, italy, and japan simultaneously  in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and Europe (and likewise lose).  While this seems ideal to me at 1st thought, part of me thinks it is a model that can’t happen as the game mechanics won’t allow it.

Still though, this is a probability based game.  To curtail probability is to completley take out the mechanics of the game. Low luck poker or black jack would not be the same game.  If say in roulette 00 comes up 100 times in a row, people would say that is just not fair and odd defying.  What you really have to look at though, is that the probability “resets” every time to a 35 to 1 payout.  Some people call this a phenomenon, but it is nothing of the sort.  This is something that would get lost in LL, the entire mechanics of the game gets messed with too much.

The whole thing for me is to play for minimizing mistakes and making correct choices (which is the real victory, not necassaly taking down enemy capitals) in the situations that unwind during the game.

@axis_roll:

@dondoolee:

So far the factory hasn’t proven itself to me as the best option, but it has shown itself capable of yeilding interesting results.  It seems like it can be used for odd variations.

Yes, Germany can help keep the italian navy alive in sz13, if the axis want to play a naval game in the med.

@dondoolee:

I could also see the turtle turning into Japan pumping out a lot of planes and sending them to France while boring very predictable play would ensue.

Yes, agreed, especially since Japan usually still has 8-9 left after J1.  They have plenty to spare.  Plus the game turn order really helps Germany in the sense that the Japanese ftrs can protect German thrusts before UK attacks (assuming Russia can not hit that same square first).

I guess it is kind of the point for very boring predictable play when playing a turtle.  But even if Japan is down to 6 or 7 planes, its income is usually so high  and foreign resistance so easily dealt with, it can be building air support for Germany without batting an eye or missing a beat (barring maybe a KJF).

@Subotai:

@ Adlertag, det enkleste hadde vært om alle brukte vanlig terning istedenfor LL. Jeg bruker begge deler selv om ca. 90% av alle kampene jeg spiller har LL setting.

I don’t HATE dice, it’s just that A&A is not fun, when you’re obviously winning, and then the opponent tries a hail mary, and wins. Now, that hurts, but what is just ridiculously provoking, is when the opponent explains his victory was caused by supreme intelligent strategic decisions  :roll:
This is plain stupid. When players start accepting the fact that A&A games are won BOTH by luck and skills, then I can accept the dice players arguments.

Also, most LL players are not 16 years old who never played any of the boardgames OOB, but started with TripleA and choose LL setting. Most LL players have played hundreds of dice games, but decided to move on.

If you made the correct choice, then you won, regardless of the results.  There is only so much you can do.  I think IL was correct to point out poker, think of it like that.
I know if I win a game do to my opponents awful luck even though I was making poor choices, I feel it to be a loss or at least a not as fulfilling victory.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Italy has a 6 IPC complex.  If you can hold for 1 round, how is it hard to reinforce?

My guess is, in most games, if you can hold either of them w/o a trade it signifies the knell for the Western Axis.  But why plan to waste all the time and resources to actually PLAN to take Italy 1st.  It is far too much of a hassel.  Don’t get me wrong if an opportunity presents itself go right ahead, I just wouldn’t count on it.  Italy is far too inconvieniant a target in most scenarios.  Think of the resources that are wasted trying to take Italy, which while the ships are sailing towards it, nothing else can be put in Europe for 2 turns.

@Imperious:

Yes i second that because in war all you can do is play the cards you got. Sometimes in fact often unforseen results happen even when your outnumbered and LL does not ever account for this. I prefer to adapt strategy based on results in combat and not try to home study every move 10 moves deep because that takes the fun from playing and replaces it with who had more home study and can count beans better than the next guy.

I think it is important to learn more of the fundamentals, some varying strats, and the economics of the game first (maybe force yourself to play very rigidly sometimes) and then just use those as sketches during most games when you learn the mechanics.

PS: please tell me IL that your picture is of the main man Neil Patrick Harris

@bugoo:

NWE is also an ideal location for a double drop if it is undefended and france is defended mainly by inf.  When UK/US merges both of there fleets and the US lands a large number of planes as backup as well.  Moral of the story? Leave a tank or two as G in France as well.

I usually have my Airforce in France, so it may not be needed to trade tanks.

The real victory in a game is feeling good about making correct choices and not depending/winning on “luck”, or at the very least commiting less mistakes than an opponant regardless of the result of the dice.  That being said, other than maybe for testing of strats, I see no reason to use low luck.  It is a probability based game, it HAS to rely on wild luck, it is just probability after all.  Also, I think one can make a serious case that throwing in normal probability (especially in a game that doesn’t focus too much on tactics) is more realistic than LL.

I still don’t think I have devoloped a consistent US strat.  My past few games though I was able to have 3 fullly loaded tranies my 1st 2 turns threatening Europe.  Nothing feels better than to give the Axis a quick squeeze with a fist full of UK and US troops.

So far the factory hasn’t proven itself to me as the best option, but it has shown itself capable of yeilding interesting results.  It seems like it can be used for odd variations.  I could also see the turtle turning into Japan pumping out a lot of planes and sending them to France while boring very predictable play would ensue.

@axis_roll:

@dondoolee:

if one insits on buying an IC for whatever reason what would you suggest and why?

What is your objective with Germany?

Turtle up and wait for Japan to win the game (again)?

Then I like France.  You can directly help italy with their fleet, you can drop inf right in France as needed, and the units you drop in Germany never go backwards to cover France… they march forward.

---

If you want to get inf closer to the Russian front, Hungary or Bulgaria might be a good choice.
This IC is not subject to the UK home fleet (which Poland might be).

I am not so sure about a Poland or Norway IC….

Yes, the turtle with Germany.  The French IC can actually accomplish that, at least in theory, better than any other method.  Also the potential to help Italy is once again nice in theory at least.

@Subotai:

I don’t think I have ever build an IC with Germany in AA50.
The biggest advantage of a need for more than one German factory, is the fact that Germany is making lots of money, and Russia is not, and hopefully for axis, a strong Germany and Italy means also a weak UK. This advantage of high income, is very powerful in itself, you don’t necessarily need to place 16/13 German units to win the game.

With axis, I always hope to hold Kalia, but this is mostly b/c of the extra money using NOs, not the IC, although almost all players who can keep Kalia with Germany buys 12 units, and place 2 in Kalia, but this is not the same as a need for Germany to build any more factories than the one it starts with.

Some other aspects; if allies can keep France secured, it’s usually game over for axis.
A navy strat with Germany is generally suboptimal, like it is in revised. If Germany can afford this in a dice game with no bids, it’s b/c axis are slightly favored.
If Germany can get all 3 NOs for several rnds, Japan should be reduced or allies looses the game.
Germany can’t keep an IC in Norway if allies don’t want it.

I tend to agree with this statement, but I think the argument is IF you build an IC for Germany where should it be.  Yes I think the Allies in a secured France usually means victory, don’t buy navy with Germany, etc.  But, if one insits on buying an IC for whatever reason what would you suggest and why?

I prefer the no NO 41 setup, most people however do not

I have a picture of a transport taking out my Battleship with a transport peice of fodder in AAR.
I also lost on 18 tanks, 4 fig, 1 bomb, 2 Art 7 inf vs 10 inf, 1art, 3 fig on an Attack on Moscow which cost me the game.

Northern Europe is probably best left undefended.  That being said, If the Allies liand in N Europe it means they are more in range of any newly built airforce, that can be an encouraging thought.  Also, if they land in Northern Europe and you have a bomber on France, check to see If America can build any transports next turn.

If Germany can steadily build 1 air unit a turn and use those airunits for France (very doable) mixed with a bomber (or three) on France it may eventually slow down the Northern Europe Invasion.  This gets easier because A FIG built in Germany (or anyother air unit that happens to be there) is now in range of the Northern Europe landing zone