Posts made by DY

Assuming you are playing with the optional rule for NO’s (which most people do), the general consensus is that the Axis have the advantage.

I have found that by closing off the Dardenelles (which helps the Allies) brings the game back to a close balance point (possibly marginally to the Allies).

The interceptors/escorts rule actually only kills SBRs for the Allies, since Germany and Italy can easily station fighters in their ICs and most of Japans ICs are rarely under serious threat of SBR (Japan can afford repairs anyway).

However, fighters defending the ICs aren’t sitting on the Eastern front or defending France, so there is an opportunity cost as well which other posters have neglected to mention.

The Axis can still quite easily bomb Russia’s ICs, since Russia will usually only buy one fighter (maybe 2) and there are 3 ICs to defend. Assuming you are playing with NO’s, landing UK/USA ftrs on Russian soil will cost you $5 which is worse that the average cost of a single SBR.

@Subotai:

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Interceptors are an official optional rule – not a house rule.

Playing with interceptors is therefore just as valid as playing with NO’s.

I guess the real question is do you think OOB SBR rules are good for the game?

Why did Larry add the interceptors to the official optional rules if he didn’t at least think there might be an issue?

Reduce movement points down from 6 to 4 perhaps

It’s well known that bombers inflict on average 2.92 IPCs per raid while only costing the attacker 2 (it used to be 2.5 average cost)

The point is, economic power houses such as the Western Allies can happily afford to trade + 0.92 IPCs per SBR while Germany really cannot.

You are also not considering the fact that the Allies have 3 bombers to start with whereas the Axis only have 1.

So if each bomber inflicts it’s average amount of damage before going down, that’s already 52.5 IPCs of damage without even having to spend a cent.

Also Russia generally has redundant production points, so SBRing Karelia or Caucus for some early tokens often doesn’t cost Russia any money immediately, as they can normally max out their available builds in other locations.

As you say, SBR encourages a crap shoot which IMHO is bad for the game and should be discouraged (see Gargantua’s Tourney game, where I believe he has played better, but been severely out crap shot in the SBR campaign).

Obviously 5 bombers is a retarded purchase if you want to kill fleet. As previously mentioned though, 6 ftrs actually beats the full CV + 3 DDs. It’s at least clearing the sea zone  57%.

Obviously bombers have flexibility in added range and SBR.

This still seems to be an academic exercise, seeing as the Allies need to do a little more than just buy endless waves of aircraft.

I mean you can only bomb Berlin/Rome for a maximum of $20/$12 a turn, so you have to get at least some troops into Europe/Africa.

Gargantua, I’ve been watching your tourney game and I feel for you man :x

I think that bombers are ridiculous at the $12 price point. I am trying to encourage all my opponents in “friendly” games to use the interceptor optional rule from the errata.

With interceptors, it means that you have the option of doing something other than praying for an above average number oh AA hits @1 to stop the economic carnage.

Click on “additional options” in the bottom left corner, just outside of your message window.

It opens up to give you an “attach” option where you can browse your PC to upload your attachment

@packrat76:

DY! This is to you! i don;t use just fighters i mainly use bombers! now you go back and do your math with 5 bombers 1 fighter and see what your little number crunch brings. boats never can keep up to the building of planes. you see my little friend Planes as built are taking alot of land per turn and when  the other players fleet is ready then just use that turn wipe his fleet out everything that poor sucker has spent and all those turns down the toilet. You will never see UK witha  boat in the sea or Germany for that matter. Planes just take them all out.

5 bombers 1 ftr win 44.018%

7 ftr win 49.592%

So the bombers actually fare worse!

Anyway this whole thread is ridiculous as it doesn’t consider the meta-game at all.

The fact is you need ships to cover your transports (which are required to move your troops from the UK and USA into the action).

The Allies cant just sit back and build millions of planes in case the Axis attack their shipping.

A good player isn’t going to throw his boats out there in range of your air force if you have good odds to sink it.

Subs would be too powerful at only $6 if they were allowed to choose when to soak hits or when to crash dive.

I have 2 words for the original poster:

Combined Arms

eg 6 ftr @ $60 vs 2 ftr 1 CV 3 DD @$58 is only 51% to the attacker

Make it an even $70 each and you get an extra ftr for the attacker and a Cru for the defender

Attacker wins drops below 50%

Battleships are definitely a poor option in a naval arms race, since statistically a DD + Cru always performs better in stacks.

However the coastal shot @4 and the ability to soak hits in the little battles (like when your opponent block with a DD, you can soak that hit he scores 1/3) mean that BB’s have their purposes.

I rarely see a BB built though, usually one on either UK1 or UK2. Occasionally the USA will build one if going KGF.

I didn’t realise that there were LL fans around here  :-D

Anyone can feel free to PM me if you want a 1941 game  as either Axis or Allies 8-)

I’m happy to discuss which (official) optional rules you wish to play

I recommend using HolKann’s SBR table

I prefer a “pace” of moves every 1-3 days (I’m usually good for 1 turn per day myself)

In general I prefer Low Luck, but there simply enough players around so I have to take the beat and play “luck games” most of the time.

LL doesn’t work as well for a F2F game since it can really make the game take too long, with the long calculations involved.

LL is, however, well suited to the slower pace of an online game.

The one problem with LL is that luck can still screw you  :evil:

For example I played an opponent recently who rolled 18 “round off” dice at “2 or less” in the first two game turns and hit 15 times, costing me many more air/naval units and key territory captures (eg Egypt on G1 where his only chance to hold is for me to miss my “3” and hit his “1” on the first combat round and then he also has to have some other future dice “round offs” fall his way too, although at better odds.).

In a “luck” game, if I evaluate my position as losing (say I figure I’m 33% to win the game from that point), in LL it’s GG, but in "luck I can still charge at Moscow and take a battle with my odds around 30% given me a decent chance to win the big game deciding stack vs stack battle.

Basically, LL runs the risk of over emphasizing your luck in the smaller battles where the 1d6 “round off” dice has its biggest game impact.

That being said, I get frustrated when a guy takes a 22% chance in a key battle and wins, killing my air force on the ground etc, when 78% of the time the attack is pure folly and a game loser (sometimes it feels like I lose those 22% battles 100% of the time  :cry:)

4 would have made the tech useless (except to reduce SBR)

3 is probably a nice compromise, but time will tell.

The good thing about Larry is that he embraces community feedback and uses the web as an information resource. I’m sure if in six months he sees this as a mistake, then he will address it.

Well, TBH I personally don’t think Aus makes a good IC locations anyway.

I’ve seen Saf in plenty of non-tech games anyway, so it shouldn’t affect that decision massively, plus it’s generally built on UK1, at which time you generally can’t rely on achieving that tech anytime soon.

Building 4 in Kar as Germany would be kinda cool though!  :mrgreen:

Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???

This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.

I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!

Or was this always Larry’s intention and it was omitted from OOB rules?

I’d almost go far as to say SBR is “broken” in no tech games.

I all my games as the Axis, the Allies are constantly throwing cheap $12 bombers into Rome and Berlin and there is nothing I can do about it (other than get lucky and roll heaps of “1’s”).

Tech addresses this as 2 techs help counter the economic benefit of SBR, while only 1 tech directly aids it.

Well other than the one bug, this sim appears to be a really good application  :roll:

@Vreely:

I was finally able to get it after repeated tries over about 10 hours.  The free option (basic) blocks frequently saying that there is not a free download slot.   I doubt that is true, but they must block off certain times in order to sell the premium version.

Anyway, for those of you who cannot download it, I attached it here.  As Uknown Soldier indicated, a .jar file cannot be attached, so you will have to rename the .txt file to .jar after dl’ing.

The file you have uploaded here is corrupt. The download for the link worked fine for me.

Firstly, great little program! I’ve been using Proton’s old AAR combat sim available over at DAAK, but his AA guns are bugged (fire every round of combat) and his obviously doesnt support AA50 features.

I have a question and a bug report.

Firstly, I am guessing your calculator is not a dice sim, but rather it uses a true probabilistic model, since the results i get never  seem to vary, even to the third decimal place.

Secondly, in the battle I am trying to simulate for my game I am “rolling”

Att: 2 inf 2 arm 2 ftr 1 bmb 1 Cru 1 BB

Def: 8 inf 1 rtl 1 ftr AA GUN

The results “feel” correct at 13.087% attacker win.

however if I change the OOL by checking the “Must Take Territory” box (which I assume modified the OOL to hold one tank back until the last casualty for the attacker), then the attackers win percentage actually skyrockets up to 65.439%.

I think it should really drop by maybe 1-2%. Obviouisly there is a problem here.

I suspected maybe it was allowing the Cru and BB to soak hits when you check the box, but removing these from the battle still leaves a 58.346% attacker win.

Sticky?

I’m pretty sure fighters faired better than 2 for 1 against unescorted bombers (not that AA50 isn’t ahistorical in many ways however)