Posts made by eudemonist

Hmm…we’ve been playing it as 10.  Could be wrong, though.

@BigBadBruce:

2. Scramble is only 1 round…

Just wanted to touch on this, too.  Planes, once scrambled, stick around for the whole fight, rather than just one round.

Here’s one of Larry’s responses on his site discussing it, in the A+.1 thread:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060&start=48

Specifically this line:  Should the interceptors roll more hits than there are bombers, the escorts assume the additional hits.

Mag-Con is this weekend (12/4 & 12/5) in New Caney, about 30 min. NE of Houston.  There’s a game of Global '40 scheduled for Saturday morning I’ll be playing in, along with ManInCellV.  I think we still have some seats left, if you want to come out.

Mag-Con.com

Also, PM sent for future Houston gaming.

I’ve had best luck with Germany attacking Russia in the south, as well.  I did end up with a couple boats down there one game–cruiser and 2 trans, I think–and was definitely winning in Southern Russia.  A teammate ended up letting the Americans sneak into Rome, so we conceded, but I plan to use the southern strategy again.  Not sure if boats will be an integral part of it or not–mostly depends on the disposition of russain and british planes.

Whup 'im, Texas!

If US lands in Celebes after the Japanese had captured it, who gets the money?  Is it liberated for the Brits, or does it become a U.S. territory?

Russia, man.  Since I started playing Classic, Russia goes to the newb.  Center of the action, forgiving because it’s huge, easy purchases, don’t have to learn naval units yet, straightforward strategy, roll fistfuls of dice.

“Look, here, buy as many infantry as you can afford.  Hold off the Germans.  Keep your planes alive.  Stall the japs in Siberia.”

Axis?  No way.

@Warpiglet:

With that said, I believe (and it is counterintuitive to my 20+ years of AA playing) that taking London does not win the game.  In addition, it may actually HURT Germany.

I tend to agree with this.  Only played three games of Global, though.

I know it is impossible to eliminate luck in Axis & Allies.  Never said it wasn’t.  Just pointing out the general decision-making paradigm.

_The odds are not against getting lucky.  _

Really?  I think that’s WHY they call it “lucky”.  The odds of getting lucky are equal to the odds of getting unlucky, sure.  If an average result exists, however, it would not fall in the “getting lucky” category, thereby tilting the odds in favor of “not-getting-lucky”, which is distinctly different from getting unlucky.  Plainly the odds are against you having average luck all the time, but the fact that you can have average luck sometimes means that if your chances of getting lucky and unlucky are equal, the odds are against getting lucky.

Let’s use percentile, minimizing an “average” window.  Say 1-49 is lucky, 50 and 51 are average, and 52-100 are unlucky.  Are the odds in favor of getting “lucky”?

I think in math-speak it might look something like:
L=Lucky
A=Average
N=uNlucky

1=PL + PA + PN
PL = PN
PL = 1-(PA + PN)

If PA>0, odds are against getting lucky.

Really?  Seems pretty sensible to me.

Good strategy would not rely on luck.  In fact, I would posit that the BEST strategy would eliminate luck as a factor entirely, so that there is no chance of losing.  Does that part make sense?

Sometimes you get lucky.  The odds are against it, but when it happens, it’s a great boon, and can turn the tide of a battle.  Does that part make sense?

I would think it would go without saying that relying on a chance breakthrough to win a war is not a sound tactical decision.  Betting on luck is never good strategy, but it does work sometimes.

@Funcioneta:

No, India cannot colect income for european territories, even if London has fallen

I know.  I just thought you meant it would be no fun to be “out of the game” or something.

then we’ll need delete the rule that says that countries without a capital cannot buy, or at least make Ottawa UK’s second capital

Nah, they have a Pacific capital–they’ll be fine.

Yep, pretty awesome.

We’ve played two games, both Axis wins, but the Axis actually did better in the game where Sealion failed.  Not enough to go on yet, but it’s looking like they might be better off turning east sooner.  Of course, not taking London means you have to eventually get Moscow, but that actually might be easier than taking and holding The Rock.

Our first game of Global ran twelve hours–I want to say it was about nine rounds.  Didn’t play it all the way out, but Axis had pretty much run out of momentum, so we called it.

Yeah, I don’t see any of them falling, probably, but forcing the U.S. to spend a round building to defend would be helpful, maybe, if it was timed just right.  I dunno if it could be just Japs, though–I think one of the other Axis would have to take a stab as well.

…which makes it effectively infeasible, I think.  I just hate seeing Ottawa and San Fran sitting over there all safe-like.  Seems like there ought to be some kind of strategy to at least get them into play.  Think a combined Jap/Italian American gambit would be enough to stall them for a round or so?

I’ve been trying to think of an effective way to put the U.S. back on their heels a bit–obviously the Japs can get to Alaska fairly easily, and the Italians (if Taranto doesn’t happen) can maybe get to Panama.  It’d be nice if the Germans could maybe float a couple guys in to Canada around the same time, but I’m not sure that could ever happen.

Any thoughts?