Posts made by frood

For attack value, Inf/Art is more cost effective than Inf/Arm, no matter how you roll the dice (or don’t  :roll:)

Spending 56 IPCs on Inf/Art gets you 16 land units, with a total offensive punch of 32. (dPunch also 32)

The same spent on Inf/Arm gets you 14 land units, with a total offensive punch of 28. (dPunch of 35 though) This force is more skewed and thus keeps fighting better after the first round of casualties, however the skew is not as advantageous of the higher unit count of the Inf/Art force.

However, the Inf/Arm force is still superior IMO because of the mobility of the Armor units. Mobility can’t be accounted for in all the number-crunching, but it is a key aspect of the game. And it doesn’t change from LL to ADS. If the game was simply two territories fighting for control of two territories directly between them, Inf/Art would be the way to go. Unfortunately, A&A requires maneuvering. So you need mobility - force the enemy to defend multiple points, or retreat.

In addition, the Inf/Arm has better defense value. Since it’s overall a better combination, that’s what I prefer to load my TRNs with.

I can’t believe this is being discussed seriously. Therefor, I will refrain from arguing against it, other than to say this: try it against me, and you will lose. Of course, you will say: “Oh but you knew my strategy in advance, so this isn’t a good test  :cry:” Yes, I would shamelessly exploit this knowledge and build LAND UNITS (as usual).

What’s next - an All-Bomber strategy? The Firepower!!! The Range!!! omgz0rz!!!  :-o  The ability to take and hold land…  :cry:

When I saw the title, I thought this was CC announcing his resignation from the forum.

I was at the wedding and can confirm the bride and groom were both radiant. Sorry no pics though.

No, playing No Luck would make it like chess. Which has been popular for a lot longer than A&A.

LL still allows for considerable variation in the outcome of medium and large battles.

What I’m saying is that there is no reason at all that you would have a consistent pattern over dozens of games of always having good luck in naval battles, bad luck with your AF, good luck with your Inf, or whatever.

Dice is dice. They don’t know who’s rolling them or what for, and they always have a 1/6 chance of rolling any given number.

Jennifer, Luck doesn’t work the way you think it does. There, I’ve said it. I know I won’t convince you in a million years, just had to say it.

@Mazer:

Heh heh.  Honestly, it never crossed my mind, Switch  :-D

By the way, I was poking around Daak a couple weeks ago and I saw you had climbed pretty high in the standings.  Nicely done!

For Ender: The bid system we use is the Caspian Sub system, 1pc/territory, cash allocated however you want.  We have four common things that happen with the bid: break the Russian Triple by putting a unit somewhere in Europe, N. African piece or two, Med Transport, or Frindo/KWA combo.  It depends on what gambit we’re trying out.

Peace

What’s the Russian Triple?

Good thing I gave you +1 for the Card reference!

Interesting about the high bids - do you have any restrictions re: placement?

Egads! Another Orson Scott Card ID!

Now Jennifer just has to change her name to Bugger Queen…

I’m already in two team games, so I really shouldn’t take on another game…  :|

Try the league thread…

Well then let’s not start a league. A forum for team games, and a thread for finding team opponents would be lovely.

@axis_roll:

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

oops, batsim

(hums)

Bat-man!

Bat-man!

(Adam West voice) - To the com-Bat simulator!

not sure why, but that made me laugh

Maybe because it was funny!  :-D

I love my new paint brush…

@DarthMaximus:

I definitely think it would be better to start out informally.

We create the Revised Team Forum and go from there.  Let people play some games, and we can even start a discussion in there to get even more opinions.

Sounds good to me. I note that Gargantua has started the game thread for our team game as a “TEAM LEAGUE” thread - I had nothing to do with this.

It’s hard to tell from my sim’s overall numbers how often you will succeed in taking land. Yes, in 53% of cases you will wipe out the Germans, but of those times, there will be some times when Russia survives with only 1 Ftr.

To get a better sense, you could put that 2 attacking units must survive, but that’s not very accurate either.

The only way to really tell is to look at the IPC diff. graph:
Probability % IPC loss differential
1.4% 19 IPCs
6.9% 16 IPCs
15.6% 13 IPCs
18.3% 10 IPCs

Germany has 19 IPCs of material in Norway. So an ILD (IPC Loss Differential) of 19 is total victory, without loss.
ILD of 16 means 1 Inf lost in taking Norway
13 means 2 Inf lost
10 means 3 Inf lost

Those are the 4 best case scenarios for the attack, and the only ones in which Russia successfully takes Norway. They add up to 42.2%.

Those are MY numbers. :evil:

I don’t care too much about the league aspect, I just think people might be more interested then.

Maybe a team should be defined by its members. And instead of having an annual “season” we could just have cumulative stats: Total win/loss, and win/loss in last 10 games.

If someone disappears, you just have to start a new team. And of course if you have a 12-1 record, you can be pretty choosy as to who you let join. If on the other hand you are 1-12, you’ll have a hard time finding a new team mate - you may just have to play solo until you can convince someone that you’ve learned something.

So how about we set up a child board for team games, informal at first, and then if there is enough activity a league might emerge.

I don’t see what harm can be done by trying it and seeing how it plays out.

Let the teams run themselves. If someone disappears, their teammate can replace them. If they come back, it’s their tough luck if their former teammate has moved on.

All I want is a place where I can play team games and find team opponents, and promote more team play.

It can only be good for the site. If a player is committed to a team, they will have a harder time just “disappearing”. An individual player OTOH has no commitments to anybody.

You just rank the teams, not the players. Teams should have names that continue even if the players change. Just like in pro sports.

Why would you re-build a battleship? Build an AC; cheaper and achieves more for fleet defence once you land ftrs on it.

@DarthMaximus:

I wouldn’t object to a Team League, but I really don’t know how the participation would be or how we would set it up.
But I’ll see what the other Mods think.

As to participation, I don’t see that as an obstacle. If only a few teams sign up, it will just be a small league. There’s no loss, it’s not that hard to simply set up a new forum. The work of tallying rankings can be left to the participants.

As to setup, it would be exactly like the current league, just insert the names of teams where you now have individual players.

Maybe we should just set up a child forum for team games as a test bed, and start a league in 2008 if it seems worthwhile.