@Cmdr:
@Ender:
Here’s a rant -
People whose signature line fills have of my screen, wearing out my scrolling finger just to read to the bottom of a thread… :wink:
I fixed that just for you. Not that you have noticed….ya know, that’s almost as bad as when my husband fails to notice I got a new haircut.
Thanks, I notice now! I had just learned to block it out I guess…
So just for heck I decided to try the Ukraine attack in my game against ncscswitch. I survived with 1 Inf 1 Art 3 Arm, and between WRus and Caucasus there are 11 Inf staring at any German force that retakes Ukraine. I also got a little silly and bought 1 Ftr 1 Arm 3 Inf on Russia 1 - I’m experimenting with the idea that Russia can really use extra air power. I might even buy a 4th ftr omgzorz!
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?). You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks. If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory. That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory). And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).
Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter. AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter. IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position. I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks. I think even Ender would concede that.
In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy. And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter. And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine. Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things. I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.
I’m willing to accept your points on Ukraine. However, Belo is not simply about killing the Inf for me. It really reduces the fodder that Germany has for a counterattack on WRus.
My concern about losing the Russian tanks in Ukraine is that while yes it may be at worst an even trade, early on Germany can afford to trade better than Russia can. However, I’m starting to think that I’m not seeing the full picture there - Germany also has to dedicate production to keeping England and US at bay, so perhaps they come off worse in the trade.
Now, with reference to our other game, I concede that my side’s tactical position sucks. I think Germany was doing as well as it could though - Japan had some unfortunate delays and setbacks though, and IMO should have built more TRNs, among other things, but no need to air dirty laundry here…
I buy 3 TRN 1 Inf 3 Arm on US1 - enables you ship four loads to UK or Alg on US2. I don’t like to over-commit to Africa, I’ll usually do one drop there, which is enough to keep contesting Germany for territory for a while (in combination with UK forces coming from South Asia / SAF), and then switch to unloading both US/UK to Norway/Kar. I just think the advantage of having your land forces grouped is worth it - you can have a big block that Germany can’t attack.
However, if Germany builds a big baltic fleet, I might head to the Med, just so that that naval expenditure is wasted, and has to chase ME if he wants a naval battle, and then we fight where I can reinforce more easily, closer to US shipyards.
Maybe the Ukraine attack can be seen as trading central pawns in chess - it really opens up the game, instead of it getting locked down into defensive positions.
@Bean - Of course YOU get it. Me and you are the two brightest kids in Battle School, after all :). And I get it too - the 1 Inf trade is not for all situations. When there is a TACTICAL or STRATEGIC reason that a territory needs to be taken, then I up the attack.
Just to be clear, tactical or strategic reasons can include:
But when the ONLY reason to take the territory is economic, ie. for the IPCs, then I don’t consider it worth it.
@Cmdr:
Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine. Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.
Took you guys long enough to put that one together… It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D
That’s been my standard opening for a long time.
Good points. There are disadvantages to bringing just one inf.
But assuming that perhaps 5 territories are traded each round, that’s 5 extra Inf saved for your main stack each round. After 5 rounds, you’re suddenly ahead 25 more Inf for the Allies than you would have been otherwise. That can also enable you to hold territories that you wouldn’t otherwise, even more than being able to land an extra couple air units.
Caveat: If the territory is held with 2 Inf, I will attack with 2 Inf + air. Don’t want to take that 1/9 chance of losing a ftr.
My goals are to kill enemy units and not lose my own units. Taking/holding territory is a lesser priority. Still important though, don’t get me wrong.
You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.
And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.
Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.
I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.
It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.
There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.
Q: Why do they line all the roads in France with trees?
A: So the German army can march in shade!
Ooo, I’m going to hell for that one…
@Cmdr:
Appears to be working, though, the unit I am running on ATM is perma-connected to the net so it might be drawing off the net…doubt it. :)
Thanks, Dan
Nope, there’s no way that’s drawing off the net. That would take a whole lot of programming that I simply haven’t done.
@Cmdr:
Ender,
I believe there are two theories on bids.
1) They can be used to give Germany an additional boost to results securing a better chance of victory in a risky battle (ie Egypt, bidding Inf/Art to Libya almost guarantees you will take Egypt) allowing for the trickle down effect of a stronger nation.
2) They give the axis power a better chance at defense making a secure chance of victory by an ally less secure which also allows for the trickle down effect of making that nation more powerful.
Both are short term results. As you mention, one bad throw of the dice for you and you’ve lost more then your bid. :P It’s just a way to hedge your bets, I think.
Agreed. My point is, bid units can only serve those purposes if they are placed on the front line. That makes them more valuable than IPCs in the bank. If IPCs in the bank were worth the same as IPCs on the front line, you’d see a lot more people banking their bids.
My view on the matter is that the bid AMOUNT is really not that significant. It certainly is much less important than the bid placement.
Every round of the game, every battle, you roll dice. Any one of those dice results in a difference of minimum 3 IPCs.
So whether you add 1 Inf 1 Art to the G1 attack on Egypt, or 1 Inf 1 Art really in the grand scheme of the game is much less significant than how many hits the UK gets in defence. My point is that an extra 1-3 IPCs in a bid is probably lost in the noise of the dice by the end of UK1 at the latest.
However, there’s another lesson in the question of bids and bid placements. I keep railing on about how the key to the game is not territory, but achieving local force superiority, which means maintaining TUV is a priority over capturing territory. That’s why I use only 1 Inf + air in trading territories. Gaining a 3 IPC territory is not worth sacrificing an extra 3 IPC forward unit.
I keep arguing that a front line unit is worth much more than its equivalent of IPCs in the bank - hence I argue against the G1 tank blitz to Archangel. The truth of this is shown in the reality of bid placements. People don’t place the bid in Berlin or Southern Europe. They place it right on the front line, and not just anywhere on the front, but at key locations such as the Suez Canal.
This shows that most players appreciate at some level that an Inf at the front is worth more than an Inf in your capitol (unless your capitol happens to BE on the front…). But people get so caught up in on-paper IPC values and in capturing territory that they expend units they can’t afford to waste on taking territory that they won’t be able to hold.
Don’t get me wrong, I still trade territory, but I do it economically. If I can capture a territory with 1 Inf + air (about 66% chance) that’s good value, better than a 95% chance of capturing it with 2 Inf + air.
Sum up: front line units are worth more, as shown by all the thought that goes into bid placement. A straight-line comparison question would be this: how much would you bid if the requirement was that the bid could only be placed on an IC and only at the end of G1? The answer to that will show how much more valuable front-line units are. Save them.
@Guerrilla:
“Villa Midea” in Croatia, Dalmatia, Brac island. Room 205. When you get there, ask the receptionist for ext 2944 and say Filone sent you. No worries, she’ll give you a key.
GG
You neglected to give a date - or are you recruiting volunteers for the Croatian voluntary organ donor service?
@Cmdr:
But I’d rather have a dice utility. Shooting him an email now to see if he has a wifi card and a laptop of his own, or if I have to bring dice. :(
Shouldn’t need to now - give this a shot (instructions in a README in the zip file, just extract to C:\ root) http://frood.net/aacalc/maps/frood.zip
Okay, try this: http://frood.net/aacalc/maps/frood.zip
Unzip the folder to your C: root, and you should get a folder called C:\frood\
Go into that and click the launch_frood batch file, and you should be rolling!
@Cmdr:
@Ender:
even cheaper yet!
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9749768-1.html
$150! i knew i heard about them before. they are made with the intention of every schoolchild in the world being able to afford one. so that means in the future they’ll even get cheaper.
I was excited about that link too until I read the comments and found this:
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9772144-1.htmlAlso, the laptop runs linux, which I have just switched to (again) at home, but this time for good. Ubuntu 7.10 - everything worked like a charm pretty much off the bat, and the Compiz Fusion window manager makes Vista look like Windows 3.1.
Just can’t get triplea to work yet :( …
Is Linux Navy proof? In other words, would your average ONI (officer of naval intelligence) be able to figure it out within, say, an hour like windows?
Ubuntu 7.10 is I think easier than Windows in a lot of ways. Haven’t really hit any snags. It comes with pretty much any desktop software the average user would want pre-installed (Office, E-mail, Browser, Media player) and if you want to add anything, you just click on the main menu - Add/Remove - choose your category of software, and install it!
Except TripleA, which is weird because I had that working on an older version of Ubuntu. I may have installed the wrong version of Java? Who knows.
even cheaper yet!
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9749768-1.html
$150! i knew i heard about them before. they are made with the intention of every schoolchild in the world being able to afford one. so that means in the future they’ll even get cheaper.
I was excited about that link too until I read the comments and found this:
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9772144-1.html
Also, the laptop runs linux, which I have just switched to (again) at home, but this time for good. Ubuntu 7.10 - everything worked like a charm pretty much off the bat, and the Compiz Fusion window manager makes Vista look like Windows 3.1.
Just can’t get triplea to work yet :( …
I think the problem wasn’t PD itself, but the hate and lack of judgment that it tends to bring out in certain people. It seems to me that there were really only about 2-3 people (who shall remain nameless) who made PD toxic and full of personal attacks. But how do you moderate that? I for one am not missing PD anyway, this site is enough of a time-sucker without it.
Ummm - is it just me or should these posts read “Axis” everywhere they say “Allies”. Otherwise the Allied chance of victory improves with a bigger Axis bid. :?
This is full bid placement (no restrictions)
5 bids - 5
6 bids - 19
7 bids - 31
8 bids - 28
9 bids - 6Winners (Allies/Axis):
5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 8/11
7 bids - 18/13
8 bids - 16/12
9 bids - 3/3Percentages (Allies win %):
Overall - 47/42 - Allies win 52.8
5 bids - Allies win 40% (too small of a sample)
6 bids - Allies win 42.1%
7 bids - Allies win 58.1%
8 bids - Allies win 57.1%
9 bids - Allies win 50% (too small of a sample)Eliminating the 5 and 9 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8 we get:
6-8 bids - 42/36 - Allies win 53.8%
And if we just focus on 7 and 8 bids (which seems to be the norm now):
7-8 bids - 34/25 - Allies win 57.6%
Okay, I went back and went through games up until early Oct. (58 more games). So, now thru 147 games:
This is full bid placement (no restrictions)
5 bids - 5
6 bids - 27
7 bids - 39
8 bids - 58
9 bids - 16
10 bids - 2Winners (Allies/Axis):
5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 15/12
7 bids - 23/16
8 bids - 32/26
9 bids - 10/6
10 bids - 1/1Percentages (Allies win %):
Overall - 83/64 - Allies win 56.5%
5 bids - Allies win 40% (only 5 games played)
6 bids - Allies win 55.6%
7 bids - Allies win 58.9%
8 bids - Allies win 55.2%
9 bids - Allies win 62.5%
10 bids - Allies win 50.0% (only 2 games played)Eliminating the 5 and 10 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8, 9 we get:
6-9 bids - 80/60 - Allies win 57.1%
And if we just focus on 6, 7 and 8 bids:
6-8 bids - 70/54 - Allies win 56.5%
Well, taking into account more games fixed the 6 bid anomaly. It now falls more into line with the 7 and 8. Probably do to that fact that 5-6 bids may have won early but later showed to be beatable and the bid moved up to the 7-8 range. 97 games have had a 7 or 8 bid with 58 games having an 8 bid.