AD is right!
AetV:
The “sub hack” only prevents US from killing the sub and THEN doing NCM.
So by moving the sub into 101 you force US to choose, either kill the sub OR do NCM with the TTs.
The sub does not make the sz hostile, US can choose whether it wants to.
AD decided to ignore the sub so he can do whatever he wants with his TTs.
I took a look at the opening post. Although I do not agree with all points, it sounds quite solid in general and can function as some good common sense and/or as rule of thumbs for less experienced players.
Hi rem400.
Welcome!
Would you consider joining the G40 league? It is a great community that will gladly help you get things set up in case you need assistance.
Give it a try!
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/29/league
@oysteilo said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:
I think this is an interesting discussion. Of course JDOW is right when it comes to, to do Taranto or not. I like to do Taranto as I find it difficult to both establish a position in 110 and kill of the Italians. If you are going to do Taranto, scrambling G1 is off the table as you need 3 fighters and all the other usual stuff, unless there is a sub bid or similar
In the official G40 2nd edition you might let the Italian sail on their own as the med is not worth as much, but you soon look at +10 for Italy. It is really not good. Then they buy a carrier a destroyer and some subs. It soon becomes a decent fleet with the 3 fighter scramble. In BM3 it is even worse as there is another 3 IPC for Italy as well as -3 for the British (med islands). So if you don’t do Taranto and focuses on early 110 presence, how do you typically deal with the growing Italian fleet? The fleet is vulnerable if it leaves 97, but it also does a nice job there to protect 97 from the destructive convoy damage @JDOW
Well, you can’t have it all! :-) It is your job as the Allied commander in Chief to get as much of everything with as little as possible. I prefer an early 110 position over convoying the shit out of the Italians early.
In the long run, Italians have 2 choices. They either defend 97 with their teeth but then they do not support the Barbarossa well and don’t do much helping the Germany defending the west. Or they support Barbarossa and allow the Allies to dominate the med sooner or later.
In my games, I usually will dominate the Med at some point. Later as other players do but therefore I apply more pressure from 110 early.
It also depends on how the Germans play. How aggressive against Russia? How defensive in the West. If the Germans play slowly against Russia and start fortifying Western Europe early --> Clear the med first. When they rush vs Russia and keep the West protected thinly, leave the Italians and go 110.
As always, A&A is different from chess as every outcome of every move is different and you basically never find the exact same position twice on the board.
Yep, I see that you struggle to deal with my fierce defense of Carolines. The movement of the Allied fleet looks like if the sailors are doing a cruise:D
You do a good effort to ramp up the defense of the Middle East quickly and efficiently.
But the problem, at least how I see it when I play Allies, is always the same: In most cases, the Allies can defend one spot if they really throw in everything they can.
But usually this forces them to let off from other spots and the Axis say “Well, if you throw in everything here, I just do something else then”
To me, playing Allies against solid Axis play always feels like having 3+ holes in the pipe but only 2 hands to plug them.
Example of a situation-based objective.
When I played a play-off game vs ME1945 he made a naval buy G1 and a J1 DOW.
Under these circumstances, any plan I might have had would become useless and I had to focus on a situation-based objective.
The situation-based objective was the Germans threatening to take Gibraltar and to place their fleet there and have a lot of options from there the Allies don’t like.
So in the given situation, the objective was: Do NOT allow the Germans to take Gib and to place their fleet there.
As a consequence of that, I bought like 6 subs and placed them in 101. Something I never did before but something which I considered necessary.
This example should illustrate again the uselessness of plans on how to play the US before a game started.
For US the same applies as for Russia. Do not bother about planning but wait for the J1 to be complete and THEN determine what your objectives are and act according to it.
And this goes on and on. After J2 a lot of variables have changed and you need an understanding on how to react on these variables and definitely not and big plans on how to play turns 1-5 with the US before the game even started.
@axis-dominion I just ran the numbers and realized you will have enough to make Norway a coin flip at best despite some 55 extra units I transferred North from the 6th army.
I was hoping for at least one massacre that would give me something back, but anything but a slaughter would not help the Germans.
So it is time to resign.
Sorry for dragging it out for so long. The position was technically lost after I blundered most of the Japanese fleet in turn 2, but I wanted you to show how to convert this advantage.
I misjudged some other positions of games I observed earlier that I thought were lost for the Axis, too, but somehow the Axis ground their way through and somehow made it in the end. I didn’t even know what the Allies made wrong, but the Axis somehow turned the tide, so I was hoping I could be able to do the same thing in whatever way. I was e.g. surprised, how smoothly I snatched Moscow and India (which you called a fortress earlier in the game) without making any major further concessions but in some way I like I BM is designed allowing the Allies to maintain the income edge even without Moscow and India.
I believe I could have turned the game against most opponents, but not you.
You kept your advantage, played cautiously, as always creatively, and without making any major errors.
We have discussed before that I believe you could have entirely destroyed Japan earlier in the game but you were content just knowing they are no VC threat so you let them off the hook in order to draw your attention to the Germans.
In hindsight, I could ask myself, why didn’t I even try some suicide all-in in the Pacific bringing the mighty Luftwaffe over to the Pacific? Or the other way around with Japan. But I think I would have always been too slow and if I went Pacific, with the Chinese alive I believe there would have always been a way to trade a VC even if I miraculously had captured Hawaii or NSW. Same would have applied if I’d go all-in with Japan in Europe.
So I wanted to see if things unfold I thought they would. Unfortunately they did so and there was no surprise, but this game was very educational for me, as I never played a game that went even close as long as this one.
So, very well played axis-dominion! Good luck in the final!
@oysteilo said in We need an allied playbook.:
A minor in Persia is never advised in my opinion. If you really want this, it is much better to attack Iraq, British 1. It accomplish the same and is order of magnitudes bettee than Persia. I really don’t se the need for the Persia complex
I prefer none of Iraq or Persia. I do not say NEVER build it, but the only IC I would always advise is Egypt.
The reason is: All other ICs are usually built for the Germans as Allies cannot prevent the Germans from taking it.
Egypt is the only one that is harder to take and that UK has to defend with their teeth (not only against Germany but early also against Italy)
And also, never forgot: Instead of investing 12 in “nothing”, you could build 3 mech in SA.
@me1945 welcome back Sir. The league is glad to have u back!
Wow, that escalated quickly :)
I can totally understand why Gamerman went for it. A good outcome for Russia had game ending potential in favor of the Allies but a suboptimal one does not automatically lead to a losing position.
I stop writing here further thoughts because the situation on the board is too fresh. When the dust has settled I can share some further considerations, if desired.
@axis-dominion said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:
BTW I am 2-0 against the 2nd ranked player. Adam, however, has always been better than me I will admit that. I think he has beaten me at least 2 out of every 3 games, maybe more idk I’d have to look back.
Well, I made the mistake not playing you earlier when it was easy to beat you because you regularly blundered ;-)
Then, you stopped blundering and became super strong, and this is when I started playing you. I am still traumatized by our play-off match in which a surprise Neutral Crush entirely wrecked my (I believe at this point decent) position within a single turn :-(
So yes, getting your scalp at least once is a reason for me to return to the league^^
I am btw 2:1 vs Adam :D (Probably one win not recorded because it may have taken place in a Tournament and may not have counted for the league)
Good luck to both of you!
Greetings all,
just for those who haven’t played with the themes yet and who are annoyed about the way a turn history is displayed in a window that requires scrolling to see everything:
you can mitigate this by choosing a different theme:
Your profile (top left) / settings / select a skin
Choose e.g. slate and hit save changes on the bottom.
Then the history appears the “old” way
I hope this helps.
Best,
Tobias
Some rules.
1. Never build MICs ever. Not a single scenario where this makes sense. Maybe you tell stories of games where you build an MIC and won. But I can assure you: You did not win because the MIC but despite of it.
2. Facilities neither take territories nor kill they units. You should try to avoid them and focus on investing into units. You need an immediate and relevant impact on investing into a facility. Investing into facilities too randomly with dubious immediate impact will make you lose.
Good examples for facilities can be:
Bad examples are:
Almost ANY IC with Germans (except few examples where Yugo IC can make sense)
The Germans can simply conquer enough ICs in order to satisfy their needs for production. ICs in WUK, Caucasus are usually not worth it.
Germans, Ukraine, Novo and Stalingrad are sufficient. There are few situation where a German IC in Persia can make sense. However as I will mention in point 4, ICs can also turn into liabilities.
3. The further the game progresses the more likely it is that a facility can make sense. Early, 15 IPC is a lot. in games where the TUV might stakck up to 3.000 and above, 15 IPCs become less and less relevant. In a late game, 15 IPC invested to give a huge fleet an extra movement and thus extra strategic options can be worth it.
4. Make sure you do not build facilities for your opponent. UK ICs in Persia look neat in the first place, but if the Germans are played well, Allies cannot stop them from moving South and thus capturing the IC which is bad.
Also, when investing into an Egypt IC, make sure you do not lose it to the Italians.
In general I see a tendency that players tend to invest into facilities to easily while not utilizing the maximal impact. Those players get into trouble against opponents who simply plan better without facilities and thus have more units on the map.
So I recommend everybody to stay rather critical when it comes to building facilities and only do so in if you have a strong case!
@Panther Excellent, thanks a lot.
I have to admit, the new forum is hard to digest. I am well aware that one always tends to nag about changes in forum software, but there are some things that are really annoying, mostly the turn history which is now in an own window. Next to the goofy coloring, the biggest issue is the fact that one has to scroll horizontally, which is really annoying.
Before one could nicely try to follow the history, not it’S painful.
Is there any way to revert to the old style or at least to get rid of the need to scroll horizontally?
One more question: What is the purpose of the preview mode? It feels odd to have such a small window to write something on the left side.
I believe batches for both, league accomplishments as well as participation is a GREAT idea. I really believe it would make the league more attractive and lead to more participants.
Good idea but not worth the 15 IPC. Taranto isn’t that bad for Axis and many top players avoid it and rather stack 92 in UK1 to preserve the fleet in sz98.
Oh, and all the best gamerman, I hope you fully recovered.
Taranto is a viable option, but any odds below 90% are a bad idea. UK ships are more precious than Italian ships, IF UK wants to make an attack at the Italian fleet, it should be highly profitable for UK. Even trades between Italian fleet/planes vs UK are good for the Axis.
Also, the decision to make Taranto or not also depends on what Germany bought on G1 and how it went. I recently tend to keep my fleet in the game and prefer the sz92 move with a Gib AB but I might play Taranto again, soon.
The trade-off is: Taranto shuts down Italy quicker, sz92 stack keeps more UK planes on the board and allows the Allies to maintain a position in 110 (which is crucial) quicker.