Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. larrymarx
    3. Posts
    L
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 7
    • Posts 168
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by larrymarx

    • RE: Major IC in Romania

      Well, what you propose is probably a viable strategy, but it’s very specialized and the fact that it threatens both the UK and USSR doesn’t mean it’s the best strategy and we should all adopt it. Also, my question would be whether the dual threat and the immediate capture of the Leningrad objective can offset all the income from the south you’re foregoing and all the money you spent on transports without taking London.

      Back to the original point: unless you build full naval for a turn as in the Sealion fake that you propose, UK is going to realize pretty fast that it isn’t the target whether or not Germany has built a Romania IC, so the “giveaway” of Germany’s strategy isn’t really an argument against the Romania major.

      Keep in mind that buying the factory on turn 2 after an ambiguous buy on turn 1 does slow down the UK for a turn by forcing them to account for the possibility of Sealion. Also, if the UK lets down their guard, you could consider a late Sealion under some circumstances. In this case, the Romania IC could help because you can drop 10 infantry a turn to link up with your forces as you retreat from Moscow or to defend your territory if you decide to send the initial wave of troops south to the Middle East. The factory also opens up more strategies that don’t involve spending every dime on the Eastern front. For example, you could strengthen your air force instead of buying expensive ground units.

      What I’m getting at is that the Romania major may actually help you target the UK in the long run, or at least keep the option open.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Major IC in Romania

      So what type of Russia invasion would you propose that leaves the UK feeling like they might still be a target?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Major IC in Romania

      It’s only one space closer to Russia, but it’s 2 spaces closer to Bessarabia, Ukraine, Rostov, Volgograd, Caucasus and the Middle East. This makes the Romania major a viable purchase for strategies other than the early push for Moscow. The plan is to pump out large quantities of cheap units and seize these big income territories while doing something else like dark skies or Afrikacorps with the money you are saving from not having to pour it all into Moscow.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: USA: Pacific Fleet

      Allied Pacific fleets enjoy a much freer existence than their European counterparts. They don’t have to worry about every bit of ocean being part of a massive kill zone that the Axis sets up by buying stacks of bombers. The US is also free to move their fleet into position even when they’re not at war over in the Pacific.

      I also believe the Allies shouldn’t decide their strategy before seeing what the Axis are doing for at least the first two turns. Putting all that navy over on the East coast puts it pretty far from the action in the Pacific and so it kind of forces you to focus on Europe for at least a few turns to make those ships count for something. If the Axis know you are going for Europe first, they can adapt their strategy accordingly.

      I would consider putting all my fleet on the west coast. From there it’s only two turns to Gibraltar and two turns to Japan. You can leave both possibilities open and force the Axis to account for both.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Major IC in Romania

      My argument against building it on the first turn is that you want to leave open the possibility of Sealion to force UK to build defensively. I like 1DD, 1FTR, 1BMR because these units are all useful no matter what Germany decides to do. The DD clears out the Russian sub from SZ125 and pays for itself even if Germany doesn’t buy any more navy the entire game.

      I also don’t think messing with Turkey or the Black Sea are good for Germany. The neutral crush slows the Axis’ momentum too much. For a German naval strategy, I think that only Sealion and Afrikacorps are viable. If you aren’t going to dump a bunch of IPC’s in the water and take London, the only real naval play I see for Germany is to build just enough out of Southern France to tip the scales in the Med and move into Egypt and the Middle East.

      What I like the Romania major for is for pumping out inf and art against Russia, either on offense or on defense. It could also help deter an Allied beachhead in Greece.

      If you’re going for a rapid advance and taking Moscow as soon as possible, I don’t think the major in Romania would help because you’d rather have those 30 IPC’s in the form of units on the first turn and then you’re going to build fast moving units on subsequent turns where the proximity to the front doesn’t change anything that much. You’ll also have Ukraine and Volgograd earlier. If plans change and you need to dig in, I might consider buying minors for Western Ukraine and Rostov. I’ve never done that before but I think it would be more helpful than having that Romania factory.

      In any other Germany strategy besides the fast Russia push, I agree that the Romania major is a good buy. I just wouldn’t do it on turn 1.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: G40 VANN FORMULAS RESULTS

      This is very interesting, and I think it validates the cost formulas: a quadrupling in strength is required to justify a doubling in cost.

      I also like that you’ve removed the factor of cost for the above ratios. It’s always better to bring more than you need to win the fight, and if you know what break even is for a fight, you can focus on whether or not you can bring more than that to the battle. For this purpose, unit cost might be a factor or it might not.

      With large battles, as I demonstrated earlier, it just takes a slight advantage to be certain of victory. If it is a large battle, then winning it is probably more important than preserving your units with high values. If it’s a small battle, cost matters more because you want your good units left for future battles, but in the case of small battles these formulas and ratios don’t really matter anyways because anyone can look at the units and tell which side will win.

      posted in Software
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: G40 VANN FORMULAS RESULTS

      You guys are forgetting something important: SIZE MATTERS

      The back and forth nature of A&A battles means that very slight advantages will snowball into huge advantages when you scale up the number of units. To demonstrate, I pulled up a battle calculator and tried throwing infantry against half their numbers in tanks (stacks with equivalent values).

      Infantry     Tanks       Attacker wins     Avg swing    Total value     % swing
         2               1            55%                   0.1                12               0.8
         4               2            60%                   1.2                24               5.0
         8               4            66%                   4.2                48               8.8
       16               8            74%                  11.6               96              12.1
       32             16            83%                  29.4              192              15.3
       64             32            92%                  68.3              384              17.8
      128             64            98%                 147.5              768             19.2

      You start with what is nearly a fair fight at the beginning and wind up with an overwhelming advantage as you draw out the battle and increase the number of turns over which the advantage is played out. In contrast, if the battles are only for one round, the % swing rises only to 4.166% (1/24) and then stays there no matter how large the stacks are.

      This, combined with my earlier assertion that units are almost always better in mixtures means we really should be looking at how to determine the relative worth of stacks and mixtures of units as opposed to individual units. Units mean nothing by themselves - they always must be analyzed in context.

      I propose analyzing different mixtures and quantities of units to determine their worth in attacking vs. stacks of units we already know to be strong on defense - infantry, destroyers, fighters and carriers (because they carry fighters). A compete analysis will increase the size of the defender’s stack if the attacking units are slow because the defender will “see it coming” and have more time to turtle up.

      posted in Software
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: VANN FORMULAS TESTING

      My opinion is that if we are to assign numeric values representing the worth of units, we should do so with some awareness of what is happening on the board. As I said in my original post, it is evident that a mix of units is what is needed for a good strategy.

      I mentioned that infantry and armor do better together than either alone. Carriers also do better in groups with destroyers to protect them. Mech infantry provide a good followup to a wave of artillery. Bombers and subs also have good synergy. Any combination of units, however, can only be evaluated in the context of the board on which it is placed. I would propose devising a set of common strategic situations and then identifying an optimal mix of units to buy in these situations.

      Most players have an intuitive understanding of this concept, and they don’t need a calculator for it. This is GeneralHandGrenade’s point. He values the power of human analysis over numbers and formulas in this game. He is certainly correct - and I would argue that numbers and formulas are indispensable tools for us to use as part of that analysis. They cannot be the basis of a strategy, but they can enhance and sharpen any strategy.

      Baron, I like the idea of the break even tables as opposed to trying to assign definite values to individual units. However, I think that the tables should be constructed with common mixes of units in mind, not just single unit types.

      posted in Software
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: VANN FORMULAS TESTING

      First I searched for patterns in the numbers. The first things I noticed were:

      1. That the sub defense and bomber attack were the same value. This clued me in to the principle that quadrupling the power resulted in a doubling of the cost. This sort of thing happens with area equations so I knew there was something with squares or square roots going on.
      2. Units with a cost of 10 resulted in numbers easily expressed as fractions. This showed me that the equation had to be a fraction of some kind with whole numbers in the numerator and denominator.
      3. the carrier had an attack of 0. This told me that the power had to be in the numerator.

      After making these observations, I determined that a cost of 10 resulted in a denominator of 6 as a baseline to go back and forth from. Fighter defense is 4/6 = .667; fighter attack is 3/6 = .5. Higher costs should have higher denominators and lower costs should have lower denominators. I figured out what the denominators had to be for each cost value to get the strength figures indicated. I then asked myself the question, how are we getting from the various costs to the denominators? With this I came up with my own equation that used a square and a variable to convert costs to denominators and fine tuned the variable (it turned out to be 4.08248). Next I applied this variable to all A&A powers and costs and verified that it resulted in the same strengths that VANN listed. Finally I used Excel to convert the resulting decimals into fractions and made observations about the numerators and denominators. It turned out that the numerators were always factors of 50, so I deduced that the strength was being multiplied by 50 and I changed all the fractions so that their numerators were multiples of 50. Then I looked at the pattern in the denominators, sorted largest to smallest, then I thought to divide them all by three and I got the familiar square pattern of 1,4,9,16 etc…

      Turns out that the decimal I came up with to get all the denominators is the square root of 50/3. This means you can divide any unit cost by this figure (roughly 4.08248) and then take the square to get a number to use in the denominator to come up with the VANN FORMULA strength, where the numerator is the unit’s power.

      As for why VANN decided to use 50 and 3, the best I could come up with is that the attack value of a tank in the original A&A game (power 3, cost 5) is 2 as a result, and this was probably used as some kind of benchmark.

      posted in Software
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: VANN FORMULAS TESTING

      Hello everyone,

      I have derived the VANN FORMULAS (or perhaps one of them) based on the unit strengths that VANN presented in a post on another thread.

      Here are his figures:

      Attack/defense=A/D
      INFANTRY        1.85/3.7
      MECH              1.04/2.08
      ARTILLERY       2.08/2.08
      TANK              1.39/1.39
      FIGHTER          .5/.667
      TECHBOMB       (.413/.551)/.413
      BOMBER          .463/.116
      SUB                1.39/.463
      DESTROYER      .521/.521
      CRUISER          .347/347
      CARRIER          0/.139
      BATTLESHIP    .267/.267
      INF/ART          2.72/2.72
      MECH/ART       2.08/2.08
      MECH/TANK     1.33/1.67

      Here is how he got them: (DRUMROLL…)

      (power / 3*cost^2)*50

      For example, infantry:

      Attack:  (1 / 3*3^2)*50 = (1/27)50 = 1.852
      Defense: (2 / 3
      3^2)*50 = (2/27)*50 = 3.704

      Because this VANN FORMULA uses a square in the denominator, the implication is that a quadrupling in strength is required to justify a doubling in cost. One example of this would be sub defense (1 for 6) vs. bomber attack (4 for 12). Each of these unit configurations results in a strength of 0.463 according to this VANN FORMULA. Accordingly, VANN would likely only consider buying tanks with 3/3 attack/defense if they cost 5 IPC’s because this would give them a strength of 2, which is comparable to an artillery’s strength.

      He would likely argue that cruisers should cost 10 as well, as this would give them a “strength” of .551, which is comparable to a destroyer at .521.

      He probably didn’t have a battle calculator when he came up with all of this. It is evident that efficient attacks require a mix of cheaper and more powerful units. For example, VANN asserted previously that 100 infantry are better than 50 tanks for attacking 50 infantry. This may be true, But a mix of 50 infantry and 25 tanks is better than either of those.

      So who should use the VANN FORMULAS?

      Most likely, players who lack creativity and/or get confused when they try and figure out how to divide their IPC’s between different units.

      posted in Software
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Best (most fun) Teams in 2v2

      My play group always splits the Allies into the two respective theaters in the same way that the Axis are split. The Pacific player has control of everything that happens on that board, likewise for the Europe player.

      Of course, this means that two players end up playing the USA simultaneously. Some discussion goes back and forth over how much funding each side of the board should receive given the state of affairs, and usually one side or the other is focused on. I like this a lot because it forces the two Allied players to really put their heads together over what kind of game to play, each bringing their evaluation of their side of the board to the table. Also, some jokes get flung around about requisitioning funds, failing to put the paperwork in, congressional debates, etc. etc.

      Usually Russia and the U.K. stick to the division of force that’s already in place, but sometimes U.K.'s Pacific forces get called over to Africa, or perhaps Moscow funnels some IPC’s to support the far eastern troops (or the troops march home).

      In keeping with this tradition, one game the Japanese player flew 4 bombers over to help the Germans and then relinquished control of the units to the German player (to be moved during Japan’s turn, of course).

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: How to recover from a succesfull KFJ?

      @Grasshopper

      Unfortunately in this version of the rules the Allies can’t take such a methodical approach to beating back Germany. If they get 8 cities on the European board, the whole Axis win, and this is quite likely with the fall of Russia.

      I would propose piling a whole bunch of Americans at Gibraltar, forcing the Axis to defend at multiple points and eventually striking wherever is weakest. Reclaiming Cairo just before Moscow falls is an option, but Germany would be making quite a bit at that point so it’s tough to just sit back like that.

      If you divert the Americans in this way to the European theater, I imagine the Pacific allies won’t then be able to help much because they’ll have their hands tied making sure Japan stays contained.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: My UK Strategy

      I’ve done something similar to this though I didn’t build the airbase. Frankly I’d rather just wait a turn and build an aircraft carrier; having 4 hits and 10 pips actually sounds like a better deal to me than 3 hits and 12 pips, and when it comes to raiding Italy the CV will be of much greater use. The biggest flawed assumption you’re making here is that you can do this and also stop a Sealion. If Germany goes for Sealion and UK doesn’t do everything in its power to stop it (meaning a 9 inf first turn build), my understanding is that Germany can pull it off pretty easily. So if you execute this strategy then you’re pretty much writing off the home island for a few turns and committing America to the Atlantic if Germany goes for it. Meanwhile, I agree that Italy is pretty well bottled up. With the Allies working together in this way, the game will most likely be decided in the Pacific.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Us strategy

      At the risk of becoming embroiled in a flame war, let me say that my post was actually a result of reading the entire thread. Yes, I saw that you admitted that another interpretation of the sentence was possible, however by calling it another interpretation you implied that your interpretation could also be correct, which it can’t. But, by itself, that would have been ok. The breaking point was when you wrote

      Its like

      “Iraqi head seeks arms”

      Without punctuation. It’s ambiguous - and thus pointless to post.

      openly declaring that the statement was ambiguous, which in spite of its lack of proper punctuation it is not. If you had read my ENTIRE post, perhaps you would have recognized that it was a direct response to the above. I was clarifying that there is no ambiguity.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Us strategy

      I usually try to be polite on these forums, but seriously Gargantua, you need to be able to understand when you’re wrong and give it a rest.

      There is no ambiguity in the clause “they are surrounded and i take their capitol as Russia and uk take germany” because of the word “take”. Because the verb lacks an ‘s’ it’s clear that the subject of the verb must be plural. ‘UK’ by itself couldn’t possibly be the subject because “uk take germany” doesn’t make sense. The only possible interpretation is “russia and uk take germany” because then the subject is plural.

      I don’t care if you admit you’re wrong or not, just please stop insisting that your erroneous reading of the original post holds any merit.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Recovering Italy after Taranto… Can it be done?

      In my games Italy usually doesn’t have enough force to capture Egypt because the UK flies 3 fighters and a tac to Egypt via British Somaliland. Britain alone is enough to hold off Egypt indefinitely unless Germany does Sealion, and even then the supporting air force causes problems. Usually Italy can’t get anywhere at all by the time the US gets there.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Larrymarx and allweneedislove's Global balance solution

      I think I may deserve credit for this idea. I posted it originally a week and a half ago on this thread:

      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0

      I think based on allweneedislove’s post on this thread that he probably got the idea from me. I apologize if I’m coming off as snooty, but if the idea goes anywhere I would appreciate some recognition.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?

      Indeed it does fly in the face of history. That’s my thinking as I examine possible house rules. Any rule I incorporate would ideally give the Axis a bit more help and also make the game more historical and realistic.

      Of the four rules, Joint Command is the one that may actually help the Allies more, but my inspiration for it was a test game using JamesAleman’s kill America first strategy. Japan and Germany had both managed to get decent forces into the Central US, but they ultimately weren’t any threat because they couldn’t attack together and the east coast could continue producing enough infantry to hold them off at least until the other Allies were able to seize the advantage elsewhere. With Joint Command, however, the US would have really been sweating. And consider: if the Germans were grouped in the Midwest and decided to pour over the Appalachians and enact an epic struggle to defeat the world’s most powerful nation, would they really have elected to do so without waiting for the Japanese to link up with and help them out? I think not.

      On the other hand, Germany is really going to be screwed when it comes time to invade Normandy. But hey, that’s historical too.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Krieghund - a brilliant new idea

      Let’s see…artillery are 2/2 and cost four, tanks are 3/3 and cost six, so should heavy tanks be 4/4 and cost eight? Or would heavy tanks simply make existing tanks attack at 4 kind of like super subs?

      What would total war mobilization do, increase the ipc production of home territories?

      Spies…perhaps a country can begin investing in spies once another country has obtained a tech and get the tech for ultimately less time and money than the previous country paid? Say 2/3 the price and number of turns it originally took? Also, how about a way for allied powers (not Russia) to acquire the same tech for even less…like maybe 1/3.

      posted in House Rules
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Krieghund - a brilliant new idea

      How about taking the luck out of tech research and replacing it with dedicated amounts of IPCs to be invested per turn? For example, if Germany wants super subs, they can invest 3 ipcs per turn for 4 turns or 10 ipcs per turn for 2 turns. You could tweak these numbers and expand the chart, like maybe 1 ipc per turn for 8 turns would be an option. Also the individual tech being researched would be kept secret and they can invest in any number of techs at a time (or you could restrict it to a certain number).

      Maybe you have to pay 10 ipcs per turn for 10 turns or so to get nukes. The effect of the nuclear weapon on the game would have to be adjusted to make whatever amount of money invested in it worth it.

      posted in House Rules
      L
      larrymarx
    • 1 / 1