Having done playtesting for three different games, I can safely say that:
before the finished game goes to playtesting groups, a lot of playtesting will already have been done by the developers
playing three testgames by several different testgroups each of several playtesters is actually quite a lot
playtesting involves a lot more than just playing “a game”
Not saying that this game is balanced or not, but the oh-no-just-3-games-hype is basicly bull.
:wink:
@Imperious:
NO i am saying no matter how many times you roll its still 16.6% chance. Each event is a one time thing and no past results have any bearing on future ones.
So according to you the odds of losing an aircraft to AA are the same if you send 1 aircraft into it or 100?
:roll:
(Sorry man, that’s just not how probability math works.)
If the UK plays defensively it can most likely prevent Sealion in G2, but it comes at the cost being very passive in all other areas of the board. If Germany keeps pouring in all IPC’s and/or units, Sealion will be basicly impossible to stop for the UK during G3 and later.
So I’ll just go for building just enough to stall a G2 Sealion, put all efforts into other fronts, accept that Sealion will succeed in G3 and concentrate on containing Italy (which shouldn’t be that hard). The US and Soviets are more than enough to handle Germany.
So instead of reacting to Germany, the UK should be acting against Italy!
8-)
@Imperious:
So the odds of losing one or more aircraft with 6 attackers is about 67% … this becomes higher with more attackers of course.
But past results don’t translate their experience to future ones. If what you say is true then Vegas would go broke.
You’re right, but that doesn’t apply to this situation. The odds of the first aircraft surviving AA is exactly the same as the odds of the sixth aircraft surviving. If you look at the combined odds however, things change. It’s the same thing with flipping a coin. The odds of getting heads as a result will be exactly 50% every time … but the odds of getting heads six times in a row are a lot lower.
8-)
@WILD:
Latro, my first thought was to have UK buy air units UK1 too (have done it). You can also have UK build a sub w/two tacs UK1 (28 ipc’s). Germany can’t kill the sub, and it will increase your odds in the sz 112 sea battle if Germany stays. I think Germany may just drop in another carrier G2 though, so could still stay in SZ112, but would buy fewer tpt’s. Then you have to decided to roll the dice in the sea battle, or do inf buy UK2 and let him storm the beaches G3 w/fewer ground units.
Good post none the less :-D
My favourite counter would actually be pretending there isn’t going to be any Sealion. Go ahead with the attack on the Italian fleet, build more forces in Africa and more naval units in Canada, evacuate the airforce from the UK and let Germany have it on G3.
UK will have effectively blocked Italy from the game
UK can provide good naval protection for large US amphibious fleets
Germany is out of position
I don’t think a succesful Sealion that takes so much time and effort will lead to an Axis victory.
8-)
The odds of losing an aircraft depends on the number of attackers. If there are 6 attacking aircraft, the odds would be:
1 - odds of losing no planes
which is
1 - (odds AA miss * odds AA miss * odds AA miss * odds AA miss * odds AA miss * odds AA miss)
which is
1 - (0.83 * 0.83 * 0.83 * 0.83 * 0.83 * 0.83) = 0.67
So the odds of losing one or more aircraft with 6 attackers is about 67% … this becomes higher with more attackers of course.
8-)
(A bit of a double post, but since there’s two threads about this topic I thought I’d post it in both threads)
UK counter, version 1
UK1 builds: 2x Tactical Bomber
UK1 attacks: none concerning operation Sealion
UK1 moves: tactical bomber from carrier to the UK, Gibralter fleet remains stationary
UK1 placements: 2x tactical bomber in the UK
UK2 attacks: Gibraltar fleet + UK air-force attack SZ112
The battle!
UK: carrier + destroyer + 3x fighter + 3x tactical bomber
Versus
Germany: submarine + carrier + cruiser + tactical bomber + fighter + battleship
Round 1: UK scores 23 pips = 4 hits v. Germany scores 17 pips = 3 hits
Losses: UK carrier + destroyer v. German submarine + cruiser + 2 damaged capital ships
Round 2: UK scores 21 pips = 3 hits v. Germany scores 13 pips = 2 hits
Losses: UK fighter + tactical bomber v. German carrier + fighter + tactical bomber
Round 3: UK scores 14 pips = 2 hits v. Germany scores 4 pips = 1 hit
Losses: UK tactical bomber v. German battleship … all transports are sunk as well
Alternatively Germany can pull back the fleet to SZ113, but that allows the UK to place an easy block to delay Sealion for at least one extra turn … opening the way for more possible UK and/or US intervention and unchecked Soviet aggression in the East.
Germany can also move the cruiser to block in SZ 104 to keep the Gibraltar fleet out of it. The UK air-force can still attack the German fleet and will still win, but with more losses as well.
:evil:
UK counter, version 1
UK1 builds: 2x Tactical Bomber
UK1 attacks: none concerning operation Sealion
UK1 moves: tactical bomber from carrier to the UK, Gibralter fleet remains stationary
UK1 placements: 2x tactical bomber in the UK
UK2 attacks: Gibraltar fleet + UK air-force attack SZ112
The battle!
UK: carrier + destroyer + 3x fighter + 3x tactical bomber
Versus
Germany: submarine + carrier + cruiser + tactical bomber + fighter + battleship
Round 1: UK scores 23 pips = 4 hits v. Germany scores 17 pips = 3 hits
Losses: UK carrier + destroyer v. German submarine + cruiser + 2 damaged capital ships
Round 2: UK scores 21 pips = 3 hits v. Germany scores 13 pips = 2 hits
Losses: UK fighter + tactical bomber v. German carrier + fighter + tactical bomber
Round 3: UK scores 14 pips = 2 hits v. Germany scores 4 pips = 1 hit
Losses: UK tactical bomber v. German battleship … all transports are sunk as well
Alternatively Germany can pull back the fleet to SZ113, but that allows the UK to place an easy block to delay Sealion for at least one extra turn … opening the way for more possible UK and/or US intervention and unchecked Soviet aggression in the East.
Germany can also move the cruiser to block in SZ 104 to keep the Gibraltar fleet out of it. The UK air-force can still attack the German fleet and will still win, but with more losses as well.
:evil:
I think I understand the strategic problem posed by Sealion. Germany can build a CV and a couple of TR to threaten the invasion of UK on G1. Even if they are all sunk on UK1 (unlikely as they can be safe in baltic) then Germany has around 70 ipc’s to purchase a new navy one space away from UK on G2. UK has one turn (on Uk 2) to sink it because it cannot be blocked. (They new navy is built in the western sea zone next to west germany.) On G3 the Germans invade UK. If the English build land units on UK1 or UK2 the germans should win according to Jim010 (and I believe him - the numbers seem right) because the Germans have more units - inf, art, tanks, planes and shore bombardment.
This assumes that a succesful operation Sealion will result in a Axis win. I’m not so sure about that in this latest A&A version. It’s a simple fact that without outside influence, operation will always succeed simply because the income of Germany will become bigger than that of the UK … bigger income = bigger army = teh big win!!!
Starting turn 4 however, roughly 90 IPC’s of Allied agression come knocking at Germany’s door. Which basicly means the Axis have 3 turns to do their stuff and get ready. So will the cost of Sealion (time, cost, unit position) be worth it? My first guess would be no …
The UK can still effectively cripple Italy during the first three turns and Germany can’t handle the United States and the Soviet Union on its own.
… but I’m not sure, better get some testing going!
8-)
I’ll probably play-test it a few times for sure! :-D
… but the point of a forum is having a discussion and learning from other people’s experiences as well, hence the questions.
:wink:
What interests me most about this strategy is:
The build order and place of the Kriegsmarine and how vulnerable it will be against possible UK air and or naval counter-attacks. The Germans will need as much fleet protection as they can get before buying all the vulnerable transports … but if there’s not enough threat of an early G2 operation Sealion, the UK can do a counter-attack build in UK1 without risking an early German landing and go for the Kriegsmarine during UK2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but buying 2 more tactical bombers for an air-strike on the Kriegsmarine (3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers) would basically negate any subs the Germans have left … this might actually have a very good chance killing the surface ships (at heavy losses) and whipping out all the transports, leaving just the subs. So Germany will have to make a careful balance between protection and transport during that first turn.
How to handle the Soviet Union? I’ve never been a big fan of playing a passive defensive game as the Soviet Union, just stacking up infantry. With almost all of it’s IPC’s and active units tied up in the West, how would Germany deal with Soviet pre-emptive attacks along the entire front? It’s not that hard to have enough medium infantry stacks everywhere with enough airpower to assist where needed. Keep in mind that the Soviets have that NO that gives them 3 IPC extra for EACH original German territory taken (and none lost themselves) They can expect to gain very much additional buying power after turn 3 that way.
Can Germany maintain an effective defence against US landings and still have enough IPC’s and units left to defeat the Soviet Union in the East. The biggest threat coming from the US (IMHO of course) is not massing for one very strong amphibious assault, but the economic drain coming from a new landing each turn (and gradually growing in strength as well). How much can Germany afford to “waste” on defending the West? … Buying 10 infantry each turn and the presence of the Luftwaffe for the counter-attacks to clear the beachheads will put a serious drain on the war effort.
How quickly and strongly can Italy profit when the UK is crippled? If the UK chooses to accept the inevitable, concentrate what’s left of the fleet and go after the remaining Italian naval units and evacuate the royal air-force to Africa … can Italy overcome these obstacles with there very limited economy?
8-)
Fire up a game.
We’ll do low luck.
A good idea … but unfortunately I’m really really really limited in available time :cry:
Perhaps if someone else jumps in as well to keep the pace going? Or perhaps there already is an online game posted here somewhere to see Sealion in action according to your plans? Or just giving a short summary?
runs off to work
8-)
I’m still waiting to see a reliable Sealion strategy presented anywhere.
8-)
Ask jim010
Well jim10 …
If you would be so kind comment on your strategy, I would be more than happy to try and shoot a lot of holes in it!
:wink:
I’m still waiting to see a reliable Sealion strategy presented anywhere.
8-)
In regards to the French fleet attacking Italy, Italy goes first and when faced with the UK1 Attack, I generally use the Cruiser and DD against the French units if available, however I usually lose the transport anyway, if you choose to defend instead, its a fair fight. I would be forced to pair this strategy with the Egypt capture on Turn 2 or 3 using German air(depending on whats in France and if UK built a factory) to clear strategy I posted on the Italy broken global forum.
What I meant was:
Turn 1
Turn 2
This would basically stop Italy from having any influence on the game at all … which is very bad for Germany too.
8-)
… an additional and easy to overlook con:
Not attacking France at all leaves the Allies with a naval base in Southern France. Now the small remains of the Italian fleet can not get out of range of the Allied naval units and will probably be destroyed as well during the second round … leaving Italy without any navy at all.
8-)
Since the reason for the G2 attack on France, is a G1 attack on the Soviet Union … what do you hope to gain from that fast push east?
A strong attack on Eastern Poland with no risk of counter attack doesn’t really get you anywhere. You’re not in a position to attack an important territory and the enemy still has plenty of time to organize a good defence.
The Soviet Union now receives 2 free infantry each turn, possibly a 5 IPC national objective and can go liberate neutral Persia for 2 extra free infantry and 2 IPC each turn. Economically it will gain more from a G1 attack then you will.
You still have only one strong army moving into the Soviet Union. Alone it can do nothing and will soon be defeated … where are the follow-up forces? The Red Army will grow by roughly 30 IPC each turn … probably more than Germany can afford to spend on the east that early in the game.
Without a good reason to start the offensive in G1, you’re better of waiting a few turns.
8-)
I posted my reply in the other thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20063.0 ) so it’s a bit easier to follow. No use having two threads about the same confusing the discussion!
8-)
Back on topic:
This reply is from another thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19947.300 ), but posted here because it’s about this topic and two threads just confuses the debate.
So here it comes!
@Imperious:
UK could buy a carrier for SZ110 so that a fighter from the UK could reach the Baltic Sea and still land on the new carrier.
It matters not. The point is my main fleet is safe from attack because he cant bring naval soakers. He must use planes only and he does not have enough.
If he wants to build a CV thats even better, now it sinks because its easy for me to get at it.
Just to make sure we’re not mixing up different versions here: I’m assuming the German battleship is in SZ112 (possibly damaged), the cruiser is blocking in SZ104, all transports remain in SZ113 (1+3 new) and possibly another naval unit.
If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?
… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Defending ships can shoot back against attacking submarines. Not that I would complain if the casualties could only be taken by the aircraft though
We are talking about " killing my subs". thats not possible unless you got destroyer. I will sink them and the other is blocked with the CA. So subs protected for UK 1.
No, I was talking about the G1 attacks on the UK home fleets. In those battles the subs are attacking so the defending UK naval units are free to shoot back and kill the subs, with even a small (but not negligible) chance of killing an aircraft.
Keep in mind what those numbers actually mean. A tie, both sides scoring a kill, would actually be a victory for the Allies under these circumstances because it means the transport will survive and bring extra units to the UK.
It actually means that the DD wont be an issue to force me to ‘divert’ forces to both sink it and commit sealion. THis adds to the UK desire that if he still has that AP, he will protect it and this means his carrier comes back to UK. Thats the point. I diverted him from attacking Italy. A tie forces him to land the tank and inf and also protect the AP with ships.
Also if i kill a DD and lose a sub i still gain in net IPC.
I think that I can safely claim that no experienced A&A player would ever call of the attack on the Italian fleet just to safe a single transport at the UK. After the transport has moved the additional infantry and tank to the UK, it’s job is done
It’s not about who wins those sea battles, which is obviously going to be Germany. What I’m trying to show is what the cost might be to Germany. This is very important because the only thing that really matters is if there is a CREDIBLE THREAT OF OPERATION SEALION during the second turn. Lose too many units, or allow too many reinforcements to reach the UK and it will no longer be forced to skip the attack on the Italian fleet.
… The key provision is my CA block, which protects my fleet allowing me to kill him and not have to deal with a credible counter. If everything goes right he must forget Italy and come back. This is the only plan that can do that and both protect the main fleet.
The cruiser block simply isn’t enough. If you go for a 3 transport build, they will fall prey to an air attack from the UK, landing on a newly built carrier. In G2 you could attack the carrier with subs (the air units land in the UK), also aircraft (you lose more air units, or also the battleship (losing protection for a new transport fleet) … neither of these options gives you better odds for operation Sealion during later rounds.
If you go for a 2 transport build with more escort units you can probably protect it well enough against UK counter attacks … but with less German ground units and with the reinforcements coming from Canada and the expected air losses during the G1 attacks and the AA during operation Sealion the odds of success have dropped dramatically.
Run the simulations and you’ll see what I mean.
8-)
@Imperious:
These two battles for example. First there’s the chance of the defending UK fleet scoring enough hits to eliminate all the submarine blockers (roughly a 20% and 30% chance). Then there’s also the smaller, but still very real, risk of losing aircraft if the attackers don’t score enough hits to prevent a second round (roughly a 10% and 15% chance).
subs cant be attacked unless you got a DD.
Defending ships can shoot back against attacking submarines. Not that I would complain if the casualties could only be taken by the aircraft though … :wink:
The first attack is actually even worse odds than an even coin flip (roughly a 35% chance of complete success) because the German attack also “fails” if the defending destroyer scores a hit while going down itself … only a “clean kill” works, otherwise the surviving transport would still bring reinforcements to the UK.
The sims i used don’t show this. 40% to 40% and 20% tie
Keep in mind what those numbers actually mean. A tie, both sides scoring a kill, would actually be a victory for the Allies under these circumstances because it means the transport will survive and bring extra units to the UK.
So without going to deep into the math, in that simulation the results of a tie would actually need to be added to that of an Allied victory. That way you the odds of the transport surviving … which is what it’s all about.
The attack on SZ109 gives you about a 45% chance of losing the bomber. Very costly victory that could turn out to be.
The sims do not show this: 57.1% winning to 14.8% losing and 28% tie
The same as above. A tie would mean both the destroyer and the bomber going down … so the odds of Germany losing that very valuable bomber are the combined values of the Allied victory and a tie.
10%, 15%, 25% chances of losing a fighter
vs 90%, 85% and 75% of not?
It’s not about who wins those sea battles, which is obviously going to be Germany. What I’m trying to show is what the cost might be to Germany. This is very important because the only thing that really matters is if there is a CREDIBLE THREAT OF OPERATION SEALION during the second turn. Lose too many units, or allow too many reinforcements to reach the UK and it will no longer be forced to skip the attack on the Italian fleet.
On a sidenote: Another poster mentioned that the UK could buy a carrier for SZ110 so that a fighter from the UK could reach the Baltic Sea and still land on the new carrier. I’m away from my rulebook so I’m not totally sure this will work. This would really break the strategy of buying lots of transports in the Baltic and trying to block the Gibraltar UK fleet from reaching it. So would it work?
8-)