Posts made by Lucifer

@ikaros:

Any chance seeing AAG40 on TripleA? I would even pay money for that ;)

If you pay Comradekev (TripleA developer) he will probably do the necessary coding within 2-3 weeks.

Or you can try to get a cheaper coder in India to do the job  :-)

@frimmel:

I’d say the Soviets and absolutely not Japan or the UK.

I’d say absolutely not Germany, b/c they will get attacked by 3 powers, at least if the allies conduct an efficient strategy :)

With the US a newb can get to feeling left out by lots of waiting to move something or for a chance to even just roll some dice. And they really need to deal with all of the units and trying to manage some sort of transport system. The US might be best for the team in that game as they supposedly can’t make big blunders (and are you sure about that?) but if you want them to keep coming around you need to give them more to do.

Depends on the newb of course.

I didn’t think of the psychological aspects, but it won’t take more than 1-2 rounds until the US lands in Africa, and from there the US player will see some conflict, or at least get closer and closer to some important dice rolling.

In Revised, if it is a 1vs1 game, and also if it is a 5 player game, if all players are pretty experienced, a bid of 8-9 ipc in preplaced units is needed. but if the players are not so experienced, there is no (certain) need for a bid, but anyways, a US pacific strategy is gonna lose the game for the allies, if the axis players are decent. A US pacific strat where US spends everything against Japan is a sure loss against any semi decent player(s) if the axis get a decent bid of 8 ipc.

@CWO:

I assume the meaning of your question is whether, in the late 18th and early 19th century, the Prime Minister of Great Britain had more political power than the King.  The answer is yes.  At that time (and as is still true today), the job of the King (or Queen) was to reign but not to rule.  He was the head of state, but not the head of the government.  The head of government was the Prime Minister, and it was with the P.M. (and with Parliament in general) that political power mostly rested.  British sovereigns do have a certain number of “reserve powers,” but these rarely get used except in constitutional crises.  (If you’re interested in a Canadian example of the use of these reserve powers, check the Wikipedia entry on the King-Byng Affair.)

When was the time that changed power structures in UK so that the British P.M had more power than kings or queens? 1700? 1750? 1800? 1850?

@ABWorsham:

Which country, in a five player match, would you assign the ‘weakest’ player?

By weakest, I’m saying inexperience and little knowledge of WW2.

A&A games including revised has little to do with the real WW2, but as for playing experience, or the lack of it, US or Japan is my suggestion. Russia and Germany are the easiest powers to screw up by stupid decisions, but UK must also help Russia a lot against an experienced German-player.
US&Japan takes some rnds before they can make a real impact compared to Russia, Germany and UK which are at full war from rnd 1, but Japan must also do the right first rnd moves, if the allies do things right. If you have a real weak US-player, you could possible play with no bids if no experienced allied player give any advice to the rookie US-player.

An allied invasion of Norway was considered, but was left out pretty early, and the plan never made it outside of the different (hypothetical) options that was discussed when the allies finally decided to invade Germany.
France was obviously the best option, because if they chose Norway instead of France, they had to bring all the men and material onto the boats again, before launching an amphibious attack on Denmark or France afterwards.
Its not like the allies could walk from Norway, after having killed the German soldiers in Norway, to Northern Russia, and then southwards through the Baltic states and Poland and into Germany. Stalin would never allow that, so it was a much better decision to land all forces in France at once, instead of fooling around in Norway. The allies could launch a “minor” attack on Norway, but with 300.000-400.000 German soldiers, it could never be a “minor” invasion anyway, better to send it all to France, and then advance to Germany.

Even if Germany got both Turkey and Spain as allies, it wouldn’t be enough to win the war unless Germany chose another strategy after invading Poland.

@Flashman:

Yeah, but the parts of America the Hispanics conquered were more developed than they were.

Tenochtitlan made Madrid look like a small cluster of hovels.

Pizzaro was also an illiterate, but he still managed to “get the job done…”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puná

@Himilayas:

Neither I believe wouldn’t have ‘won’ the war, they both hated each other to much, Hitler didn’t trust Stalin and Stalin didn’t trust Hitler, plus within a few more years had Stalin been given enough time probably himself would have invaded Germany, and with a much larger population and stronger industrial capacity. The Russians would have won either way, an historically of course they did win.

You are right, but in the what-if-scenario that Germany and Russia were buddies like UK and US, meaning, if the personal chemistry between the German and Russian leaders was like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, they would rule most of the world.
This isn’t very relevant to AAG40, but if the rules was different, like in diplomacy, then it would be really interesting, or maybe not, because Russia or Germany would win all games if they choose to stay allied until they got rid of all other powers except the US.
Now, this would probably not be a good idea to implement in A&A, but as for history, it is very obvious that both Germany and Russia would gain extremely much more if they choose to stay allied for much longer than they did in the actual WW2.

Much of the topic in the this thread have been discussed before.

If Germany and Russia was allies like UK and France, the WW2 would be very different, where Russia and Germany would have everything except the American continent and perhaps Japan and the pacific.

Well the PAK FA is more modern than 1991, so then I would rank the Dragunov sniper rifle at 3. It was better than any western sniper rifles until the 80’s.

1. T-34
2. RPG-29
3.Dragunov SVD

1. T-34
2. RPG-29
3. PAK FA

Ofc, the AK-47 should be on the list, it’s mandatory, but lets just forget about the ak-47 b/c it’s a given, like discussing books and not mentioning the Bible…get my point (?), and it’s hard to argue with a cheap weapon (rpg-29) that can damage modern tanks.

@CWO:

Offhand, I can’t think of any instances of a country occupied by Nazi Germany being treated with a light touch.  It would be interesting to hear of such a case.

Norway…  :wink:

Hitler is dead, but his spirit lives on in our “modern world”  :-(

@KurtGodel7:

This is a very solid post. Just to add to what you’ve written, during WWII Canada produced more military trucks than the entire Axis combined. One reason why Germany didn’t do more to mechanize its supply lines was its lack of oil. You can have all the military trucks in the world, but if you can’t fuel them they are useless. A strong effort was made to gear its logistics system around the resources it did have, which in this case meant coal. Supplies would be shipped by coal-powered trains to drop-off points, and then via horses the rest of the way.

During the '20s and early ‘30s, Germany had fallen behind the U.S., Britain, and even the Soviet Union when it came to implementing mass production techniques. That was partly the result of the Versailles Treaty, which helped cause economic stagnation in Germany while the Allies moved forward and advanced their own economies. Hitler sought to reverse that stagnation upon taking power. But building up industrial capacity and mass production expertise takes time. Notably, Germany produced nearly three times as many military aircraft in 1944 as it had in 1942. That increase demonstrates that Germany was at last catching up to the Allies in terms of industrialization and the implementation of mass production techniques. However, the Allies’ sheer size and access to raw materials allowed them to significantly outproduce Germany even in 1944.

Toward the end of the war, efforts were underway to allow Germany to simplify its tank designs to make them more easily mass produced. The goal of the Entwicklung program was to replace all of Germany’s tank designs with simplified yet improved E-series designs. The E-25 was to replace all Mark III and Mark IV designs; the E-50 Standardpanzer was to replace the Panther and Tiger I designs, and the E-75 Standardpanzer was to replace the Tiger II design. The main benefit to this program would have been tanks that were simpler, more mechanically reliable, and more easily produced. Improvements were also made to the tanks’ combat ability. For example, the E-75 had better armor and a more powerful weapon than the Tiger II, as well as better long-range accuracy.

However, the war ended before the Entwicklung series program had resulted in wide-scale production of new tanks.

Your post adds even more to the fact that Germany was not ready for war against Russia in 41.

Imo, Germany could possibly win anyway, but we see in retrospect that the odds for Germany winning against Russia was very much lower than (i.e.) 40%. At the very least, Germany should go into total war modus from the time Hitler decided to attack Russia, probably a few months before operation Barbarossa (?), this would at least give Germany better odds of winning.
I think the A-bomb is the only weapon that would help Germany win the war in Europe. But if Germany had invented the A-bomb before the US, the victory would also be certain.

Many of the LL bashers haven’t even tried LL, at least not much. I started playing dice in f2f games (A&A classic), but then we created the same LL system that TripleA supports, even though this was 20 years ago and there was no internet or TripleA. We decided that we could choose in each battle to use either regular dice or the LL system. I choose to play LL rather than dice after several TripleA games, where in 1vs1 or 2vs2 games, too many times the game was decided during the first two rounds b/c dice rolls favored one side.
There is no strategy that can beat bad dice, only if you start having extremely good luck, which is unlikely b/c of mathematical facts, if you have bad luck in the first round of a game, you must have much better luck than your opponent afterwards, b/c the opponent then will have a much stronger position and more units on the most important territories.

As I already mentioned, it is fully possible to lose LL games b/c of dicerolls, and it has happened many times, even though it does not happen very often compared to all those LL games where the best player wins. LL is no guarantee that you won’t lose b/c of bad luck, but it is much less likely than in regular dice games.

@Emperor_Taiki:

Diceless games of A&A however are terrible. A&A is made to be played with dice, thats how it simulates battles.

but this is where you are wrong. A&A doesn’t simulate anything. The only way to “simulate” battles is to make a very complicated and advanced computer game.

In the long run, the better player will win regardless of LL or dice, but for single games, dice makes it so random that in a 1vs1 game with experienced players, the lucky player will win. How anyone can think that is more fun than with at least somewhat less randomness I do not understand. I started playing with dice until I got fed up, but after a lot of games and experience, it was obvious that the randomness was just too much.

But each to his own…

@crimsynseraph:

So the idea is obviously to get rid of the element of chance.
The way I went about doing this is keeping all the values of the units, and you add the total value of all your units in a single engagement, and kill one enemy for every multiple of six that you reach.
Another thing is the point bank. You can choose to bank points or spend them to reach a different multiple of six.
So say the UK has 7 points in its bank, and has 2 tanks and 5 infantry on offense in an engagement. they have a total of 11 points in the battle plus 7 banked, and could potentially kill 3 units. Germany has 1 tank and 7 guys on defense and 9 points in the bank. They could potentially kill 4 units and still have 2 in the bank, or they could save the 17 points from the tank and guys.
Also, you basically treat it as tho you had dice… You can’t kill more enemy units than you have in battle, and you play in rounds. So since the UK could only kill 3 men the first time, and germany could only kill 4, UK on the second round has 2 tanks and 2 infantry with nothing banked, so they can only kill one now, and bank 2, and germany at the start of the second round has 1 tank and 4 guys, so they can kill one guy and bank one point, or bank 7 points.
Another rule is that the attacker has to spend up to at least the next 6 if he can. If he sends a bomber out after a transport, and has 2 in the bank, he has to spend that 2 to kill it in the first round. This prevents dummy assults to get fast points. (Also, since the transport’s combat value is 0 instead of - like an industrial complex I play that you can spend 6 to kill with it. but thats optional)
I haven’t figured out a very good way of integrating the technology charts into my diceless system tho… We play that you spend 30ipcs to get the 6 dice that you’d statistically need to get your 6 rolled, and then you still have to roll for the actual technology itself. Tho I’m starting to experiment with assigning bank values to each tech (heavy bombers would be VERY expensive as opposed to increased factory production for instance)

I like your philosophy, but the low luck system is also pretty good, at least much better than normal dice.

People play with whatever dice/combat system that they think is most interesting/exciting, but many of the dice proponents claim that coincidence is the same as skill, but the fact is that no one can control dice rolls, unless they are cheating, but we can control all the other aspects of the game, like buying and moving units.

I have played several LL games which was decided by luck, but many dice advocates deny the fact that this is possible…

@Emperor_Taiki:

I like dice, diceless games take away strategy and tension in exchange for short-term “fairness”(whatever that word means) which I wouldn’t want anyways.

So chess is not a strategy game??

I was the only one who voted for the “war on terror”, b/c it happens today, and it is especially interesting that asymmetrical warfare was not possible until recent times, at least, the warriors conducting asymmetrical warfare didn’t achieve any goals, except for annoying the kings and conquerors who had the most power.
In historical times, including WW2, if you had the strongest military forces and won battles on the ground, you won political power. In modern times, this is not so obvious. I guess the Vietnam war was first in history where a much stronger power didn’t accomplish their political goals, and so, the US lost that war even if the killed hundreds of thousand of enemy soldiers and only lost about 60.000. 
The Vietnam war was not about terror, but it had some asymmetrical warfare elements, as the Vietnamese was illiterate peasants defeating the most powerful country on earth, although, with some help from China.
We can see some of this in Afghanistan, NATO is much more powerful than taliban and other warlord fractions, but they still seem to loose. This make war much more complicated and difficult.
The long lasting truth that if you won military you also automatically won politically, does not apply anymore.