Posts made by Lucifer

I have won with axis in revised with no bid, at least once.
But me and my friend were both noobs, at that time.
We both played classic maybe hundreds of times, but revised was new for me until 2006.

The lobby thats a funny place. U meet al kinds, literally.
Some ppl r totally noobs, and others r really good.
Against the best players, I’m a mismatch, but I also met players who wanted to continue after I took Berlin rnd 4-5 with 4 tanks left….!
I met “decent” players who wanted to play axis without bid.
I played a few games as allies, multiplayer, without any bid, and one game was really tight, but I cannot recall that we lost
as allies against a no bid axis player(s).
I also have been “sealioned” G2, and thats not funny, but sometimes I have to use the battlecalc  :|

My point is that if u have somewhat experienced players, a bid is necessary.
I think that the best players would beat me with 6 bid or more, more than 50% of all games. 3-5 ipc, I don’t know.
Axis without bid, that only works if the allie player is new to revised.

As most players here use open bid, I would have 8 ipc for G, no naval, 1 inf + 1 tank in ukr, is that allowed?
Imo that is perhaps even better than 9 ipc 1 unit pr. TT.

@nuno:

Actually even in Classic one can win without a Bid, since outcome depends far more on the quality of the strategist involved(like in Revised) than in material advantage.

Yes u can win in classic without bid, if u r playing allies…lol.
Also in revised that is, and most players here use reg dice, so the variance will be higher than LL.
This means that without bid, the odds to win with axis is better than with LL.
I still have not met anyone who will challenge me and play axis without bid.
I’m noob so it will be an easy victory…even without bid :)

Seriously, I think I will win more than 50% of games if I play allies against anyone who play axis without bid.

Instead of political arguments, one can have a political avatar…

@__NATE__:

I guess ya guys don’t know sh*t no one has even said 1 thing and 32 views thanx for the help Plz delete my account ty ……

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

dwnload 'n install, find games in teh lobby and gett reddy to be complitly pwned.

u r a totally noob, right. suxor  :roll:

Someone should start a wish list thread for 5th.ed. revised :-)

As for artillery, this unit was a good addition to tanks and inf.
Artillery should not change, neither price or other values.
Some units need to change, exactly what change is hard to say.

DD, reduced price to 10, or 8 ipc, with att.def. 2-2.
BB, reducing cost to 18 or 20 ipc.
AC, need 2 hits.
Bmr, reduce price to 12, or atleast 14, but one ipc less wouldn’t matter.
Subs get to choose their targets.
AA gun, my suggestion is that AA guns fire one shot each unit. And AA should be destroyed, not captured.

Other rule changes must not be a gamble with the current revised, which is good, although some changes should be made.
No capital attacks rnd 1, tech is activated after placing new units.
Better balancing. Axis needs bid that are too high as it is. This is not a big problem, but there should not be any need for
more than one German or Jap inf somewhere, as a pre-placement bid.
Ports could be nice. This means u have to take Italy to kill the med fleet, and Berlin for the baltic navy,
or maybe naval units could be captured in ports?

Units that should not change at all are ftrs, tanks, inf, art, trans.

@Cmdr:

Tech is part of the game.  It was obviously intended to stay because it was included in revised and, without checking, probably in the other flavors as well.  It’s what balances the game!  Bids are nice to add flavor, but really only needed because of certain clubs basically banning technology.

Well, with OOB if the G player spend all money on long range, and go for sealion G1 every single game, then,
according to my estimates, axis victories should be about 50%-51%……  :roll:
And, OOB means no bid!

Your statement is correct Jen, but still it’s easy to understand why I disagree?

Another observation is that if u play OOB rules, then the game is still flawed.

OOB means tech. And the cost of research is 5 ipc. Generally, G will have long range every game if all is spend on
tech.
G now have 49%-50% for sealion G1 with LL, with reg dice is 50%-51%.
This is not good enough.
I have no problems with a G trans in sz5 as bid, that means 33% for sealion G1, reg dice. Stats about the same with LL.
In LHTR any tech discovered will take effect after all combat moves, but not in OOB rules.
This matter will be fixed I suppose, in the 5th.ed. rules.

@Cmdr:

Some plays on IL’s ideas.

1)  Change the Technologies too:

Heavy Bombers = 2d6 damage can kill two units or 1d6+1 SBR damage (I still hate SBR, but you’ll see why I allow this later.)

---

Super Submarines = Submarines now do SBR damage to convoys.  1 IPC per submarine within 2 spaces of enemy industrial complexes (maximum of land value and that’s including rockets and SBR damage.)  Submarines attack at 3, defend at 2.

---

Rockets = No Change.

---

Combined Arms = Same as LHTR 1.3 except Battleships also act as AA Guns

---

Jets = Same as LHTR 1.3

---

Mechanized Infantry = Infantry may move two spaces and blitz as tanks do. (Think America’s Mechanized Infantry advantage.)

I don’t play with tech, imo it’s not serious to play with tech, but probably it
can be improved somehow.

2. AA Guns should fire each round of combat. Max 1 shot per gun, per round hits are applied to fighters, then bombers.

This change is too radical, and how will it affect the game?

3. SBR changed so bombers may remain over their target until shot down by AA Fire or maximum damage has been done.

Too radical, how to calculate if it’s worth doing sbr?

4. Japan may not attack Russia and Russia may not attack Japan until America or Germany falls.

I agree only with that Jap cannot attack Russia, becuase Jap attacked
Russia in WW2, but they were severely beaten

5. America MUST use at least 50% of their income on units to attack Japan. (Yes, that means you have to have 50% of your units attacking Japan.  No it does not have to be 1 battleship in the Pacific and 1 in the Atlantic.  But you cannot have 200 IPC army in Europe and 100 IPC fleet in the Pacific.)  FDR was under a lot of pressure back home to attack Japan and a lot of pressure abroad to help with Hitler.  Not to mention, this helps balance out that Germany can expect no help from Japan with Russia!

I totally disagree! I must not do anything that will not help me win the game.
FDR was in a completely different situation than A&A players who play US!
The reason why KJF fails, but is still debated…is what makes the game exciting.
I was stupid for Japan to attack US, but in theory they could contain US out of pac for a few years, but that
wouldn’t help Jap, because Jap didn’t have enough production compared with US.
So in a war of resources, u will lose the war if u fail to gain the income and advantage that is needed.
If Germany succeded on the eastern front, they would dominate the Eurasian continent, and the rest of
the world except for South and north America.
This is because Russia had ND still has a lot of resources that Germany didnt have.
Same as for Japan.
If unbalanced, and not “finished” A&A perfectly resembles the fact that if u go to war, u better win, and if u don’t have the
production u need, u have to get it, or u loose.

6. Neutrals should be attackable for 1 IPC at the cost of 5 IPC. (ie, if you attack Mongolia and pay the $5 charge, you get $1 for every round it is not liberated.  Liberating a Neutral does not get you the $1.  You would have to attack it after liberation and pay the $5 charge.)

I would rather have the neutral rules from classic.

7. Artillery hits on a 1, still costs 4, but does not move into the territory being attacked, it attacks from an adjacent territory in the opening fire step of the game.  Infantry are no longer supported by artillery and all infantry attack at 1 and defend at 2.  Artillery defends at 3.  If used for combat in opening fire, it may NOT move.  Just like if an AA Gun fires a rocket it cannot move that round.

Too radical, again…

8.) Fighters not used in combat may fly patrols against enemy bombers.  If you attack an industrial complex, the defending fighters may attack your bombers at 3 or less.  Bombers may return fire at 4 or less. (This is assumed to be your fighter escorts attacking the enemy fighters.)  This combat is limited to one round.  Any surviving bombers may engage after any AA Fire is rolled.

Tactical management, and makes game more complicated.

9. Each combat costs $2.  If you attack 3 territories, you pay $6 to be paid out of your collect income phase.

10. For each successful defense you are paid $1.  This is in recovered plunder and salvage.

This is just stupid, what u lose in combat is units, and units cost money.
if something like this were implemented, I would not like to play that game.
This is already handled, by if u move 10 tanks adjecant to  enemy TT, and opponent strikes u with inf, ftrs, art, tanks,
u will lose more then the oppononet. He made a good tuv trade, at least if strafing.

How old are you Jennifer, 20?

“if you are not radical when you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are not conservative when you are 40, then
you have no brain”.

Winston Churchill.

@ncscswitch:

Strategies overall are improving.

But as has been mentioned, the Axis is more vulnerable to bad dice early than the Allies, thus the slight elevation of the bid from the 6-7 to the 7-8 range.

The fact that, after so many games have been played, that the bid is still averaging only a fraction over $7, and that the Axis still wins 9 out of 20 games means that things must be pretty well balanced at this point.

The reason why I brought this thread up again, was that I was wondering what bid system were used
by players on this forum, in PBF, and generally. I understand it is a fullplacement bid, which means that u can place any unit anywhere on your own TT’s, and u can bring over ipc that are not spent.
Imo it’s better to have bid system which makes bids as low as possible, and if axis or allies victories are near 50% with a 7-8 ipc
fullplacement bid, then this system is slightly better then the warclub ladder bid system.
The only problem that I see with this system, is the possibility to place 3 inf in ukr. That makes an advantage for axis
victory which is more than acceptable imo.
It was meant as a joke that I challenged u, but this is also meant seriously, because even if revised 4th.ed is much better balanced than classic, it’s still not balanced good enough, and my initiative to challenge players who are generally better than me, illustrates this
point very good.

@Gamer:

I think good players can win with almost any bid as the Axis, whereas less experienced players probably need the greater options available in the 8-9 range.  Just my two cents.

Good players “can” win with any bid as axis, or allies, as can any player, good or bad.
This does not apply in general, though.
I said in another thread I’m pretty sure that even the best lobby players would not play me without any bid, If I
play allies. I didn’t care to ask.
And most unfortunate, I must admit that atm, for me to play against the top 5 lobby players would be a mismatch.
I have also no reason to believe that the best lobby players are any better than
the best players in other playgrups, if a playgroup is big enough, and have many players who been playing revised for many years.
The triplea lobby isn’t really a playgroup as such, but for convenience sake we can regard any place in reality or
virtuality where ppl meet and play games as a playgroup.

I have already challenged Ncswitch for game, I play allies, he plays axis with bid 1…  :mrgreen:
I will challenge anyone who wants to play axis without bid or bid 1, I can give 1, I’m not greedy, no…?
TripleA, u host, TTL, no tech, I prefer LL but with bid 1 for axis, or without bid, I believe I can the handle teh uncertainty
of reg dice.
Seriously, that’s what I’m talking about. Axis need bid. Eod.

If many of your ideas would be implemented Jennifer, I would not play that game.
It would not be A&A.

Ok, we agree with that G don’t have to buy fleet in baltic, but if G want to protect the baltic fleet they must buy some
navy for protection, because the game don’t allow ports. The G subs, trans and DD’s could hide in the ports instead of
being sitting duck. Yes, the game should implement ports for that matter. I think a harbour would fix that.
Let’s say 1 MP to move from port in baltic to sz 5, and same for Italy and the med fleet.

And while I’m on it: subs get to chose their targets, perhaps for the first rnd of combat only.
If 2 or more subs attack the same sz, first rnd of combat subs attack at 3.

About pac. I think it’s not wise to change many rules radically. Maybe a single rule or a single unit, but the pac TT’s need revision.
Jap shouldn’t be allow to attack Russia if Russia doesn’t attack Jap first. This means a whole game can be played without
combat between Russian and Jap forces.
The most obvious changes to make US go after Jap, or vice versa, is to make islands in pac more valuable.
This is wrong according to historical facts about production on islands in the pac, but I think it’s the most practical
solution to make powers fight over TT’s that is not usually contested in todays map.
The premise is that ipc value should determine not only economical resources, but also strategic value.
I personally like Norway at 3 ipc :)

I like several of your ideas for A&A to become more historical correct and more realistic according to war and battles in general.
The question is how to do it without making the game any more complex, and not more confusing than it already is.
I already mentioned that it should not take longer to finish a game that it does today.
Sometimes I prefer to relate A&A with chess. U can teach a ten year old to play chess according to rules
in few hours, and that’s it! The kid will learn as he play, either against other kids or even adults. Not so with A&A  :evil:
If u have never played any A&A variant, u need several days, using up to 5-7 hours each day for up to a week perhaps,
to get a hold of all rules, unit values, and how to play somewhat wisely.
In triplea the program does that for u, but originally both classic and revised are boardgames.

@Imperious:

Well it creates an artificial implement for German strategy. They basically need to buy a fleet ( usually a carrier ) to avoid getting invaded by American and British fleets is a limitation on the critical German battles it must fight against the Soviets. The German fleet was not created to protect Germany from invasion it was used to attack transports and sink them and avoid direct military confrontation. The game totally lacks any substantial German strategy of using subs to defeat england which they tried in both world wars. IN AA this simply does not exist… in AA for Germany to survive in Baltic they must by a freeking Carrier? This is not a solution that i want made for me.

The German AC strat is no longer used by the best lobby players….it’s not a stupid move imo, but I think it’s not the best G strat.
Decent players sometimes buy AC G1, and sometimes G2 if UK don’t attack sz5.
The G AC buy is a hard one to decide.
“G must buy AC”?? Sry but u r wrong on this one.
In my games I don’t get many ipc for holding sz5. In triplea it’s zero ipc, this is a bug perhaps?  :roll:  :-)

U r right on the sub matter.
Subs r very poorly depicted in A&A, the battle of Atlantic almost made the allies lose the war on the western front.
Russia would prevail after Stalingrad, but for UK, US, France etc. the German subs were a big pain in the ass.

@Bean:

Revised is surprisingly well balanced, considering Harris probably didn’t have the time to test it extensively. It seems to be off by 6 or 7 IPCs, which really isn’t a whole lot, enough for 2 units on the board, which is great considering there’s something like 1200 IPCs of units total on the board with all sorts of territory parameters to consider.

Well…. I’m pretty sure that the best lobby players would not play me without a bid, if they play axis.
And few would go below 8. Thats 1 unit pr. TT, with 2 units pr. TT maybe the bid would be 7-8.
The reason why, is that I think I would win :-)
If I’d play the best lobby players (bid 9 triplea ladder rules, LL etc.) it would be a mismatch. Rnd 3-4 the game would be closed,
although I could possible perhaps drag the game out to 6-7 rnds before losing a capital, it would be much sooner that it
would be obvious that I couldn’t win. With reg dice there would be more uncertainty, but the best lobby players
use LL.
So while axis need 8-9 bid with ladder rules, and 6-7 with fullplacement (?) rules, I don’t fully agree with the statement that the game
is balanced.
Revised is much better balanced than classic, but I think that Larry feels comfortable with that axis needs bid to win.
In 1941-42 (real WW2) they could not win, they had to make different decisions from 1935 to be able to win the war.

@Imperious:

The game needs some kind of ports to protect fleets and or artificial rules to prohibit:

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

Disagree

The game needs another German fighter and a Soviet Bomber and perhaps another Soviet fighter so that the Soviets have alot of new options
Agree

No more Japanese in Russia crap… different victory conditions for both axis… basically they dont work together and they should not

Agree with Japan –> Russia, victory condition should always be total domination as was the case in WW2

Same goes for Soviets. If the game is 1 v 1 the Soviet player should have rules for auto play because the coordination of the 3 allies with one guy playing all three is totally bankrupt. This has nothing to do how the war was fought.

Thus the Soviets have their own victory conditions as well.

IN this way its will be possible for one ally to win and one axis player to win… no more “”““TEAM””“” wins… good greif!

hmm… maybe…

The only thing that came close to a real Axis and Allies game IMO is back in 1998-99 when the CD rom came out and allowed 4-5 players
and the goal of that game was to by diplomacy motivate your allies to adopt a strategy and stick with it knowing all the time you had a weak link player who could mess up and your own skill can compensate for his shortcommings and still win the war. This added a truly unigue game that was lost on all the 1 vs. 1 crowd. I think thats what made the game fun: the idea that you needed to rely on the skills of others to win and you could be a good negotiator and motivate to agree to your idea what victory would be according to your view.

Good point. I started playing 1vs1 a few weeks ago, after seeing some (opening) moves that would make
our side lose the game in 3-4 rnds, and the newb didn’t know how, why and  what he was doing

The game needs a Mechanized Infantry piece attack 2 defend 2 and move 2 cost 4

Probably, yes

The game needs cheaper naval

Hmmm… cool BB’s at 12??? W00t :-)

The map should be 50% larger minimum and drawn much better

The game needs some random ( but sequential) card system to address developments in the war and get rid of technology in its present form. Its bankrupt ideas. Their are not enough technology ideas represented.

The game needs a historical time frame e.g a turn = 4 months, you are now in turn 5 (spring 1943)

The map needs to represent the world in 1939 to allow for all kinds of scenarios for shorter and longer games

for tournaments a 1943 scenario would be nice and make for shorter game.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

Disagree. U lose units by keep attacking for several rounds of combat.

AA guns are a joke … get rid of them

How bout: Each AA fire one shot. No other changes

Fighters must boost tanks

Tank hits must go on enemy armor
Disagree, this is tactical management

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.
Probably, yes

their are a hundred other things to list… this is just the top 10… i could go on

Good thinking, but I’m afraid that much of this will make the game more complicated. Too (much) complicated I’m afraid.
A game could last 1-2 hours, or maybe 7-8-10 hours. 10 rnds or more means more than a working day. (I don’t work atm :))
I don’t want to a game to last any longer than now, although this can vary a great deal in different games.
Larry said he regret the sub rules…. too confusing.
The game will not be better by just making it more sophisticated.

@ncscswitch:

Allowing for IPC carry over, I’d be willing to take a bid of $1 against most opponents…

Well, game then. I play allies, u play axis with bid 1. No tech. TripleA, can u host?

:-D :-) 8-) :lol: :-P :evil: :roll: :wink: :mrgreen:

I couldn’t resist :-))

How’s the bids in classic?
15-20 for axis?
Not very well balanced  :lol:

The increase of defense value for tanks is the most important and clever change of all unit changes, I certainly agree.
But the revised map is a more significant difference than change of unit values, and also more important in general imo.
The ftr decrease cost to 10 is very good also.

Russian TT’s belong to Russia, always. But TT’s which originally belonged to Russia and was captured, if Moscow has been
captured, then US will take the TT that previously belonged to Russia.
So even if Russia has fallen, if a TT is red, then US wont take it. It has to be colored grey (German) or yellow (Jap) before US or
or UK can claim it.

Art was definitely worth adding to the game. Before art, we had to chose from only 2 different ground units.
I prefer inf+tanks if I can afford it. Numbers are very important and for UK, and also Jap in the first few rnds, art is
good investment for increasing the attack punch for infantry.
Also for G and Russia art is worth buying, but still inf+tanks are better than inf+art.
For Jap, to buy inf first few rnds, then some art in addition to inf, and from rnd 3-4 tanks mainly bc Jap should be at 40-45,
and tanks can reach a destination faster than inf and art.
For US I think is important to fill up the trans, preferably with inf+tanks, but with art this can give more units, and it’s a long
way to persia/caucus so the men better start walking asap, tanks will follow shortly….  8-)