Posts made by Lucifer

@trihero:

What do you guys think are pros/cons of Japan doing some additional supporting maneuvers for Germany?

What I’m talking about is, attack the UK tran off of Egypt on J1, and also attack the tran/sub escaping from Australia.

I avoid doing either one on J1, because of extremely awkward positioning that weakens the other core, necessary attacks, but I was just thinking how it would make Germany’s time in Africa that much easier and make the Allies spend that much more to take it back.

Sometimes UK have 2 inf in Borneo , 1 inf NG, naval units spread all over pacific….  J1…
Jap’s gonna help Germany take Africa  :roll:
If allies let Germany have Africa allies will lose.
Best supporting move(s) for Jap that will help Germany is stacking Novo with everything possible.
That ain’t gonna happen until J4-J5 but this is the support Jap will give to Germany, and maybe some ftrs.

@Cmdr:

I’m not asking for domination.

I’m the one who’s asking for domination….  :wink:

Domination could possibly take a long time, but in the lobby I have only once seen a game played with the 9 vc rule.
Most games do not exceed 10 rnds, maybe 30%-40% go 10-15 rnds.
Often players concede even before a single capital is lost. That’s because most players don’t screw up their
game once they got a clear advantage. And they keep gaining TUV and keeping production level above opponent
rnd by rnd, most ppl don’t play it out.
Even if domination rules states all capitals must be captured, or all units killed, you never play until the very end.
I never met someone who wanted to play out, and if I did, I wouldn’t play him/she again,
I wonder how someone can be good players and not see when a game cannot be won.

I usually have around 10 trn by rnd 10, but many games end before that.
5x5 might be needed if Jap take Moscow, and if UK have Berlin.

There is no problem with domination if players have common sense.
As I said in another thread, if you lose a capital and can’t take it back, and if you can’t take the opponents
capital, then the game is lost.
In few cases, allies may take Berlin 2-3 rnds after Moscow has fallen to Jap, but everyone can see if that is likely, or
possible. When players don’t get it even when the map has changed colour radically to their disadvantage,
and income is much higher for the other side, then it’s bad sportsmanship not to concede.
Decent players know when they can’t win.

@nuno:

@Lucifer:

… but to reach a “decent” level in A&A is much more difficult than in chess.

I strongly disagree.

Why?

A&A’s most important factors are maths and economy.
I think we all agree on that. But that doesn’t mean that other issues are irrelevant.
If Germany blocks sz3 with sub then Russia has to take back Arch, not UK, or G have Arch for 2 rnds.
This makes it an tactical issue, not only economy.
And if Russa moves most inf to east for SJF or KJF, then G should play very aggressive against Russia.
So even if G may lose 1 ipc on the Arch blitz, to say this is a bad move is just a $imple understanding of
different style of gameplay. Instead, try to see the whole picture.

For me there is only one way to decide who wins or lose in AAR, and that’s domination.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to play it differently.
In reality, players concede before they lost all capitals, or all units.
That’s the way WW2 was decided, by unconditional surrender.
A&A is partly depicting the historical events, and so there’s no such thing as a “minor victory” IMO.

In tournaments there should be some kind of chess clock, i.e. 4 mins. combat move, and 4 mins, noncombat moves.
10 mins total for all actions including buying and placing new units.

@Cmdr:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

Attacking SZ 59 is the same as pissing in the wind.

And you stated earlier that is because a game often lasts +/- 10 rnds, and in this perspective you’re right, but a lot
of games will end sooner, say rnd 5-7, so if you don’t know that the game will last that long then the sz 59 attack is
much more important.
It takes 4-5 rnds to bring the UK pacific fleet to London, and UK needs AC for protection asap.
If Germany do not buy any navy, then the pac fleet is useless in the atlantic, better to use it to harass Japan.
So again, sacrificing UK pac fleet to avoid pearl attack, or to bring it home, may or may not be the right decision, depending
on how the game unfolds.

The sz5 attack is about 73% according to tripleA BC. 1,3 attacking units left.
With low luck it’s 77%.
I prefer the percentage numbers instead of the ones you listed, Ivanova…. :-)
That means generally 3 out of 4 attacks is success.
Aproximately same as the G sub attack in sz1.
Frood, you have any other numbers?

@axis_roll:

I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely.  The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy.  I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.

How many rnds do you usually keep your IC in India?

@richylionheart:

Sometimes the Allies perform a strategy which im not sure how to deal with.

Russia’s player is very skilled and manages to delay Japan as much as possible. He is also able to make it hard for Germany to advace as ideal.

U.S. and U.K. focus all their efforts on Germany. (huge effort that is)

What happens is that Germany usually gets too weak and I can’t advance Japan as fast as I would need to save it.

What I mean is: Japan has Asia coast, can put ICs on it and produce lots of units but Germany cant whithstand so much pressure.

I dont know what to do!

You’re playing with bid I suppose?
Axis should get 8-9 bid if allies are winning all the time.

How many rnds until Berlin falls?

Weather it’s a good move to risk losing German airpower, or if G knows for sure it’s gonna lose some ftrs in an
air-only attack on naval units, and UK will lose some trans or maybe the whole navy in sz, there is no clear
answer.
It will depend on the situation.

The DD attack on the Jap trans is 70%-72%.

That means it fails statistically about 1 of 4 or 1 of 5 times ?

I would do the “angel blitz”, because I like to…
And as Russia I would leave one behind to prevent this move from Germany.
Sometimes I think it’s better to play aggressively, and other times I choose to dig in.

I never used those rules, atm I play only the triplea version of A&A.

Me and my friends used low luck when playing the classic boardgame.
Had to use calculator manually to figure out the hits.
I favoured attacking with 2 tanks and defending with 3 inf, that was the simple way of playing A&A  :-P

Low luck does not apply to SBR. At least not in the tripleA version of low luck.

@trihero:

Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too.

I just went over how not sailing it out allows the Allies to deal with it at almost zero cost, by your methods. Let’s no longer assume I’m talking about attacking it immediately with airforce (I find is still a good move, but I’ll play your side and say it’s too costly). By your reasoning, having the Baltic sit there should be impotent because of the way you link fleets and so on.

But by sailing it out/linking with the sub, it’s not nearly zero cost. 3 transports down, a tank abandoned in E. Canada, and UK buying a carrier, is not nearly zero. It’s not a lower cost than the impotent sitting Baltic.

UK should buy AC, generally speaking. Most players would gladly use the 4 naval units as fodder when ftrs are in range, and
they should if G makes right desicions.
The Baltic is only impotent if the G player is impotent.
Unless it is killed UK1.

If Russia have 6 inf in Bury, then the surviving trans may be a problem, but if you don’t attack the trans, then
Russia naturally will retreat to Yakut, before the UK turn. This may be an issue in multiplayer…
There are very few players who don’t do the DD attack, it’s generally reckon to be one of the most important
opening moves.

@Romulus:

Mmm… but after the loss of the Baltic fleet and with English landing in Norway the British may try to attack Germany. They will be rejected for sure but may inflict more infantry losses if Berlin is defended only by infantries.
I feel more comfortable having at least 1-2 fig and some panzers in Berlin (if bought, otherwise they are in EE, ususally).
But if there is no probability of attack in Berlin it is also possible to have fig in WE and EE.

It is cost-effective to have both tanks and fighters among infantry in TT’s that you stack to hold.
Then it is bad TUV-trade to attack Berlin, unless allies can weaken it to a degree that the cap itselft may fall.