Posts made by Lucifer

I seem to have the current record in smites pr. post.

I guess the truth hurts…    :evil:

A good solution to this, if Germany do the “Angel-blitz”, UK can take Archangel.

Peace folks  :wink:

If all your stuff goes to Algeria, you surely have secured Afr for UK, Romulus.
The logistics will come naturally, more games, and this will be routine.

By rnd 5 US should have 8 trans, at least.
This is a good strat, but this may not be the most effective use of US resources.
It depends on the map. If G does not try to take Afr, then UK moves to Italy and kills the German fleet.
Not often G player let you do this, but if…
And Afr may be secured by rnd 2, and if allies make a stand in Anglo, or Persia, then it’s better for
US to land in Norway or Kalia.
From EC to UK/Nor both UK and US threaten Berlin.
I think US should take SE asap, without losing messing up logistics to Algeria.
That could be rnd 4-5, if G is strong…
UK should trade WE, and move stuff from Norway, or to/from Kalia.
Most conservtive players do this as UK.
3x3 with pure inf+ftrs may secure whatever TT’s Russia and UK can occupy.

@Jennifer:

Check my game with AJ

Excuse me, but how to I open the .aam file?

The problem I see with dice games is that too often in a game, the dice is really screwed.
Generally, skill is more important than luck, without tech!
Even if 2 playes seem to be just the same level, they are not able to play equally good, not in most games.
In a case if 2 players play each other, and they have played many games against each other, then they “know”
the opponent, and such game if often decided by luck.
I play only in the lobby (a.t.m.) and there is a BIG difference in skill and experience between different players.
Again, if your stats says you win way more than 50% you’r a good player.
Problem is “this certain game we play” is decided by major luck and minor skill……
I met some quite experienced players in the lobby, and I can’t understand why so many are
so reluctant to try low luck. For me it’s okay to play with dice sometimes, but if I could chose,
I would play 4 of 5 games with low luck setting.
For me it’s fun to win, because I win to little and lose to much, under 50% victory stat makes me unhappy.

So players who win a lot, who play reg. dice, you would not win if you play with low luck?

@Jennifer:

Really?  What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?

What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops?  England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.

I cannot rememer ever that I saw or played a game where Germany could take back its capital after losing it to either
UK or US.  If Both SE and Berlin falls to UK, then UK must also have WE, and most other TT’s which are worth
any ipc value, if not then this is bad planning. Best option is US have Berlin and UK SE+WE.
But also US have SE and UK WE+Berlin works fine usually.

@ncscswitch:

I think Nuno in another thread made a smart a$$ comment about custom rule sets that he felt were created as ways for players who can’t win using normal rules to be able to change things enough so that they CAN win.  If one grants that to be true, then Low Luck as a House Rule Variant to allow a player who otherwise cannot win to have a chance at winning would have to also fall into that category…

Remember the classic boardgame? Played with original OOB rules.
I calculated that if UK+US used all ipc on research, then either US or UK would discover heavybombers rnd. 2,2 on average.
No TTL, 3 dicerolls, without “house rules” the game is unplayable if ppl use this flaw in the OOB rules.
And OOB rules both in revised and classic there’s no mention on bid……?
So bidding is a house rule…?
With this kind of thinking we’re all infidels…

@newpaintbrush:

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!   :roll:

I disagree very much indeed, Sir!
But you actually got a point in your reasoning.
I prefer low luck, but I also play a lot of dice games.
In some games I played, multiplayer (dice) games, my observations concludes that this is sometimes a psychological factor.
If the attacking player uses overhelming force, but the dice gods are mad, then this sometimes leads to:

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

and in severe cases this may develop into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

Seriously, do you want to fill up the psychiatric hospitals with A&A players diagnosed with combat fatigue?

I’m gonna write to health politicans in the entire western world, low luck shall be mandatory!!!

@Romulus:

Ok, Switch, I understood your clarification. I made a statement that it is not always true. Sometime it is sufficient to check for danger and be sure to have defending forces nearby.

Indeed, it is always a planning resoning, and is what I am looking for! Your precisation make the analysis more clear!

With a good sense for “overview” it makes it more easy to make good plans.
This is better in tripleA for me, at least I’m more used the screen than the board.

@ncscswitch:

Only thing I would add would be a clarification to your post Romulus…

Capital Defense is not ALWAYS #1 priority.

If your capital is not under threat, then why defend it?  Germany is often safe early in the war, allowing Germany to shove forces to the front.  The same is true of Russia early.

You just have to keep a very close watch on actual and potential enemy movements so that in 2 or 3 turns when your Capital IS under threat that you have adequate forces in range to move to defend it.

This is what I call overview, or visual “intelligence”.
We have all been newbs sometime, right?
Now it’s routine for me to check the BC each round when I’m on the axis side. What can hit Berlin?
Sometimes US trades SE, but if both UK+US stands in WE, then this is a 2 punch calculation.
And if Germany does not get this right, then the game is lost beacuse of this.
This issue is crucial if Jap got about 50% for Moscow, and gains each rnd, stacking novo.
holding cap for 1 more rnd can win the game….

This is why some TT’s are much more important than others. It’s actually cheaper to do bad TUV trades with G and J, for Russia,
if this means Russia have at least 1 inf on every TT outside Moscow. Or else Moscow may have to be stacked big time including
UK/US fighters which could be used elsewhere.

If Germany can trade Kalia, and stack EE, this might work, or stacking Ukr, and trading EE.
Germany can’t stop this forever, then allies are not playing well.
As Germany I would worry about the 3 ipc tt’s and the 2’s.

I’m more happy with trading SE as US than Germany.
If Germany does not need to trade WE or SE then more forces can be spend towards Russia.
Usually, allies will take either SE or WE as soon as possible.
I did it once with US, I lost a turn, was too early in the game and couldn’t ship units next rnd.
That is bad planning.
UK wants to have both EE and Norway, Norway to hold and EE to trade, this also threatens Berlin.
In a 2vs1 game, we (axis) could se that G could take Caucus in 2 rnds, Russia could not stop it and US+UK
could not strenghten Caucus in time, Jap moved in to secure Caucus, that is good planning. 
Likewise, if UK can take WE and US move units so G can’t take it back this is the sort of planning that
helps you win the game.
I have had several big standoffs in med. with US, G cant afford to build much navy from rnd 4-5, and even if
Jap manages to move fleet to med. US can outproduce both powers, regarding naval units.
Once it took me 6-7 rnds and 6 subs, 2 AC, 4-5 ftrs, + all ground units that could reach Libya, but the strat paid off
in the end.

Fail to plan ==> plan to fail.

@newpaintbrush:

I think the best players are those that are able to exploit the openings left with good luck on an attack, and minimize the problems given with bad luck on an attack.

Those that play low-luck just can’t handle it!   :roll:

–

and now for an impromptu crack pipe moment . . . (fanfare)

STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE

(with crack pipe and low luck)

Ben:  “Use teh forcez0rz, Luke!”

Luke: “okays” (switches off X-wing targeting computer)

Control:  “R U on crack?  wazap?”

Luke:  “No, I’m fine . . .”

(a couple minutes later)

pew pew!

.
.
.

Han:  “WTF u missed!”

Luke:  “wat?  But i used teh forcez0rz!”

Darth Vader:  (spinning around):  “Hahahaha i used low luck!  ur shot have no chance of going in!  all ur base are belong to us!”

Jar Jar Binks:  “Meesa love low luck!  All hail teh Galactic Empirezorz!”

:lol:

Smite me with your rubber chicken, and give me some of your crack, you seem to have more crack than
Germans have infantry in WE  :-D

@newpaintbrush:

@Lucifer:

I’m suprised that so few ppl see that A&A would still be both about skill and luck with low luck,
but with dice it’s mostly luck which decides the outcome.

You, sir, are a heretic.

(Halo 2 grunts chime in)

“Her-e-tic!  Her-e-tic!”

You are sometimes funny, but this is a serious matter for me.

Example: UK1. UK make combat moves, 2 inf vs 1 inf in Borneo, 2 inf vs 1 inf New Guinea, DD vs Jap trans,
sub vs sub, 2 ftrs 1 bmr vs 2 subs 1 DD 1 trans in Baltic.
Russia would move 6 inf to Bury because UK DD usually kills Jap trans.
If UK gets unlucky in all those battles, that is a big setback for allies.
Germany may attack UK fleet in sz2 with 2 subs (8 bid) 1 ftr 1 bmr.
These are just examples of battles with low luck in which luck is a huge factor.
You may not have noticed this, but there are almost no battles in which no dice is not rolled, with low luck!

@ncscswitch:

The superior build position for US forces is WESTERN US not Eastern.

It takes 1 round longer for INF to get to ECan, but once established, building in WUS allows the US to defend against an raiding Japan forces in WUS or WCan for no additional cost in units.  You double use the builds, first as defenders against Japan, then as offensive units once they are moved to Africa or Europe.

I learned from being suckerpunched that building tanks in WUS and inf/art in EUS is the best alternative.

There is already luck involved if playing with low luck.
A great deal imo.
Especially in the beginning of the game, first rnd, and some later, but more units means less luck, when playing
low luck games.
SBR is a good example. The difference between depriving G for 15-20 ipc through 5 rnds or
getting bmr shot down rnd 1 is huge. Maybe numbers could be up to 30 ipc with both UK and US bmr
surviving to rnd 5 and further.
Naval warfare, naval units are more expensive than land units, and naval warfare is very important in revised, often conducted with few units and luck is an important factor in all (low luck) battles with few units.
In all battles which includes air units in the attacking force, when attacking land TT with AA guns there is luck involved,
except those (low luck) battles with exactly 6 air units in the attacking force.
There are some “hardcore” gamers who plays in the lobby now and then who speaks of “no luck” option.
I welcome it and would like to try it, if it is well implemented in the tripleA version.
I would be more happy if most players prefered low luck rather than if a “no luck” option was available though.

I’m suprised that so few ppl see that A&A would still be both about skill and luck with low luck,
but with dice it’s mostly luck which decides the outcome.

I would give you + karma Frood, but I’m still noob at this board….

If we agree that skill is an very important factor in A&A, why are there still so many ppl who play with
dice instead of low luck???

Logistics hmmm…, always one or two guys too many or too few, or 1-2 trans missing….

Buying US1 for me is usually 2 AC + trans.
Or 1 AC + trans, inf.
Navy investment depends on G naval buy, and movements.
Then I can focus on the shuck-shuck rather than worrying about the US navy drowning.
UK may borrow a ftr or two, but UK should also buy 2 AC imo, if G buys any naval units.
If G don’t move any ftrs to WE or Afr, then UK+US can meet in Algeria rnd 1.
Sometimes US can’t move until second rnd, because of G naval units in med., and
if G kills the UK fleet with sub bid in sz 2.
US should always aim for 4x4 and 5x5 (tanks+inf.) if game lasts more than 5 rnds.
I don’t see the need for more than 5-6 ftrs for US, some getting killed in attacks on SE, have to be replaced.
4 ftrs on carriers and 1-2 reserve in Libya/Algeria, or flown to Caucus.

That means that if allies let G have Africa, then they lose. If allies can’t deny Jap to take Africa later in
the game then this is because of good/bad play by allie/axis players. Or bad luck. 
If you play axis and allies let you have Africa, then they let you win the game.
Pure and simple.

Life is always easy if you don’t get contested.