I’m not sure if this is THE most important thing in A&A, but the first one on my list is:
Buying.
Some units are better than others, and different powers need different units and different strats means
some units will be more used than others.
Example is DD. You don’t lose a game if you buy a DD, but for fleet protection AC+ftrs is best buy.
For attacking enemy naval units it’s subs and ftrs.
Considering what has been said on another thread, I am wondering about buying an AC on first turn: could it be a good counter for a KJF? (if Russia player make an opening that may support a KJF)
Seriously, what do I do to incite a KJF, as playing Jap?
Do not do pearl?
I’m not gonna do a “weak pearl”, but anything that can make US come after me would be tempting.
The most obvious thing to stop a KJF is definately 4-5 trans G1.
I don’t think the Germans should buy any navy, either. I did start out thinking that the Germans should always buy a carrier at first, I suppose like anyone else. It’s just one of those things you grow out of I guess, like peeing in your bed! :? :-o :-D
That means you always win against anyone who buys AC G1?
This is an interesting board, lots of ideas and thinking on what to do G1, R2, naval units, fighters,
KJF, KGF, art+inf or inf+tank, etc. etc. etc……
I have come to some conclusions about A&A.
When I play A&A, I usually play in the tripleA lobby.
And there are lots of good players, but also lots of not-so-god-players :roll:
I’ve been reading many posts here, and many of you have a very good understanding of gameplay and strats in
A&A. But there is something I’ve never seen discussed or mentioned yet.
Skills, abillity, intelligence (!), I don’t know excactly how to name these “traits”.
What determines good players, or should I say really good players, is nothing about buying AC G1,
1-2 ftrs with Russia, UK+US --> Algeria rnd 1, 1 or 2 IC J1, pearl or not pearl, etc.
All these things matters, but these issues has almost nothing to do with how good a player is!
I have identified 6-8 different matters or issues which determines how often a player wins, and on what level
that person has reached with his/her gameplay.
In chess, I can name 2-3 different ways of thinking, or abillities that determines good from mediocre players.
Most of the methods/tactics are probably well known among you, but I have never seen it mentioned in discussions yet. Some of you think that AC G1 is crucial, or you used to before…
Some is certain that if you don’t do pearl, then US will come after Jap and kill her…
This is not what determines who wins or who lose.
So why Am I not the best player around???
Because it’s way easier to analyze and think theoretically about this stuff than to actually move all those units on the gameboard so your opponents never gets any opportunity to gain enough advantages to win.
Any other of you have many moments during games where you think: “ohh!, I made mistake!!”?
I can see all my bad moves after I made them, unfortunately, it’s not always that easy to see what is bad or clever moves before I make my decisions, but if, or when this happens, I will beat all of you :evil:
If an A&A AI had all these “special” traits, then even the best players would lose games to the AI :mrgreen:
This thread was originally about the KJF…. :-)
Anyway, tonight was the second time in a couple of months that I lost a multiplayer game cause US went to pacific.
G bought IC WE, 4 trans.
I played UK, rnd 5 US had 5 BB, 1 AC, 2-3 DD, tanks+inf in Solomon doin nuthin :mrgreen:
I did not play well, but with KGF there is possibillity for allie gameplay that makes room for playment, movement, buying that is not 100% perfect at all times.
My philosophy is to play to win, and the 2 cases here where I played UK (not very good) if US went for baltic or italy, allies would win anyway. Even with 8-9 bid for axis I still think allies is easier to play.
I’ve actually been suckerpunched many times by the 1 jap inf in LA :-o
Strangely, most of those games I’m on the winning team.
Can’t take my eyes off Berlin, staring myself blind at the 3rd. Reich.
Also, they prevent you from losing your capitols in Japan and E. USA because they have to be destroyed before you can land significant forces.
I still haven’t seen Tokoy or Washington taken.
Atleast not in revised.
Frankly, I cannot remember the last game when Berlin or Moscow didn’t fall first……
3 powers in A&A must buy navy, because navy is better than IC’s, except for Japan, which should buy both
navy and IC’s.
In revised, naval warfare is very important.
We don’t disagree on that.
My point in this discussion is that even if US+Jap have a big navy, it’s not gonna do much good becuase
they would have big problems in using it to take land TT’s.
If G+R don’t have to worry about UK, then there’s not much US+Jap can do, even if they have the most powerful navys.
Fleet is useless by itself. It’s what the naval units are used for that makes ppl buy boats in the first place.
Naval units cannot take land TT’s. Sz’s don’t have any ipc value.
Thats why US+jap will surely lose.
They will never gain any production based on the revised/classic maps.
About R+G i dunno…. :?
But the US+jap alliance is very easy to figure out.
Turn order would be Russians, Japanese, Germany, US, UK.
I will play anyone who challenges me with a US+jap alliance vs. UK, Russia, Germany :-D :-) 8-) :lol: :wink:
US+jap is never gonna work. They would certainly lose.
The ladyluck vs the Dice Gods is always interesting topics.
IMO it’s already so much luck involved that low luck should possibly be mandatory.
Whatever the rules are, if 2 players play 100 games, and one of them wins 60% or more, he is the better player.
If it’s closer than about 45%, I would say they’re pretty equal.
So generally, if you play a lot of games, reg dice, with or withouth tech, if you win much more than 50% of all games
then you are surely better than most players you play against.
If chess had variants with dice, then the best players would still be the ones who won most games, even if games
is also decided by dicerolls and not only clever or stupid moves on the board.
Now, I play one game at a time, and even if I played several games via pbm etc, I would still be playing on game at the time, even if I would be involved in several games during weeks or days.
In a certain game, tripleA, board or whatever, if 2 players are on the same level, pretty decent, the outcome of this
game may very well be decided by dicerolls and not skill.
This game involves reg dice and tech. With or without TTL the outcome of dicerolls will most probably decide who
wins or lose.
If these 2 players play 100 games with same rules, then the best player will be known. But single games, and not only
“this single game” but any game played with reg dice and tech is often decided by dicerolls alone.
In games with reg dice and no tech there is slightly less luck involved.
Even in lowluck games, no tech there is still the SBR who may give advantage to one side.
Games with lowluck and no tech is definately decided by skill and not dicerolls, because the even if some luck
is present, it’s not enough to make one side win or lose.
If one of the better players on this forum played against me, you probably win no matter what ruleset we’d play with.
In games with 2 players on the same level, or multiplayers when both sides have equal skills and experience,
then it’s mostly about luck and dicerolls in games with tech and reg dice.
Also games with no tech and reg dice is often decided by chance, and not skills, granted both sides are on the same skill level.
Someone tried the sealion against me a few weeks ago, with 5 trans G1.
It’s not difficult to counter if you have calculated this scenario before.
Sealion didn’t happen this time, I lost because of other reasons, but this made me think
about possibillities that I didn’t know existed before that game.
I made several errors which helped me lose the game because I had not thought about what do if……?
I guess now I would be happy (as allies) if G bought 5 trans, 5 trans G1 will help Russia more than Germany.
Should have a vote for this:
WRU+Ukr, WRU, WRU+Belo, or something else?
For me it’s always WRU + Ukr.
If they live, sure.
However, as England, an intelligent purchase would be Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer on UK 1 then.
Can you explain to me how DD is a better buy for protection than AC?
I believe AC+ftrs is the best choice, best value for money.
If DD’s are better I’m gonna buy them instead of AC’s.
Very few ppl buy DD’s, but maybe the majority is wrong?
@ncscswitch:
If I get 8 IPC as Germany, the TRN will be in SZ14, or perhaps a SUB in SZ8…
I will not take axis for less than 8 ipc, the tripleA ladder rules says 9.
With 9 ipc it’s about 50-50 win/loss.
I guess most ppl play with axis bid down, I estimate axis bid below 6 means axis must be better player(s),
if then axis players manage to win games with any bid substantially below the 8-9 range.
I played several games when 1 AC for US or UK was not enough……
Fleet protection is enough when G lose all planes if they attack.
And no, I don’t buy any AC without putting ftrs on them 8-)
Never seen Russia take jap tt’s with decent players.
Even if UK can hold India to rnd 4, G have 50, maybe more ipc.
That’s too tough for Russia to handle. And with Caucus colored grey, G will also threaten India…
The most imortant issue is not that India IC will fall to jap.
Other factors count more. But why is this doomed to fail for allies?
The reason is obvious, to me.
In fact, I’m better at analyzing than playing :-D
My standard US1 is 2 AC + 1 ftr, or 1 trans.
This night’s game I went for 1 AC + trans and inf/tanks.
Hooked up with UK in algeria. Even moved the BB and DD to sz13 with trans to take WE.
G used 1 sub, 1 trans and BB as fodder with 6 ftrs + bmr.
Never learn from my own mistakes :? :cry: :oops:
If I followed my own US naval strat I would have 2 AC + 4 ftrs ++ (whatever) to protect my fleet.
Almost all G air units would be lost. That means no attack.
But without any US navy there is no US whatsoever :|
G can only threaten UK/US shipping if allies let them…. :wink:
With 2 AC + 4 ftrs and DD/BB/trans I can focus on more important issues than having my fleet killed.
I can agree to that allocating more against jap than in a straight kgf strat could work, but still don’t work as good
as pure kgf.
And by rnd 4-5, all powers must both gain and contain or else the opponent powers will win eventually.
To go all in pacific with UK, often means jap don’t do pearl. Then US can land in SFE.
I’ve seen some games where this seems to work, at least as good as US landing in Norway and threatening WE, or
algeria.
But with players on same level I never seen IC in India not taken by jap, or IC in sink also not taken by japs by rnd 3-4, 5 latest. I guess few players dare to risk more russian units against jap than they already have to, within the
kgf doctrine.
I’m convinced that UK IC in India would not work anyhow, but a different kjf could work, played by good players
that is.
First time I saw AC on G1, I thought: WTF!!!
Most important isn’t 5 trans or AC in baltic, it’s how u play the game….
It’s not that big difference, other matters are more important.
I’ve even won with axis when G bought BB! I was Jap though,
and the opponents where experienced players all of them.
A funny game that one, cause I mistakenly placed a trans and didn’t do pearl.
So US killed my lone trans and sailed to alaska.
By rnd 5 the allies failed to put enough pressure on G and I stacked novo, the rest is history :-)
But the G naval investment is all about securing land TT around the baltic, except Norway, when UK can hit 3-4 TT’s
G will be under psychological pressure, big time. And sooner or later G would probably hit the UK fleet in
suicide attack to kill some trannies, and this again can help G hold some valuable real estate for another rnd,
in tight games every little ipc counts.