Posts made by LuckyDay

@wodan46:

Also, for the last time, I’m experimenting, and trying to analyze what strategies are possible, rather than sticking to the same strategies over and over.  I offer an exotic strategy, take feedback, and alter the strategy to see if its possible to make a version that is feasible.

that’s cool and all to think out loud about stuff, but the experimenting part involves trying it, against players or at least solitaire.  if you are just think-tanking, don’t be too defensive when players who have played numbers of games may sharply critique it.  But i got it, i’ll discuss in theory.

I think that the WW2-The Wargame has something a bit similar too (not sure if you had any hand in helping develop that idea with it IL) -I’m not at all up on the AAHRE rules though.

So with an INF-only IC it would be drawing from the population directly rather than the materials coming to an Industrial center, makes one think maybe in the line of Russian conscripts, but really it would be recruitment centers drawing from the population.  So the people could volunteer, recruit, whatever and join the army, but because there isn’t really the industrial ability in a zone it can not build more than INF.

Bugoo-
  Are you thinking places like Egypt, India, Australia, Canada because they have greater IPC value, signifying greater population or both?

IL-
  I’ll have to check out the AAHRE rules, but are you saying an IC in Madagascar would cost 4 IPC’s and you can only place 1 factory or it can only build 1 INF?

–I could see maybe building INF up to half of the value of the territory and making the IC cost cheap, like 4, maybe dependent on the value of the territory also.  I don’t have a board in front of me, but like 4 for Madagascar because it’s worth 2, and they could build 1 INF.  This may be exactly what IL was saying, and if so, sounds cool.
  At first I thought up to the value of the territory, but building 3 INF a turn in India for a half-cost or less(?) IC is a crazy value for UK since they so often will only build INF there anyhow.

@Adlertag:

then UK cant place a weak 25 IPC fleet in any sea zone adjacent to UK and expect it to survive G2. Thus it is better if UK buy 2 ftr’s in turn 1, 2 and 3, for a total of 6 ftr and 1 bomber wich become russian.

If UK buy a large fleet in turn 1, 2 and 3, and US do the same, then it will be over-kill. In turn 4 there will be a lot of useless allied ships you dont need.

–a weak 25 IPC UK could be placed off Canada though and expect to survive to join with a UK2 fleet off England’s west coast.

–FIG sent to USSR are good, help those commies stacks, like in your other thread about Belo/Karelia.  UK1 can buy a DD  to help clear sea zones and a FIG to go to USSR. weak fleet yes, but helpful in at least taking back some of the Atlantic.

–I think it’s more about buying enough fleet, not about large fleets.  Enough to take out SS and get to UK, then enough to protect against later Luftwaffe reprisal.  G1-3 the initial aircraft are more available for Atlantic work, after that they are more needed in USSR.

–UK buys large fleet and US does also, over-kill perhaps, but turn 4 you can actually get across the Atlantic instead of turn 5.

USSR should have something left in each territory Cauc into Mid East which will slow GER advance there.  If GER wants Middle East, they’ll get it, no real way to stop them there, and should be able to get it with the Med fleet and troops out of Italy.

The real crux comes from the other allies.  Where are they?  I’m guessing in your game they must not be too close if GER thinks they can take their time in USSR.  But every turn there should be help on it’s way to USSR in some form and ought to be decent by the time GER could get into Belo.

If I were GER and was gonna hesitate stepping into Belo, I wouldn’t go heavy into UKR, but more moderate–that would possibly make USSR split forces more as I can threaten north toward Lenin, Moscow or west to Stalingrad from Cauc while reinforcements from Germany are collected in E Pol army.

@Adlertag:

Next turn germany may trade Belo with a man/ftr, and move heavy into Ukraine, and later clean up Caucasus, Mid East oil, Stalingrad, Turkestan etc, because your tanks are out of position.
But if you dont take Karelia, then the german stack may move into Archangel and close your 4 IPC convoy income, and take Moscow from behind.

@Adlertag:

In next round your tank will blitz to Norway and give you 3 more IPC. And Archangel are secured.

Taking Karelia will end the German occupation of the entire northern peninsula and GER moving into UKR instead of Belo allows USSR tanks to return to their position because GER hesitated towards Moscow.

safe side says #1, but I’d kinda like to take #2 and take Karelia.  Then on next round turn right around and throw it all at Belo (which I will assume GER will take) and retreat into Moscow if I don’t have the edge.  Depending on what you still hold as USSR, you could hit from places like Lenin, Stalin, Ukr, Turk, Russ, and Mosc itself.  Belo is like a big barrel you dump fish into and Ka-boom!

the edge probably will be defined by what GER could bring to Belo on their next turn.  If it’s all tanks from Germany, they’ll have to stop in E Poland again and not be able to help what was moved into Belo.

So you effectively took both option 1 and option 2 and made Germany react to what you did and even made them choose what you wanted.  Draw them into long supply lines, encircle and crush them.

@murraymoto:

@Adlertag:

What do you buy ?

At least early on, depending on Axis investment in the Atlantic, 2 fleets will be necessary to clear the convoys.  Continuous Axis deployment of subs can keep the UK pinned in without it’s own fleet. A couple rounds of coordinated DD & FIG/BMB strikes can clear up for UK to give protection duties to US as UK convoys open up.

Against a good use of Axis SS the first couple rounds, there just isn’t a whole lot you can do to wipe them out, save the lucky dice.  So I’ve done the similar thing and built 2 fleets to start.  Well, at least as much as UK can if their convoys have really been hit. 
  I’ve tried various builds of US ships- DD/SS and each exclusive to counter the SS.  BB & CV just seem too great a cost though.  Usually it still takes a couple rounds to clear the US coastal areas and move out.  Building ships for UK to help early helps unless I decide to sent extra fighters to USSR.

Sometimes I’ve tried building just US ships and drawing the Axis SS to west of UK, then drop UK ships into channel or North Sea and can get a landing before Axis can get back or drop new U-boats.  Granted that works better if they aren’t actively adding SS each round.

@wodan46:

I’m curious.

@wodan46:

I’m beginning to think that an Alternative variant

@wodan46:

As such, I am revising the strategy again.

@wodan46:

@murraymoto:

Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.

Balanced isn’t feasible,

@wodan46:

@atarihuana:

this game is about balance.

I realize that.  The key thing, I think, is flexibility.

@wodan46:

Also, why are you spouting this nonsense

Ok, so don’t take this the wrong way here, but have you actually setup a board/ triplea/ abattlemap/ something and tried any of these ‘strategies’ against people?  Because I’m trying to understand this- you have started multiple threads where the Allies ignore Germany, then ignore Japan, then just build fighters and people start discussing them and you drastically alter and rewrite them.

You seem to be theorizing by looking at a map for the game and relying on other’s experience in game.  Now hey, I’m all for learning from others who have paved the way, but you argue with the passion of someone who has played it but your arguments and drastic alterations say quite the opposite.

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

No, I expect them to play well.

uh, no you don’t.  see what you said earlier was:

@wodan46:

Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.

@LuckyDay:

As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

I abandoned Africa, Norway, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.  I threw everything I got at Russia.

you really gotta read the other people’s posts, man, I said it was not unimaginable to take Moscow by turn 3.  I never asked how, because sure it can be done, against unexperienced players…

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…

And this proves my point quite nicely.  Why didn’t those players see the possible permutation of an attack on UK, and sufficient ground troops to counter?  Because it was unexpected, and because the attack appears to be foolish.

again, gotta read the posts… here’s the whole statement.:
@LuckyDay:

and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…  you roll dice, chance comes into it, but you have been talking about poor players as the norm.  when you change your starting point we can discuss tactics.

there’s dice involved.  My Sea Lion was 1 transport with 1 art/1 inf and all my airforce.  Not because UK hadn’t prepared, they had built extra inf and they build ships, just on the other side of England.  So I sacrificed almost every plane and the INF and took it.  why?  amazing lucky dice.  it wasn’t a strategy though.

and see, that’s been my point, that you had a plan-not a strategy. Like a hypothesis before it becomes a scientific law.  Your plan was to focus on Japan.  that’s great, but it wasn’t a strategy, because your plan was only going to work once against an experienced player and only more than once against an inexperienced one…. ie the point.
  Already you have changed your initial post with what you described as major changes.  That screams “not a strategy” -it’s a plan.  So great, you had a plan and you tossed it out for people to discuss, that’s a big part of the whole forum.  and you got feedback and now you’ve sharpened your plan and are heading it towards a strategy.  It may not be a ‘ignore germany’ strat, but it can become a strat. 
  You went from 2 IC’s pumping out ground units, one to focus on Japan and one to focus on Italy in Africa to one IC to focus on Japan and the homeland to amass bomber groups, apparently for Germany.  You went from throwing everything from Russia at Japan and losing Moscow on round 3 or 4 to being more moderate and thinking it could hold until round 6.
  You have to understand that when we discuss things here it is about making play better, so you get a bunch of people discussing your idea and actually helping you.  So don’t go taking it all personal and biting people’s head’s off when they take the time to read your idea and comment or discuss it with you.  Your plan has gone through major overhaul since you first posted it not too long ago because of all the people thinking and writing about it with you.

Residual thoughts:  you originally mentioned that the Axis player gave up around the time Japan fell.  It might help to play on a bit, as the other 2 Axis nations could have struck back.  I have seen the game ebb and flow quite a bit even when captials fall and the possibility of liberation is not out of hand.  More play-testing will help solidify stuff.
  instead of revising the original post completely, you could also place the revised stuff in a new post and link it or simply add it to the other so the thought process can be seen.  Now you have a completely revised starting point and 3 pages of discussion that no one new understands…

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.

Funny, when playing Revised (No Bid), I crushed an expert player by doing an extremely foolhardy kamikaze rush and taking Russia turn 3.

The reason why things like beginner’s luck exists is because experts build their strategies around their opponents acting smart, and they do not plan for their opponent doing something stupid.  Furthermore, experts probably can think of countless permutations of common strategies and easily think of the mathematically best response for them, but they are unfamiliar with more exotic strategies because they are almost never used.

(bold mine, words yours)

the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

Experts do build their strategies around their opponents acting smart AND understand what to do when their opponent does something stupid.  An expert player thinks far beyond the move and accounts for permutations of each move.  the ability to see those permutations makes them strong players.  But you are apparently playing weak players who can’t see the next round.  And then you want to throw cheap scenarios out at someone to prove your idea?  Come on, the fact that I’m arguing this is enough for you to know that I can see the permutations.  Save the bubble gum for the fair.

As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…  you roll dice, chance comes into it, but you have been talking about poor players as the norm.  when you change your starting point we can discuss tactics.

Ufishbongo has many good points-

UK does normally get busted up at first, it’s just how the game works because the Axis have the early advantage of troops and they expand-it’s the historical outcome too.

Don’t get too buried in the little part of the picture where UK gets knocked down, focus on the big picture where they retool and fight back. You chip away for awhile and then hopefully slam them back.

If the game was set so that UK could immediately stonewall the axis at the start then the game would be very, very short.

@wodan46:

Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.  Sure, if they know exactly what you are going to do, and what permutations you are going to do, they have a better chance, but there is no assurance of that.

Though the key to any strategy is adaptability.  Every strategy has a counter, and if the opponent knows what your strategy is and you can’t change it, you are screwed.  Hence, you keep your options open.  If Japan is contained but not killed, Britain could simply start massing a fleet, which they can afford thanks to having their eastern assets liberated.  Or if Russia is still alive, you could just make a run for the VC condition with a quick capture of Western Europe and East Poland.

a strategy based on the your opponent not knowing what to do is hardly a strategy.  What, are you playing children or something?

maybe we should look for strategies that involve playing someone of at least equal skill.
Any strategy stands a good chance against someone who doesn’t know how to respond.  I could build all bombers and plan to parachute into London and Ottawa and someone who didn’t know how to respond could think to build more AA guns because of all my planes rather than see my severe lack of ground forces.
Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.
so like what, “exotic” here seems to be more like the kind of dance… ie you playing ‘dirty’ against unknowing players?..

@wodan46:

1. Russia moves its forces towards India, Buryatia, and Chinghai, accepting that it will lose its capital on turn 3 or 4.

@wodan46:

Germany shouldn’t be able to reach India until G6.  They shouldn’t be able to land Fighters in a Japanese territory until G6 as well, and that’s if they are careful.
By G6, Japan should be dead.

–so USSR falls on G3 or 4, Japan only has to hold for 1-2 more turns before Germany can hit India and US/UK have already had to reallocate to deal with a monster Germany/Italy and Japan can expand again “without” any Soviet reinforcements to hold them.  Not only have they not killed Japan, but they have lost USSR and given the Axis one front to fight on each instead of two…

@wodan46:

@atarihuana:

if russia goes down turn 4, what stopping german sending planes to japan to help. or sealion?

UK should be massing Infantry often.  By Turn 4, they should have 20+ Infantry.

what about turn 2 if UK spent all it’s money on IC’s… or turn 3 if they are trying to defend a J2 attack on India?  With US/UK merely building ground troops (well, really the UK building ground troops and the US ignoring Germany) in Atlantic a SA IC will not hold Italy and the UK navy will be sunk quickly and give Axis control of the water.

you have to expect them to respond well and then beat that move.  Giving up USSR, not taking Japan and allowing Germany to pressure India/England, Italy to overrun Africa (even with your 2 IC SA factory and Japan to reemerge by J6 is not a good plan…

unless you are playing newbs…

@Krieghund:

SBRs against all ICs were unlimited in Classic (1984), and that didn’t change in Europe (1999) or Pacific (2001).  It wasn’t until Revised (2004) was published that any kind of limits on SBR damage were introduced.

I remember playing Classic with them, but I didn’t realize that it was that way in AAE too…

It is what it is I guess, and that’s alright.
You’re right though, house rules are easy enough to do, and all, but I’ve only played AAP once now and am guessing you are right it will only help Japan.  Maybe have to try the anniversary SBR idea of damaging build ability too…

Thanks Krieghund.  I appreciate the info.
luc

Probably a question to ask Krieghund to answer, but alright, so I’m new to AAP, and trying to understand the rules and basic strategies for the game and when it comes to SBR I understand the HOW (of it working), but not the WHY (it was decided to be that way):

Why is it that one side can bomb any particular Production Center and destroy their entire income.  For example, say Japan takes Hawaii (one of those terrible no-no’s).  The US then proceeds to build bombers and turn it into the next Atlantis.  How on earth could it be believable that they could lose all the income garnered from every other piece of property that Japan controls?  It doesn’t make sense logically that destroyed Hawaiian production capability could cripple Japanese homeland production.  Seems more like a way to keep more production centers out of Japan’s hands.

and if that’s it, ok, but what is it?
Is it a throwback to Classic; something that had to be done in order to give the Allies a chance to win or something else?

Sure, making a house rule for it would be easy enough, but I’m wondering more the reason why we have it.  what’s it supposed to represent?

thanks aretaku… that be a map (which wasn’t there before on google, I’d think the 2nd hit would have been found… but I had gone threw a dozen plus pages of google searches, image and web).

anyhow, found IL’s revised and looks to be superior to the original.

I’ll admit that I may have just missed it, but I have searched several times for an AAP map on the site.  Does anyone have one, either a small one to look at or (better yet) a big one that could be printed.  I think we have enough pieces to play and can read the online instructions, but can’t find a map.  Would love to try it out without spending $40 bucks on it…. as that could put me half-way to AA50 instead.

Thanks!
luc

@LuckyDay:

  We’ve played it FTF, but put together the triplea model because we had a couple new players and wanted them to practice as well as everyone play-testing.

sorry for the confusion IL, thus far we’ve used this map setup for practice in prep for playing in the group FTF with a revised board and extra pieces from various A/A boards.    I did not realize that you were talking about better pieces and maps for the computer game.  I thought you were talking about physical pieces.

luc

@Imperious:

LUcky Day you sure you dont want to use our AARHE map for this ? As you know our approach is similiar and our map is a million times better.

I could support your efforts to bring the level of asethetics into a higher realm. I could even remake the Icons for the units. At least they wont look so horrible.

Imperious Leader,  I very much like the AARHE map and setup, I haven’t played it yet because we haven’t printed out it out yet, though I’ve gone through all the info a good bit.  We would like to use a map that is set for 6 players as that is what we have many times, and the more we’ve played the more that we’ve talked about getting a bigger map with the approriate detail.  Just haven’t gotten the group into agreement over the large map yet.

@tekkyy:

LuckyDay, how did you balance the extra 10 IPC Axis is gaining?

We felt that since the Allies were still up by 13 IPCs that the production advantage was still there’s, and a concerted push by the Allies one way or another would give them the momentum that they wanted while the Axis were still pushing in all directions.

So far when we’ve played we have had games go for both sides so we are still trying to work out where it is out of balance, but our leaning is that the Allies are stronger right now still.  We’ve played it FTF, but put together the triplea model because we had a couple new players and wanted them to practice as well as everyone play-testing.

luc

@Imperious:

Lucky day:

How exactly is the map set up… can you jpeg it and post the map?

IL,  we tried to keep it simple, didn’t want to have to print a new board at the time, but use the revised board as much as possible.  What we came up with, was pretty close to what is discussed in this thread.

Italy takes control of Southern Europe, Balkans and Libya, as well as the fleet off the coast of Italy.  All units there remain the same, but become Italian, with the one exception of adding a German transport, or rather keeping the German transport in the Med.

Country values–Germany became 20, SE became 8 and Balkans became 4.  This gives Italy 13 and keeps Germany the same.
(we decided that SBR was limited to 10 in Germany)

We played Italy right after Germany, but thought they could also go first, or even after Great Britain.

-this setup we felt wasn’t absolutely ideal, but it was easy to play on the AAR board (no zone or territory changes, only units really) and added a 6th player.  We have had both sides win, sometimes Italy was the most important, (amphious assaulting into Caucaus and 1-2-3 punching Moscow) and sometimes they truly were the soft underbelly of Europe.

Here’s a jpg of Europe with this setup

luc

[attachment deleted by admin]