@Cmdr:
I need to see CSub’s KJF. Most CSub Articles, I’ve been told, aren’t worth the electronic paper they’re written on.
Well, one craaazy option would be to actually read them instead of inappropriately slandering them without knowlege.
Then you could at least inappropriately slander them WITH knowlege.
:-D
What’s the best way to react to this?
Flip the board and punch the guy square in the nose. Dance on the scattered plastic pieces like Pancho Villa doing a Mexican Hat Dance.
It’s no more than he deserves.
And he’ll know that’s true.
I’m gonna forget about the Norway attack, it’s too damn risky
Wise :-D And good debate credit to you for admitting when changing your position is a good idea.
I still would want to kill 2 G ftrs though.
Yeah, I’ve tried a couple of strats where that was the goal, but I was just never happy enough with the plan. You can send:
NOR: 3inf 1tnk 1ftr
UKR: 3inf 1art 3tnk 1ftr
WRU: 6inf 1art
Those are all battles in your favor, but I would certainly avoid an opening that risky. Come to think of it, however, in Low Luck that distribution might be fine.
The triple attack R1, if this is risky it’s much less risky in LL. So you hope for good dice R1 then?
Nope, you look for average dice.
Mazer, you fail to explain why the triple attack is a good strat in ADS but not in LL.
There is no attacker advantage in ADS that is not in LL. Other than luck.
Ah, then let me explain a couple things. First, I’m not saying the Triple is good in a regular game but not in Low Luck. If anything, it is much BETTER in Low Luck, and the opening is more exploitable. Second, I’ll give a quick example using battles like we have been talking about to show what I mean.
Suppose you have 3 battles where you have a 60% chance of winning EACH of them. What is your chance of winning ALL of them?
It is not 60%. It is actually the chance of winning each battle times the other chances of winning the battles.
So you get 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.216, or only a 22% chance you will win all three of them.
But notice that in Low Luck, you have a 100% chance of winning those three battles because they are all significantly in your favor. (To forestall an argument, let’s say all three battles are 18inf attacking 12inf, which is an easy Low Luck battle with a 61% edge for the attacker)
It is counter-intuitive, but if you have two battles with a 70% favorable outcome, you are likely to lose one of them (0.7 * 0.7 = 0.49, or 51% of the time you’re unhappy).
Is not uncommon that G place all bids in Europe, will the triple attack be a good strat then?
Well, remember that you only have a 52% chance to take all three territories in the first place (.72 * .85 * .86 = 52%). So by adding a single unit to any of the three territories you will drop that win likelihood below 50%; you no longer have an edge.
At 52% it is a strategy; at 48% it is a prayer :-D That’s the type of fight you would take, however, if you were playing against a better opponent and felt you needed some luck. A 48% chance might be your best chance.
Peace
My triple attack would be Nor+Ukr+Wru.
Other players have the opinion that the Russian triple is Belo+Ukr+Wru.
Yeah, that would be because there is no other Russian Triple that is feasible. Heck, off the top of my head, I doubt there is a Triple combination other than UKR/WRU/BEL that has a greater than 50% chance to take the land. Among NOR/EEU/BEL/WRU/UKR I don’t think you can pick any other three and have reasonable odds.
What’s your piece distribution for the NOR/UKR/WRU attack?
But if you claim that an attack or a strat is a good one, then this will also be a smart move and a good strat in LL.
No. It may be, but you can’t exploit attacker advantage to test the dice for a round in Low Luck. The results are too predetermined. You can’t set up signficant cascade dice failure risk (sweet, sweet CDFR!).
Axis is a game of risk management. Low Luck is a significantly different game with an identical board.
Peace
Maybe that is a bit simplistic as well, but all in all I’d only consider an attack with 50% odds if the alternative counter if I stacked was much worse.
Oh, I think we’re largely in agreement. It is just really hard to tell which factors will be most important in the end, so it comes down to whether or not you think your long-term odds are better with a 52% opening.
If a failed Triple is bad but manageable, and a successful Triple is sweet like money, then that 52% edge looks pretty good against a good player. Against a weaker player I wouldn’t open myself up to the dice.
Peace
Cmdr J: Quite correct. You do WRU, then UKR, then BEL. If WRU is a full-on-disaster you need to be able to fall back and protect yourself. BTW - A Triple with EEU is below 50% for favorable outcomes. I don’t see how it can be made profitable, but maybe you have a sequence/distribution where you think the risk is mitigated?
L: I appreciate your weighing in, but we’re not going to get too far if your argument is always going to be, “this one time, at band camp…” Write analyses (which I know you can do), not anecdotes.
(-1 Karma, come my way! WOOOOOHOOOOOOO!)
Peace
Yoper: Yeah, the first time you face a successful Triple you feel like you got hit by a truck. It’s much worse than it looks because when you start to figure out your counterattacks you realize how thin the Germans have become.
Darth: The 48% is a bit misleading. The majority of that 48% bad luck is just BEL, which can happen in any essentially any opening.
But you raise an interesting question: Why give the Axis a chance to get lucky?
That’s the core of the debate I have with MightyAirforce. I tend to be conservative, he is more aggressive, and he came up with the Triple. When I asked him your question about why go for a 52% attack when you have only a 2% margin of a fully successful outcome, his reply was this: Against a good player, how many favorable battles can you afford not to fight? Against a good player, if you have a 50.1% edge, you take those odds.
Now of course that is GREATLY simplified. Is the battle really only 52% successful? Will the attack open up cascade failure? Can Germany capitalize on exposed positions? What is the overall likelihood of winning the game with a Double vs a Triple? It’s a tough question with many factors.
But MightyAirforce raises a very good question: How many favorable battles can you afford not to fight?
I answer that question by putting a bid unit in BEL :-D
Peace
Hey Dino.
Over on the Caspian Sub website there are five 1-page strategy guides, one for each power. It’s a decent place for newbies to start.
Check the Files section under Strategy Guides.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/
Peace
One G trans in sz5 means the Baltic fleet will be sunk UK2 instead of UK1 :roll:
A IC in SA in a KGF, that is different, although I don’t think it’s a good strat to buy IC in TT’s worth less than 3 ipc (Caspian sub),
Yeah, those Caspian Sub guys are pretty darn smart. Don’t they write something about a Baltic buy R1?
Peace
Lastly, part of the assumed setup for this strikes me as problematic. I believe there is almost no situation where the Germans shouldn’t build 1tra or more in the Baltic R1. Even in a game where Russia implodes R1, you still want that 1tra to keep the UK off your back for a bit.
Peace
NPB - Solid post.
For your comments on section 1, however, I’m really assessing the value of the SAF in a KGF game; your points are well-suited to a KJF game.
But I must admit, I can’t see this working too well in a KJF. KJF has a couple of common counters, such as R2 Baltic builds, R2 Med builds, etc., that I think would work fine here.
One strong option may be to just ignore it. So R1 UK spends $15 on the SAF. R2 they spend $10 on 2tnk. How long will it take for them to recoup that investment? As a German, I might be content to hold Anglo and let the UK spend resources in Africa.
I’m not saying it is always a bad idea, I’m just thinking it’s a B strategy. Like taking on the Spider Climb in Ninja Warrior without using the sticky-spray. Sure you CAN do it, but is that really the best idea? Is the SAF something Olivia Munn would do? Probably not.
Peace
Of course I said little about the benefits. Suppose you have Russia collecting +$7 with 1inf 1tnk in BEL, 3tnk in UKR, and 2inf 1art in WRU with both fighters alive. That is an UGLY R1 for Germany. Hitting all that gear is tough with any German opening.
And that outcome happens plenty often enough.
Peace
@ncscswitch:
I am guessing Belo/WR/Ukraine… a hell of a risky triple though…
You know, it’s not quite as bad as it looks at first glance.
Set it up like this:
BEL: 3inf 1tnk vs 3inf => Take land 72%
WRU: 6inf 1art 1ftr vs 3inf 1art 1tnk => Take land 85%
UKR: 3inf 1art 3tnk 1ftr vs 3inf 1art 1tnk 1ftr => Take land 86%
Take land in all three = .72 * .85 * .86 = 52%
Your worst risk is BEL, but that’s also the least important fight. UKR is a fight you can pull back from with no problem.
Really you care most about taking WRU and UKR in that setup, which is .85 * .86 = 73% of the time take land in both critical spots. The 52% overall success rating is misleading; the opening is better than that.
Not to mention there are several non-land taking options that are fine. A mutual kill in WRU is ugly, but quite survivable. And there are many permutations of retreating from UKR.
Succeed or fail, it has the effect of hollowing out Europe. If the Allies are coming to Germany quickly, that’s a great thing.
In our group, if the Triple is open we take it.
Peace
Switch on Daak: Quite stout nonetheless.
Russian Triple: The Russian Triple is attacking WRU, BEL, and UKR all on R1. You should win all three about 52% of the time, with the worst outcomes being mitigated by either occuring in WRU or occuring in UKR where you can withdraw.
Typically in our group, Axis players are quite happy to break a Triple possibility with a bid, and Allied players are quite happy to have it broken so they don’t have to risk the dice :-D It’s a pretty big wild card early in the game.
Most often it’s broken with a unit in BEL, occasionally in UKR depending on some minor factors.
Peace
Heh heh. Honestly, it never crossed my mind, Switch :-D
By the way, I was poking around Daak a couple weeks ago and I saw you had climbed pretty high in the standings. Nicely done!
For Ender: The bid system we use is the Caspian Sub system, 1pc/territory, cash allocated however you want. We have four common things that happen with the bid: break the Russian Triple by putting a unit somewhere in Europe, N. African piece or two, Med Transport, or Frindo/KWA combo. It depends on what gambit we’re trying out.
Peace
Holy shnikies, did I get -1 Karma within 30 seconds of posting my first message? Gotta be a record. Make the trophy BIG.
Card: Jennifer could also be Jane, given the amount she is online :-D
And then there was that whole topic thing being discussed, Bids: They’re creeping up in my circle. We haven’t seen south of 11 in a looong time. And if we’re playing 2 simultaneous boards with sides reversed, we’ll set a 14 bid for all boards. Axis are about 50-50 in those situations (but with a very small number of trials).
Peace
Hey guys.
NewPaintBrush, as usual, makes some astute observations. The no-Baltic-transport-purchase is critical to this move since cascade dice failure can occur in the Med if you attack the boats and lose the planes.
U-505, I thought you had some good points too. In particular, the 3inf KEN and 3inf PER can be a nice defensive play if Germany is too large to attack in Anglo. But I’m left with a couple of questions:
1. If the goal is to protect African money, why not just land the Allies in Algeria R2 with a massive load of Allies and march through Africa? You engage the Germans early and you maintain a threat to land in WEU. You even have the option of pulling out the gear in ALG if Germany pulls back. Plus, transports on the coast can move and attack the Germans directly. “But,” says you, “then you’ve wasted transports!” “Sure,” says me, “but you could ‘waste’ two transports and still be ahead of the SAF financially because the transports are more flexible and can return to UK waters.” Not to mention that 2tra can ship 4 units to Africa per round whereas the SAF can only build 2 units per round.
2. If the SAF really ISN’T about keeping Africa from Germany and it’s about KJF, won’t the SAF always be treatened by a German attack that relieves pressure on Japan?
I’m not saying this setup doesn’t have some merit, I’m just saying it seems to me to be less optimal than a north African gambit or an IIC if you’re serious about KJF (and I’m not ever serious about KJF myself).
Peace
not sure why, but that made me laugh
You laugh because you are weak.
…and also because it was funny.
BTW - This is CrazyStraw/themarvinmartian here. I’ve been out of the pool for a while, but it looked like fun so I’ve come back. Everyone seemed to have changed names, so I thought I’d be a joiner.