Posts made by Mr.Biggg

@GCar:

Low luck was perfectly described. The idea is that in normal dice games, many times a huge fight (around 70-100 IPC on each side, sometimes more) happens and the luck potential of those fights is huge in comparison to the normal smaller fights. For exemple if both sides average hit number would be 10 hits, variance makes it quite likely to make it different then that, but even a small difference on turn 1 of attack (like 12 hits against 6 lets say) keeps affecting the following turn of attacks (more units left = more probable hits), therefore increasing the final effect (for exemple a 6 units variance early could end as a 12 units difference in the end, making for around 30-50 IPC depending of the planes in the fight (and if battleships are involved it can get ugly !). In a smaller fight, a lucky roll is unlikely to win you more then 10 direct IPC (usually quite less)  and maybe a couple more of circonstancial IPC due to the fact that a territory is not traded.

Oddly enough, the odds work in exactly the opposite way you are describing. The larger the battle is, the more closely it will follow low luck. Variations in hit results will follow the central limit theorem (an interesting google if you have the time). It’s small battles that will be most effected, and actually somewhat break the system.

Think about 2 tanks vs. 1 tank

2 Tank hits:
Low luck 1 hit 100% of the time
With Luck 0 hits 25%, 1 hits 50%, 2 hits, 25%, Thus the expected value is 0*.25+1*.5+2*.25= 1 hit. BUT, you can’t really hit twice against 1 tank, so the actual expected value is .75. So low luck gives an unintended boost in hits.

We’ve literally put about 18 hours into this game, well over 20 full turns. It looks like it will finally end with Germany taking Moscow in a turn or two.

Basic flow went like this:

First 5 rounds:

UK is a super power, the control Africa, have a fleet in the Med and in the Atlantic. Transport guys into Germany.
US built navy and bombers to invade UK. They never really get the chance though, UK loaded up about 20 inf over the first 5 turns and any landings would be futile.
Germany took out much of UK navy focused on ground game vs USSR+some UK+Japan coming in. Major battle of attrition they nearly lost.
Japan invaded Alaska and established a an Industrial complex. They constantly flooded troops into Alaska.
Russia did what Russia does, build infantry and trudge.

Next 10 rounds:
UK navy eventually gets completely destroyed by US and German air forces. They are crippled and poor for the rest of the game.
US Spends a lot of time and money fighting Japanese. Sends Transports into Archangel in Lieu of attacking UK. Loses Naval fleet to UK planes and switches to mass bombers for the Atlantic.
Germany gets pushed back pretty far into Germany by combined allied forces. With the help of US in Archangel, pushes forward though, and eventually takes Caucasus. Builds basically nothing but tanks, infantry and artillery.
Japan retakes Africa for UK, and sends ships int Mediterranean. Eventually builds some Industrial complexes in Asia to help push Germany.
Russia did what Russia does, build infantry and trudge.

Final rounds
US responds to Japan’s Asia activities by building a new Pacific fleet, eventually takes control of Pacific.
With Japaneses help, Russia vs. Caucasus is a massive stalemate, skirmishes for nearby territories ensue.
UK Can’t do much, at any point, 7 bombers are within range of anything they build. They build fighters to send to Russia.

In a few rounds it looks like Germany will have enough to take Russia.

So my roomate and I have been playing Germany-Us vs UK Japan USSR with the turn order UK,US,USSR,G,J.

It is actually extraordinarily balanced. We’ve played over 12 turns now, probably about 10 hours, and it looks like there is no end in sight. UK got shut down but it takes fairly constant US investment to keep them down while fending off the Japanese. Germany and Russia have been going back and forth forever now. Africa was conquered by Germany and US, but is now back in UK’s hands thanks to Japan. The game may finally end if Germany can take down Moscow, but Japan has built an IC in Sinkaing to flood in defensive troops, otherwise it could be at least 5 or 6 more turns and go either way.

@Nomarclegs:

If your games have become repetitive why not change the turn order.  US, Japan, USSR, Germany, UK would change the dynamic for sure.  No more Pearl Harbor; no more Brits in Borneo; US can stack up China; UK Indian Ocean fleet is toast, etc.
Might be cool. Lots of new angles.

Yeah there are a few things we are going to start playing around with. Also, sent you a pm Nomar in regards to the other thread, not sure if anything pops up when you have a new pm. But I may only be intermittently available over the next few days, had a recent death in the family.

Alright, my roommate and I just had another game with what I would called excellent Russian and US play(I was playing axis), and two IC’s were still ultimately unstoppable. Russia traded ground for a while, but in the end Japan couldn’t be held back. US devoted enough Navy to get in and take an undefended Indonesia and build an IC on it, but was retaken by Japan a couple turns later. I need to have a play by forum game against a really good allied player to show me this can really be stopped (without completely ignoring Germany). Hobbes you in?

@coorran:

@ragnarok628:

i think that would just take away options for japan– no more ‘pearl harbor lite’.  new units in SZ52 will just immediately die to japan again anyway.

Really? With 20 IPC, he could place AC+ 1 sub. Add to that the submerged sub already in SZ52+ W US BB + 1-2 FTR, that’s no small fleet to sink!

The only quirk there is that the BB can’t move into SZ52 without starting a combat. So if there is already a Japanese fleet in SZ52, you couldn’t combine the way you are saying. But…. since we are making up a rule anyways, you could always temporarily allow the BB to move in without starting a combat.

@ragnarok628:

i think that would just take away options for japan– no more ‘pearl harbor lite’.  new units in SZ52 will just immediately die to japan again anyway.

You could still go lite, you would just have to deal with the fact that you are killing SZ52 to slow down America in the Atlantic. Alternately you could go big as Japan, but it bogs you down for an extra turn.

I’m flooding this thing with questions it seems

If an ally (say US), builds an IC in a axis country (say Norway), then the axis retake it, then another ally retakes it (such as UK). Does the IC belong then to US or UK?

Thanks again.

Here would be an interesting added ruleset, not intended to shift balance, but shift motivations.

1. Pearl Harbor- If Japan gains control of SZ52 on J1, US player loses 10 IPC, representing naval losses on ships not in use.
2. Awoke a Sleeping Giant- If Pearl Harbor happens. US can place 20 IPC worth of free naval forces in SZ52 during the deployment phase of US1. This is scrambling the remaining fleet in Hawaii.

The result is that Japan would have to either kill SZ52, hurting US efforts to go to the Atlantic(10 IPC), but face a significant counter force, or Leave SZ52 alone and face a significant counter force anyway. I like it because it is not just adding to US power, there is a trade off. Though the 10 IPC damage and 20 IPC of navy may need to be tweaked.

@ragnarok628:

i think the most balanced way to change up the teams would be GER + UK vs RUS + JAP + US.   the german/british side i think would be stronger than the normal Axis, but not so much.  UK vs. JAP in the pacific and south asia would play out pretty much the same, but the UK BB would give the ‘new axis’ a good position in the atlantic.  UK would be able to quickly help germany pressure russia, but they would hang on to most of their income and japan can be of considerable help in propping up moscow.  US would have to focus on taking the atlantic, they’d have to go either africa or europe.

ANYWAY, it would be the same starting economies, except UK is a stronger power, due to not having to fight for africa initially and stronger in the atlantic.

I actually like this a lot. I’ll have to try this one. You may have to mix up turn orders though. 1-2 punch from UK and Germany hitting Russia on subsequent turns could be too much. I would disagree on UK being stronger though. Japan has lots of territories to take quickly in most games, UK would have almost nothing to grab in your scenario, plus they will lose canada, india australia quick.

It would be worth a try, here’s how I see it playing out:

Russia sends everything at Germany
Germany builds minimal sea forces and sends every land unit East, far outmatching Russia (it has nothing to fear from UK)
UK cries itself to sleep every turn and builds as many infantry as possible, UK1 india factory may be worthwile just to keep Africa.
Japan…. well they own the Pacific by far, I’d say probably starts streaming guys into Alaska. Best way to win though might be to help Russia hit Berlin. Japan can battle US and Germany for Africa
US focuses on murdering UK, though it will probably won’t succeed for several rounds. Sacks Africa quickly along with Germany. This puts them up a few.

I see US/Germany winning, they can take UK or Moscow before long. The real dark horse would be Japan, but they don’t really have the ability to pick up income outside of China and Sinkiang.

@Hobbes:

Regarding the 2 ICs, I just faced Japan using that strat on a 7 Powers game last night, placed on FIC/Kwantung.

Japan didn’t attack SZ52 on its first round, so the US invaded the Solomons and placed a 2nd carrier on the water. The Japanese replied by building armor for the mainland and subs against the US.

For rounds 2 and 3 the US played cat and mouse while making sure that Australia didn’t fall to Japan by sending fighters and also investing on subs. The turning point on the Pacific was the sinking of a Japanese Battleship and its single transport by a lucky attack made by 2 US subs. From that moment on the US gained the advantage in numbers on the Pacific… my opponent then conceded on turn 5 because Germany couldn’t break the Caucasus defense nor advance into WR.

The revealing part was how 1 of the mainland ICs was essentially useless because there was no money for it.

Skipping SZ52 is a mistake to me. Also having a solo BB and transport seems like a mistake, but I guess it’s hard to judge without seeing the game.

Haven’t lost yet, I’ll let you know  :-D

@Bunnies:

@Nomarclegs:  I’m not going to dig through another thread to look for “Iron Horde”.  You want comments, give good details.  Like my saying Japan should use the “Voltron” strategy probably isn’t going to help you understand what I’m talking about.  (Clearly you could ALSO use “Macross” or “Robotech”.)

@nutbar:  You’re claiming Japan should be weakened, and that Germany should be weakened or Allies strengthened.  Please provide specific reasoning if you can.  Otherwise, the discussion devolves quickly into one side claiming apples are better, and another side claiming oranges are better.  Of course, maybe that’s what you want, a show of hands.  For my part, I preferred apples a couple years ago, but I like oranges a lot more these days.  Tomatoes are also very nice for chicken dishes, or for throwing at angry young gophers.  Perhaps the gophers are angry because I’m throwing tomatoes at them, but I digress.

@Biggg:  Claiming it’s a Moscow vs Berlin race is, I think, correct.  Particularly given Japan’s large starting navy and air force, with US having little to match, plus difficulty for UK and Russia in getting reinforcements to that area, plus the difficulty of 1) UK maintaining control of Africa, and 2) of UK threatening a West Europe invasion without US support (threatening West Europe forces Germany to either add a lot of units to Western Europe to defend, removing units from attack on Russia, or has Germany abandon West Europe, giving Allies a much easier time moving fleet in the Atlantic.  (For example, German bombers on Western Europe threaten a lot of the African coast, can hit points in Africa, can hit any number of territories in Russia, threaten all sea zones around London, and threaten any US transports maintaining a East Canada-London transport chain (forcing Allies to build additional escorts for such transports).

BUT I’d say that’s just the nature of the game.  If you want a different experience, try looking for something like Pact of Steel (it’s a version of Axis and Allies on the TripleA platform).  There, Australia and Union of South Africa are worth 3 IPC, and China and Italy are added as powers, changing the game dynamic to the point that Kill Japan First strategies are (in my opinion) feasible.  You could try house rules too, but strengthen Germany to compensate.

Yeah, true, I have been busy with school and not able to check out your version. I wonder if it would be possible to replace an existing Japanese ship with a few German Infantry for team balance.  I’ll look into Pact of Steel ASAP (screw grad school).

@mtngoatjoe:

@Mr.Biggg:

@mtngoatjoe:

I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1.

I’m curious why it needs to be J1. You can always get 1 on J2. If US has built subs they are 2 turns from using them.

Because, there are already two Allied subs running around, plus whatever else is left of the US Pacific fleet. I make it a priority to go island hopping, starting with Borneo, but to do that, Japan needs to protect its transport And if it buys another transport (though I tend not to), it needs to protect that. Buying a destroyer on J1 gives you options for chasing down the subs earlier (never a guarantee, but I try to). This is all aimed at having my entire air force pointed at the Caucasus at the end of J4.

I might even buy a second destroyer on J2 if the US was gettin’ froggy. If, if, if….

I guess the difference would be then my indifference to the remaining subs. I just ignore them, more or less, and keep my fleet with my transports. 1 UK sub can’t do anything if you have a battleship escorting your trans.

@mtngoatjoe:

I think Japan needs a destroyer on J1.

I’m curious why it needs to be J1. You can always get 1 on J2. If US has built subs they are 2 turns from using them.

@Veqryn:

still waiting for that online rulebook……
someone has a pdf somewhere in hasbro… can you tell the lazy guy to upload it please?

Check page one, this thread

@nutbar:

Yes, Japan’s setup needs to be changed in order to weaken them. Germany’s setup should be weakened OR the allie’s setup be strengthened.

I wouldn’t agree with #2. I think this game is fantastically well balanced. I was just arguing that the original setup of Japan encourages a Moscow vs Berlin race.

@Nomarclegs:

This is the state of the game, just before J1 (I’m playing Allies, I opponent has retired to think it over):

I’m enacting Operation Iron Horde (detailed under “Russian moves to start the game”).  He faces: India (2 Russian fighters, 1 Russian tank, 2 UK inf, AA and IC); China (2 US inf, 1 US fighter, 1 UK fighter); Borneo (1 UK inf); New Guinea (2 UK inf); Buryatia (6 Russian inf), Sinkiang (2 Russian tanks, 2 US inf); SZ45 (UK sub, JP sub); SZ15 (2 UK cruisers, UK carrier); Egypt (1 German tank).

Would you still make your standard J1 move?

Oh lol, just noticed you said SZ15, thought this was up in England. But yeah, as other guy pointed out, this is not possible. Also, you didn’t send anything to help with Borneo then?

@Nomarclegs:

This is the state of the game, just before J1 (I’m playing Allies, I opponent has retired to think it over):

I’m enacting Operation Iron Horde (detailed under “Russian moves to start the game”).  He faces: India (2 Russian fighters, 1 Russian tank, 2 UK inf, AA and IC); China (2 US inf, 1 US fighter, 1 UK fighter); Borneo (1 UK inf); New Guinea (2 UK inf); Buryatia (6 Russian inf), Sinkiang (2 Russian tanks, 2 US inf); SZ45 (UK sub, JP sub); SZ15 (2 UK cruisers, UK carrier); Egypt (1 German tank).

Would you still make your standard J1 move?

Hrm, that’s exceptionally Japan focused and rolls went pretty well for allies, but lets go with it. Also, Germany let you keep that second cruiser alive? So lets go through a couple mental rounds of this scenario with two IC’s. J1 retakes borneo. Pearl Harbor (for the sake of argument goes overwhelming). Knocks off UK cruiser. Not sure where you have UK carrier, so we’ll leave that be. J1 takes china, leaves buryatia alone. This leaves, say 2-3 inf in China, 2 inf 2-3 planes in French Indo-China and an IC in Kwangtun and FIC.

US1 builds some fleet, in the scenario described Japan would have 1 bb 1 cr 1 sub 1 ca and 2 ftr in hawaii and is safe from counter.

R2 takes Manchuria with 6 inf, could try FIC with 1 tank and 2 FTR, but would have almost zero chance. Probably uses 2 ftr + 2 tanks in China. loses 1-2 tanks lands back in India.
UK2 builds 3 units in india, Maybe has a bomber in range? not sure, any attempts would be risky.
So lets see J2, could go with 5 planes 1 bomber, 3 inf 1 tank + 1 bombard into india, gives about a 75% chance. Then land fighters in Kwangtun to defend against remaining 6 R inf and tank. Or just turtle up, Build 3 units in FIC, 3 in Kwang, land 4 planes in Kwangtun, 3 in FIC. That would leave something like 3 inf 1 tank 5 planes 1 bomber plus whatever 6 units you build to defend against a round 2 push, should be more than enough. Pull the Navy into, say, sz 49. Meanwhile what is defending Russia?