Best posts made by Myygames

@Myygames surrendered to @Arthur-Bomber-Harris in L22 OOB FINAL LL Myygames (X) VS ABH (L+50)

Masterfull played, hail to the OOB champion!

It is very sad to hear that trulpen has left us. I played him only twice, but the first game against him really changed the way I play this game forever. I contemplated for months how to counter his strategies. My fist game as allies against him was a complete loss, and I never learned so much again in a single game. He tought me the 111 BB retreat opening with extensive carrier builds on both boards afterwards. He beat me with a three Japanese AC build in 36 that enabled his planes to crush me. He had a way of playing G40 that was unique. tribute to trulpen, one of the greatest in this forum!
May he rest in peace.

@The-Janus

Check out these strategy articles:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1397227

Some comments from my side:

• mechs are excellent for the Germans on their way east. They are also useful for all other nations, but maybe not in the numbers Germany should build them.
• I consider artillery a very useful unit. It helps in particular to give punch to large stacks of infantry, eg those that tend to build around Moscow. The ratio of infantry to artillery is depateable, but you want it at least to be 1:5 if you intend to (threaten) attack.
• your navy analysis seems pretty correct; battleships and cruisers are far too expensive to be build. In my opinion saving the ones on the board is worth it, but building them seems waste of IPC

@knallbär

Your game is not optimal but far from being screwed. some thoughts for your US3 turn

• why not take Gibraltar with your two transports. The BB can bombard. you will get the italian bomber killed, nice.
• get all your ships including UK into SZ 91. Maybe one UK transport back to Canada, you can build 2 infantry there. Use SZ91 to threaten half europe in the future turns.
• build an airbase there in the next turns and bring ships into the med to deny italy its objective. dont lose gibraltar again!
• take two infantry from brazil to guiana, build a transport in new york that can pick them uo next turn on the way to gibraltar
• your bomber in french west africa can knock out the last italian transport. nice
• its very important to stabilize egypt. you must also collect a force there that can re-conquer alexandria and maybe more of north africa or against japan. build a minor IC there now and use your fleet in 76 along with the units in kenya and sudan to stabilize.
• build two infantry in south africa now every round. use your transport in 72 to collect them now, next round switch transports in 71 and 81. build two units there now every round plus 3 in egypt.
• the tactical in SZ76 should go to india as that is also threatened.
• buy only ground units in india from now on
• you need more US ships against japan. build a carrier at minimum, i suggest to put all but the one transport to the west with US. continue to not focus on ships in the pacific the following rounds.
• the transport in sz42 needs to die, use an anzac DD and safe the US ships
• not sure where your bombers in hawaii are aiming… you can move to amour and bombard for sure but japan seems to be ready to bring fighters to intercept you. you can try it nevertheless. alternatively relocating to queensland is not a bad idea and could also provide a few hit points for india should he press.
• china is not dead yet… try to safe the fighter at all costs. do as much damage to japanese units as possible.
• try to position some units in south australia to be able to attack western australia if he lands there. alternatively i also like a fast moving unit on the continent.

Just some suggestions from a quick view. good luck to you!

I Must say I am also Not 100% sure I understand the issue. I leave it to @gamerman01 to Decide.

As Martin Said we agreed on a bid but have Not started yet.

Just let me know whom I am against and I will go for it.

Besides that I love martins statement:

@martin said in Post League Game Results Here:

I don’t care who I am crushing, and I also never remember the names. LOL ;-)

Just have fun;-)

This is an exciting topic! And one that can be debated for ages I guess ;-) Nevertheless, I would like to give some thoughts into that.

First of all, I agree that the allies need a high bid in this game, obviously.

@simon33 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

The longer people play this game the more the Axis seems to be favoured. Allies benefit from Axis mistakes or dicings a lot though.

And it is also true, that the game changed with the strategies that players employed over the years. If I remember correctly people saw the Allies in huge favour some ten years ago, nowadays this has completely turned. So the “fair” bid, meaning a bid that equals chances to win the game between players of equal strength, is also a kind of a flow, depending on what gamers call the “Meta”, the current strategies out there and employed by players.

My experience is also that not all players adapt correctly to this flow. Many players do not judge correctly what would be fair and what they need as allies to win a game. The problem here is perception. A bid of 30-40 is NOT a high bid, it is in fact pretty low. And many players do seem not to have realized that. So advising new players to target higher bids in their games will definitely help them.

The final bid of a game, the agreed bid, is from my point of view, also a projection of how both players view each other in terms of playing skill. If I think I am the better player, I am tempted to bid lower for the Allies, because I think I can still beat my oponent.

@crockett36 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

would i be wrong in saying, the best players are giving the bid away and playing the axis?!

And the wrong perception is probably also the reason for that statement, the fact that the better players like Andrew playing the Axis far more often than the Allies. Is that the fault of the better player? Not sure… let us view this from another angle: If I bid 30 to play Allies against my opponent, I am basically telling him that I think I am the better player, because I can even win with 30 against his Axis. Question here is: Why does my opponent not read this correctly and let me play Allies with 30, a bid that is pretty low? This would actually even out the skill (given that I am indeed the better player in this example…). My answer is perception here, as stated above. Many players still think that 30 additional IPC is a lot of stuff, and that they can get the advantage with it… but no, it’s not.

Following that logic, if all players had a better perception of what is “fair”, the better players would far more often play the Allies than the Axis (which is not the case, see Andrews post). So go on, shout it out to everyone: The Allies need bigger bids! We need to change peoples perception of that (and not enforce it with rules).

@crockett36 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

I would recommend a bid that is also logical, reasonable AND historical. Dump it in the US fleet or the Chinese and Russian armies. OR change bid placement rules. Which are reasonable, but arbitrary. OR ask Andrew for a 30 ipc Allied bid placement and go from there.

I am actually against any proposal that will tell me what to bid. I think that the bid for the Allies is the one option, where the Allies can set a tone in the beginning of the game, where they can chose what is important. Other than only reacting this enables them to chose the battleground, at least in some limited places of the board. If you come up with fixed units, the Allied player will not be able to do this. I think we should not discourage allied creativity, and each player should come up with his own thoughts on how the IPCs given can be used best to stop the Axis.

Just my 10 cents…

Congratulations to @AndrewAAGamer for the win and @oysteilo for survining that Long! Really hard and Long battle fought here!

@crockett36 not sure if you saw my post?

What if I proposed a game to you: We both roll a die, if you are higher you win, if I roll higher I win, if we both roll the same we call it a draw. What? You don’t like it? Purely luck? - Yeah, I think the same…

The fact that luck is determining the outcome of games is something that I do not like in general. In my opinion a game outcome should be much more determined by the decisions the players take, by the strategy and tactics they apply then by a random factor. And while I admit that some random factor is needed in all games in order to bring variance, I think that the dice have too much impact in Axis and Allies games.

As you might have guessed by now, I am a big fan of the Low Luck variant of Axis and Allies. I have noted that many players do not like this variant, and I wonder why. So I want to take the opportunity to explain -and advertise!- this variant here. I will go through it in three sections, staring with explaining the Low Luck Principle, then the options the TrippleA engine holds for us, and in the end explaining some Implications to the game and my personal opinion. Feel free to comment, add or disagree with me!

Please not that all my examples relate to G40 OOB rules.

A. The Low Luck Principle

The Low Luck variant uses the expected result as basis for a combat outcome. It directly applies the expected number of hits from your units in the battle, instead of rolling for each unit. Dice are only rolled in case the expected result is not a full hit. By doing this, the expected result does not change, but the variance of the results is much more limited.

To determine the number of hits in a round of battle the total power of a combatant is determined by summing up the (offensive or defensive) strengthes of its units (e.g. for 2 tanks and 1 fighter attacking that would be 9 = 3 + 3 + 3). The statistical expectation is that you score one hit for every 6 total strength you have (e.g. in above example that would be 1.5). The Low Luck calculation consequently applies an automatic hit for every 6 points of total power. For the remaining power, that cannot be divided by 6, a dice is rolled to determine if a hit is scored (e.g. in above example that would be on dice with hit at 3).

Examples

• If you are attacking with 6 Infantry, you expect to score one hit. You are rolling 6 times (hit at 1), and the expectation is that one of the Infantry hits and the others miss. Low Luck will sum up your total strength to 6, and let you score one automatic hit.
• If you are defending with 2 fighters and 1 Infantry your defence power is 10 (4 + 4 + 2). You will score one automatic hit and roll one die (hit at 4 = 10 - 6) to determine if you score a second hit.

The Low Luck principle can be applied for all units that target the same set of enemy units. In my playgroup we are applying it whenever possible, e.g. also for offshore bombardment and strategic bombing raids. In TrippleA not all of this can be handeled, but I will explain now what options are there in our beloved game engine.

B. TrippleA Low Luck Options

There are several options to implement the Low Luck principle into your TrippleA game, all available at the start of the game through Map Options. I will give an overview on how trippleA behaves with these options (based on my experience / version - 2.5.22294)

• Low Luck

This option will generally apply the Low Luck principle to all of your sea and land combats. A little exception is the behaviour of submarine and offshore bombardment. Note that this option includes air battles prior to strategic bombing raids and AA defense of complexes, but not the raid damage.

Here some remarks how the engine handeles combats:

a) Submarines will always rolled seperately. This applies for all combats, no matter if destroyers or planes are involved. Nevertheless, if several submarines are present the Low Luck principle will be applied to them (e.g. two subs roll one dice at 4).
b) Planes will be rolled seperately from naval units if enemy submarines are present and no friendly destroyer present (since the planes cannot hit the subs in that case).
c) Offshore bombardment will always be rolled seperately, if several ships bombard the Low Luck principle will be applied to them (e.g. two cruisers score an automatic hit).
d) Air battles prior to strategic bombing raids will be treated with Low Luck, e.g. 4 bombers participating in an air battler will roll one dice at 4 to hit.

• Low Luck for AntiAircraft

This option will apply the Low Luck principle to all Anti Aircraft Guns. This means 1 AA hits at a 3, two AA score an automatic hit (provided that there are enough planes attacking). If not ticked AAA will each be rolled seprately with hits at 1.

• Low Luck for Bombing and Territory Damage

This option will apply the Low Luck principle for the damage done by strategic bombing raids, in particulary result in an average damage each time. This option will limit the damage done to a facility by a successfull raider to 5 or 6 damage for strategic bombers and 3 or 4 damage for tactical bombers
The engine will roll a dice for each bombing plane: 1-3 will result in the lower damage and 4-6 in the higher damage.

• Low Luck for Technology

This option will apply the Low Luck principle to your tech rolls. This means you have only one roll to determine if ou get a tech. It also means that you can spend 30 IPC to buy 6 tokens and get an automatic tech (Not sure what happens if you spend more - who does that anyways??). Rolls on the tech charts, to determine which tech you have developed is performed as normal.

• Battle Calculator

Just want to mention here that the trippleA battle calculator can calculate also Low Luck combat.

C. Implications to the Game
In this section I will give some remarks from my experience how the game changes with Low Luck. I actually think that the changes are not that big, given that the majority of the rules still apply. Nevertheless I have noted some behaviours with my own play that I would like to share.

a) Less need for overwhelming forces. Probably the biggest impact I notice is that with Low Luck you have less need to bring overwhelming forces. In normal dice games there is a high variance of results, and the only way to mitigate unpleasant results is to increase the numbers considerably above the number needed in average. This is not true in Low Luck games. At some point your odds will be at 100%, and adding more units will only impact the expected amounts of losses, not the result itself.
The reduced need of overwhelming forces applies for both offense and defense.

b) More predictable leftovers. In Low Luck games you can much more reliable calculate which forces will remain after the battle. This often leaves you in a position to additionaly understand if the remaining forces are enough to survive counter attacks, and integrate that into your decision whether or not to do an attack.

c) Calculated losses. When planning your Low Luck attack you are often able to guarantee that you are not losing any valuable units such as planes. If you are e.g. attacking 6 Infantries with 2 Infantries and enough planes you will not lose any of your planes, guaranteed.

d) Secure trade of territories. With Low Luck the trading of territories is reliable. If you e.g. attack a territory containing 1 enemy Infantry with 2 Infantries and a bomber you are guaranteed that you will conquer it, and you can reliably block enemies there next turn e.g. from blizzing through it, or stacking planes there.

D. Some Personal Opinion

Does Low Luck favour Allies or Axis?
Thats the usual question I get when discussion this option, and, honestly, I am not so sure here. Reviewing the above mentioned game implications I tend to say that Low Luck favours the allies more in the beginning, but this gets less and less during the game. This is, because in the beginning the axis has more potential to bring overwhelming forces (e.g. against china or russia) to level out the luck than the allies have. On the other hand, the allies are given better opportunity to hold precious spots (e.g. sea zones) with a marginal edge. Secure territory trading is something that is valuable for both, but also favours the allies I would say. Burma comes to my mind, which can be really game changing of you fail to trade as UK. Being able to more percisely predict the leftovers in a battle is clearly in favour of the axis. Overall, I tend to bid slightly less for Low Luck games than with usual dice.

So why do I like Low Luck?
Let me explain with an example: Let’s say I am Japan and have brought 10 tanks to attack India, which is guarded by 10 Infantry. With normal dice I have a chance of around 85%, with an average of 4 tanks left. That is a decent chance, but it does also imply that I will lose this battle every 6th time. Reflecting that, I think it is not fair. I have invested a lot in that situation, but the result of dices might still deny me my prize. Not only have I invested twice the amount of IPC than india, I have also build the tanks, moved them, and - most importently - I have played the game in a way that allows me to make this attack against an overwhelmed foe now. In being able to make this attack I have demonstrated a tactical skill that should now pay off. If the dice decided that I will lose all tanks in round one (which is possible) I will feel cheated.

Another example: Let’s say you are Japan and you have managed to outbuild my american fleet in the pacific. You have involved the allies in a lot of small battles that lead to the american fleet becoming smaller and smaller and now you have made a huge fleetpurchase in SZ6 and have a fleet there that is outnumbering mine Hawaii by far. Now I, realizing that I will lose the game, throw all my units into a desperate last assult against SZ6 that has merly 10% of success chance, and -guess what- I win and sink your fleet. Doesn’t that feel cheesy?

In my opinion this game is about strategy, about tactic and about using the rules and the map to your advantage. Dice can screw that all, even if you are the master tactican. And in the end, when being diced, I have also invested a lot of time into a game. I can stand losing because someone is better, but not because someone is luckier. I think dice should have less influence on results in this game. I think Low Luck makes the game a better game.

During my time here I have realized that many of you think otherwise. I would be interested to understand why you have such a different perception than I have, and what you like or dont like of the Low Luck concept. Feel free to express your toughts and feedback!

Thanks for reading this far and… Good Luck to you!

@trulpen said in L21 #1 trulpen (X) vs Myygames (A+45) OOB LL:

You’ll have to excuse me, but I’m not so used to OOB anymore. Remembered in the middle of the turn that there’s no draw-back in DOWing against Russia (big difference to BM3), so restarted the turn with that change. Then of course messed up tr-movement (took the wrong one to Siberia), so did some adjustment during NCM.

Yey, no drawback on attacking russia, only the mongolian terretorries.

Thats why I dont play varaints: too many rules to remember :-)

By the way, I do not mind editing, f you did a mistake. As long as there are no relevant dice rolled my proposal is that edist are ok. especially as allies, I will need to fix things in the UK turn that I m,essed up with US :-)

Thanks, guys! I had that wrong in my mind, solves some issues for me!

@crockett36 much better, thanks!

Anyways, before I look at your G1, thanks for starting this game, looking forward!

Good Luck to you!

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

No, I was wrong.
I searched for Krieghund’s responses on the matter, and he clearly states that kamikazes don’t force combat.
The destroyers are sunk, but the transport can conduct amphibious assault despite the sub because kamikazes don’t create a sea battle.

Thank you for clarity! This is a really complicated coincidence of several complicated rules ;-)

Sub plus kamikaze is still powerful though…

@crockett36 ANZAC is up!

@trulpen said in L21 #1 trulpen (X) vs Myygames (A+45) OOB LL:

@trulpen said in L21 #1 trulpen (X) vs Myygames (A+45) OOB LL:

either decide beforehand which dice will be the LL one (either sub or fleet/air.

Partly missed something and partly suggested something that wasn’t logical.

I therefore suggest that the power of subs, surface ships and air is added and then the LL-die can be rolled here in the forum. I’ll show you how. Lets say it’s a value of 4, then

[dice 1d6<=4]

or if 2 it’s

[dice 1d6<=2]

The issue with subs is also that they cannot hit air. So there is another case where you need to divide the rolls.

In principle AAA is just rolling all subs seperately. ever. that could be adjusted in some cases, eg. when a DD is present and there is no air at the opponent. in f2f games we are doing that, but I am not so sure if it makes sense to adjust the AAA here manually, with dioces rolling in the forum. It seems to complicate things and there could be errors. Also think that you might be able to combine the sub values with the other fleet in round one, but you might need to seperate them in round 2.

BTW in f2f games we are also adding bombardment value of ships to the total of attacking amphibious units in round 1. Thats also nice.

In the light of simplicity I would opt to use the AAA options as they are.

And: Scramble decision and order of losses in the Med for you :-)

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

The sub prevention is for combat move only.

You are in the combat phase. Both destroyers are gone, so you have loaded transport vs. sub. Sub gets a shot, and if it misses, the transport retreats because the attacker has no chance against that sub now

I was also wondering about this scenario.

My interpretation would be that the US player can chose to ignore the sub in the CM. This is possible due to surface warships present. US DD are then sunk in the Combat phase.

I would assume the sub is still ignored. Is this incorrect? @gamerman01 ?

@crockett36 Anzac is up!

@trulpen Can you adjust losses in AAA inside a combat? Not sure how this is done, I think the editor will not work within a combat.

So, if we say we adjust the combat rolls whenever possible, would we need to roll all dices manually for a combat where this is relevant? And then edit the result?

@crockett36 said in crockett36 vs myygames x with tech:

edited some unnecessary blockers

Fully OK. But I think Bessarabia then stays Italian, right? I will edit that.