Posts made by Natasin

@calvinhobbesliker:

If OOB is used, all allied strats will fail

I think I know what you mean. I played a Global game where I convinced the Russian player to not attack me and I was able to take India on J4. Mind, the German player had to convince me to wait a turn before I attacked (J3). I 21 planes against India along with 10 infantry was a slaughter. So good was the plan that I built a Major in Malaya and the game was over before I even used it. To be fair, the Allies were not tactically sound.

What tactics could you see otherwise to at least distract the US (Alaska? Taking Hawaii, but only have two aircraft carrier and one battleship). It makes me think Japan has to build two Aircraft Carrier turn two to help harass the US. As for the US, built those subs and go harass Japan until they cry. It won’t save India sadly though.

@Weezer:

I like to attack Korea because its 3 less bucks for Japan and it buys the other Russian territories time because the Japanese player has to use up his precious land units to attack, Im assuming I have two infantry left in Korea, and an IC in Manchuria would divert forces from southern china (burma road) and India which is what I am really trying to accomplish with those 18 infantry.

Also usually Japan will not have many land units available to defend Amur when he attacks J1 so it should be fairly easy to counter attack Amur R2 and stall the Japanese even more!

@Weezer: Attacking Korea with Russia works well OOB but not so well in the Alpha setup when Korea has two more infantry and Manchuria has two more infantry also. I still think it’s an overall waste of an three infantry. Sending more wouldn’t help either because two or even 18 infantry would just get slaughter. Korea’s a horrible dead zone for Russia except to just irritate Japan (and if that’s the allies plan then that might useful).

@Oztea: I think your suggestions have merit as I’ve strongly considered sending the airplanes but I think Germany has to have tried SeaLion to be able to give up some of the offensive power. There is some merit of sending the airpower R1 and trying to get it back to Russia by R4-R5, but there is simply just too much distance. Also I think tactical retreats and avoiding deadzones will allow Russia to survive in the east for a significant period of time.

In a game I played, I moved Russia’s 18 infantry into Sakha because I felt like it had the most flexibility to attack or defend. I’m a big of creating deadzones. Unfortunately, Japan invaded into Amur and I suddenly realized that my Sakha army was trapped. The Japanese player had flown a great majority of his planes into Manchuria (I was playing oob setup so I think this would change in Alpha) and I realized that no matter where I moved that I those 18 units were dead. I could attack but the counterattack would be too painful even if it cost Japan units and Japan can counter attack with major forces if Japan doesn’t declare war J1 or J2.

Knowing this, I’d think the likely tactic would be to move the forces into Buryatia and move to Yakut the turn after. Yeah Russia will lose resources but won’t lose those troops without a proper and painful fight without air cover.

I can see attacking but that just seems to be more of an annoyance than a proper tactic with teeth. This is especially true in Alpha setup.

What do you guys think?

@zooooma:

I recal a concern about this that if UK is at war with Japan but Russia is not at war in Europe, Russia can land a fighter in Egypt, forcing Italy to ignore it or attack Russia.  This only really works if UK declares war on turn one or two, and Germany has not attacked Russia by turn two or three.  I don’t see this as a problem for the Axis:

• Japan would love a DoW by UK

• Germany tends to attack Russia anyway

• UK can generally hold Egypt by turn two without the Russians

If it’s the ahistoric nature of the situation that bothers you, how do you feel about Japan helping Italy in the Med, or America ignoring a Japanese occupation of Hawaii?

I’ve seen it noted before ( I believe by Krieg) that the attacker can choose to not attack units that it is not at war with. So technically Italy could still attack and Russia would just watch from the sidelines. Because it isn’t a combat turn of Russia, then I doubt they could choose to go to war at that one moment especially if it’s before turn 4.

This was the issue I was talking about in my other post. There seems to be no way around England not building 9 units on turn one if they want to keep Africa. I mean I appreciate that if you build less than 9 then you can salvage (somewhat) by not doing the Taranto attack.

Do you always buy a carrier G1 then cause otherwise those APs will go poof E2

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.

What you all say makes sense to one degree or another.  The dice are useful in changing strategies.  I do wish there was a way to make sure that people could have different goals to win the game.  The victory city conditions can make the goals similiar.  I do wish Japan had a viable way to take on the US, or even an effective KJF.  Good dialogue, maybe I just need to play against people who know what they are doing :)  (That’s why I came here)

Switch, you’re completely correct.  A good player can stack the luck in their favor fairly well.  A good player is not going to lose that many games in the long run.  My roommate relies a lot on luck and loses most of the time.  I know it for truth, but still dislike luck.  Though I slightly disagree about dice not losing a player the game.  There are important battles that dice can sway that may lose a player the game.  As a general rule, that does not always happen very much.  Again, over 100 games, it will not happen much at all.  Strategy is the most important, but any good strategy can be destroyed by luck.  In a pickup game it may not be important, but tournament play is far more unforgiving of bad luck.  Luck always depends on the opponent.

I have been wondering if tournament play often sees new strategies.  For example, most people know not to purchase fighters for Russia until breathing room appears.  Most people know that purchasing a battleship as Germany is likely to severely hurt the land battle.  UK, US and Japan have a little bit of flexiblility, but the strategy tends to remain simliar.  Can Germany or Japan truly take over the US if the other player knows how to counter the Canadian Shield or attacks like it?  I can see people using all sorts of methods in regular ‘it doesn’t matter’ game play, but do tournament players use similiar strategy?

There are methods that are tried and true and methods that may win once or twice to the unsuspecting opponent.  Is A&A predictable, or is it full of endless variety?

What have I started! :)

There is a place and time for all types of rules.  The dice give A&A that extra mysterious element.  To limit that amount of luck would change the game similiar to chess, but still hold a large amount of strategy.  I am not fond of luck type situations and introduced these proposed variants as a simplified method to rid the game of luck, if the players want it that way.

Jen, keep in mind that you want to stay away from charts as much as possible.  Rules need to be as simple as possible to be effective.  “taking a 10” rule would allow people to take the averages in some situations.  Even the full blown No Luck variant is somewhat too complicated, but easy enough with practice.  I would like to see a way to kill off extreme luck, but LL might be the best choice.

Switch, it is easy to call A&A simply a game, and you are completely correct.  Unfortunately, some of us poor unfortunate souls have a certain disdain for luck.  We realish the competition and do not mind being beaten by good strategy, but hate losing to luck.  Over time, we learn to cut our losses and remember that not every game will be so unlucky.  We also learn to not throw our chances to luck.  As a matter of course, different players have different tolerarances to luck.

The major point of this thread is to think of a method that will be satisfying to a multitude of people without changing the game.  Luck is an important aspect of war to vary the game.  I like no luck only due to trying to test out new strategies that would not be possible overwise.  Thanks for the interesting dialogue.

I certainly thought of these variants to satisfy even the most paranoid dicer roller.  My friends think I bring bad luck to my dice because of my attitude.  This is even more important when rolling starting stats for Dungeons and Dragon.  I am rarely satisfied with negative results unless I think it might benefit the character idea.

Though Switch, I would hate to think you would burn your board before giving up your dice :)  I personally would hate to see 1 infantry take on 12 infantry and win.  It would severly undermine my faith in strategy.  If it happened to me or against me I would feel cheated.  Luck should be as minimized as much as possible.  I often play dominos with my family and I dislike dominos due the immense inherent luck involved.  I still win often enough because I try to minimize the luck with good play.  I like to try stack the luck in my favor the best I can.

You bring up an interesting point squirecam, even if not intentionally.  Axis and Allies is not like Chess to be sure, but I do not mind losing at Chess.  I know that no random factor can inhibit my full potential.  The moves are solid and can be planned in advance.  This variant is meant to capture the feeling of Chess.  A player knows the implications of their moves before they make them.  The game becomes a great deal more about your overall strategy and you can plan your moves in advance to a greater degree.  The complaint would be that taking out luck takes out a lot of the surprise and the game becomes boring.  This variant is meant to give players an opportunity to plan more unorthodox strategies.

Another simple idea is to allow players to take a ‘10’ if they wish.  This is another D&D term that means a player can take the average result.  This means that a player can roll or take a ‘10.’  The defining difference between this one is that one can only take a 10 if you have forces that add up to 6, 12, 18 and so forth punches.  The rest is rolling and luck doom, but allows someone to be average if they wish.  The problem is that average often loses.  This is simply an idea.

Jen, I feel you dice pain.  Dice are the bane of the earth :) Nonetheless, games are fun.

The real life situation is funny to be sure.  The low luck rules for airforce works best for SBR at the moment.  This is why it is version 0.1 and not playtested.  Keep in mind that waiting until the last moment to stop using an airforce piece is not as much an advantage as it might seem.  That piece can harass others pieces, but is effectively useless in big attacks.  The simplier alternative is to keep a running total of attacks against AA gun defended countries.  Once the total is equal to 6, 12,18 and so forth then one airforce piece is lost at the beginning of an attack.

For example,

Germany decides to attack Caucasus with 4 planes on rd2, the Germany player writes down 4 next to the aa tally.  On the next turn if two German airforce units attack any country with an AA gun, then Germany must forfeit one unit before battle.  This is a tough idea, and we need a SBR tally along side to make it functional.  How to make it work will require more thinking.

Keep in mind that the point of this variant is to make battles completely predictable.  We already try to predict battles, but the dice cannot be controlled.  I agree that randomness makes for interesting games.  Though, I highly doubt anyone likes to win due to lucky rolls.  Personally, I like to lose because the other person had a better plan, not because the dice gave them the game.

I would like to point out that there will never be a 51% battle under this system, but the point is well taken.  Though, in my opinion, players depend on a punch of 4 or 66% (well 67%) to bring them to victory.  67% is not bad percentage to allow things to go your way.  The difference between a 3 and a 4 is already very important.  This variant expects players to be strategist to the fullest extent.

This bring me to a point about the psychological effect of sending 2 FIGs against any attack.  First, there are 3 different potential results for the attacker: 2 hits, 1 hit and 1 miss, two misses.  The goal is one hit and that has a 75% chance of succeeding, not 50%.  There is only a 25% chance that both FIGs will miss.  I think most players will take those odds.  In fact, 75% is considered good odds for most endevours in Axis and Allies.  I see people talking about the amount of hits they expect to get and this variant simply takes their belief to the end result.

Again, the point of this variant is to ensure that luck will not rule the day.  Thanks for the feedback.  Remember that everyone has the advantages and disadvantages of these rules.

I suppose I look at it this way.

In your example, most people expect to be able destroy at least one sub even with rolling.  This method simply provides you with exactly what you expect on average to happen.  If you attack with 2 FIGs against 2 subs and expect both subs destroyed then this is an unrealistic expectation.  On the otherhand, the attack could fail and the subs submerge.  This is always possible.  Your stats are correct, but averages are often what people expect to happen.  I agree this is not a perfect solution, but people have an expectation that 6 punches will kill something.  That is why I think it will not change the results dramatically.  We expect one dead and this method allows that to happen.  I would write more, but work is nagging at me :)

Natasin

Hello Friends!

I’ve been lurking around on this board for at least two months and finally decided to register and post.  The reason for my post is that a great many of you use averages to give you the best idea of how a certain battle will turn out.  For example, in theory, two tanks will always hit due to each having a “punch” of 3 attack a piece.  On average, two tanks should hit every time due to law of averages.  The problem is that some players do not think on these averages.

My roommate and I played a game where I built three TRN as G1 in the Baltic.  This buy is deceptive in its ability to defend against the British airforce. 
First round
4 TRN defend on 1
1 Destroyer defends on a 3
2 subs that cannot defend against air

Total punch = 7 or one hit on average

2 FIGs attack on a 3
1 bomber attack on a 4
total punches = 10 or almost better than averages chance for 2 hits

First round casualties:
Germany:
two subs

UK
1 FIG

Second round
punch for Germany does not change still = 7

UK’s punch equals 7 also

Losses:

Germany = 1TRN

UK = FIG

Third Round

Germany punch = 6

UK’s punch = 4

Losses:

Germany: Maybe another TRN due to better than average chances

UK = 1 Bomber

Final result:

Germany still has 2 TRN and a Destroyer.  This attack cost UK 35 IPC and Germany 32 IPC.  I will let you decide whether this was a good attack or not.

Above is merely an example of how many decide when to attack.  We know that a CV buy in the Baltic on G1 will deter almost any attack for many turns.  The reason is due to the greater theorized punch expected.  Unfortunately, dice are evil and make matters worse at the least opportune time.  In the above battle, my roommate won that battle and still had a bomber.  Averages predict that this result would never happen.  In fact, averages predict much worse results for the UK airforce attack.

No Dice Rules!

I have been thinking about a method to take dice completely out of Axis and Allies and think I have come to a fair conclusion.  The obvious result is to make punches = 6 = 1 hit.  Many of us already do this and this method would simply put form to the theory.  Unfortunately, that aspect of the idea is the easiest.

I had thought of using a remainder system for leftover punches, but the math would become annoying.  Therefore, it becomes a matter of rounding up 4s and 5s to hits.  In this way, the UK airforce of two FIGs and a Bomber will always create 2 hits.  Although, 3 FIGs will only do one hit.  The reason is that most of us depend on our better than average numbers to hit.  We are annoyed when they do not hit.

Remember, these rules depend on no dice in any aspect of the game.  I realized that this will make some technologies like Jet Fighters and Combined Bombardment slightly less useful, but people have no business relying on less than 60% odds.

Now, I know you are asking, “how do you play out a battle of 2 infantry against 1 defending infantry?”  Well, think about the law of averages and decide what should happen.  If you said that the attacker wins and loses 1 infantry then you are right.  Both sides have the same punch ability, but the defender has less ability to take damage.  The formula is easy.  Every round, the player must record the punch ability of both sides.  As soon, as the number the punches from each round add to 4 then that side records a hit.  This means that it requires 2 battle rounds for one defending infantry to record a hit.

There are special rules:

Airforce

FIGs and bombers can be shot at by an AA gun 5 times without being shot down.  The 6th time the plane is shot down. This idea works well for SBR and small attacks.  You will need to record plane attacks.  In addition, if a territory with an AA gun is attacked by 4 or more planes, then one plane will always be shot down before combat starts.  For SBR damage, the amount is equal to 4 or the IPC rating of the country with the IC, whichever is lower.

Subs

A sub needs to be counted differently, but it is easy enough.  Obviously, 2 subs would create a hit against one destroyer.  One sub will cause for problems due to its ability to attack before combat.  Therefore, subs will allow either side to create one casualty in opening moves only when sub punches have added up to 4, 10, 16, 22 and so forth.  This means that two subs are a pretty effective team for any attacking force.  They create casualties on round 1, 3, 4, 6, 7.  One quick example of how this works: attacking team has one fighter and one sub against 2 TRN.  First round, sub and FIG add to 5 to equal one hit.  There is no opening move casualty.  TRNs miss because they need to add to 4.  Second round, the punches are the same for the attacking team, but they can take the casualty in the opening move before both side fire.  The TRN is sunk without firing back.  This is because sub punches have added up to 4 by round 2. (Why are subs always so annoying?)

Technology

20 IPCs will get you a technology.  That is all.

Conclusion

These rules should make for a dice free game that should not change the game dramatically.  I did my best to make the rules as simple as possible.  I will try to add clarifications if any nagging errors are obvious.

Natasin