Posts made by newpaintbrush

Personally, I just write IPCs down.

But when you don’t have paper money, you can’t fling it in the air and let it rain down on your head, then roll around in it laughing.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I’m curiouis, how much in IPC would the US need to invest in order to transports forces to Africa and occupy SZ12 with impunity?

Would you say there would be a difference in this number if Germany built 2 bombers on G1?  How about 3-4 Mediterranean subs on G2?  Of course you would, and you would be right to do so.  So the real question should be what should US do and under what conditions?

Given UK1 Ukraine/West Russia, followed by G1 attack on UK battleship and Anglo-Egypt, without any air or naval buys by Germany, I’d probably do 2 destroyers 1 AC on UK1 northwest or southwest of London to stay out of range of most of the German fighters and/or subs as possible.  That’s followed by a UK2/US2 landing at Algeria, or UK2 landing at Karelia/Archangel.

I don’t know where SZ 5 is offhand.  Best describe where it is.

Any time you build an industrial complex, you’re creating a new point for the Axis to attack, while slowing infrastructure development.  So the question is not really whether a Brazil IC would be useful or not.  It’s a question of how 15 IPCs are best spent.

If going Kill Germany First:

US1 you want to build a defensive fleet to escort transports to hit Algeria on US2.  There’s no point in going to Algeria unless you bring some transports and ground units, so you want those too.  The more transports and ground units you bring, the harder you will be to dislodge.  Also, the more transports you bring, the earlier you can threaten Western Europe.  Threatening Western Europe in a combination attack with UK means Germany will either have to pull units back from the Russian front (giving Russia more IPCs to work with), or abandon Western Europe.  Either are fine.  Once Western Europe is abandoned as a base for fighters and particularly bombers, the Allied fleets have far more freedom of movement, particularly for southwestern Africa and between East Canada and London.

If going Kill Japan First:

Alternatively, you want to race Japan’s two battleships, two carriers, 5-6 fighters, and bomber.

But in any event, if you’re using 15 IPC for an IC, you’re not helping your fleet infrastructure, whether Atlantic or Pacific.  What you ARE doing is diverting attention away from what should be the focus of your attack, whether that be Africa, Europe, or the Pacific islands.  Industrial complexes don’t fight.  They don’t help shuttle ground units effectively, especially when they’re on an isolated territory like Brazil.

There’s things the Allies can do differently, like a sacrificial US transport to Algeria on US1 to start pressuring Germany immediately.  But that’s neither here nor there - the idea is the same; 15 IPC spent on an industrial complex is not a good idea, at least until the Allies are dominating the game so much that it hardly matters any more.

Verdict:  US industrial complex in Brazil:  Not good.  Unless you’re an athletic footwear company.

–

This is NOT the same as Japanese industrial complexes on the Asian mainland.  The difference is that Asian mainland ICs allow the Japs to build pure tanks.  Initially, Japan needs to focus on infantry production with very light tank coverage for blitzing.  But depending on German progress, the focus will need to switch to tanks at some point, and at that point 14 IPC of transports gets only two tanks to the mainland, while a 15 IPC industrial complex gets three tanks.  Furthermore, industrial complexes give a great effective boost to mobility, as supposing Japanese tanks are produced at Tokyo on one turn, the next turn they can only hit points on the Asian cost.  In contrast, Japanese tanks produced on the Asian mainland can usually hit one or more of Caucasus, India, Sinkiang, China, and/or Yakut.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Curious, how does the naval part of the game get resolved if your enemy chooses to never let you sink his navy.

Theoretically, you use air to force additional Allied fleet buys early and restrict early Allied fleet movement.  If Allies move an underpowered fleet into range, you punish them.  If they don’t, the air is used to trade territories more effectively, particularly in Africa, while if the Allies have NOT moved fleet into position, Germany continues to control territory that it otherwise wouldn’t (such as Norway and Algeria).

Later game, Germany needs to trade more territories, and will want to disrupt Allied drops to Europe. Fighters on Eastern Europe help hold that territory and threaten Allied shipping.

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that’s going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn’t much more trouble.

@Granada:  Re:  “publishing a new complete ladder” - what’s the rush, Gran?  Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a “perfect world”?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I’m afraid I missed your meaning.

As far as FICS or whatnot - I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

'Far as I know, XBox did some serious statistical ratings research - they put out a paper that I read a month or so ago for fun, can’t remember too much of the specifics.  IMO FIDE stuff is in the right direction, or at least a system that doesn’t ALWAYS reward the winner with points.  But I will say that I heard there are better system than FIDE’s (wouldn’t know personally, as I don’t track rating systems, so maybe someone more familiar with that sort of thing can comment), and I have heard that chess players game FIDE’s system.  (Although with chess politics the way they are, I’m not sure if I’d blame the rating system or politics or both.)

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I have always wondered why strategic bombing has not played a great part in the games that I at least play.

Every air unit you have can be used 1) against naval targets, 2) to trade territories without having to commit more ground forces, 3) to threaten more territories effectively with the limited ground units you do have, 4) for a “final attack” type attack in which the losses of air will not be crucial.  Furthermore, fighters can be used to help defend territories effectively, and bomber range gives them super effective threat range.

Industrial bombing is usually a bit slow off the ground.  Russia has the capacity to produce 12 units a turn, but will probably only want 7-8 at most for most turns.  Germany can produce 16, but will only want around 10 for most turns.  Japan will probably only have to worry about industrial bombing later in the game after it puts one or two mainland industrial complexes down (even then, placement in some territories leaves Allied bombers out of reach).  US is of course out of reach (barring a Norway IC, in which case US can move over or build an AA gun anyways).  UK is the only power that’s really vulnerable to industrial bombing, but even then it’s conditional on UK’s income being limited in the first place.  There really isn’t much point in bombing London lightly if UK’s income is 33-36 a turn (Norway, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe compensate for losses in Asia.), and in any case bombing risks German air.

Back to the uses -

1)  Vs naval targets.  German bombers based on Western Europe can threaten any unescorted transports moving units from E Canada to London, as well as sea zones on the southwest African coast (while also threatening ground targets in Africa and Europe).  If Germany does build bombers and loses even one or two of them, the threat to Allied shipping is greatly decreased.

2. to trade territories without having to commit more ground forces - particularly when, say, Germany’s pressed at the end, and is trading Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.  Every ground unit is needed, and every air unit helps.

3. to threaten more territories effectively with the limited ground units you do have - for example, one Japanese infantry adjacent to Moscow is not a big deal by itself, but back it up with 4-5 Japanese fighters and a bomber, and it’s suddenly a real takeover threat.  Also true in far less dramatic situations - for example, 2-3 Japanese infantry on China threaten Kazakh and Novosibirsk, but if Russia leaves only, say, 3 infantry on each of Kazakh and Novosibirsk, Japan can possibly take both territories.

By the way, this is ridiculously more the case in Low Luck, because the attacker doesn’t have to worry about two defending infantry getting two hits.

4)  for a “final attack” type attack in which the losses of air will not be crucial.  Suppose that Germany bombed Russia for three turns, doing 10 IPC of damage.  Let’s say that instead of risking the bomber, though, Germany used the bomber for better odds on trading territories.  It could very well be the case that in so doing, Germany would both destroy additional Russian units worth 3-6 IPCs, preserve German units worth 3-6 IPCs (more power on the attack means less defenders left to hit back after the first round casualties are removed), possibly securing more territories for more income, possibly threatening territories so Russia could not move in and hold those territories (denying Germany the income in turn as well as increasing Russia’s income).  Now add in the possibility of a “final attack”.  If the German bomber survives the “final attack”'s AA gun, it would probably fire in at least four rounds of combat, each round destroying possibly one additional enemy unit, taking it out of the equation for the next round of fire, preserving German attack units to increase inflicted casualties on subsequent turns.

To make a long story short, you’ll only usually want to industrial bomb in a limited number of circumstances, and then usually only after the naval part of the game has been decided.

1.  The point changes count be calculated by computer instead of manually.

2.  I think each “match” should consist of two games, with a player playing BOTH Axis and Allies.  A win and a loss would count as a draw; two wins a win, two losses a loss.  This is to eliminate any bias from Axis or Allies being more powerful, and would help determine if there is a bias.  (If Axis win 75% of games in a large sample of first out of two games played, Axis might have an advantage) & so on.

I just say if they want advice they can ask me for it.

Then . . . I laugh like so:

“Nyehhehhehehehe!”

NO!  you guys aren’t getting it!
1.  First, this whole thread has been threadjacked from the topic of when to buy German air.  I will continue this evil trend so I can address what I consider a dangerous misconception.  Well, dangerously funny maybe.

2.  Kids . . . don’t plug your brains into calculators.  Use your brains.  That’s what they’re for . . . those lovely plump juicy brains . . . Think about what must be.  Yes, it was correct to think about the relative costs of artillery and tanks, but that was only a SMALL step on a MUCH LONGER ROAD.  Completely ignored was the LOGISTIC and PRACTICAL applications of REAL WORLD SITUATIONS (insofar as a “game” has “real world situations”  :-P

3 LOGISTICS?  Let’s say you have a big fat stack of infantry and artillery, you have more offensive power for your buck.  But in the actual game you don’t just have a fat stack of infantry and artillery slammed up against another fat defensive stack. You have territories in between that must be crossed, and TANKS have an important LOGISTIC advantage in that they MOVE TWO SQUARES.

So if you produce nothing but infantry and artillery, let’s say on round four your attack might be 12 inf 8 artillery.  (68 IPC worth)  But if you do inf/art tanks, on round four your attack might be 9 inf 2 art 10 tanks (85 IPC worth).  All these calculations on whether there is some “ideal” ratio COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that when you are on the ATTACK, the LOGISTIC POWER of TANKS GREATLY CHANGES THE FORCE YOU CAN BRING TO BEAR.

Furthermore, there IS the fact that tanks CAN move two.  Already said, you say?  But it’s only been mentioned on the attack.  FORWARD progress tends to stall out.  BACKWARDS progress, though, means defense, and that’s something that hasn’t yet been addressed here.

That is, imagine this situation - you have 10 infantry on Berlin, 10 infantry on Eastern Europe, and scattered light forces at Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, and Western Europe.  Now drop 16 tanks on Eastern Europe.

With 16 tanks on Eastern Europe, first, there is a fat chunk of units on Eastern Europe that is hard to attack.  So the tanks are acting as defense that protect the flow of German infantry east as well as the 3 IPC Eastern Europe territory.  But also the tanks threaten Western Europe, preventing an Allied landing in force, and threaten to attack through Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine into any of the key territories of Archangel (where a stack of Germans can prevent Allied landings), Belorussia (where the Allies are forced to choose between Russia and Caucasus), and Caucasus (where there’s an industrial complex).

Compare with a stack of 20 artillery on Eastern Europe.  That won’t help prevent an Allied landing in force on Western Europe, nor does it threaten Archangel, Belorussia, or Ukraine.  Incidentally it also can’t do things like hit Norway when necessary/appropriate.

In other words . . .all this talk about infantry being in a 3 to 1 ratio to artillery, or whatever and whatnot - TRASH!  It’s like you washed up on a deserted island shore, and you have a cookbook that tells you how to make the most delicious duck . . . only you have rocks and pineapples to work with!  What you need is a book that tells you how to use rocks and pineapples for food, shelter, weapons, entertainment, and long-range communications.

I know.  Ducks are smexy.  But you gotta use what you have to work with.  Which means not thinking about those beautiful laboratory conditions that specify 3 to 1 ratios, and working with the real situation.  Or . . . getting a better laboratory that can better describe and approximate real world situations . . . but that would, like, involve work and stuff, and that’s scary.

4 PRACTICAL application - again, using these wonderful JUICY BRAINS . . . probably I will not need to say that on the front lines, artillery are usually “better” than tanks, because they’re cheaper.  When they’re being ground up and thrown on a pile of corpses, you want your casualties to be on the cheap.  But your RESERVES should not be artillery.  Your RESERVES should be smexy wonderful tanks.  Even for seemingly end game situations in which Germany’s been pushed out of Africa, and the Allies have a fat stack on Eastern Europe, tanks have their application - say if Germany takes Western Europe, Balkans, and Southern Europe on its turn, UK can take Western Europe and Balkans on its turn, and HAVING TAKEN BALKANS, US can blitz tanks through Balkans into Southern Europe - but ONLY if US has tanks in the first place!

Okay, having read this wonderful text wall and not having fallen asleep by this point, I suppose I will reward readers with . . . a wonderful real-real-world application!  “Wonderful” being the word my agent’s telling me to use of course.  Buy the book.  Watch the movie.

Anglo-Egypt Sudan!  Yes, in MYSTERIOUS AFRICA, the DARK CONTINENT!

Let’s say on G1 that Russia did Ukraine/West Russia (WHICH IT MAY NOT DO, I KNOW), and that you’ve decided you want to wipe the UK battleship.  So you send sub/fig/bomber there, leaving only a limited amount left for Anglo-Egypt Sudan (AES).  What you got?  You got the Balkans fighter, the inf/tank in Africa, and either inf/tank or inf/art from Southern Europe.  So what should you use, inf/art or inf/tank?

(runs to frood net for calculations)

If you use inf/art, there’s about 91.74% you kill all defenders.  11.12% you lose all attackers, 10.74% you only survive with tank or fighter, 24.22% you keep tank and fighter, 30.66% you keep artillery, tank, and fighter.

If you use inf/tank, you get 91.62% to kill all defenders.  11.14% you lose all attackers, 10.16% you only survive with tank or fighter, 24.14% you keep tank and fighter or two tanks, 31.96% you keep two tanks and fighter.

So everything seems pretty cool right?

BUT WAIT!  (exclamation mark!)

Think about the UK turn.  Probably UK will counter Anglo-Egypt to stop tanks blitzing through Africa.  So if you take inf/tank, probably you will just lose the tank.  Therefore, it’s probably better to use inf/art.  The inf/art will be on the “front lines”, probably being ground up by the UK counter, and inf/art in THIS situation gives decent percentages when compared to inf/tank, so . . . you see?  And the Southern Europe tank can potentially be used to create a hard point at Karelia that Russia won’t be able to attack (depending on the particulars of R1 choices and dice of course).  The artillery from Southern Europe can’t reach Karelia.

(closes book) okay class remember to study study study!  Quiz on Tuesday!

I consider the odds of failure to be GREATER than 11% at Norway, and LESS than 10% or whatever number was given for Germany at West Russia for the G1 counter after a poor-dice R1 Norway/West Russia open.  Also, Russia’s inability to hold Caucasus on R1 cuts down on Russia’s options for R2.

When you’re doing dice and plugging quantities into a dice simulator, most calculations are done until either no attackers or no defenders are left.  In actual dice play, though, an attacker has to re-evaluate combats after every round of offensive and defensive fire.  As I mentioned earlier, this is not so much something you need to worry about with low luck, but it IS a VERY important consideration for dice.

The initial scenario is attacking Norway on R1 with 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter.  Let’s say a couple rounds of combat have passed, and that you’re now attacking Norway forces of 1 inf 1 fighter with 1 tank 1 fighter. In dice, there’s at least a 2/9 probability that the attacker continuing to press the attack will result in loss of both tank and fighter, meaning BOTH fighters lost for Russia.  Loss of both fighters is really not good.  So maybe Russia withdraws at that point.  A similar scenario holds for Russia attacking with 1 fighter and Germany defending with 1 fighter, or even Russia attacking with 1 tank 2 fighters and Norway defending with 2 1 fighter, PLUS all the scenarios just mentioned in which Germany’s Norway defense force is even greater.

To restate this in the abstract - if FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, the overall percentage of “failure” for Russia’s Norway 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter attack (given a “success” condition of 1 Russian fighter left) is 11%, but since the attacker can RE-EVALUATE the combats after each round of attacker and defender fire, and choose to continue attacking or decide to retreat, the CHOICE of the attacker may be to retreat instead of attacking, and the dice simulator is NOT typically used to evaluate the retreat conditions for the attacker.  But CLEARLY, if there ARE retreat conditions that are NOT factored into the 11% do or die scenario, the real failure rate MUST be higher than 11%.

As far as the 10% failure on West Russia (given 2 German fighters hit there), the “victory conditions” are slightly different.  I think in such a scenario, Germany can see taking West Russia as a bonus.  The real objective is to reduce the West Russia stack to the point that Germany can put forces at Karelia next turn.  Great success means taking West Russia, and stacking Karelia, denying Russia both West Russia and Belorusssia IPCs next turn, and giving Russia the ability to trade Archangel next turn for an additional 2 IPC.  Moderate success means weakening West Russia to the point that Russia cannot attack Belorussia on its next turn.

Personally, I think a West Russia G1 counter is pretty dicey.  If it works, Germany broke most of Russia’s attacking power and gained a serious economic advantage.  If it fails, well - there’s a question of degrees of failure, but it’s really down to that AA gun.

As far as not being able to hold Cauc leading to possible problems on R2 - there’s the 81% UK fighter/bomber attack on the German battleship.  That breaks down to 60% at least 1 UK bomber survives, 21% UK air and German battleship all die.  If everything dies, Russia can pick up the German transport with a Caucasus-based fighter on R2 - which isn’t needed so badly for trading if Russia has 2 fighters to begin with.

I like to discuss my strategies openly for all to hear.

And when I do, I also like to twirl my moustaches and laugh like so:

“Nyehhehhehehehe!”

It’s quite liberating, actually.   :wink:

Good post by Zhukov about the probability breakdown.

@ Granada:  I already agree on R1 NOT purchasing a fighter - in a close game, it’s best to concentrate on ground units.  But why 3 inf 3 tanks on R1?  Why not, say, 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank?  For battles with 1-3 ground units on each side, artillery are like cheap tanks - for example, inf/art vs 1 inf is about 5% worse overall than inf/tank, but is also 1 IPC less expensive, which adds up pretty quickly.

Is it specifically because you’re trying to avoid a G1 capture and hold of Karelia?

I like to play with people that break strategies down, right to the level of specification of what buys will be made up to 3 rounds in advance, along with contingency plans &c.

Planning.  Not smexay, but it does help u have a nice hot meal when camping (as opposed to cold granola ew)

Of course it isn’t addressed explicitly.  There isn’t a Code of Conduct for Axis and Allies team play behavior, and what’s considered gentlemanly differs between players.

Some players will take offense at things you consider to be polite, and sometimes you will be offended by others that think they’re being polite.

That isn’t just Axis and Allies; it’s just life.  All you can do is your best.

I do like it when my partner treats me to lunch though :3

Re: the old shingle about dice vs. low luck:

I don’t claim greater skill is necessary to play one or the other.  I just say different skill sets are required.

But I will say that you don’t hang fuzzy “low luck” on your rearview mirror.

@Zhukov44:

Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls.

. . . in other words, playing Low Luck games is a good predictor for Low Luck games.

That bit about being skilled at low luck and dice is just tooting your own horn.  In my opinion, if you really understood the difference between low luck and dice, you wouldn’t be claiming that testing a strategy in low luck has any say towards its validity in dice.  Yeah, that IS inflammatory, but when you make such a strong claim, I leap in with equally strong words for the counter!  (yay internetz!  do not try this in real life, kids . . . you’ll put an eye out . . . real life disagreements are usually best avoided . . .)

Playing dice means doing risk management - in particular figuring out what battles are high risk high reward, and figuring the possibilities of failing at make or break battles.  This simply does not come into play in low luck games.  All you do in low luck is count up hits and casualties; you know the result of a battle with extremely high probability when compared to dice, you need only commit relatively minimal forces when compared to dice, and you absolutely never have to figure on contingency plans in case of poor round 1 dice in low luck - at least HARDLY so when compared to dice.

On the other hand, the ease of predicting outcomes in low luck means a player needs to do all the hit and casualty counts for at least one entire round in advance, because the opponent will easily be able to exploit any openings.

How about a bit of substantiation for what I’m saying?

Let’s say you have a Low Luck battle of 32 tanks against 30 tanks for a capital.  Under Low Luck rules, the attacker ALWAYS wins.  Under dice, though, the attacker loses about 25%.    After the first round in dice, the odds are extremely high that neither attacker nor defender got the exact “average” number of hits, and that drastically changes the numbers going into the second round, and so on and so forth.  So in dice, the attacker needs to look at board position.  If the attacker is probably going to lose, the attack should be made, for a 75% chance of a high IPC swing.  If the attacker is winning anyways, the attack probably should not be made, so the 75% chance of a high IPC swing can be increased to 80% or more.  If the attacker is winning in some places and losing in others, the attacker needs to size up the situation.  But in any case, in dice the attacker needs to plan for what will happen if the first round of combat doesn’t go well, which is something the attacker NEVER needs to do in Low Luck.

Try carrying out a few dummy battles in TripleA of 32 tanks vs 30 tanks using dice.  You will very quickly see exactly what I mean, especially when you start throwing a few odd assorted destroyers/carriers/transports/infantry/fighters/artillery on the board to complicate the situation.  Under Low Luck, it’s a no-brainer.  Under dice, you have to consider contingency plans.

How about another example?

In Low Luck, 2 infantry 2 bombers attacking 6 infantry is not a monumentally stupid idea, because under low luck, the defenders always get exactly 2 hits.  But in dice, there’s a pretty good chance that attack loses a bomber.  Repeatedly doing 2 infantry 2 bombers vs 6 infantry in a dice game will lose the attacker games.

. . . and another example

Under dice, a Russian triple attack will usually fail at one or more points, leaving the attacker open to a nasty German counterattack.  But under low luck, none of the attacks in a Russian triple need “fail”, because the results are so rigidly controlled.

More specifically, under dice, you can do three Russian attacks on R1 with around 62%, 62% and 82% (something like that) chances of success.  If you succeed at all of them, you’ll do great, but a little dice deviation at any, and you fail.  It’s not a question of failing all the Russian attacks, just one leaves you open to a counter, and with 38%, 38%, and 16% chances of failure, there’s good odds the Russians will fail at at least one of those points.

But under Low Luck, the deviations are slashed, so it’s just a question of degrees of success.

–

For a real world example - let’s say you have a betting game in which you have 10 coins and flip them all.  The single best chance is that there will be 5 heads and 5 tails.  Let’s say you can choose between two bets; 5 heads and 5 tails which pays out at 2 to 1, and any other result which also pays out at 2 to 1.

Run this game under “low luck”, and you get real rich real fast if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails.  If you bet on “anything else” under “low luck”, you’ll lose all your money instantly.

Run this game under “dice”, and you’ll lose all your money in time if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails.  If you bet on “anything else”, though, you make money hand over fist.

Considering the best strategies for this game are literally opposite between “dice” and “low luck”, how can anyone say that low luck strategies are good for dice and vice versa?

I give the PEOPLE’S ELBOW to that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3Zi6t7W4s

@football2006:

Nice read, Granada.

Yeah, Gran, I think they’re buying it!  :wink:

Juuust kidding.  It’s a long-standing joke between Gran and me.

@saturnracer:

Hate to ask

Don’t be controlled by your hate.

Fear leads to hate.  Hate leads to anger.  Anger leads to Dark Side Ice Cream Munchies.  And that leads to high blood pressure and cholesterol, and the ability to use the Force Grip on your enemies.

Which seems pretty cool when you use it on your mean boss, until the Jedi cops show up.  And then it’s all celery sticks, man, and no veggie dip.

NOT FUN.

Do you have a rulebook?

Because there’s no point in explaining the same thing to you as what’s in the rulebook if you already have a rulebook and don’t quite get what it’s going on about anyways.

Anyways, hopefully this will not be too confusing for you.

1.  Purchase units
2.  Combat Movement
3.  Combat
4.  Noncombat Movement
5.  Place Units

During Combat Movement, you moved in “all land units” from two Russian territories.  This means your Russian territories are now unoccupied.

You did not retreat during Combat. Your attackers survived, the defenders did not, as you specified by saying you ended up “winning”.

Since your land units have moved during the Combat Movement Phase, they cannot move during the Noncombat Movement phase.  Their movement is over.  They stay in the newly occupied, or as you put it, “won” territory.

Of course your “originating territories” are undefended.  You moved everyone out.  You could move any units you did not use in combat into either or both of those territories during noncombat.

Of course you don’t have to use all your units when attacking.  Why would you even think that?  It’s the voices isn’t it?  Yes, they talk to me too.  They tell me to do things.  Sometimes the voices make me sad, or even angry.  But it’s OK.

As you probably know, you can’t land air units in a newly occupied territory; such air units have to move during the Noncombat Movement phase to a territory that was controlled by you or your allies at the beginning of your turn (BEFORE Combat Movement), or must move to a sea zone that has an open spot on a carrier; this may include a carrier that you have newly placed.  (and only fighters can land on carriers of course)