Posts made by Octopus

you need no additional thoughts on the matter.

if it works, it is a good strategy by definition.

It’s ok, Bebo.

I understand what you are saying.

No fighters were shot down with the AA?

I did the 2 IC’s on the first turn and it turned out to be a set back.  You are significantly better off with the single IC and extra transport for the opening build.  This is true for a number of reasons.  Try the dual complexes for turn 1 and and you will get the feeling of anemia from lack of units and ability to move them.

Let me guess, when you lose it is because of bad dice, but when you win it is because of good strategy.

that is a bug in the CD rom version that gets fixed in an update.

you also cannot have airplanes end their turn over the ocean as the computer sometimes does.

AI’s are typically difficult to make and are often augmented by “cheating” on most computer games.  The computer cheats by increasing unit production or speed or increased stamina or all of the above.  There are very few decent AI’s in the world that are competetive by not cheating.

Neural Networks seem to be most promising, but the care it takes to program one is considerable.  Deep Blue is an excellent example of an AI (playing chess) however it is only as good as the memory of games played in its history.

Knowing the computer is a neural network means the human can defeat the computer by presenting it with a scenario that it has not seen before (ideally something wild).  The computer will do a substandard guess at the moves since it has not encountered such a move before and it can be taken advantage of at that point.

Computers have a long way to go before they can hang with the human mind.

Designing an AI for Axis and Allies will prove to be extrememly challenging.  The challenge will come from doing exactly what you have been mentioning, such as prioritizing land values (not ipc values).

Creating an AI and creating a good AI are two completely different things, so start just by making an AI, then see about making a good AI.  Don’t worry about the computer making predictable moves, you can throw in a better decision making process later.

I would even start with a more simple approach and create a simulator for ONLY Germany vs. Russia (minus naval units).  Keep it simple as possible and work on more complicated approaches later.

This will turn out to be a large project.

I don’t think you will find me engaging in combats like that, unless there are greater implications to the combat.

When I first came to these boards, I found the bid system most interesting.  People felt they needed a bid to remain competitive with the Axis and I did not understand why.

Now I think I do.

#1)  People have interesting (if not incorrect) barometers reading just how successful the Axis is the doing.  It is not necessary to hold the Baltic, take Africa, or hold the beaches of Western Europe to stage an effective campaign to bring an Axis Victory.

#2) Just because one side appears to be winning, does not mean they will take the target Capital.  Has anyone seen the Japan stall on their offensive?  Or find the Fall of Germany occurs 3 or 4 turns beyond what they originally thought (or not at all)?

People quit their games long before they should because of a perceived notion there is no hope of winning.

This game has very little to do with history, so don’t feel that if the Allies hold Western Europe, that the war will be over by May 1945.

I don’t think a bid is necessary, but if anyone wants to give me extra money to start, they can.

It is my belief that a good strategy can overcome unfortunate odds.  A common rebuttle would be, “any one can get screwed in a single battle, especially a big battle.”

All too true, which is why I try to do everything I can to avoid large battles.

Do not let the game come down to dice, it gives your opponent odds they should not ordinarily have.

In conclusion, this is why I believe good players can overcome unfortunate dice.

Oh, I am also part of the school of thought that believes, “there are such things as bad days”

Personally, I do not like the concept of Victory Cities.  I find that strategies become designed to take a key city in order to win, even if it puts them in a precarious situation in the rest of the world.

The Avalon Hill Game, Third Reich, had a rule that if the Allies landed in Italy, there was a 1 in 3 change of Italy surrenduring all troops.  The Allied player would gamble everything to attempt the invasion in hopes to get lucky on the Surrender.  Of course, the loss of all of the Italian based units would cripple the Germans.

The same can happen if a team only requires one more city to win the game.

As for survival after fallen capitals, anything can happen.

If a player has the will to keep playing, then play on.  Unless, of course, you wish to surrender.

@ncscswitch:

Against two perfectly balanced opponents…

The Allies whould win 60%-65% of the games (on average) without a bid.

interesting…

@ncscswitch:

At least Octo was willing to put his Dice whre his fingers were when he came on with his Japan concepts (and I THINK I know how to beat them this time… we’ll find out when we meet (very probable) in the next round or 2 of the Tournament…

Oooowww!  I will have to use my new sneaky strategy that I have been working on, or perhaps I will play the Allies……

Strafing is an art, indeed.

I find it more of a problem that Germany encounters than Russia.

I have a different solution for the Russians, but they cannot keep it up for long without help from the allies.

@Flush:

do you commonly use “space for rent” strategy on that front?

The “space for rent” is used for special circumstances that typically doesn’t involve the Russians.

@Flush:

I do play all my games with seasoned A&A players.

the level of marination is often relative.  let’s see how you deal with Switch, then we can fire up the BBQ.

try challenging people at revised and don’t wait for them to challenge you.

I recently was challenged by an opponent for revised so it does happen.

As for differences, the game has been stretched out a bit.  It allows for some unfortunate rolls to occur on the first turn but does not throw the game away (unless some really unwise combat decisions are made).  There is a bit more buffer for Germany to survive in the name of new Atlantic sea zones.  Allied logistics in the Atlantic now make a real difference and if not played right, can give the Germans an extra turn or more to build.

Russia is the same way.  The extended depth allows for a bit more flexibility in defense.  Funky first turn builds are not fatal, short of a Battleship out of Caucasus.  The road for Japan to Russia has been extended by 1 turn as well.  The depth of space forces the Japanese to use logistics both on the mainland and off.

Increased IPC values on the Pacific Islands give the Allies a Pacific opportunity to harass the Japanese a bit.

There is definately more going on in the game in comparison to the original.

This game is Imperium Approved.

is that a personal attack?

Flush,

I recommend you play Switch to get an idea of what we are talking about.

Germany will be put under enough pressure that it won’t have the freedom you speak of.  I consider the dark times of Germany begin by turn 3.

Good luck!