Posts made by Octopus

The general consensus on these boards is that the Axis are underpowered and require extra help to balance the play.  So, the idea is to bid to play the allies.  For example; I will offer you 2 additional infantry in Eastern Europe if you play the Axis.  Sometimes IPCs are given to the bank of Germany.  Often counter offers are made, “oh yea, I offer 3 infantry in Eastern Europe if YOU play the axis.”

Sometimes these bids can become quite high.  I have seen bids that equal 11 IPCs in bonus pieces or even up to 22.  The discussion become, “how can I give you a ton of extra units that really don’t help you much.”

I find this all very amusing, because I believe the Axis (while more difficult to play) do have some fantastic advantages.  I have not seen anyone use some of the strategies I employ so I am boasting it up big to get people to playtest my “theories”.

Personally, I can’t imagine being gifted with extra units, but I can see where it will balance play against players with a skill descrepancy.

If you dare ask more questions, I may dare to answer them!

Octopus

Tri,

you have the right idea.  You are coming very close to a few conclusions I drew a while ago.

Note: There is even more potential with Japan than what you have written.

Keep going down your path.

This is why I believe the Axis are unstoppable, and by a large amount.

Kyrial,

I was making reference to the battleship having or not having a destroyer escort to nullify the sub attack, not a destroyer in the attacking group.  As you pointed out, having a destroyer on the attacking side does not inferere with the sub’s sneak attacks.

Shadow and Tril,

I do understand your points of view.  I just think that one piece was made useful at the expense of making another less useful.  The net result is one unit is never purchased in play.  In this game, it is the submarine.

Octo

I agree with Hoss.  Any forces you send to Alaska will be a waste of resources.

Here is my response.  By this point in the game, it is assumed the U.S. has appropriate naval logistical capability leaving only land units to be purchased.  I would purchase my normal invasion loadout and build some on the west coast (enough to deal with the invasion).  Those troops can easily move to Eastern Canada after dispatching the Japanese forces.  The Japanese burn 2 turns of transports being out of position and cost of infantry going to the U.S.  The U.S. only loses a 1/2 turn of land builds (only 50% are ready for transport because the other 50% are constructed on the West Coast).

Assuming you sent two transports to the U.S. you have lost 2 turns or 8 units hitting the Asian mainland.  Those eight units are the numerical equivalent of what Russia can purchase in the best of economic conditions (assuming tanks and/or artillery in combination with infantry).

As Japan, I have only received a net loss from such a maneuver.  As the U.S., if I see Japan doing that move, I know the game is going my way.

Try it a few times to get a feel for it.

Octopus

I am playing the role as a devil’s advocate.  I understand and accept how the rules work, however I am seeing the battleship have extra survivability as a function of combat order, and not as a function of the unit’s attributes.  The idea was to demonstrate how the submarine’s sneak attack against a battleship was denied due to the combat order and not because of a special ability of the battleship.  The game makers have designed the submarine to be effective only against transports (which don’t shoot back well) and carriers.  Battleships not only take two hits, but are near immune to submarines.  Destroyers eliminate the first strike completely.

I suppose the battleship will always get a shot to fire back.  Only under the most unusual conditions will multiple submarines be able to encounter a battleship sans destroyer escort.

I just find this wierd to make a unit so weak (does anyone purchase submarines?) in contrast to several other game changes designed to promote those units (armor, fighters, artillery).

To let you know, I agree with your ruling on this, it just seems like a flaw in the game that has been announced as a “feature”.

Thanks for your insights.  I am certain this will not be the last time I ask something wild.

Octopus

Good points both of you, but my concern is not about the ability of the piece (the battleship), but the limitation submarine based on combat order.  Combat order was established in the first Axis and Allies, I think this might be a simple oversight.

If the combat order was reversed (a non-submarine fired first) then the subs fired last, only then would you achieve a possible sinking without return fire.  It still takes two hits to sink a battleship as intended.

As it stands now, the combat order is what is devaluing the submarine against a battleship, not the instrinsic ability of the battleship itself.  In this case, it seems the battleship has the power of the destroyer built in to nulify the affects of the submarine.

If that is true, then subs being forced to fire first is a handicap versus battleships and works to do the opposite of what subs are supposed to do; conduct sneak attacks to prevent the enemy from shooting at you.

This seems contradictory to me.

Ok guys,

I know a Battleship can withstand 2 hits before sinking, however what if one of those hits comes from a submarine in the same combat round?
Combat example
1 sub, 1 destroyer vs 1 BB.

sub scores hit then destroyer scores hit (quality rolling)

does the battleship get to return fire?

I would imagine most of you would be inclined to say ‘yes’.

If so, then lets us change the ships to 2 submarines versus one battleship.

both subs score hits upon the battleship.

In this scenario I would guess you would say the battleship does NOT get to return fire.

Does this mean the difference between the battleship returning fire and not returning fire is based entirely upon what ship scores the killing blow?  If that is the case, then I would like the ability to use the submarine in combat in the order of my choosing, instead of being forced to fire first as the game would like.  Being forced to fire first with a sub upon a battleship seems like a major disadvantage in a mixed fleet operation……say in SZ13 for just a random example.

Any comments?  Perhaps I have driven the sub right off the edge of the world…

:wink:

Actually, you are right on the money.

:wink:

Octo

Switch,

you are asking excellent questions, but you must consider the statistical reality that the Luftwaffe cannot hold off the Royal Navy.  At some point you need to consider what that cutoff is to stop attacking.

Clue: Which is more dangerous to Germany? The Royal Navy or absence of the Luftwaffe.

Brazilian IC does not work to the Allied advantage.  Time is something the Allies cannot afford to squander.  Run a few scenarios and see if you can make the Brazilian operation more cost/time efficient than running from the East Coast.

Sounds juicy.

I do wish to warn you that I will be leaving town this Saturday until Monday afternoon.  I was hoping to squeeze in a game before then, but I have waited this long, I can wait longer.  I just didn’t wish to surprise you.

During play, I should be able to crank out turns pretty fast.  Daak Dicey is new to me, but as long as I still get options for casualties on odd battles (subs…etc) it is fine with me.  I should not have trouble dedicating time to belt out a game.

Octo

Switch,

It will be my pleasure.

My little brother asked me a few years ago to develop a better strategy for the Axis (this is for the original Axis and Allies).  He and his friends concluded the game was tilted in favor of the Allies and did not think to design a bid system.  I spent a considerable amount of time working out strategies, but I found it better to model the cash flow of the nations based on how the game is typically played out.  This yielded the basics for what potential nations can handle.  For example, does Germany have the starting unit strength and economic firepower to take Russia with reasonable odds (barring misplay on the Allied side)?  I measured combat odds from turn one to turn x.  I then had to develop a strategy for Japan to see what was efficient and what was not.  I too struggled with developing a strategy for Japan.  In days of old, I could conquer all of Asia but not finish off Russia.  I had trouble delivering the final blow, and that lead to my little brother actually beating me for the first time.  He remembers it well to this day.

I believe I have solved the question of how to play Germany, and I know I have solved the question of how to deal the death blow to Russia.

All I have to do now is prove it.  Then again, I could be a maniac and not know how to play at all.

:-D

I must admit, I am foaming at the mouth to play.

The only way I can prove my point is to play…and play…and play.

:lol:

Heh, I went out to dinner for a bit.  I am still reading your posts and keeping an eye on your game that is in progress.  I am noticing that many are using very similar strategies, and some moves that appear to help really hurt the cause by moving pieces out of position.  I have found the extra sea zones in the Atlantic to be so paralyzing that I cannot get the United States involved fast enough to make any significant impact upon the Germans.  I love some of the bids that take place on the original version of axis “I’ll give you 3 inf in Lybia and an extra armor.”  Nutz.

I think one of you guys said you lived in California, but did not specify where exactly you lived.  I am in Los Angeles, I have a few friends that play (for nearly 20 years now…wow).  My brother and his friend seemed to come to the same conclusion that I did that the Allies are in for a big hurt.

I don’t want to spoil the surprise early, but then again, I could be a real loser and not know how to play the game.

-O

No more than 2 are necessary.  No less than 2 are necessary.  Manchuria and French Indo China are the locations.

Octo

Switch,

You are working very hard to develop a quality strategy for Japan.  Keep going with ideas, but I don’t want to give it away…unless I play you, of course :)

Octo

No sweat.

I initially did not mean to start a game, so please go ahead and take care of prior committments you have scheduled.  I thought about it over night and I could see that discussing the matter could become to cerebral and not real enough to be taken seriously.  I am open to a game where I do look to be beaten.  I do not enjoy games that are unintentially imbalanced.

Just let me know when you have an opportunity to play.  I am flexible towards your schedule.

Octopus

Switch and Trihero,

I examined some of your games and I see that you do not employ the strategy of which I speak.  Perhaps a game demonstration would be best, but I admit I would be a rookie playing by mail on Axis and Allies.  I would need an education on the dice generator as well.  However, that being said, I think I can still deal with this situation at hand :)

Octopus

To Trihero

Excellent, I shall set the board up in the morning, and we can do a mock-trial.  I understand waiting on England’s moves based on what Germany does.  I appreciate you taking the time to do this.  Thank you.

To Kyrial

I was initially shocked when I saw the bid system in Axis and Allies.  I can’t imagine giving the Axis any additional edge in the original game (even though this is not the forum for it).  My strategy for the original Axis translates well to the revised edition and Russia falls like a wilted flower.  I haven’t seen anyone list this (my) strategy altough I can’t imagine I am the first to use it.  I did a math project on the game when I took differential equations, the computer modelling revealed very interesting results that were counter intuitive to the play of the game.  The result has been quite surprising and you may have to see it to believe it, but I must retire for the evening.  Let me deal with Trihero and you will see how this developes and I believe you will get the idea.  I do appreicate your patience.

Octopus