Posts made by OutsideLime

@froodster:

Two EQUAL F***ING players. EQUAL. Neither makes a mistake, or they both make equal amounts of mistakes. So they are EQUAL. Neither one gets ahead because they are EQUAL. unless you bring in another factor in which they are NOT EQUAL. Then that factor constitutes 100% of the difference that exists between them, because in other respects they are EQUAL.

EQUAL. as in NOT DIFFERENT. They play THE SAME with EQUALLY good strategy.

Nothing about the game is equal.  Imbalanced forces, imbalanced distribution, imbalanced resources, necessary imbalance of strategy.  One player gets to go first and set the stage for coming turns based on what he does.  The game state changes completely from round to round.

Lots of inequalities besides the luck of the dice in A&A that can determine the difference between two players of equal skill.

It’s a silly argument, of course.

~Josh

@froodster:

I think he meant he had never heard of people rolling round 1 of each battle all at once.

This is correct.  The way my groups have always played is to conduct each battle separately and completely before moving on to the next, at the attacker’s discretion as to the order in which battles are resolved.  The rules explicitly instruct this.  What a strange concept to conduct all battles at once, round by round!  In FTF rounds with more than a few battles this would be very difficult to keep track of what is going on in each battle, no?

~Josh

Really, All round 1’s at a time?

I’ve never played online and I’ve never even heard of that.

Crazy.  That makes a much different game.

~Josh

A few Art are always beneficial in any assault involving a stack of Inf.  You get more bullets on the target that way - a supported Inf is TWICE as likely to hit than an unsupported one.  Killing the enemy faster leaves more of your units behind to defend against the counter.

~Josh

how did perfect players get brought into this?

I was just responding to Shadowhawk’s post about how “the only difference will be luck-based”.  This implies (the way I read it) that each player does nothing but the absolute optimum action in every circumstance (although I can’t believe that’s possible, but I digress) and that bad luck is the only thing that will expose a hole in either’s play.  If that’s the case, then both of those players are “perfect”.  Perhaps I misunderstand his point.  I was actually trying to point out that your poll is about evenly-matched players of whatever skill level, which includes the possibility that players will make sub-optimal decisions that can be capitalized on, even by a player of equal skill, and that the game can be won or lost by the influence of decision rather than that of luck alone.

At any rate, I have voted… I say 40%.  :-D

~Josh

Was I “skilled” or “lucky”? To have my bomber survive has only a 22% chance. What about the landing spot? He can bring 2 inf vs my 1 inf, 1 bomber and I’m probably going to lose the inf before the bomber. Am I skilled or taking too huge a risk? Consider that that trn by attacking midway gains no IPCs, abstains from sending forces to the mainland for one round and if the inf fails to capture or kill the bomber it is a sitting duck for a new bombing mission. (No capital ships in range) Even by staying in sz60 a new capital ship will have to be built to protect it as no other ships are in range.

No roll of the dice could ever be called “skilled.”  All dice rolls are lucky or unlucky, accepting the notion that they are truly random.

Your opponent clearly saw your Bomber in Novo, and took the risk of leaving 3 unescorted transports within easy striking distance.  Probably assumed that you wouldn’t risk the Bomber against 3 1s.  You were bold and made the attack, with a very low likelihood that your Bomber would survive the combat.  You were lucky in the results, no question.

The issue of skill comes into play when determining your strategy and tactics accounting for the luck factor built into the game.  Every player must take risks in individual battles at some point.  The question is how skillfully you are able to judge when to take those risks and when not to, and whether or not you have developed a backup plan in case your carefully-judged risks should end up on the unlucky side for you.

The US can usually afford to lose the Bomber if it means crippling the Japanese transport system… I wonder if you would have made the same decision to attack if it were a UK Bomber nearby? Â

~Josh

PS -  And I think your opponent will certainly attack Midway.  He definitely wants to kill that Bomber now.  Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to leave it in reach of anything.

I don’t think there’s any difference between the two terms… I just think that it’s a mistake to assume that “equally skilled” players are both perfect players.

… if such a thing exists in this incredibly variable game with dozens of potential play branches for even the very first player in the very first turn, all of which will lead to unique reactions and counter-reactions, and so on.

You could have a perfect tic-tac-toe player.  Not so in an infinitely-more complex game.

~Josh

@ShadowHAwk:

It was stupid that he left only 1 inf to defend but on the other hand you had about a 30% or even less chance to win.
1 inf vs 1 inf is not a good chance.

So it is not really skill that you won, you gambled big time and it payed of.

I would hardly say that risking 1 INF (and maybe a TRN) for the chance of taking EUS (robbing the US player of probably 40IPCs of cash and stalling them from purchasing for two rounds even if the territory is retaken immediately) is “gambling big time”.

~Josh

“Equal skill” does not mean “equally perfect skill”.Â

And two equally skilled players (if such a thing could exist, which it cannot) have more than luck working as a variegaton.  Players make mistakes, or miscalculations, or take risks, or attempt unusual tactics, and, most importantly, are playing a game of imbalanced forces and resources in which every choice made has a cascade effect in helping to determine the future choices of their opponents and themself.

Take two hypothetically equally skilled chess players.  No luck in chess.  It is a game of almost perfectly balanced forces.  Do you believe that their game will result in a draw every time?

~Josh

Naw… all Noncombat Movement (NCM) starts after Combat Movement is complete, practically and thematically.

Your land units are allowed to reinforce just-captured territory during NCM… which obviously they must begin once the battle is won or lost, and if won, once the degree of necessary reinforcement is learned.  You, as the player, learn those facts and make those choices once all combat is over.  Aircraft Carriers behave by the same set of freedoms.

~Josh

The 0/0 “wall” unit is pretty cool… I like the idea that Inf have to drag them around in NCM.

Also you could add a stipulation that No territory can hold more Walls than the income value of the territory - that way you don’t have to worry about people going overboard with stacking units.

~Josh

1.can i target? when?

You can only target when using LHTR Kamikazes or Kaitens, which are both Japan National Advantages.

2.what are dive bombers? ther purpose?

Luftwaffe Dive Bombers are a LHTR German NA.  The NA lets your Fighters attack at 5 during the first cycle of combat, unless defending Fighters are present.  They are used to destroy enemy units, and make a very effective counterpart to the Panzerblitz NA.

3.i thought kaiten torpedos could only be used defending

In LHTR they can be used on attack or defense.

4.why did they have to take out trade routes for the ocean? now theres really not much of a point to own a navy.

“Trade Routes” or similar features like “convoys” were features in Europe and Pacific, and I enjoyed them greatly as well.  I would like to see an expanded version of A&A World that includes them but no such luck as yet.  Navy has many many other purposes and is extremely useful.  Mostly for transporting troops.

~Josh

Let me clarify.  Every team except Russia and sometimes Germany NEEDS Transports in order to deliver troops to the battle.  To stop nations from transporting troops, opposing nations will try to sink Transports with aircraft and combat ships.  Therefore transports need armed escorts to accompany them and provide protection.  Navy is important.

~Josh

now theres really not much of a point to own a navy.

:-o

~Josh

I want to like the Kaitens, I really do.

Last night in a FTF session my opponent (as part of a major fleet-to-fleet combat) declared of his subs as Kaitens in an attack.  He designated 3 each to hit 2 battleships, then promptly rolled 6-4-4 and 2-5-4.

Kaitens hit on 3.

6 subs wasted, one battleship dinged.  If he had saved the subs as normal subs, he would have still scored just one hit with them, which still would have resulted in one battleship dinged, BUT he would have had the subs to use as fodder against my return fire.  I’m sure Kaitens can be useful in their place and that was certainly an unlikely roll, but I doubt he’ll select the Kaitens NA any time soon again!

~Josh

PS - I would not have aimed those Kaitens at Battleships anyway… I would have sent 2 apiece after 2 Aircraft Carriers and my single Destroyer - take out the Destroyer and the rest of the (non-kaiten) subs get a sudden boost in power.

I would put Egypt at around 7 or 8 on that list.  Closes the Suez, and if Germany owns it firmly it probably owns the rest of Africa as well.  Algeria sneaks onto my list because, while it doesn’t provide much active benefit, losing it means that the Allies have a foothold toards Europe or Africa.

Karelia and Norway are too hard to hold, and the Balkans and Belorussia are more often behind the front lines than not.

W. Europe comes above Caucus - you can stand to lose Caucus, but not W. Europe.

Everything else on the OPs list I pretty much agree with.  My list therefore looks like this:

1.  Germany
2.  S. Europe
3.  E. Europe
4. Ukraine
5. W. Europe
6. Caucuses
7. Egypt
8. West Russia
9. Karelia
10. Algeria

~Josh

Tank mobility is rarely useful for anything but Africa

If you say this then I think maybe you’re not using tanks to their full potential.

Yes, Africa generally provides the widest-open spaces for tanks to blitz through and sweep up a number of territories in a round, but their range also means that you can keep them back behind your front lines in position to strike a number of territories.

Put it this way:

An Inf in the Ukraine can reach five territories.

A tank in the Ukraine can potentially reach TWELVE territories.

~Josh

@DarthMaximus:

Am I missing any?

It’s nice to be able to jump German Inf straight from Berlin to Karelia via the Baltic transport.  Or to Norway for reinforcement there.  Fewer rounds spent marching, more spent in the face of the foe.

~Josh

Games with my group usually go three or four 3-5 hour sessions.  Of course, certain habits cause our play to slow down dramatically.  :wink:

~Josh

whoops.  fixed, thanks