Sigourney Weaver must be involved…
“…too many people are complaining about the strategies, what do we do?”
“…nuke the site from orbit–it’s the only way to be sure…”
:wink:
Seriously: will we have access to any cool new avatars when we’re back up? Failing that, my old battleships would suit me just fine…
Ozone27
:cry: I liked my line of battleships…
What the heck happened? Were they lost when the site was hacked last time?
Ozone27
Guest what have those store clerks been smoking? A&A is one of the most popular board games in the last 15 years. I’ve had my copy at least 8 years & I had seen ads for it many years before that. Welcome to the club…
Since the computer game came out there have been a number of more-or-less official changes to the 2nd-Edition game (which you have) that most players play with. My buddies & I play the board game just like you, but have adopted a few of the new rules…
The new rules that spring to mind are:
1.) Submarines may submerge or withdraw from attack. A submerge is similar to a withdrawal except the sub remains in place & reappears in the SZ it is in after combat…
2.) West Canada apparently borders on Hudson Bay SZ. This is lame, & we do not use this rule…
3.) Naval forces can no longer “occupy” an enemy SZ w/ an Industrial Complex. That is, an enemy may launch newly-built naval units into a SZ occupied by opposing troops…
There are probably more, but I can’t think of 'em right now…
Ozone27
loki ok I’m no genius, but, how can the game be effectively over in t2? that’s like GERmany taking Karelia and then calling it a day. Yeah I can put a whoopin on the old 'putin machine… but T2?
…I’ll explain it to you alamein…
T1 USSR (UNRESTRICTED) attacked Norway & Baltic SZ. They lost in Norway & my TR shot down their 1 FTR in Baltic SZ with no loss there. I attacked Gibraltar w/ 1TR+1 ARM, 1 SUB, 1 FTR & 1 BB & won with the loss of a FTR. T2 UK attacked Baltic SZ w/ 1 FTR (1!) and was shot down w/ the loss of a SUB on my part (I had no submerging SUBs). UK built 1 CV, 1 TR & NO LAND UNITS. T2 I attacked w/ all naval forces + a FTR vs. North SZ; 2 INF (from West Europe) 2 INF (from Germany) 3 FTR & a BMR vs. UK. That was against 1 AA, 2 INF, 1 ARM, 1 FTR, & 1 BMR. UK chose the BMR as the 2nd-to-last casualty; something no human would EVER DO in that situation! I won UK with 1 INF. Meanwhile I had attacked & won Karelia. By the start of T3, UK was eliminated from the game & I controlled Karelia–I took Russia on T3…
Thus, the game was for all intents and purposes over by the end of T2…
Now if I went head-to-head vs. say, a Yanny or an SUD (for example) there is not a doubt in my mind I would be smoked in very little time. So the AI is extremely poor & very detrimental to play…
For months after this I became obsessed with the idea that UK could be beaten by Germany in a few turns due to the ease with which it was dispatched in this game vs. the AI. Needless to say, I–and with me, my allies–lost a lot of games trying my crazy strategies…
The AI sucks that bad…
Ozone27
I thought this topic was only for top players so I never looked at it until now… :wink:
The AI for A&A is pretty weak, but I don’t blame the producers since I have never played a game (except maybe a flight simulator or 2) where the AI was really that much better. Processors just aren’t at that point yet, and even when they are, it will be a long time before it is cost-effective to spend the time & money to program them…
I knew the AI was bad when one game I conquered UK on T2 & USSR on T3 as Germany. This was at 5-STAR LEVEL. It’s not that I’m an expert, it’s just that the computer is limited to a few (IMHO) VERY POOR opening moves & it completely lacks any imagination whatsosoever. Throw an unorthodox move at it and it collapses. With most games (like a flight sim) the AI is very useful for training new players. But with board games like A&A even new players will get used to countering the AI’s initial lousy moves & will never learn REAL play until they play a human opponent…
The patch is a joke!!! I uninstalled it after it wouldn’t let me take Gibraltar as Germany no matter what I did! Seemed to solve the infamous “CV bug” (where planes you forgot to land on NonCom crashed if you tried to land them on a CV), but I decided it was worth dealing with that bug just to prevent the AI’s rampant cheating. Another thing you may have noticed is the AI will sometimes allow itself to “land” aircraft in a SZ with no CV! I guess there is a Zeppelin there in the clouds or something for the FTRs to hook up to in midair. Also the AI S**TS on the Suez Canal Rule–one of the most precious rules in the game! If you conquer the Med, the German BB just sails thru the Canal no matter how many troops you have on either side. LAME!!! The AI may be bad, but at least it should follow the rules…
BTW are there any really good WWII-era tank simulators out there? I know Panzer Commander but isn’t that like a RTS game? I’m looking for more like Fighting Steel but with WWII-era tanks…
Just my $0.02…
Ozone27
I absolutely do not agree. Tech is a potential equalizer that can win the game for a beleaguered power. It’s just a gamble. If you’re willing to accept the risks (that is, the potential wasted money) for the chance to reverse a bad situation, it’s definitely worthwhile. I have seen a number of games where tech played an important role and was extremely valuable to the person that had it…
Ozone27
Indeed, if it can be made such a program will be very valuable in a computer-game context, because it’s much more useful to know how many units you’d have left than just whether you would win or not. Personally, though, I would need a system one could use on the fly in a real-time situation since I only play the board game. If someone could come up w/ something like that it’d be extremely worthwhile…
Ozone27
@Anonymous:
I agree that a technology advantage is a great help (2 IPC inf and Heavy bombers are most useful in my opinion).
:DHowever, I’m not sure how one can counter tech. If Japan techs does the US also roll equallyt for tech to (hopefully) keep at the same level? Do you immediately attack Japan in Asia (or Germany in Europe) if they teched, hoping that their loss of inf., etc. by the cost of teching will set them back beyond repair before they can utilize the advantage they gain?
Any thoughts?
It all depends on what the tech is, & when it appears in the game (and for whom)…
I’ve seen people get a totally cool technology & be unable to bring it to affect the game. I’ve also seen people get the exact tech they need right at a critical time & have it totally win the game for them. It all depends. All I can give are some examples that spring to mind…
There was one game where Japan trounced the entire USA fleet by T2 and had won absolute mastery of the Pacific. Then USA won “Long-range Aircraft” with a single roll. Using the aircraft, a few SUBs and a flotilla of TRs, he had mopped up the floor with Japan’s fleet and was seizing islands within a few turns–having purchased NO capital ships whatsoever. With LRA, he didn’t need carriers to move the aircraft and went on to dominate the Pacific…
There was another game where the Axis were doing well & were within a turn or 2 from Economic Victory. Trouble was pesky Allied forces kept siezing territories just to prevent the win so the game was temporarily stalled. Then USA got “Heavy Bombers”. It transformed the game–now it was a desperate race for the Axis to win before enough BMRs could be built to make a difference. No one was playing conservative, it was all-out attacks on all sides! The Axis eventually won, but Heavy Bombers had really livened up what would’ve been an otherwise tedious “land-trading” excercise…
Then there was another game where Germany was losing badly in Europe, went for broke & won “Industrial Tech”. Unfortunately this only had the effect of prolonging what would’ve been a very short game. Germany didn’t have enough IPCs to make Industrial tech count, so they were limited to just hoarding INF and staving off the inevitable…
Those are the ones that spring to mind. Seems the only sure way to beat tech is to win before the opponent can make use of it…
Ozone27
I was gonna post earlier but didn’t have enough time. I think all the previous posts are right on; basically if you are sure your opponent will go balls-out vs. Karelia, that’s a big advantage for you because you know what your enemy will do. By being so consistently hyperaggressive, your opponent has forfeited the element of surprise–unless he plays conservative this game though, in which case he’s wilier than you thought :o !
I think in the instance that your opponent is sure to attack Karelia, put a strong attacking force in Russia & Caucases (like some INF in Caucases & all your ARM in Russia). Don’t leave Karelia undefended–put a lot of INF there, just not quite enough to win the battle; at this point you actually WANT your opponent to invade because that’s what you expect him to do! Weaken his forces as much as you can before your army is destroyed. Then all you have to do is mop up…
Carefully consider the position of the 2 FTRs you have at your disposal. They are two of the most crucial units on the board & you don’t want to lose them. On the other hand, they are strongest defending so you want to place them where they can do the most long-term damage…
If you have deployed well, Germany will have to utilize a signifigant portion of their airpower in order to win in Karelia. That means their attacks on Britian’s fleets will be correspondingly weaker. Assuming you’ve moved your Barents Sea SZ fleet to North Sea SZ, even if Germany uses only 2 FTR to atack Karelia, odds are at least one UK BB will survive. That is very, very bad for the Axis! They will lose a FTR or 2 on the North Sea SZ attack (maybe a BMR) and still have an impossibly strong force to attack on T3 there (if UK builds its usual CV)! Sure, they might use just their navy in the Med to attack Gibraltar, but there you can often sink them T1 (maybe w/ US help)…
Basically, try to thwart the Karelia attack by judicious counterattacks & good defense, while exploiting Germany’s corresponding weakness on other fronts. Good Germany players think about ALL of their enemies, not just one–every turn–and employ every IPC to it’s absolute fullest. A direct, T1 assault on Karelia with all available forces is just not practical or efficient. It leaves one dreadfully weak in all other areas & if it fails to win you Moscow in a few turns, you’re sunk…
Ozone27
…on second thought, maybe that’s too extreme. A T1 attack on Karelia isn’t ALWAYS impractical, but it usually is. Since there is bound to be a battle there eventually anyway, might as well get it started early if you can. But usually it’s impossible to make it work…
Cool. Are either of them good w/ 3 players, 'cuz that may be what we’re stuck with for a few months (new babies & such)?
I’m really into naval battles, but I’ve heard elsewhere that Europe is the better game…
Hey Drumstix, do you play the drums?
Ozone27
@cystic:
“when axis meet in Persia, they won’t lose their inertia”
…precisely! But why does that always seem to work? What does it mean when the Axis meet like that?
I thought of some others of a more humorous note:
1.) If Germany ever buys a capital ship (CV or BB) they are either just about to win, or just about to lose…
2.) The “Seppuku Maru” rule: if anyone ever purchases a BB, their side will lose…
3.) If Germany ever takes Great Britain, it means that all the players but you have left to go to the bar & you’d better go see what they are doing…
Ozone27
A “Flame” is any kind of personal attack. For example “Your an idiot”
…how many warnings does bad spelling get :roll:
J/K!
But seriously what’s up with the avatars? I know it’s silly but I want a really cool 1! Where do I get a “kosher” avatar?
Ozone27
I only play the board game, so my little system is very crude, but, I’ve found, reasonably effective for the purpose. When I’m considering an attack or a defense I simply add up all the unit values for the appropriate circumstances and compare that to the enemy’s. What I mean is like, for instance, 2 INF & 2 ARM attack 4 INF. The attackers attack at 2-at-1 (INF) and 2-at-3 (ARM). The defenders defend at 4-at-2. If a unit’s attack/defense value is considered as “points”, then the attacker has 2 “attack points” for the INF, 6 “attack points” for the ARM, for a total value of 8 “attack points”. The defender has 8 “defense points” (4 units defending at “2” each) so in this battle the odds would theoretically be even. Works pretty well with very large battles, less well with smaller ones–but it’s the big battles I need an “odds calculator” for anyway so there you go. In smaller battles, experience and intuition serve just as well…
I know this is gonna really bug the odds wizards out there but I’m only posting it because its a system any dope (such as myself) can use on the fly in a live boardgame situation…
Ozone27
I totally agree with all the “new rules”, although the “Racial & Sexual Comments” one I believe should be subject to immediate ban–if someone pulls it once, they’ll probably do it again. Also, what constitutes a “flame”–I’ve seen SUD (for example) post some critiques that are pretty close to what I’d call a “flame”, but he always has a serious point w/ his comments: it’s just a question of phrasing…where do the mods intend to draw the line on “flaming”?
Re: #6: I’m game, but how does one “bow” in cyberspace? :wink:
Most importantly, I’m bummed that when I returned to the site, my old avatar was unavailable. What’s up w/ that? I want a pic dammit! :( How do I git 1?
Ozone27
My thoughts on the matter at hand…
These are not exhaustive, just some things I’ve noticed & have come to mind.
Obviously if an Axis power has fallen, odds are the Allies will win. Also if USSR falls, the Axis have a big advantage as well. But I think the original post was asking if there are any “early warning signs” the game might be in the bag…
I find if USSR is more or less intact by T4, this is a good indication the Allies will win. If the Axis haven’t taken at least 2 or 3 USSR territories by then, they probably never will…
If Japan has not taken all of China by T3, they are probably sunk, unless they have taken a lot of USSR…
If Germany or USSR ever loses all their FTRs that is baaad news for them & their allies!
I may be going out on a limb w/ these other ones but:
If Japan has no capital ships (CVs or BBs) & have not surrounded Moscow, the Axis will lose…
If UK has a BB left after T1, the Axis will lose…
If an Ally takes Eastern Europe & holds it for more than a turn, the Axis are in trouble…
And of course the classic: If the Axis meet one another in Persia or Iraq & remain in contact, the Axis will win…this one sure seems to work, but I don’t know exactly why!
Ozone27
Hi y’all. So about A & A Pacific/Europe–which is better? Is it hard to get used to 1 player vs. everyone else (a particular worry of mine)? It’s looking like we might be losing a player for a while & I’m wondering if there may be a good 3-4 player alternative to the “world” game…besides Diplomacy of course which my buddies seem to lack the b**ls for of late… :wink:
Ozone27
It’s all a gamble & you should really consider what you might get before you roll for tech. I have heard a lot of disparagement re: Jet Power & Super Subs, but there are situations where they are of great use. Consider Jet Power & the CV: 2 Jets on a CV is like a floating fortress & very intimidating to the enemy. As Germany consider the advantage of having 4 Jets & some INF defending Europe: this will certainly worry the Allies!
Super Subs are arguably the weakest tech in the game, but if you get it early enough (& provided you aren’t USSR) you could put it to good use by combining the heavy attack power w/ the SUBs withdrawal/submerge capability to confound & harrass those pesky TR fleets. Its still a useful tech…
Basically, don’t roll for tech when (DUH!) you can’t use what you get or can’t afford a few rolls. Example: even if USSR gets a tech, if its Super Subs, they look like fools…
Ozone27
I don’t think russia should build 1-2 armor a turn. If they do, that’s 10 ipc’s if russia is earning 21 a turn, they can only build 2 armor and 3 infantry, it’s much better to build all iinfantry. Tanks are offencive but very expensive. If the allies can hold their ground, they will win since they have a better production. Using this logic, russia should go all defence. This is true since for a conventional win, axis has to kill russia. There are numerous explinations of why russia should not build many tanks. If you can hold eastern, and you still have your 4 tanks, and you want to take germany, AND japan doesn’t control the 3 territories around russia, then you can build tanks. Otherwise, 1-2 once might be ok (it might not be either) but 1-2 every turn is a waste of money. germany can just kill your expensive infantry. You can read don’s essay on purchacing. It does the math.
…OK maybe I should’ve said “…1-2 ARM per turn when possible…” if USSR is only making 21 IPCs a turn, then yeah, 1-2 ARM is gonna be a big burden. But with F/N under your belt & trading Ukraine each turn, 1-2 ARM each turn or so (allowing for occasional turns when all INF is necessary) is still a good idea. Without ARM you will have to rely entirely on your 2 FTRs for offensive firepower & will have to load up on a lot more INF to sustain attacks. Using only your original 4 ARM, you will have to preserve them and your ability to trade territory w/ Germany will be limited. I think its a good idea to buy a few ARM units along with your steady diet of INF…
Ozone27
The most successful USSR Far East strategies I have seen usually involve hunkering down in Yakut with all nearby troops on T1 & leaving them there. Kind of boring, I know, but considering that USSR can stack 7 INF in Yakut on T1 (2 from SFE, 3 from Yakut, & 2 from Evenki) this is a pretty decent defense force without having to purchase a single additional man. Japan has to consider several different fronts & usually can’t concentrate enough troops against Yakut to take it for at least a couple of turns unless he/she leaves other areas vulnerable. Plus you free an ARM for use in the West–maybe you can replace it eventually with an INF–now you’ve got 8 INF!
I don’t think it’s ever a good idea for USSR to leave Russia completely empty. You should be using whatever spare cash on hand to buy 1-2 ARM each turn in order to build & maintain a useable counterattacking force with an eye toward eventually going on the offensive against the Axis. In this case, concentrate the bulk of your INF in Karelia, the ARM in Russia with just a screening force of INF in Caucases or Ukraine SSR. That way you can always threaten a strike against Eastern Europe, while Germany will have to think twice before attacking Karelia–for even if they win, whatever force they take it with will come under the guns of your armor…
Ozone27