Posts made by rjclayton

Yes your crack pipe appears to be missing here, and your Heineken looks lonely, owl.

As always, it depends what the board looks like after Moscow falls.  Typical board would probably have Japan holding all of UK’s territories except Canada and Great Britain.  With an income that low how long could UK really hope to last against a combined GER/JAP with income over 100 IPC?

Yes, it makes a big difference.  In Revised the game is generally considered to be more balanced, while in classic the game is more unbalanced favouring the allies (possibly why you found that russia pummelled you on an all-navy buy).  Also in revised you start with 4 ships in the baltic and in classic you only start with 2.  Also in revised germany gets 40 IPC to start but in classic on 32 IPC.  Also in revised AC cost 16 IPC but in classic they cost 18 IPC.  Also in revised there are more sea zones between Eastern US and the baltic, so it takes longer for the US to bring forces to bear on it.  In Classic the US can get their much more quickly to help mop up your fledgling navy.

Plus I’m sure many other differences that may also play a role.

But the probability that you have calculated is .32476215 for Infantry on attack and .12978248 for fighters on attack.  8 decimal places.  That you chose to display them as a percentage does not change the fact that the probability is to 8 decimal places.

@Jennifer:

BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate. It’s a Newton thing.

So, you wouldn’t happen to be referring to Newton’s Method, would you?  A guess and check method for calculating the root?  Because I don’t see what this calculation has to do at all with calculating the average number of hits with your infantry?

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/2413/NewtonsMethod.asp

I’ll agree with U-505, an art purchase is better than an arm purchase in this scenario.  Dollar for dollar art actually defends almost as well as arm and offensively art (combined with if) attacks better than arm (combined with inf) dollar for dollar.  If you don’t need the mobility of arm (and you shouldn’t early in the game with GER) then art is a better offensive purchase to bolster your inf.

@Jennifer:

And RJ:  Yes.  According to Newton and the modern mathematical community, 6 decimal places for a single variable equation is considered accurate.  More is nice, but it is not necessary to be considered accurate in a single variable equation such as percentage of infantry units that hit on attack or percentage of fighter units that hit on attack.

But aren’t your examples 8 decimal places?

Actually, Jen makes a really good point about fighters defending further from the front lines.  As Germany, you can have half of your fighters defending Ukraine and half of them defending Germany, and use them all to attack/strafe Caucasus before landing 1/2 back in Ukraine and the other 1/2 back in Germany.  Much more mobile than tanks in that scenario.  Of course alternatively you could have used all of them to strafe an allied fleet in the baltic and land them back in the territories they came from (whatever’s left of them).

Definitely, and not a bad option for the US either.  That sub can represent useful fodder in a later battle instead of just leaving it to die at pearl on J1.

Was the downtime in the last hour related to this?

@losttribe04:

With classic rules lets say the SUB can be spared the first round and submerge or retreat to the US West coast

Submerge doesn’t happen in classic.  So we’ll say the sub withdraws to the US West Coast.

@losttribe04:

if Japan does a Pearl lite attack. On US 1 you could then counter with 1 SUB, 1 Battleship, and 1 TRAN as fodder, to be reinforced with what ever else the US chose to buy (assuming navy due to the KJF).

The question is, if Japan did Pearl Lite, what is there to counter?  Maybe nothing.  See my earlier post about a US counter of 1 sub 1 trn 1 bb at Wake against a Japan fleet of 1 ac 2 fgt 2 bb.  Disastrous for the US.

fighters are extremely useful for trading territories, particularly when you are trying to take a territory but leave a minimum number of units there because you know whatever you leave there will just be slaughtered when your opponent counter attacks.  If you traded these territory using arm instead of fighters, the arm would be lost.  Using fighters allows you to only leave 1 or 2 inf in the newly captured territory instead of the more expensive arm.

Also fighters are incredibly mobile, allowing you to attack land or sea, as well as being able to attack in Europe one turn, and attack in Asia/Africa the next.  Fighters can also fight behind enemy lines, while arm can only move 2 territories if the first doesn’t have enemy units in it (otherwise it must stop in the first territory and fight).  Arm just don’t have the same mobility as fighters.

That being said, for a siege on a capital, arm are better for the reasons you list.

@losttribe04:

having your US sub retreat (J1) pearl attack, and make its way to Japan to disrupt transports on US1 could also work on revised.

I think you were the one to bring up revised… :cry:

@Jennifer:

Since it was a petty correction and you’re just a lawyer, not a mathemetician.

Mathematician?

@Jennifer:

BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate. It’s a Newton thing.

We do, do we?

It will vary greatly depending on when you plan on attacking.  If you are not bleeding off your infantry stacks by strafing, then you want to continue building both offensive (art/arm) and defensive units (inf).  But if you are planning on strafing (or expecting to get strafed) then anticipating that with a pre-emptive all-inf build a few turns before the strafe will go a long way to preserving your front lines.

The difference though is that Germany committing additional ground units to CAU means those units die R2.  Japan committing additional ground units to secure SFE does nothing for Russia other than pull them off China - Russia can’t really counterattack them because SFE is a Japan deadzone with their fighters, transports, and BBs.

It is somewhat micromanagement, we’re only talking about 2 IPCs and 1 inf, but I still think you’re better off just giving Jap SFE.

I would also prefer 3 trn over 1 ac if I get a chance to strafe the Allied fleet with Germany.  even though the ac attacks at 1, and the transports all attack at 0, that is 3 more hits I can absorb with my fleet before I start loosing air.  I start with 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 des.  Add 3 trn and I have 7 boats for fodder on an attack on allied shipping.  Who knows I may even be able to strafe for 2 rounds without risking air.

Even 2 trn on G1 might be enough to discourage an attack on that fleet in round 1, and costs the same as an ac.

Here are some comments from Sub Dude and Polywog on using TripleA in their recent game:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8992.msg184778#msg184778

I haven’t built a navy with Germany yet, but I think I would consider a 3 trn buy in the baltic on G1.  Here is why:
1. UK has to protect against a possible London invasion
2. Bolsters the defense of the existing Baltic fleet enough to discourage a round 1 attack on it.
3. Very useful for counterattacking any UK/US foothold in Norway and/or moving troops to EE/Karelia from the Western Front

There is a paper written about this purchase over at Caspian Sub with lots of analysis (sorry, don’t have the URL handy).

How about NHL '95 for the Sega Genesis?  That was a game ahead of it’s time.

I know I would put Load Runner (commodore 64) on the all-time list.  That game rocked!