Posts made by rockrobinoff

@Funcioneta:

For the 2nd, I’d skip z2 in case of Egypt attack: it’s way more riskier than z12, and if fails, it lets your fig or bomb exposed (for not saying a potential healing of the bb). You could try both z2 and z12, of course, but you must choose:

z2 with sub, fig, bomb & z12 with sub, 2 fig
or z2 with 2 sub, fig, bomb & z12 with 2 fig

Both are too risky.

For the record, the chances of bomber+fighter+sub versus battleship is 95% and the chances of sub+ two fighters versus dest+cruiser is 85%. Given that you agree that the SZ12 attack only has to kill a destroyer at minimum, it is clear that the sea attacks have a much greater chance of both succeeding than one egypt assault.

@Funcioneta:

No need of letting Desert Rats escape to Sudan or Trj. Those units cannot be replaced, while UK boats at England’s coast can be replaced

A 75% is a pretty big chance of success and usually a fail simply means you clear it but not taken or as much the fig survives. Chances of a cathastropical failure are too slim and you are not toasted anyway in that case. You could have a even worst result if not attack Egypt and fail to kill z12 boats because it means italian navy will be dead or reduced to one bb

I always attacked Egypt in 41 scenario. Now I only play 42 scenario, at least for one to one

The minimum result required in SZ 12 is one destroyer. Kill a destroyer, and the Italian navy is secured.

If you get mutual destruction in Egypt (i.e. you lose your bomber) you take even more pressure off of the UK, cause while those boats can be replaced, they are expensive and the UK is getting poorer in this game, not richer, against anyway competant Axis play.

If you retreat with your bomber (meaning you have failed to kill the fighter) and you havent attacked SZ 12, The Italian navy is in trouble. If you use your bomber in Egypt, it means you aren’t attacking one of the major sea targets, and if you are attacking SZ 12, you are leaving UK with two transports - unacceptable in my opinion.

On G1, Germany can safely kill all of the UK boats save the transport+dest combo, and leave the UK with barely enough money to build a new fleet able to withstand a sinking. Meanwhile it hasnt bought anything capable of threatening France and is getting poor. All of this with the knowledge that Axis will get into Egypt anyway on RD 2 and secure the Italian NO.

As for terrible results being rare… the average result in Egypt is for Axis to survive with 1 tank and their bomber. It only takes one extra allied hit to make Egypt a potential disaster.

@Bardoly:

I do agree that one should hit Egypt with everything on G1.

To my mind, Egypt G1 is the debate in this game. Upside: awesome when it works. Downside: Terrible when it fails.

Egypt attack fails outright about 25% of the time. If you do go for it, I think it has to mean that you don’t think the Axis position is very bad when it fails. Otherwise, you forget Egypt, and use your bomber to sink boats in the Atlantic.

what strat would that be?

@hakan:

Me and my friend have played lots of games now, but we never manage to win as Axis.

How do your favourite openings look like G1, G2, G3 and J1, J2, J3? What is your grand strategy?

something must be very wrong, as axis is at least the easier side to play if not objectively advantaged.

sink the british navy, as much of it as you possibly can. SZ12 and SZ2 and SZ 6 are good targets. never mind about egypt or karelia on rd 1. you should be collecting 45 ipcs end G1 - baltic states, east poland and ukraine.

dont trade france. hold france. put the screws to russia for as long as you can. play to be in russia with japan in RD 6. be in india with japan on J2.

the russian sub is useful for the simple reason that you can attack the german cruiser if it ventures to attack the the UK destroyer on G1. after that, it will be useful on a case by case basis.

if the german cruiser fails to attack the destroyer on G1, then the UK has gained by implication, and the sub can perhaps attack the cruiser on R2 if the UK can’t (or chooses not to) attack the germany navy on UK 1.

interestingly, an attacking sub versus a crusier is a 50-50 battle, despite the 2 to 3 difference in combat values, due to the sneak attack capability.

@Zhukov44:

This may not be the place to discuss it, but what is up with AA:50 on TripleA?  I haven’t been able to access the Unstable server for several months, though I don’t often get an opportunity to try.  The community boards seem pretty dead as well.  Is the dice server for PBEM still functional?

I have heard the unstable lobby is occasionally functional - but never when I have tried. I have had a lot of success advertising for AA50 games in the stable lobby, and just arranging to play over direct connection using the 1034 release.

@!ACHTUNG!:

COULD GERMANY BEAT RUSSIA BY BUYING ALL TANKS EVERY PURCHASE EVERY TURN FOR THE WHOLE GAME?

Unlikely. Germany has to be able to trade efficently with Russia while it is building its attack, and will simply run out of infantry before Russia is ready to crumble. Defending France efficently also presents a problem.

@bugoo:

On R1 you must stack the crap outta Karelia or else Germany just makes too much money.

I am not so sure about this. Taking Karelia is worth 7 IPCs (2 plus the bonus). If Russia stacks Karelia, this means they don’t attack Finland and Norway, which are worth 5 IPCs together (5 IPCS I would prefer Russia to have than UK). That is a net gain for Germany of only 2 IPCS.

Additionally, if you are stacking Karelia with the help of the two British fighters, you are costing Russia 5 IPCS for having foreign units on Russian soil.

@bongaroo:

Infantry to do the dieing, armour to do the killing usually.

Armour moves twice as fast toward Russia than infantry do, so if you buy your inf on G1, then move your inf on G2 and buy armor, the armor build and the Inf build will reach the same spot on G3. Maximum effectiveness. Buying a few of each is piecemeal.

Axis and Allies is a very committal game, meaning once you start down a road it generally means that even if you picked the wrong path you have to see it through.

The G1 build is an excellent example of this. If you build navy on your first turn, it basically means you are playing to only contain Russia - to trade effectively and only allow it to grow so large. Germany is ‘turtling’ against the UK, and playing a delaying game in hopes of surviving long enough to be rescued by Japan. The same can be said of G1 air buy.

If G1 is 9 inf + 1 art following up on G2 with a bunch of tanks is natural. Germany is playing to take Russia down on turn Four or Five. In this scenario, Germany may be forced into trading France - though not always, and you are doing very well indeed if you are putting the screws to Russia and keeping the UK out of France. A G1 tank build followed up by more tanks is possible as well.

The point of all this is you need to be consistent, and to avoid any kind of piecemeal strat. If you are going to turtle against the UK, sink as much navy as possible and build a hugely strong navy. If you are going to take down Russia, freaking well play maximum against Russia.

I don’t get these ‘half way’ builds of a few tanks and a few inf. Exactly what does that achieve?

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

@Gargantua:

The game is totally balanced.

Only play style/strategies are unbalanced.

I would only allow bids in AA50 for newer/unfamiliar disadvantaged players, to make them more formiddable opponents. And to keep things fun and exciting, so they feel the desire to play again.

It would be a fantasic coincidence if any game with such a large variety of units, potential setups, and on an incongruent board (i.e. the world) would be objectively balanced to an accuracy smaller than 1 IPC. Part of the interest of the game is deciding just what one would accept as compensation for the weaker side, and which side is weaker. If you think it perfectly balanced (or nearly so) then you would be happy with either side. Others differ.

I have been playing some AA50 - 41 on TripleA lately. Dice, tech, NOS, and a bid for Allies.

The lowest bid for Allies has been 5, and the highest 8, with 6 being common.

My initial instinct was to give the bid to Russia, typically a tank in Karellia. This worked out ok, but it occurred to me a tank in Egypt would be even better, and I have been going with that since.

The addition of the tank in North Africa is profound. First off, the Egypt attack on G1 goes from risky to foolish, and the influence the UK can maintain in Africa lasts the rest of the game. A bid as low as 3 with an inf for UK in EGY might be sufficient as well.

The time I got 8 I bought a destroyer for UK in an effort to keep my battleship alive. I regretted this because it doesn’t really reduce G1 options that much - there are plenty of naval targets to choose from, and Germany always has to skip at least one anyway - so the destroyer became ‘just a destroyer’. Given such a high bid in the future, I think I would put a tank in EGY and an inf in Karellia.

Opinions? What’s the lowest bid you would take Allies for in a competitive game and what would you do with it?

@Cmdr:

Bids in Revised tend to run between 5 and 9 IPC. (armor in libya; submarine in SZ 50; 3 infantry in Ukraine, etc.)

It’s a commonly held convention with many players (including triplea players) that there is a maximum of one bidded unit per territory.

I have bought an AA gun for France on the second turn on many occasions. I am no advocate of an IC in France for Germany (or anywhere else - much too slow).

You never want to get into the situation of trading France with the allies (especially in a NO game) and an AA gun is often the trick for making such trading very inefficient for allies.

I have to agree that Japan is too big to take on directly, so much like in the other versions of A&A, we attempt to take Germany down fast (a full commitment of resources).

That said, I have tinkered with sending some Russian troops to China (just a few, enough to bog Japan down in China) and even the British contingent in India can be sent to China as well. I have had some success with such a strat (hard to call it a strat, as it is more of a wrinkle in an overall campaign).

this question is much too general. you try and buy the number of transports you need given the circumstances. in uk’s case, you have 8 slots to build units, so four transports can shuttle a 4 inf + 4 tank buy, but whether you want more than that depends on a) can you defend them b) do you have units that can be transported c) are you growing poorer or richer, indicating if you will be able to fill any extra transports you build now later. d) etc.

in short, it is rarely useful to generalize much in A&A

just one more time before i bow out of this discussion:

determining the better player more accurately, or getting closer to average results in battles to make certain strats ‘work out’ more often, or having the superior player win more regularly as the result of less variance, is completely beside the point.

so you are playing dice, you outplay your opponent, you achieve 85% odds in a decisive battle, and lose. as the result, you lose the game. so what? you played better, made better decisions, took your shot, and then lost. the only thing you have been denied in all of this is the satisfaction of winning.

take LL. now, you have a game system where certain strategical concepts have been nerfed considerably. what have you lost? a rich tapestry of ideas.

fine, play LL. it is a very good game in its own right. just don’t call it A&A.

@beerbelly:

I like the analogy of ADS compared to poker.  In both games, luck plays a part in ultimately determining who wins and who loses.  However, a seasoned player understands this, and makes decisions by weighing the risks involved in each action.  Also, in both cases, you can outplay your opponent and still lose the game.  I don’t have a problem with that because that is the nature of the game.

That is my position in a nutshell.

What does irk me, is this elitist attitude amongst some LLers who believe that those who play dice are a bunch of newbs who can only win by fluking out, and that dice is somehow less serious. I accept that my preference for dice is just that, a preference, but my preference is not for crazy dice variance, but for ideas that can only be expressed with such variance as a potential.