Posts made by rockrobinoff

@Subotai:

I Defensive play in poker can result in losing $10 instead of $5000. In A&A you can only be defensive up to a certain point, and when your capital is surrounded its too late to change tactics. There are choices in poker which are not available in A&A.

In poker, you have the antis or blinds. Defensive play can only be applied to “a point” in poker as well, or you lose all your money, just slower.

Chess is a board game, like A&A. Poker is a card game, unlike A&A. Chess was made for someone who couldn’t live w/o war. Chess is more popular than A&A. Why not apply the same attitude to A&A as chess?

I don;t see how popularity enters into it. Chess is an anceint game and has had thousands of years to mature and spread itself. While i consider chess to be a magnificent game only equaled by Go, it expresses different ideas than axis and allies.

@bugoo:

Ok here is the thing, it all depends what you want out of the game.

Dice players want a more ‘beer and pretzels’ type game, where the chaotic elements are seen as a positive as it keeps the game ‘interesting’ and more ‘fun’.  Kind of a casual serious game.

i’m a dice player, and dont consider axis to be beer and pretzels at all. the only advantage i see in LL is that it is more predictable. the disavantages of LL include the dumbing down of several core elements.

@Subotai:

There is also no mention of playing w/o tech in AAR and Classic. There is also no mention of bids, neither in AAR, Classic and AA50.

“Chatic elements”, in the context it is used here, means luck and randomness.

I see A&A as modern variant of chess. Its not the same, but there are similarities. Imo chess should be an ideal for many boardgames. Its simple, its easy to learn, its hard to master against good players, its very popular, have been known for thousands of years. Chess is also an abstraction of reality, as medieval king vs king, emperor vs emperor etc.

If I’m playing in a ladder or league or just casual games, I have the same approach to A&A as I would if I played chess. I also have the same “state of mind”. Its a competition, its a struggle. Why play such a game if choices are less important?

First a little background about myself. I have played competitive chess for about 15 years, own north of 200 books on the subject, work for a chess site, count grandmasters amoung friends.

All that said, I like A&A becuase it isn’t chess. It is a separate game. Your argument that A&A (and apparently other games) should be as much like chess as possible holds little weight. Poker is a fascinating game, and the fact that “luck” often determines the winner completely misses the point. What a good poker player takes satisfaction in is the knowledge that they made good descisions, and the result is beside the point. Why not apply the same attitude to A&A?

@HolKann:

The problem is that “stretching it” is the optimal way of playing A&A…

Btw, did you ever try LL?

I have played a fair deal of both versions. I don’t think it is biased of me to call LL not A&A, there is no mention of playing by such a system in the rules, and it is a significant characteristic.

I would also like to mention again that determining the best player more often is not the only measure of whether a game system is better than another. Sometimes for certain ideas to be expressed chaotic elements must play a roll.

Lastly, “stretching it” is often not the right play in A&A. Sometimes it is highly debatable at a minimum(such as the raging debate over Egypt)

@Subotai:

There are several people who confuses risk management with luck. This is not the same. The word “Management”, I think of something we can actually manage. No one can manage dice rolls, unless you are cheating, or you have a divine agreement with the dice gods. Either you can control the dice rolls or you can’t. If you cannot control the dice rolls you can not do risk management in dice games.

That misses the point. A way of minimizing (or ‘managing’) risk is to fight fewer battles but with more attacking units per battle. For instance, on Japan 1 (AA50-41) you can attack the USA battleship with 2 fighters and a destroyer and send 2 fighters to the Western USA coast to attack the destroyer+transport. Or, some other combination, like 3 fighters and a destroyer against the USA battleship, and one fighter against the destroyer+trans. You risk failing against the destroyer+trans combo in the latter, but are almost assured of destroying the battleship. Or, you can stretch it. The player is forced to way the pros and cons of both plays. In LL, it is dumbed down.

On Triplea, and perhaps other sites/servers, some players prefer to play with Low Luck (LL) versus dice.

For those not in the know, LL just adds up all the combat power of the attacking units, divides by 6, and rolls the remainder. Then, does the same for the defender.

E.g. If 2 tanks and an 1inf attack 2inf, the attacker is guaranteed a hit on the first round, with a 1 in 6 chance of two hits. The defender is has one roll at 4 to hit on the first round. Note that the attacker has a 100% chance of winning the fight after two rounds of combat.

Proponents of LL point out that the better player will win more often. My response to that; the better player is winning a different game.

Part of Axis and Allies skill is risk management. To my mind, a very important skill. In LL, the importance of risk management is nerfed considerably.

A second way in which LL radically changes the game, is the ability for units to hit multiple times. For instance: In dice, one could attack three targets with three different pairs of fighters. Let’s assume that the goal of the attacker is to hit twice in the first round in at least one of the battles. In dice, an average of three hits could be divided in several different ways. Two in one, one in the other, and zero in the last, or some other combo. Now, in LL, the fighters would score exactly 1 hit per combat. I ask you, is that still Axis and Allies? It is not somehow hoping to ‘fluke out’ if you send three pairs of fighters and hope to get two hits in an individual battle - in fact, it is hoping for an average result that spans several battles.

A third knock against LL is the predictability of the opening rounds makes the beginning of the game more prone to pregame analysis, and the ability to adjust to unexpected outcomes also nerfed. Again, is this still A&A?

Lastly, the measure of a superior game system is not simply reduced to defining the better player more often. Certain aethetics and the exploration of some kinds logical ideas require chaotic systems, and the cost of that is strange dice blips from time to time.

One last time: LL is a different game. Its not Axis and Allies.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

No, not if you loose(sic) more than 11 IPCs worth in units to trade it.

I believe what is relevant is some formula based on the total cost in units in proportion to the difference in economies between the axis and the allies. if the allies are ahead economically, then a 1 - 1 trade in units is to their advantage, for instance.

@U-505:

When I’m playing Japan I don’t really worry too much about the UK taking it’s Pacific NO because that extra money is rarely spent against Japan.

i can’t see how which country one is playing makes any difference. the extra money will get used against germany, which is bad for your side.

axis and allies is a multiplayer game in name only.

@Subotai:

All things being equal, then I would say allies are favored to win the game.

That’s my assessment as well. There seems to be other, less risky, targets that should give Axis a good game.

@Subotai:

Imo if Germany is left with 1-2 tanks in Egy G1, then axis have huge advantage, if every other battle was average.

And if they lose?

@U-505:

If you do not even attempt to attack Egypt, Italy’s growth in Africa will be stunted, at least, if they are not outright ejected from Africa altogether in the first few turns.

Do you agree though, that if the attack on Egypt fails (all G units lost, British fighter intact) that the Axis position is close to breaking already?

@bugoo:

One of my thoughts after playing allies is france is bait that is not worth it.  Unless it can be taken, and held, nine times out of ten it is not worth trading.

Not worth trading at 11 bucks a pop?

Assuming all optionals on. Dice.

Egypt

On G1, Germany is a bit better than 2-1 (70%) to take Egypt. Aside from opportunity costs (those units fighting elsewhere) we have the cost of failure (30%). Simply put, it blows big time. At worst, Germany loses 2 tanks, 2 inf, 1 art, and 1 bomber, and fails to take Egypt (and kills some amount of British units, but not the fighter).

The consequences of such a failure, involving expensive units (including a German transport now vulnerable to a British plane) are dire, and for what?

If successful (the average result of the Egypt battle is for Germany to survive with 1 tank and 1 bomber, losing 18 bucks in units for 25 bucks in units, plus Egypt(2), for a 9 IPC gain). Denying the 5 IPC National Objective to Britain is only potential, given the 2 inf in Trans Jordan are a favourite over the lone tank in Egypt (54%, and UK could conceivably commit it’s bomber as well).

The success helps Italy no doubt, as Egypt is important to their economy. However, Italy can be in Egypt on Italy2 (close to forced).

Also, if the fight goes very well in Egypt, and Germany survives with both tanks, Germany can run all over Africa with them, and double team on the two British infantry, which would normally be a thorn in German expansion.

So, what are the costs in terms of opportunity? On G1, the German bomber won’t be blowing up British boats. A sub and a couple of planes at SZ 12 and SZ 2 is very tidy, whereas other combinations invite disaster (even if favourable) or cost planes in terms of hits (undesirable) or leave sinkable boats alone (unthinkable). The transport and Africa core can be used against the Russians (or to defend france, freeing up units there).

In short, do you want to risk what could potentially be the whole game on 70% chance of success, where even if you win (admittedly, it quite nice) its not game deciding, and you have other perfectly good and less risky options?*

Japan

Japan is simple. Expand quicky. Be efficient. Blow up china. Take India.

That said, it is very hard to generalize beyond that, because after J1 (very simple if you ask me) everything depends on America.

Russia

I like 10 inf first buy when Germany ignores Africa, and pulling out of Karelia (typically into Finland, but not always) when G goes North. If G goes for Africa, the pressure is slightly off, so a couple of tanks (or maybe a plane) and inf. I also like propping up China with Russia if Germany is not 100% focused on Russia. Such options become available when Germany attacks Egypt, or buys Navy.

The Rest

KIF?

I have no idea if USA can split it’s attention between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Perhaps it has to?

Hard game.

• if I was playing someone a lot better than I was, I would seriously consider going after Egypt.

A game mocumentary similar to the interfamous Fear of Girls, ABTWV6 chronicles one man’s attempts to get people to play the game he invented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9S1XuEwrU&feature=channel_page

are you playing with the same group of people each time, or is the pool of players otherwise small?

@Cmdr:

Or, another idea, China builds infantry based on how much territory they have after combat is resolved on their turn. (This gives them a chance to liberate a second territory, but also forces them to have to liberate a second territory to get an infantryman!)

Isn’t that already the case?

@Cmdr:

I figure, as weak as China is, shouldn’t they get at least 1 Infantry a round as long as they have at least one free territory?

Cept the rules state otherwise.

In 41 i attacked the sz 12 battleship with 2 subs and a fighter, losing all three units for nothing. I attacked the sz 12 dest and cruiser with two fighters, missing twice and losing both fighers. i attacked egypt with all ground troops plus bomber, killed all the uk guys except the fighter, and lossed everything. attacked the dest in sz 6 with cruiser and sub and got a mutual. attacked 3 inf in baltic states with 3 inf and a fighter and retreated the fighter after i lost all three guys and failed to kill a russian. i won the ukraine battle 3 inf plus art versus 2 inf, and the battle for east poland, which involved all my tanks and a pile of inf versus a couple inf. i resigned before making my non combats.

Bombers are also 3 bucks cheaper now, making SBRs more tempting.

There is anything you can do to stop the Allies from bombing you if they buy loads of bombers. That said, you also had very poor luck in shooting them down. You cant do anything about very poor luck besides minimizing your risk of it.

thanks. had a player refuse to accept this.