Posts made by Romulus

@Subotai:

@ Romulus,

it was a very good post, however, some of my problems with ADS is not that I don’t win every 90% battle, I shouldn’t, thats why it’s 90% not 100%.
It’s that some battles I should be left with 7-8 units, and my opponents wins with 5-8 units left…

For capitals, they should probably be stacked to 99% in ADS, 100% in LL.

For smaller battles, I have experienced 4 ftrs vs 1 BB, 1 ftr left, BB not damaged…if BB was damaged I probably would not have retreated the ftr.

I like the football (soccer) comparison, sometimes a level 1 team (Serie A) loses to level 3 team, not often, but it happens. For a level 1 team to lose against a level 2 team is not very uncommon b/c the skills are not very different. In basketball this doesn’t happen as often as in football. Handball is also less “random” than football, for it’s more difficult for a basketball team or handball team in level 2 to win against a level 1 team, this happens more often in football then basket/handball. Still there are no denial in that both football, basket and handball (single) games are both about skill and luck, in the long run it’s definitely most about skills.

My take on this in regard to team ballgames related to ADS vs LL, is that it seems that some battles is like i.e. Inter loses to A.S.D. Pianella…

I should add that even if I’m not that interested in football anymore, I was a huuuge fan of Liverpool (you’ll never walk alone) and still watches most matches in every World Cup and European Football Championship.
For strange reasons, watching football, with more randomness than many other team sports, is/was much more exciting for me than watching other team sports with less randomness.

It’s totally ok that once in a while a level 1 team loses against a level 3 team, and every 10 years during a cup competition, a level 1 team lose against a level 4 team. But any further than that?

For me, the randomness can only go so far, then it’s not strategy, then it’s not about players decisions, we’re closing in on Yahtzee, or Hazard…

The real issue for me is really about the numbers of games played and recorded, just like football. Regardless of what game or competition we’re talking about, usually, the better player(s) wins.
With casual games not recorded, this is a major reason why I prefer LL before dice games.

Well said, I agree.

The point I tried to made is that even LL has its drawback. Assessing pros and cons of ADS and LL also I prefer LL. We should agree, however, that LL is kind different from ADS A&A. Not so much, but there are slightly differences.

I like your football basketball comparison. My idea is that in basktball every action may bring points to a team while in football scoring a goal in an action is a great reward. Many good or even otpimum moves in football may only bring a near miss… that brings 0 points. So I believe greater uncertainity of football matches is due to this fact.

Maybe basketball is more similar to A&A with LL because we may, and we should, maximize the “gain” of each move “increasing the score” every time we go to the attack. This is quite impossible in ADS where a couple of infantry on defense may ruin your day or a single BB may shoot out of the sky 3 of four fighters and remain unscratched or only damaged. This are unlikely, and disturbing, results that LL allows to avoid.

I have made the following reasoning about that. In LL I may send 2 fig against a BB (relying on luck to win) and in ADS I may send 2 fig against a BB (still relying on luck to win). In LL, however, I may send 4 fig against a BB and I have to win because the math say that. In ADS sending 4 fig against a BB is still relying on luck to win (well less luck than in the preceding case but losses may be still heavy).
This is a tactical aspect. A&A is made also of Strategy and Logistics, above all, but the “battle resolving methodology” influences all the aspects of the game bringing tactical aspects to strategic level. Making a Computer Science comparison it is like implementation defines the interface of class… while should be the opposite. This problem is greater with ADS than with LL.

I do not know how to state my idea well: I would like have a “battle resolving system” that should avoid the “very unlikely results” to happen, but should still leave a little bit of uncertainity. A Wargames (even a Light Wargame as A&A is) should not be a mathematichally exact game IMHO. Chess is a Strategy Game not a Wargame. As it is possible to read in my signature:

“Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight above all.” – Admiral Nelson.

Real Generals and Admirals face uncertinity on the battlefield. No division of the attacking punch by six to have the number of casualites inflicted etc. ADS gives this additional problem to the player. LL allows the player to remove this.

Concluding, IMHO is better to play LL than ADS but it is not the perfect solution. We should have a little bit more uncertainity still reducing the frequence of “unlikely” events happening too often.

I am used to play LL in PBEM games, because playing dice rollers “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe” … Also palying f2f “extreme” results happens sometimes. I am able to survive to that however.

The problem is, IMHO, that LL do not resolve all problems. The opening move are still influenced by the dice. There are many small battles involving few units. As many said before small battles are less “scripted”, also with LL the single die has still a big impact on the game. LL is great in “stabilizing” big battles but less effective with few units involved. Strafing shines with LL.

The problem of the big battles however is not the principal problem, IMHO. I often hear people that speak of a match ruined by the dice. They say: I played a good game, victory was in my hands, I deserve to win, but he attacked Moscow (Berlin) with only 10% chanche to win and… he won! What a pity that no one was there to see those event to witness the defeat of a superior strategist to a inferior one in a single battle thanks to dice, after an uncountable number of defeats.

First of all how is it possible to lose to a single battle, in a decisive but single spot, if someone is winning all over the map? If one has a superior strategy/position/force balance and leave an opening to a 10% attack at least he has made one error. If that 10% defeat happens …that the error was a decisive one… Better was to sacrifice a little bit of materiel or position to avoid the possibility of that attack. An Error. Which error? Maybe all that superiority should have been used for ending the game before defeat. Or maybe all that supriority was only our opinion? It is more simple to whine for dice than to analyze our own errors. I am also a chess player, and usually when I play tournament, I take note of my moves and after the match I analyze critically my moves to understood why I have won or lost the match. With TripleA I analyze the game history: the moves, the attacks and the statistics of each round to identify my errors, looking at them critically. Often I have found bugs in my moves and I try to learn from my own errors.

Second: 10% is not 0%. There is a thing that many people do not consider of statistic. It is not like a vote in parliament where the majority is obtained with 50% + 1 votes and the motion is approved or rejected. Statistic have to do with “a priori” possibility (probability) and “a posteriori” observation of results (frequency). Playing A&A by 10 years is not substitute of a book of statistic. Having 10% probability of winning for my opponent, meaning 90% of probability of victory for me, does not mean that victory is the sure event (100% probability) but only that “it is really more likely to happen a victory”. Speaking of frequencies: repeating the same battle 100 times it will be won by me in about the 90 of the attempts end won by my opponent in only 10 cases. What a pity that statistic say nothing about the “order” in wich defeats and victory will happen. No one can grant that the first 90 attempts will be, or should be, my victories.

So where I see the utility of LL? In the ordinary battles. Trading of the frontline territories. In ordinary dicing you may lose a counter attack. With LL if you want to be sure of a winning then you can be sure of winning. Using the best allocation of attacking unit it is possible to have 100% win (sure event) if you want.

There is a problem also here, however, this may “consume” more materiel sometime, materiel that will be washed away in the enemy counter attack that will be done using LL and in wich our remaining units will be smashed without hope (to be themselves destroyed in my next turn). Usually I react to that palying as it was not LL: I trade frontline zones with minimal forces using about the same units used in ordinary dice. For example I use 2 inf and 1 fig againist a lonely inf and not 2 inf and 2 fig or 3 inf and 1 fig to achieve 100% victory chanches.

Concluding my opinion is that we have problem also with LL, that solves many issues but leave others open. The game with LL is different, is still A&A, but it is different, and sometimes requires different skills to be mastered. And requires also different skills to be accepted… Some weeks ago I was accused of being too much lucky in a TripleA LL games becuse my dice hits more than the expected average…

I hope that the “core set of rule” of AA42 will be the same of AA50, having two different sets could be cumbersome. In my playgroup we used the LHTR also for Europe and Pacific (when we still have time to play them) … maybe unbalancing the game a little more… but avoiding a pre game session of rule refreshing.

@DrFager:

tripleA rocks.

the only knock is the weak AI, but single player games are not its focus. having the ability to play solo in any capacity for a free open source project intended for online play is really a bonus imo

not being able to configure a firewall is a user issue, especially when they explain (for the non tech savvy) how to configure your firewall on their website. in these instances the question should be, why dont I know how to operate my firewall, not why cant the game configure my firewall for me.

I agree!  :wink:

And about: “why dont I know how to operate my firewall, not why cant the game configure my firewall for me” if TripleA would be able to configure my firewall the question will be: “What kind of firewall I have?”  :-D

@Bardoly:

The example of the Suez Canal was for ships that want to go through the canal.  I believe that it is stated that your side must control both sides of the canal at the beginning of your turn for your ships to be able to move through it at any point in your turn, including non-combat.  My group and I have always played it this way, but if we are wrong, could someone let me know?  Thanks in advance.

You are right about the Canal, your side have to control both sides from the start of your turn in order to allow to your naval unit to move through the canal. But this have nothing to do with your original question:

@Bardoly:

NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia

Is this a legal move?  In my gaming group, we have always played that you couldn’t Non-Combat Move into or through a territory which was just captured in the same turn.  Like, if Italy captures Egypt and Transjordan on the same turn, then during his Non-Combat Move Phase, I understand that he can’t move through the Suez, because he wasen’t in control of it at the beginning of his turn.

What I pointed out is that in the rulebook there is no rule that forbids to land units of moving into friendly territories in the NCM. The territory have to be friendly at the start of the NCM there is no other requirements. Canal rule have nothing to do with this.

So the answer to your original question: “NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia - Is this a legal move?” is Yes, it is a legal move.

@Bardoly:

NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia

Is this a legal move?  In my gaming group, we have always played that you couldn’t Non-Combat Move into or through a territory which was just captured in the same turn.  Like, if Italy captures Egypt and Transjordan on the same turn, then during his Non-Combat Move Phase, I understand that he can’t move through the Suez, because he wasen’t in control of it at the beginning of his turn.

It is a legal move. pag. 21 of the AA50 Manual, Phase 5 Noncombat Move:

Where Units Can Move
Land Units: Land units can move into any friendly territories. They cannot move into hostile territories (not even those that contain no combat units but are enemy-controlled). Note, this the only phase in which antiaircraft guns can move.
…
Air units: an air units must end its move in an eligible landing space. Bombers and fighters may land in any territory that was friendly at the start of your turn.
…
Neither bombers nor fighters may land in any territory that was hostile at the start of your turn, including any territory that was just captured by you this turn.

For air units it is clearly stated that they can not end noncombat move in a space that was hostile at the start of the turn. No similar remarks is done for the land units, so there is no ditinction for friendly territories conquered or owned at the start of the turn. They are friendly in the NCM and then the land units may move in.

Regarding canals, pag. 7 of the AA50 Manual, Canals:

… A canal is not considered a space, so it doesn’t block land movement: Land unit can move freely between Trans-Jordan and Egypt. …

Canal has no influence on the land units movements.

@Cmdr:

I’m not really saying to take all the submarines out and melt them down to make new playing chips.  What I’m saying is that submarines are hopelessly underpowered.

I’ve built them myself.  I’ve encountered them.  So far there has been one underlying, fundamental truth:  The side with more submarines in its fleet losses the naval battle.  I’ve yet to see a naval battle where one side had more submarines than the other and won.

Commander Jennifer, I agree with you for the arguments you have already said.

Briefly: submarine are weak in defense, they are useless to stop movements, they do not inhibit loading and unloading.
All this think are fact and I agree with them.

What I was trying to do is exploring situations in which they may be useful.
I think that the vastness of the Pacific Ocean may allow the submarine to be used while the Atlantic, being more smaller, do not allow such maneuvering, force to stack sub, and definitely make them more vulnerable to a single DD and airpower.
So Germany, in many games, should only use the subs already on the board without buying more.

We should consider two things prior to throw all our submarines miniatures out of the window.

Using submarine as fodder for attacking is cheap.
In the sample made by Darth Maximus, Jennifer countered adding another sub. So what if the attacker adds another sub to the pool? The attacker has still saved 2 IPC and iterating the attacker will be able to have more sub than the enemy will have destroyers. The problem is, the more sub are in the attacking force the less destroyers one can use as fodder. So attacking sub create exceptions to an unwritten rule: the DD are the main cannon fodder for the fleets. It will require to the defender to lose some CA or AC to preserve the DD and when the regular fire of the remaining attacking units will come, could be neede to lose more valuable units to preserve some DDs. Using attacking submarines will change the way loss are selected, the defender will not more able to loss first all the cheap DDs and then the remaining of the fleet. Sure this is not a dramatic change but is something to be considered when shaping the tool for killing the enemy fleet. This will create an opportunity for the opponents to make an error in selecting his casualties, and it is always a good thing to create opportunity for an error of the enemy.

Sending the submarine fleet all stacked togheter in the same seazone is useless, they require only one DD to be destroyed as Jennifer correctly said. But if they are used in smaller groups they may create problems. This is a behaviour that is not common in A&A. In A&A it is common to stack unit to increase their aggregated value. Subs, instead, may be used as lonely units. They open the scenario to maneuvering. In the Pacific, not in the Atlantic that is too small for this.

A&A is interesting because there is several tools for different task, trying to have all done with a single unit is not what the game rules are for. I have played few games but right now, in my first games, I am thinking that few submarines may integrate the offensive strategy of a fleet: forcing opponents to buy DDs, forcing him to have DDs and aircrafts in the position to hit submarines, maneuvering them around create problems to the opponent and may create opportunity for the attacking fleet.

I do not know the specific meaning of the error you get, but if it worked and now it do not it should be not a problem of TripleA, the programs has not changed. The problem is of the connection, the Lobby Server or your internet provider.

Sorry, but I can not help you on this. :(

@TG:

Romulus:

…Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game?

I know English isn’t your first language, but that sentence was LOL.  :lol:

Moses I was feeling like Lt. Cmdr. Data at your answer when I suddenly discover my error! lol!  :-D You are right my sentence is quite humorous!
I intended to write addition…
Now I understood.

If you intend the password for accessing the lobby it is not a question of TripleA.
Or maybe a problem while writing your password.
Try to create a new username and check!

@Cmdr:

Romulus:

I have to say, Italy is a very under-respected nation.  Those of us who respect her adequately enough, try to crush her as fast as possible.

I agree but just because people do not consider Italy interesting should be included in the “one free tech idea”. It may be the only one possibility for Italy to have a technological improvement! :)

FAQ addressed this, the units to be considered are only the chinese units (including the china starting fighter that is chinese for gaming purposes).

So if a territory contains less than three chinese units, at time of placement, is eligible for deploying chinese infantries.

@TG:

7)  Perhaps each nation should start with 1 Technology Right off.  USA/UK/Japan:  Improved Shipyards.  Italy/Germany/Russia: Advanced Artillery.  Neither is overly powerful, but they’d give the game an added depth.  (Think like the optional rule that Germany had Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines in Classic.  This is not unprecedented!)

Doable.  Though if you head in this direction, I suggest each power should get a more “nation specific” technology.  Like USA: Improved Shipyards (or war bonds!), UK: Radar (Ha!), Russia: Advanced Artillery, Germany: Jet Fighters, Japan: Long Range Aircraft, and Italy: a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Seriously, Italy doesn’t deserve tech.

Why? Do you think Italy is already over-powered? Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game? Or…  :?

It should be possible. Once cleared the sea zone is friendly and then naval units may move in or through them.

I am wondering which may be the NOs for Godzilla and Giant Ants … other than rampage all around!  :-D

I fail to remenber in wich thread this thing has been discussed but the answer is no.

You have always to palace your units if your IC has the capacity.

In our f2f play group we usually play the 1941.

I agree with bbrett3 about the motivation it is “more new”.

1942 scenario, seldom interesting, is too much similar to preceding A&A games.

Traveling one extra space is never allowed.

Existing fighters must be able to reach a sea zone adjacent to the IC for landing on newly buil carriers.

Newly built fighters deployed on a carrier, present in a sea zone adjacent to an IC, are supposed built in the sea zone (as the ships are), so they are not placed in the territory and then moved. So they are not moving an extra space.

I have a play group of four players should I play only A&A Europe?  :-o

We are playing anniversary splitting both team, and we are so organized:

Axis:

Germany and Italy;
Japan.

Allies:

UK and USSR;
USA and China.