Best posts made by simon33

@oysteilo said in Oysteilo (Allies) vs Simon33 (Axis) taamvan mode Game II:

1 out 20, come one! That is almost impossible

Yet it happened. My rolls were 2.33 hits below average, yours 6.33 hits.

Lucky me.

I didn’t see this thread when it was created.

This is a change I would be in favour of. It is much more historical this way. Paratroopers were specially trained units so a higher price makes sense. As opposed to the tech which makes every inf a potential paratrooper. Got to say that I do prefer the automatic air transport in G40. Or make a special unit for air transport as exists in some other (non-A&A) maps, so long as the expense isn’t prohibitive. I don’t much like the being carried in a bomber idea from earlier maps. Paratroops did meet up with other troops (hopefully soon) and fought as per normal so artillery bonuses should still apply.

@Argothair I know what you mean. I think the trouble is that it is very difficult to come up with a difinitive plan for the allies. You have to assume certain actions by the axis. I thought I had a pretty decent go at it but I did leave out a few points:

• Don’t make a naked push for Finland and Norway as USSR. Every man will be cut off and your troops may be killed or you can easily lose Moscow without those men. Or both. If you go after this, other allies, normally USA need to help out. And USA can’t there in time if there’s no J1/J2 DOW.
• A G1 DOW is normally stopped by flying planes into Moscow out of a Persia factory.
• Bid units may change the calculation for Ethiopia and Tobruk but sacrificing the building of a Persia factory UK2 is a large sacrifice.
• USSR running into Iraq is worth 5IPCs if you don’t house rule out the Spread of Communism objective for Asia/Africa. You probably should do so for Libya/Tobruk/Ethiopia/Italian Somaliland.
• Don’t let USSR troops get cut off in Leningrad or beyond without a good reason.
• Don’t stack Amur round 1.
• SZ92 stack may be stronger than the Taranto raid.
• Spanish beachhead strat ties up most of the US income.
• Don’t fall back from Bryansk unnecessarily. (should be obvious)
• Moscow can easily fall turn 6. Try to prevent this.
• When Moscow is going to fall, moving your troops to Samara can allow them to reach Caucasus, because many of the German infantry need to move to Moscow to prevent it being retaken. There is probably not a high fear of this when playing the standard rules because you can plunder Moscow twice.

@FMErwinRommel said in League General Discussion Thread:

Has anyone tabulated the league game results to find out what % of games the Axis or Allies win in BM3 for a certain time period? I say BM3, because usually there’s no bid, whereas G40 results could be affected by different bid amounts. How about any other tabulation of results?

In 2018 it was 55% Axis victories on Balanced Mod, with varying bids. Interestingly, in 2017 it was 47% Axis. These figures are in the spreadsheet for prior years. There’s definitely a trend of increasing Axis victories and bids are increasingly going to the allies in increasing amounts.

Even though paratroopers without amphibious or overland support does have historical precedent such as Crete, the degree of abstraction in axis and allies makes it impractical to stimulate this. I feel it would add negative value. If realism really bothers you, an air transport unit would be the first place I would go.

I think that the bid required varies with skill level. When you first play the game the Axis are often too timid about declaring war, particularly with Japan. This really plays into the Allies’ economic advantage. Even once you understand this point, losing a few Japanese transports really slows you down as the axis. Also, gaining the knowledge of how weak Moscow really is and how much preferred it is to go after that, without being distracted, than going after London, changes European Axis’ moves.

Then there’s blockers and can opening.

Back to the question, so if you’re both complete novices playing straight up might see allied victory but when both are highly skilled bids might need to be 40+.

oysteilo (Allies) over simon33 (Axis) taamvan mode

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33532/oysteilo-allies-vs-simon33-axis-taamvan-mode-game-ii/148

Interesting, perhaps outplayed, perhaps taamvan mode really gives the allies an advantage, perhaps some from column A and some from column B.

Yeah, if reasonable price points could be developed, I would be keen to see this in balanced mod. Also, just have one paratrooper per air transport. Ideally the aa guns would shoot at the transports and the troops would die if hit. I reckon 4ipc per paratroop would be about right. Or do you think it should be more?

One more thing. I wouldn’t bother with upgrading units to become paratroopers, just recruit paratroopers from scratch. Or provide both. If it took longer to get a paratrooper than a battleship that would be ridiculous.

Now as for the idea of having different capabilities per nation, death to your feeble plan!

Have many people tried a strategy as Japan where you take FIC J1 but DOW J3? vs a regular J3 DOW you have 3 more units attacking Yunnan/Shan State and possibly Malaya. I always found it worked better to take FIC J1 with a J2 DOW but have never tried it with a J3 DOW, probably mostly because I haven’t done a J3 DOW for a long time. It costs 8IPC each of J1 & J2 but what exactly would you spend that 8IPC on when not at war anyway? Putting complexes on Shantung as well as Kiangsu? Getting that FIC complex two turns earlier is worth the price for Japan IMHO.

@axis-dominion said in Find League Opponents Thread:

hey all, been gone for a while, missing it a bit so would like to try to fit a&a into my life again, let’s see if I can do so without overdoing it again by taking on 10 games at a time :)

looking for a single M or E opponent, preferably someone who won’t move too fast and is ok with possibly a slower, once per day turn. Oh, and I am so rusty right now!

Great to have you back A-D.

Just a suggestion but a number of players didn’t want to accept your forfeits. Why don’t you pick one of them back up? I’m sure they’d be up.

To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. Last night actually I discovered there was an incidence of a B-17 actually hitting a surface ship. Never heard of that before.

Still, an increase in their cost may be an improvement on the status quo.

This idea was a bit out of left field.

@barnee said in Distribution of units in the attack on SZ 110 and 111 G1:

Is it worth it to try and bait a scramble to 110 using a little less than optimal force ? Wouldn’t Taranto be off the table then ?

No, because the UK can use the fighter on Scotland for Taranto. And that’s even if Taranto is better than a SZ92 stack.

I edited that in in the second post.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10.

I wouldn’t like that so much. That makes cruisers nearly as good value as a mixed carrier group 4Cru only slightly less than 1ftr 1tac 1cv if they are being attacked and the cruisers have more attack value.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Also, like others, I am apprehensive about changing other bomber stats like range and attack power. Among other things, doing so would upset opening moves with God-knows-what unintended consequences.

Alright, let’s go through the potential changes to opening attacks.

SZ111 no scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb. Now: 99.7% A3 bomb: 99.6%
SZ111 scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb Now: 95% A3 bomb: 93%
SZ110 no scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 100%
SZ110 scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 92% A3 bomb: 71%
SZ37 1ftr 1cru 2bomb Now: 99.9% A3 bomb: 99.3%
Yunnan 3inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 99.9%
Yunnan 2inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 99.8% A3 bomb: 99.6%

Only one to be at all concerned with there, IMHO, is SZ110 w/scramble. Perhaps the change will be positive, or perhaps swing it too much then. Perhaps both.

A couple of points:

• If you J1 DOW, it is unlikely ANZAC will have gotten all 3 of its starting fighters to India. That’s actually part of the strength of the J1 DOW.
• It is worth losing a few planes to take India. It isn’t worth losing most of your air force.
• Actually 8IPCs/turn for India - it’s a 3 IPC territory.
• Also get an IC for free.

@trulpen said in BM3 trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+9), no guerilla:

I have a compromising question. I didn’t calculate the situation in sz97, but was just thinking that I’d have plenty of enough defense with 2 filled carriers and 3 scramble units. Looks like I was wrong. Battles have been done in Russia and dice rolled, but my question is simply if you’ll allow me to change my buy with Germany from 1 ac -> 2 des? Seems I desperately need a blocker. :skull:

Still seems a pretty dogdy attack on SZ97.

Anyway, I’ll allow it, even though you’re winning!

@Midnight_Reaper I would say that example reinforces my contention that B-17s weren’t really useful for tactical attacks on land. Mainly B-24s did cover the Atlantic, not sure how much this was recon and how much actual bombing? I’m sure they made attempts to hit subs, probably some successful.

@taamvan said in [House Rules] China Convoy Zones?:

The need would be that most of Germany’s income isn’t vulnerable, which makes the KGF unfavorable. But I do agree with you, most house rules (esp. those invented by others) seem like extras and complications, to me.

In part I see what you’re getting at. It gives the allies an incentive to park 4+ subs in SZ125 and/or a fleet with CVs. However, if they can do that, then wouldn’t they be doing an amphibious assault? I suppose in the case where there is a huge land force on Norway, which I have done once, it may make sense.

I’m going to concede the game right there.

Japan is too strong, USA is too weak and needs to work hard just to defend San Francisco! India will probably fall in 3 rounds or so. Perhaps I can kill your German spearhead in the Middle East but this is not at all assured. Would have been nice if USA could have taken Iraq but I really needed to kill the SZ93 fleet with a 50/50, preferably with a decent force surviving.

Not sure where I lost this one but I think not going to take down Western Europe US3 was a major blunder.

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.

It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.

Anyway, some may regard this change as a good thing although I’m not really on board with this viewpoint.

At this point I strongly encourage players to omit the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. Small beer perhaps but still a step in the right direction.

And I still feel that once the bids reach 10 and the Scottish fighter bid is possible that the game can no longer be considered “nearly balanced”.