Posts made by way2slo

@way2slo:

Win Percentage Plus Battle Victory Percentage –> WPV = WP + VP  Note: This is meant to measure the total effectiveness of a player.  Rage is 0.000 to 2.000.  It will be hard to have the same values between two players here.

This could be a really interesting statistic to debate over.  It measures the success of a player in the microcosm of single battles as well as the macrocosm of entire wars.  Granted, the two are related loosely, but style of play will affect it.  A player that does not win often, but puts up a good fight will still get a decent score.  If you win half your games and half your battles, you will rate 1.000.

Of course, we really won’t know how good it can be until we try to calculate it and see how it works out in the real world.  I highly encourage the online players to try and calculate their own WPV score.  You could go back and try to find your games and count the battles and the outcomes.  Perhaps that is too much to ask.

A better alternative is to start fresh with new games and keep track as you play.  That will be easier.

To calculate WPV, record the number of games you play, the number of times you win, the number of battles you fight, and the number of times you win a battle.  Take the number of times you win and divide them by the number of games you played to find your winning percentage.  It should be between .000 and 1.000.  Then take the number of battles you won and divide that by the number of battles you fought to find your victory percentage.    It should be between .000 and 1.000.  Add your winning percentage and your victory percentage to find your WPV score.  That should be between .000 and 2.000.

Is WPV a perfect stat?  No, but it I think it is a good statistic.  That is the beauty of it.  A perfect stat is a boring stat.  No debates.  No opinions.  However a stat like WPV leaves room for debate and opinion.

Give it a shot.

@ncscswitch:

I am NOT volunteering to compile those stats!

Not unless the folks here want to HIRE me to do it since it would be a full time job.  6 figures to replace my current wages and I’ll consider it…  :-D

No need.  We could easily replace you with a small shell script.  :-D    Just kidding.  We would NEVER replace you.  :wink:

It could be done with some Perl/PHP/shell scripts via a web interface.  Use flat files or MySQL, which ever is easiest.  Let the players enter in their own information using the Honor System.  The stats would grow.  Have a calculation page with a few options at first.  It could be neat.

@Perry:

With so many games being played at Axisandallies.org, is there any statistics on the games?
I am thinking stats like win ratio Axis/Allies, average bids  and  perhaps what turn the game ended in.

So, is there any such statistics available?
What more statistics would be interesting to see, except for the abovementioned stats?

Baseball fan here.  I bet I could think of a few.  :-D

Player Statistics
Total Games Played –> G
Total Games Played as Axis --> GAX
Total Wins --> W
Total Losses --> L
Total Ties --> T
Total Wins as Axis --> WAX
Total Wins as Allies --> WAL
Total Rounds Played --> R    Note: a nation’s turn counts as 1/5 of a Round.  Conceding after UK’s turn, you have played .6 of that round.
Total Battles --> B              Note: Strategic Bombing, Cruise Missles, etc. do not count as battles.
Total Battles as Axis --> BAX
Total Battles Won --> V      Note:  To win, the attacker must occupy the contested territory or the victory goes to the defender.
Total Battles Won as Axis --> VAX
Total Win Percentage --> WP = W / G
Axis Win Percentage --> AXWP = WAX / GAX
Allied Win Percentage --> ALWP = WAL / (G - GAX)
Average Rounds Per Game --> RPG = R / G
Average Battles Per Round --> ABR = B / R
Battle Victory Percentage --> VP = V / B
Axis Battle Victory Percentage --> AXVP = VAX / BAX
Allied Battle Victory Percentage --> ALVP = (V-VAX) / (B - BAX)
Win Percentage Plus Battle Victory Percentage --> WPV = WP + VP  Note: This is meant to measure the total effectiveness of a player.  Rage is 0.000 to 2.000.  It will be hard to have the same values between two players here.

League Statistics
Total Games –> TG
Total Bid Value for all games --> TB
Total Axis Wins --> TAX
Total Allied Wins --> TAL
Total Rounds Played --> TR
Total Battles --> TBAT
Axis Win Percentage --> AXWP = TAX / TG
Allies Win Percentage --> ALWP = TAL / TG
Average Bid --> AB = TB / TG
Rounds per Game --> RPG = TR / TG
Battles per Round --> BPR = TBAT / TR

Yes.

see:  AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf    page:  22.

Well, I don’t know if I would go that conservative with any nation besides Russia.  Every nation needs infantry, but all infantry is probably too defensive for the Axis.

@Romulus:

…
I am aware that I am still green and inexpert at Axis and Allies but I am a good studious of History (and this is way I like A&A  :-D).
Naval power may not be understimated without the worst consequences in every military conflict. The competitor that have the naval supremacy may lands troops everywhere and at same time is safe from enemy landings.
Napoleon quits all the plans to invade England after defeat at Trafalgar and that was the first step of his final defeat.
Germany have lost two World War, one after the other, also because German Navy has not been able to gain the upper hand (this is not the only reason naturally).
Roman Empire was built not only with the mighty Legions but also with a powerful Fleet that gained the control on Mediterranean Sea (that was called by them “Mare Nostrum”).

I am not saying that I do not believe in German Land Strategies. I am only saying that IMHO having also a complementary naval strategies may help to stay alive a little more time, and also may help in staying alive better.

I, too, have thought that A&A does not represent naval power correctly.  IMO, this is because there is no concept of trade.  Nations earn income via the land they own at the end of their turn.  If you own the land, you get the income no matter how isolated or cut-off it is.  There is no concept of naval disruption of trade.

Realistically, If the Suez canal is blocked the UK should lose some of the income from Asia and Australia.  Likewise, if Panama were to ever fall to the Axis, the US should lose a little more income than just 1.  U-Boats in the North Atlantic should cause a slight decrease for the UK.  If you could completely surround a nation with your navy, they should not be allow to collect income outside the blockade or at least have it drastically reduced.  Germany tried to do this to UK and the US did it to Japan to great effect.  I read this some place else:

Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan in his famous book about the influence of sea power on history wrote that a nation’s sea power consists of its merchant ships. He saw its warship navy as being auxiliary to the merchant navy, its function being to keep the sea lanes open for its merchants (and to deny their use to an adversary’s ships)

That said, switch is absolutely correct about Germany being a land power.  A&A is a land centric game.  The navy exists only to move land units around or prevent land units from landing.  By that reasoning, you should only have just enough navy to move your land units around as you wish.  Which is why I usually have some transports in the Baltic to aid in shuttling German Infantry to Leningrad.  Their aided defense of Berlin is secondary.

@Jennifer:

Way 2 Slow,

That is why I suggested the possibility of letting the allies move one of their victory cities.  I think it should be limited so that if you move a VC then you have to keep it in the same nation’s territory and obviously, it cannot be on the same territory as another VC.

Might want to exclude any moves to N. America as well as it would be as bad as where they are now, only it would be the axis who can’t win instead of the allies.

So limit it to Australia, Africa or Asia.

Aww…  I want to see if the Axis can take St. Louis.  :evil:

Yes, Leningrad and Calcutta are almost certain to fall to the axis early in the game.  :cry:  Therefore, I do not believe a quick Allied victory is possible in a minor victory game without very good fortune.

I believe your best bet is to do a KGF.

• Abandon Calcutta and reinforce Russia where you can.
• Abandon Leningrad, but retake it with a Russia & UK 1-2 punch later.
• Sink German Navy in Mediterranean
• Have UK and US fighters fly over for support once Leningrad is retaken.
• Have US do Torch, kick Germany out of Africa.
• Build fighters with US when you can.
• US reinforces London
• UK attacks/reinforces Leningrad via SZ4
• UK & US do Overlord
• UK & US slugs it’s way to Berlin and Rome
• Go after Calcutta or Shanghai for the win.

This is by no means “easy” or “quick”.  You all but give them the win at first, but I believe that if you try to defend Calcutta and Leningrad too early, you will be too weak to win later.

@Don:

I cannot find a way for the allies to win in the revised edition, any suggestions?

How are the Axis being played?

// have you tried making them an offer they couldn’t refuse?  :wink:

Instead of a sub from the Baltic, why not move the sub from SZ 8 into the Med.

You can do that on G1 and use it in the attack of the British Battleship.  Naturally, letting the British Transport in SZ1 live.

I agree with Imperious Leader, it is not wise to leave the Baltic weakened if you can help it.

@mjkusn01:

I just cant imagine Rommel with a calculator at his command center trying to figure out whether or not risking a bomber in Egypt is worth the 20% better chance of victory… plus a calculator slows down the nature of the game.
…
Quick calculations are ok … “im sending in 10inf and 4 tanks against his 8 inf… thats 10+12 punch against 16 punch … i should win!”

But using a program to dictate your moves is lame in my opinion (im not trying to offend anyone).

Rommel had intelligence information at his disposal.  You better believe he was doing calculations, of a kind, when making battle plans.  And if he had a battle simulator, he would have used it.  :-D

I was not referring to a battle simulator, but a calculator to help with making quick addition and subtraction.  I usually use paper myself. (I keep a notepad in the game box.  Which I also use to keep track of IPC’s, much faster than the play money and the markers.)  I don’t see a slow down in the game when I use it.  It can also speed up purchasing, too.  You have to remember, there are lots of people out there that are not good at math.

@mjkusn01:

Logistics are always a big problem when my my newbie friends play.

As far as calculators go, I think it takes away from the spirit of the game. I know everything is just statistics and you should have some general hueristics to decide whether its a good attack or not, but I dont like the idea of having an actual calculator on hand.

Well, some people can do the quick math in their head, figure out the Punch, etc., but others cannot.  Everyone does the math, it’s just a question of where.  Some do it in their head, others on paper….the calculator speeds this process up for some.  It allows them to focus on the game better and perhaps have more fun.

I had a similar experience the other week.  A friend of mine threw a D-Day party where we go to his place and watch “Band of Brothers” all in one day and I asked if it was OK if I brought over AAR.  8-)

He was Axis.  Before we played, I took some time to explain the game board and some important things for each nation and showed some key territories and explained why they were important.  I also gave him a run-down on the units and how they are used.  I also gave him several operations for each nation (ex: Torch, Sea Lion, Son of Pearl Harbor) and gave him a few pros and cons for each.  Here is what I remember:

Russia: I was very conservative.  Bought infantry.  Only attacked W. Russia and pulling back everywhere else.  Consolidated in Yakut.  I wanted to see what he would do.

Germany:  He was very aggressive, he bought 8 tanks.  Moved into Karelia.  He ignored his Med Fleet, Africa, & UK Transport in SZ1.  Had his sub attack SZ2 and lose.

UK: Bought a few trans and some ground equipment.  Moved E. Canada Tank, 2 England Inf, and 1 England Tank to Norway for amphib with Battleship and Air support for easy victory.  Had Montgomery attack Libya and win.  Attacked SZ14 with Bomber and Med Fleet for another win.  Sunk Jap sub in SZ45.  Moved Indian Ocean Fleet into the Med.  Marched stuff towards India.

Japan:  Can’t remember what he bought.  He went into Buryatia.  Left Pearl Harbor alone.  I think he consolidated his Fleets near Japan.  He didn’t do much with them.

US:  Bought Transports and troops.  Succeeded with Torch, Germans are out of Africa for good.  Reinforced China.  Flew planes to England.  Consolidated US Pacific Fleet at Pearl.

Russia:  More Infantry.  Started building huge stacks of Inf on W. Russia and Caucasus.

Germany:  Bought Infantry.  Reinforced his positions on the Eastern front and France.  Move Baltic Fleet to SZ7.

UK:  More Transports and ground troops.  Attacked SZ7 with air support and won, Germany has no Navy.

Japan:  Again, don’t remember what he bought.  I think he attacked Yakut with a light force and lost.

US:  more Transports and troops.  Reinforced Algeria.  Started a mini-Cartwheel and attacked New Guinea with 1 carrier, 2 planes, 1 battleship, 1 Sub, 1 transport, 1 infantry, and 1 tank and won.

Russia: more infantry.  MASSIVE stacks on W. Russia and Caucasus.

Germany:  At this point he knew he would lose and conceded the game, but only after throwing everything he could muster at Caucasus.  He was outnumbered almost 3 to 1 and lost.

Overall, he said he enjoyed the game and would want to give it another try.  I did not say or point out anything to him while playing besides saying “Are you SURE you’re done?..… OK.”  It was clear that it was hard for him to judge the odds of a particular combat in his head.  Once he ran out of easy battles I think he was not quite sure what to do and just decided to attack to see what would happen.  Also, he did not see some opportunities and did not know why Africa is worth fighting for.  He also had some logistical problems and apparently not a clue what to do with Japan.  Then again, I think he just wanted the game to be over.

Now, from that experience, the advice I would give to you is:
First, give them a way to do a rough calculation of a battle outcome in their head or on paper.  Tell them to bring a calculator.
Second, advise them that if they think they can easily take out transports without heavy losses that they should.
Third, advise them that if they are not quite sure what to buy that they should make sure they are putting down the maximum number of units that they can for that nation.

@Eijiko:

Greetings,

I played a couple of games with the Allies versus really skilled axis players and I loosed every single game against them. I’m familiar with the basic principles of strategy and tactics in the game but I would be happy to get some advice how to slow down the japanese movements to Moscow (if at all…) since Japan seems to be the major problem
When should I run and when (and where) should I stand and fight?

What round is it when Japan takes Moscow? (usually)
Are you bolstering Moscow’s defense with Allied units?
What is America doing?
What is UK doing?

Without having a lot of information, I am guessing that you are not (A) Coordinating the Allies enough and (B) Hitting Germany hard and fast enough.  If Russia does not have the resources to hold off Japan long enough for the UK and US to take Berlin, it is not Russia’s fault. (unless Russia got too greedy and over-extended itself westward)  It is likely the other Allies are not coordinating fast enough.  If they can occupy Germany, then Russia can focus on holding off Japan.  Remember, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.  :-D

Yes.  I believe Artillery is the best value for offense per IPC in the game when you factor it with the assist to an infantry piece.  (.125 hits per IPC)

@Jennifer:

As the allies, how do you counter the German 1 build:

3 Transports, 1 Aircraft Carrier, built in SZ 5. (+2 Fgt from the mainland.)

Assume a standard 6 or 7 IPC bid to Africa to close Egypt.  All fighters and bomber not on carriers in WE and the Med fleet in SZ 13 (SS, Trn, BB because odds of the defender getting two hits is almost nil when you attack it heavy with your own BB.)

9 Victory Cities or more: Play more aggressive with Russia to the south.  Have US & UK build a Sub instead of a Transport, or upgrade one to a Destroyer.  I anticipate the difficulties Germany introduced to US and the UK will be offset by the lack of pressure against Russia.

8 Victory Cities: …um… KJF?  shrug  Germany just built a nice bridge from Berlin to Leningrad.  I have doubts that Russia can hold it in the short term.  Perhaps I would protect against Sea Wolf, and try and defend Calcutta.  I don’t know.  Have set up a board and think about it.

My question would be:  Why would you want to?

The only reason I can think of is to move an AC to pick up planes from combat.  Other than that, wouldn’t you want to just include those units in the combat itself?  :?

@losttribe04:

As UK they have a two part goal:

1. build a IC in India to give Japan hell in Asia as a method to delay there foothold on the mainland.
2. Build a IC in S Africa this will be used to keep Germany from holding Africa by sending two tanks every turn to the front.

Is it just me?  Or does every Japan player think “Oh cool!, they built me an IC in India.” when the UK dropps an IC in India when the Allies are not going KJF?  :wink:

It is well documented here in the forums that India can easily fall to Japan within a round or two if Japan really wants it. (see the talk about how 8 Victory City Win Condition gives the advantage to the Axis)  Also, I would think (I don’t know for certain) that building another IC in Africa would detract from your ability to protect the India IC and London.  I find it hard to believe that India can defend herself from Japan with no support from the other Allies.

A question:  In the games where this worked very well, what was Japan doing?

@losttribe04:

…however, my wife does have an unusual liking to video games. It has been my experience that not many girls and especially woman have the same level of intrest in video games as they do A&A games.

My wife will play video games ….AND she doesn’t mind the occasional game of AA.  I got her hooked on Dr. Mario when we first started dating.  It was not long until I couldn’t defeat her anymore.  :-(  Haven’t played the old SNES in a while.  Though, I can talk her into playing Mario Kart: Double Dash, Animal Crossing (we were both addicted to this game  :-D ), Mario Party 4, and Wario Ware on the Game Cube.

Like I said earlier, it’s the time commitment that is the biggest road block.  I believe that most women like to play board games, but that they just want to play them for an hour or two at most and then do something else.

@losttribe04:

How do you make it work? what strategy do you use to accomplish this?

Well, I build one of three types.  Escort or Wolf Pack or Mixed

For me, an Escort Navy is all about the Transports and their cargo.  I am not afraid to have more transports than needed for the cargo where the extra are used for fodder.  Basically, lots of Transports with Destroyers for support.  (I call Destroyers the “Tank” of the sea) If I can swing a Carrier and a plane or two that’s great.  I maintain it by adding a new Transport or Destroyer from time to time when practical.  At that point, it’s just a matter of figuring out the logistics of the cargo.  I find myself doing this with the Americans a lot.  Buying bunch of transports first turn, maybe a Destroyer.  After that, I really have to think about the logistics of moving the cargo to where I want and how I want to protect it.

My Wolf Pack Navy is centered around Subs.  Lots of them with Destroyers for support.  A Battleship is great, if available.  Here I am looking to break up a shuck-shuck or perhaps stop an Island Hopping campaign.  I also may use it to strafe a naval force or get a cheap bombardment if I have a Battleship.  I maintain it by adding a new Sub when possible.  I usually do not do this.

Mixed is usually what I do with America while Island Hopping or Germany in the Baltic Sea if I feel that the Motherland needs protection from a Naval form of Market Garden.  Transports are nice to quickly shuffle units between the Eastern Front, for fodder, and can shoot at Planes.  Sub mostly for fodder.

I’m sorry if I have been a bit lax on details.  Frankly, I do not feel that I have an exact formula for a Navy.  For my Army, I use cold hard math quite a lot, but with my Navy I use my “feelings” and “instincts” more.