Posts made by Weekend Gamer

@ncscswitch:

Nope, just a 40 DD/DDD (depending on the Bra)

Quite nice actually :-D

My better half is well-endowed as well.  It’s nice, but there’s a trade-off.  Backrubs – LOTS of backrubs . . .  :|

Hey, sweet!  I just noticed . . . I’m a tank, I’m a tank, I’m a tank!!!  Woot!  :mrgreen:

@ncscswitch:

Angle is on her PC right next to me…

How do you think I achieved this lofty rank without being single?   :mrgreen:

I think some of us thought you WERE single! :lol:  :wink:

If I’m not mistaken, “CV” was the designation given an aircraft carrier by the US Navy circa WWII.  Such as “CV-112” or whatever.  It still had a name, such as “USS Yorktown”.  But “CV-###” was its numerical designation.  I am sure some history buff out there will correct me on this, but I believe that’s the derivation.

Russia is definitely more fun in the Revised game.  There’s more territories to fight over and you have to do more than just buy infantry to survive.  I definitely like to purchase some armor so I can mow down stray Axis pieces when Germany or Japan come at my lines too aggressively.  Armor creates more dead zones than artillery IMO because of its ability to blitz.  I also like to pop out a third fighter by the 5th or 6th turn (circumstances permitting) to maximize my flexibility.  I like to conserve that armor when it’s late in the 3rd quarter and the Allies are taking friggin’ forever to arrive on the scene.

Yes, Russia I enjoy because, after all, which country is closer to the center of the action?  NOBODY!

I’ve been thinking a lot about the map configuration in Revised and the tactical possibilties it opens up as compared with Classic.  IMHO, the Revised map is a HUGE improvement over the original. It’s much better thought out and reflects many more years of playing experience.  I am curious what others think about this, particulary those who have been playing Revised for some time.

The two countries most obviously affected by the changes are Germany and Russia.  I think some territories clearly have been designed to be the lynch-pins of each country’s defense, if played properly.  Here’s my list of the territories most important to Russia (excluding its capital, which is obvious) in descending order of importance.  I’ll do one for Germany later.  Truth be told, there are probably only 7 or 8 truly important territories to Russia, but in the interest of a nice round number, here’s my “Top Ten” list:

1.  Caucuses – probably the easiest call, but an argument could be made for #2 West Russia.  If Caucuses falls to the Axis, Russia can’t be far behind.
2.  West Russia – this territory’s importance is more tactical than strategic.  From this territory, Russia can defend its entire western front.  You can also blitz armor in, say Archangelsk to Ukraine (and vice versa) if you control this territory, maximizing your flexibiltiy.  Losing this territory makes the Caucuses all but impossible to defend.
3.  Kazakh – also critical for defending the Caucuses, this is the only other territory on the map that touches both Russia and Caucuses.
4.  Ukraine – at 3 IPCs, this country is critical to maintaining Russia’s economy through the early to middle rounds.  It’s also the gateway to the Caucuses or West Russia.
5.  Novosibirsk >
5.  Belorussia  > – A tie for 5th.  They are both worth 2 IPCs and both have some tactical value, though not as critical as nos. 1-4.
7.  Persia – though not a Russian territory or one that Russia can capture, from this territory an Axis player can threaten both the Caucuses and Kazakh.  Better to have this one in Allied hands, if possible.
8.  Karelia – A victory city, after all.  Not to mention the gate through which much of your Allied reinforcements flow.  Fortunately, your Allies usually take care of this one for you.
9.  Archangelsk – borders Russia and is accesible by sea (for emergency reinforcements from the UK).  The latter gives it the edge over Evenki.
10.  Yakut – usually your first line of defense against the Japs.  Holding this line until at least turn 3 buys you the time you need to set up your home defense.

Notice Evenki does not even make the list, nor does the Soviet Far East or Buryat.  The latter two usually fall in the first two turns, and Evenki is rarely the Japanese player’s entry point of choice into Russia.  Novosibirsk or Kazakh make much better choices.

Reactions, disagreements, controversies – bring 'em on!  Make your best case.  8-)

Frimmel, I have a one-word answer:  N - E - W - B - I - E - S

wg

Okay, all you fence-sitters.  Mr Ghoul and I are starting our match under “Games in Progress” if you want to follow along.

Game on!

WG

@newpaintbrush:

@Weekend:

Actually, what you are talking about was proved YEARS ago

Where are the formulas?

I remember reading Don’s stuff too.

I do not remember formulas.

Okay, newpaintbrush, I am no mathematician, so I don’t mean “proof” in the strict mathematical sense you math geeks mean.  That said, this is not a new idea.  I am not criticizing akreider2 or anything – good for him (and everyone else) for figuring it out.  I am just pointing out this is not a new discovery or anything.

DarthMaximus – interesting comments.  I’ve only played a few games of Revised, but I agree that West Russia is possibly THE most critical territory in the European theater (aside from capitals, of course  :-D) and possibly on the entire map.  I would say the Caucuses is a close second, only because it probably gets taken much easier than West Russia because, once Russia is in serious trouble, the Caucuses must be abandoned if Moscow is to be held.  All in all, a MUCH better map with far more tactical possibilities than in Classic.  It definitely changes your strategies from Classic, especially for the Allies.

@akreider2:

The formula comes from my experience playing the old version, where I used buy almost entirely infantry (and no tanks).  I ran several simulations and came up with this formula.  Frankly, it’s really amazing that it works and that I just figured it out inductively.

My sister actually proved this formula - but I don’t recall the proof.

Actually, what you are talking about was proved YEARS ago by a certain Don Rae, who posted his strategic essays and even had his on bulletin board that was quite the scene until he flamed out over some poliitcal activism thing.  But I digress – Don coined the term “Infantry Push Mechanic” for the mathematically provable FACT that, with correct purchases, mostly involving infantry and transports, the Allies should win, every time.  It is because they, collectively, have economies large enough to simply overwhelm the purchasing power of the Axis.  Small 1-2 infantry differences in purchases in any one turn become magnified over 10-15 turns to the point where you literally roll right over the Axis fronts (usually Germany first).

Here, don’t take my word for it – read for yourself:

http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

(These were posted circa 1999, BTW)

The more interesting question, IMO, is how the IPM applies in Revised.  I think it’s still applicable, but tanks are definitely more valuable in Revised than in Classic.

Alright, I’m out of the tournament and Sun Tzu is gone for the weekend.  Anyone else up for a game?  If so, drop me a line.  I’ve got some time to kill and a few strategies I’m anxious to test drive.

In my game against Mojo, he built an IC in Norway and I questioned it after our game.  He pointed out that, once England takes Western or Southern Europe, England has the economy (assuming Africa is in Allied hands) to build more than 8 land units per turn.  So the Norway IC can allow the UK to build more than 8 land units per turn in the later rounds.  This obviously could speed along the death of the Axis nicely.  An Indian IC seems like suicide, unless Japan has a horrible turn 1.  If Japan has any kind of naval presence in the area (obviously including a trannie), an Indian IC is a 15 IPC gift to the Emperor.

As for Japan, I think the number of ICs you build depends on your economy.  If you’re still in the 40s, you can’t afford 3 ICs on the mainland.  But if Japan is cashing out in the high 50s, then you can easily spend that 45 IPCs and still keep the troops and armor flowing.  So it depends on your situation.

I am intrigued by the Australian IC for England.  Timed correctly, you could cause Japan some headaches.  But I think it would require that Germany lose Africa early in the game.  Of course, if that happens, why not KGF?

WG

@froodster:

Yeah, I’m pulling in $25k right now - a lawyer at the Public Interest Law Centre in Winnipeg and one on Wall Street are two very different things lol. It’s a good firm too but barely paying the bills…

Hey, Froodster, is that in Canadian dollars?  If so, ouch, you DO need the raise.

LOL,

WG

P.S. – Good luck  :-)

Imperious,

Yes, they are cheaply made.  But because their coloration differs from the original MB pieces, they’re convenient to use for ss panzer units or ss panzer grenadiers or Russian guards in order to distinguish them from the regular units.

FINALLY!!!  A good rip-rorring discussion of W@W – exactly what I hoped would happen.  :-D

Mr. Ghoul – I hear you on Russia’s economy.  Some balancing is needed to avoid an easy Axis victory.  But 2 IPC infantry?  That’s tough.  Maybe you’re right – maybe it should be tough.  But if the only way I can win against a good opponent is to get some lucky dice rolls . . .

As for the building infantry in far away places, sure, Britain MIGHT raise an army of natives, but are they going to be the equivalent of the Royal Army or the Weirmacht soldiers?  I think NOT.  Maybe this infantry should attack and defend on a 1 or something.

What does everyone think about adding the artillery unit to W@W?  I could see it working to the DISADVANTAGE of the Axis, what, with all that Russian infantry running around – imagine them paired up with artillery!!!  (ouch!)

Anyone up for a PBF game?  It can be slow, it can wait until after the Revised tournament, whatever.  I’d just like to play it again and ABattlemap has the map with pieces, so why not?  What say you?

WG

@Imperious:

Not to honk my horn but im probably the guy who will be remaking Xenos next map for World At War and probably a revamped version of Europe at War.

Honk all you like!  :-)

I actually purchased Europe at War and Russia at War (new in the box – unopened – off e-bay!) but have no one to play them with.  Do you want to weigh in on any of the issues we are discussing?  I understand how game development works (having worked with Imp Games before on some of their stuff), but what can you tell us about the changes being considered?

Some general observations about the map:  (1) East Australia should be more than 2 seazones from India – the East Australian SZ should probably be split in half; (2) the Atlantic needs to be reworked to make the Irish Sea more than 2 clicks from Germany; (3) what about convoy spaces like A&AE (in lieu of the clunky roll a dice to determine convoy damage)?

General rules observations – bag the repairable BB rule (too complicated).  Replace with self-healing BBs.  Also, why do Cruisers attack at 2 and defend at 3?  I’ve never understood that.  Finally, Russia purchasing infantry at 2 is REALLY tough for the Axis to overcome.  This is the Infantry Push Mechanic on steroids!!!

Don’t get me wrong – love the game.  Just want to see it even better!  :wink:

Okay, here is the link to the FOURTH edition rules, which appear to be the most current on the Xeno Games website:

http://xenoserver.no-ip.info/wawrules.htm

They do address infantry builds in far-away places – you pay an additional 1 IPC per off-IPC build and are limited to building 1 infantry per territory.  But my question remains – why have this rule at all?  Maybe keep it for the Free French and the Chinese, but otherwise, I would can it.

And they DO have fighter escorts for strategic bombing – go figure.

I’m still reading . . .

P.S. – They don’t have the fighter escort rule in Revised.  There is a reason for that – you don’t have that many fighters to waste on dumb strategic bombing missions.  That rule was invented for use in A&AE as a strategy to crush Russia.

I personally don’t like the “build trained infantry divisions in the middle of nowhere” rule myself.  I think it makes the Axis’s job much harder than it needs to be AND substantially dumbs down the strategy.  Transports?  Who needs 'em?!!  Just build infantry right there in the middle of the Belgian Congo right smack in the middle of the jungle!  Personally, I would prefer to give Britain an IC in India, the Free French an IC in a random Free French territory determined when you do the Vichy French rolls and then go at it.  As the rules currently stand, there are no “fronts” because you can literally build anywhere at any time as long as you own the territory.  Granted, it’s limited to infantry, but that makes little difference IMHO.

I am going to research these 5th edition rules to see if they address this at all.  Among the innovations I would vote to adopt from Revised would be:
1.  Make battleships self-healing if not destroyed in combat.
2.  Make Cruisers attack and defend at “3” (except during shore bombardment – keep that at “2”)
3.  Adopt the artillery piece (as Mr. Ghoul suggests)
4.  Increase the tank’s defensive value to “3”
5.  Reduce the cost of fighters by $1 for each country (but keep the difference in prices – I think that adds a little something to the mix)

WG

@Micoom:

Isn’t this game having a 5th edition rule set, based on A&A revised instead of 2nd Edition (classic) ???

Micoom:  If you have the 5th edition rules, by all means post them or the link to them.  I haven’t played this game in years and would be very interested if they have updated the rules to incorporate Revised rules set.  Would you be up for a PBF game?