Suggested Topics

T

Units, Mechanics, etc.

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • The Janus

18

2
Votes

18
Posts

460
Views

T

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:

@The-Janus

In my opinion, I think a naval base in Norway is only really worth it if the Allies commit into moving forces in that direction (i.e no large amphibious war in the Mediterranean).

I think the Norway harbor provides access to more “soft targets” – which I would say is kind of the thinking behind the shuck-shuck in Classic A&A. From Gibraltar, it can be hard to crack either Southern France or Normandy-Bordeaux, most of the time; putting guys in Norway or Denmark should be a lot easier, by comparison.

Extending the “floating bridge” out to Greece can be very effective (and fun, IMO) but it’s also a big investment in time and money, since I feel like you need solid fleets on both sides of Gibraltar, in addition to one at Greece – plus, needing a harbor in Greece, too. The Norway supply line seems simpler, particularly since you only need really strong defensive fleets at Norway; the fleet off the west of Gibraltar is usually out of range of Axis planes, so as long as enemy subs are accounted for, you’re good.
L

L25 BM4 zarhunter (Allis +19) vs Lebowsky (Axis) - Rematch

League
• • • lebowsky

25

0
Votes

25
Posts

53
Views

Z

@zarhunter
whoa brother…sz 97 not according to plan. Glad I keep the sub as it was the only one hitting.
You can swap out the Italian for German fighter casualty if you desire.
M

PTV 2nd Playoffs Mikeawa vs Max X+14

League
• • • max334

62

0
Votes

62
Posts

672
Views

M

@max334 I like to see how many capitols I can loose and still win.

Got a submerge and scramble decision for you in 117.
S

L24 PtV Stucifer (X+11) vs 666 (L)

League
• • • Stucifer

134

0
Votes

134
Posts

3.4k
Views

S

TripleA Turn Summary: Japanese round 11
TripleA Turn Summary for game: WW2 Path to Victory

Game History
Round: 11 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 1 destroyer, 1 factory_minor, 8 infantry, 3 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 55 Sea Zone to New South Wales 1 submarine moved from 55 Sea Zone to 64 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Queensland to New South Wales 1 transport moved from 47 Sea Zone to 50 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Solomon Islands to 50 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 50 Sea Zone to 49 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 49 Sea Zone to Gilbert Islands 1 destroyer moved from 47 Sea Zone to 31 Sea Zone 1 armour, 8 artilleries, 8 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Shan State to French Indo China 1 artillery moved from Kiangsi to Hunan 1 infantry moved from Kiangsi to Hunan 2 infantry moved from Hopei to Szechwan 2 bombers moved from Davao to Szechwan 1 infantry moved from Honan to Tsinghai Japanese take Tsinghai from Chinese 1 infantry moved from Chahar to Inner Mongolia Japanese take Inner Mongolia from Chinese 1 fighter moved from Jehol to Hunan 1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to Kwangsi Japanese take Kwangsi from Chinese 2 infantry moved from Kwangtung to Hunan Combat - Japanese Battle in Gilbert Islands Battle in 64 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 submarine Americans defend with 1 transport 1 transport owned by the Americans lost in 64 Sea Zone Japanese win, taking Gilbert Islands from UK_Pacific, taking 64 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 submarine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Americans: 1 transport Battle in New South Wales Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber ANZAC defend with 1 factory_minor and 1 harbour; Americans defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in New South Wales, round 2 : 3/5 hits, 2.00 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in New South Wales, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans and 1 artillery owned by the Americans lost in New South Wales Japanese destroys 4PUs while taking ANZAC capital Japanese win, taking New South Wales from ANZAC with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7 Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry Battle in Szechwan Japanese attack with 2 bombers and 2 infantry Chinese defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 2 bombers and 2 infantry in Szechwan, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1.33 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Szechwan, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Szechwan 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Szechwan Japanese win, taking Szechwan from Chinese with 2 bombers and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 1 infantry Battle in French Indo China Japanese attack with 1 armour, 8 artilleries, 8 infantry and 1 mech_infantry British defend with 1 artillery Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 8 artilleries, 8 infantry and 1 mech_infantry in French Indo China, round 2 : 7/18 hits, 6.17 expected hits UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 artillery in French Indo China, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the British lost in French Indo China Japanese win, taking French Indo China from UK_Pacific with 1 armour, 8 artilleries, 8 infantry and 1 mech_infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for British: 1 artillery Battle in Hunan Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry Chinese defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry in Hunan, round 2 : 1/5 hits, 1.50 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Hunan, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Hunan Japanese win, taking Hunan from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 3 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Chinese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 2 bombers moved from Szechwan to Kwangtung 1 fighter moved from Hunan to Kwangtung 1 aaGun moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 1 aaGun moved from Hopei to Hunan 1 artillery moved from Hopei to Tsinghai 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Honan to Tsinghai 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Chahar to Inner Mongolia 1 infantry moved from Anhwe to Hopei 1 infantry moved from Shansi to Honan 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Chahar 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Shansi to Inner Mongolia 1 aaGun moved from Honan to Tsinghai 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Shansi 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Anhwe 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi 1 aaGun and 1 infantry moved from Kyushu to 20 Sea Zone 1 aaGun, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 aaGun and 1 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 2 infantry moved from Kyushu to 20 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 6 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from 37 Sea Zone to French Indo China 1 destroyer moved from 20 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 6 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Korea to Northern Manchuria 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 6 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 20 Sea Zone to Southern Manchuria 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Shansi 2 infantry moved from New Guinea to 55 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 55 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 132 Sea Zone to Malaya 2 infantry moved from Shan State to Malaya 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from New South Wales to Queensland 2 infantry moved from New Guinea to 55 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 55 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from Solomon Islands to 55 Sea Zone 3 battleships, 3 cruisers and 1 marine moved from 55 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 marine moved from 35 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 1 carrier moved from 55 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 55 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 38 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 55 Sea Zone to Malaya 1 fighter moved from 55 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 55 Sea Zone to 132 Sea Zone 6 carriers, 1 destroyer, 4 fighters, 12 submarines and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 55 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 4 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 35 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 2 tactical_bombers moved from New Guinea to Caroline Islands 1 carrier moved from 35 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 21 Sea Zone to Japan 1 fighter moved from New Guinea to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from New Guinea to 21 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 21 Sea Zone to Japan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from New Guinea to 35 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 38 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone Place Units - Japanese 1 submarine placed in 38 Sea Zone 2 infantry placed in Malaya 1 factory_minor placed in Queensland 4 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers placed in Japan 1 destroyer placed in 21 Sea Zone 2 infantry placed in Kwangtung 2 submarines placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Japanese collect 68 PUs; end with 68 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 71 PUs Objective Japanese 4 Control Dutch East Indies: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 76 PUs Objective Japanese 7 Vital Forward Bases: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 81 PUs Objective Japanese 3 Control Honolulu Or Sydney Or Calcutta Or Western United States: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 86 PUs Objective Japanese 2 Strategic Defense Perimeter: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 91 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Chinese regular : 0.33 Japanese regular : 1.00 UK_Pacific regular : -0.33 ANZAC regular : -0.67
Savegame
F

NML 1914 team game 16

Team Games
• • • FMErwinRommel

72

0
Votes

72
Posts

1.0k
Views

F

@Private-Panic triplea_41470_3 com.tsvg
Round: 3
Research Technology - Communists Communists spend 10 on tech rolls Communists roll 2,2 and gets 0 hits Combat Move - Communists 1 cavalry moved from Sakhe to Magadan Communists take Magadan from Russia 1 cavalry moved from Magadan to Khabarovsk Purchase Units - Communists Communists buy 1 conscript and 5 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 2 techTokens; Combat - Communists Non Combat Move - Communists 2 cavalrys moved from Amur to Aldan 2 conscripts moved from Aldan to Amur 3 cavalrys and 1 conscript moved from Yakutsk to Aldan Place Units - Communists 1 conscript and 5 infantry placed in Yakutsk Turn Complete - Communists Communists collect 28 PUs; end with 28 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
V

L25 Classic VictoryFirst (Axis+3) vs. The_Good_Captain (Allies)

League
• • • VictoryFirst

12

2
Votes

12
Posts

46
Views

T

@VictoryFirst

Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - Russians Russians buy 8 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat - Russians Trigger Russians Can Move: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Russians Trigger Russians Can Move: Setting movementRestrictionType to disallowed for rulesAttachment attached to Russians Non Combat Move - Russians 1 submarine and 1 transport moved from Karelia Sea Zone to North Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Caucasus to Persia 3 infantry moved from Caucasus to Karelia S.S.R. 2 armour, 1 fighter and 4 infantry moved from Russia to Karelia S.S.R. 1 aaGun moved from Russia to Caucasus 1 infantry moved from Soviet Far East to Yakut S.S.R. 1 armour moved from Soviet Far East to Novosibirsk 1 infantry moved from Evenki National Okrug to Novosibirsk 1 infantry moved from Evenki National Okrug to Yakut S.S.R. Place Units - Russians 8 infantry placed in Karelia S.S.R. Turn Complete - Russians Russians collect 24 PUs; end with 24 PUs
R1.tsvg
G

L24 PtV Gorshak (Axis+8) vs 666 (Allies) #1

League
• • • Gorshak

132

0
Votes

132
Posts

3.0k
Views

G

@Gorshak We’ve had enough.

I can see. Fortress Europe is under a terrible siege.
But the Axis Army is not yet beaten!

Scramble decisions in Egypt
A

The State of Meta Discussion and New Players / Vague Vogue G1 tank buy

Axis & Allies 1942 Online
• • • aardvarkpepper

10

0
Votes

10
Posts

86
Views

A

WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID?

Sometimes I hear people say “It’s common sense”. That’s just . . . lame. It’s gaslighting and a character attack and a lazy disclaimer all rolled into one.

So-called “common sense” is really just a product of training and expectation. I think some toxic people have an idea of what “common sense” is based on their experience, and so act in toxic ways that seem right and natural to them. Their training doesn’t let them see, or perhaps admit, to their part in things.

For my part, I’m not trained to deal with that sort of thing productively. For much of my life, my training was to think some people just can’t move ahead, not as a matter of judging or feeling superior, but just accepting what the facts of the moment. I was trained to think it’s not a matter of trying to get into productive relationships with such people, as they simply aren’t capable of anything really productive in the first place.

But over time, thought and discipline prevailed over such “common sense”. Yes, some people behave in ways that I consider unproductive, and especially where it comes to communications, I understand there’s nothing I personally can do, not because nothing can be done, but because I don’t have a background and training where I can communicate the issue in ways that make sense to such people. In turn, I myself have bad habits in my own ways, as do others. It’s really not about the proverbial washing of hands and wiping the dust off the feet, and more about realizing everyone has their faults, and moving forward.

Which is not to get caught up in moral relativism. Wrong is wrong, and if someone has issues acknowledging issues and is a poor communicator, it is what it is.

Some might say what are these little vignettes, they came here for Axis and Allies! Sure. But communication is an issue that affects everyone, and I think learning to get along with people that we don’t like is a more practical and useful thing than learning about specialist applications in a board game.

. . . but at the same time, I don’t see anyone else writing about these specialist applications so back to it, I suppose.

What about “common sense” applied to Axis and Allies? Again, there is no such thing as “common sense”, not really. What there is, is a product of training. I played various versions for over thirty years is it, applied mathematical models for over twenty, then I had the good fortune of meeting some very extraordinary people, and the further good fortune that my training enabled me to recognize their unique abilities and apply some of what I learned, in some small ways, to my own process.

Part 1 was about demonstrating players should not play blind into board state. Part 2 was about explaining and demonstrating a methodical framework as applied to Axis and Allies. Both parts challenged the unthinking hierarchies present in current meta discussion. It’s true that I have strong disagreements with what I’d characterize as authoritarian non-thinking in meta discussion. But what I’m going on about really has a larger goal in mind. At some point, I think players should acknowledge they cannot and should not surrender their judgment in pursuit of some supposed goal - here, getting better at Axis and Allies. Players must realize that they often don’t have the experience of their opponents, that the fastest way to improve is through disciplined methods, and most importantly, in the end players must be independent. They must be, as it were, adults, capable of exercising their own discretion and judgment, no longer dependent children always looking to others for advice - those others often being children themselves.

Yes, one day even what I write should be left behind as players go on to more advanced things.

But until that day I have you, bwa ha ha ha, cough cough.

NOT FOR KIDS

(which assures that the kids will be the first ones to read this)

Previous parts have been about fundamental premises and the process of reason. However, those familiar with applied science, or some Axis and Allies veterans, will be looking at bits of text and saying “isn’t this important, shouldn’t something more be said” or “what does aardvark mean by these cryptic references to what isn’t being said”. Other players might think “how do I know when I’m getting good?”

Well here’s a very Adult Thing to think about. Life is a journey, not a destination. It is not about when you think you are good. It is not when you receive the adulation of others. It is when you realize how little you know, how far there is to go, and you realize that will always be the case. When you are no longer complacent and smug, no longer self-satisfied, always looking both inwards and outwards, then you will have begun your journey of enlightenment. Or maybe not, what do I know, I’m just an aardvark.

INTUITION

At one point in my development as a player, I was constantly predicting win outcome percentages, which was not just a matter of using an odds calculator a lot. Especially with smaller battles such as small trades for territory, the same unit counts are involved over and over, so especially someone trying to memorize such things will remember them.

But I’d gone rather further than that, I’d typically estimate large stack battles outcomes with less than 3% error, sometimes predicting the overall outcome within 0.1%. Which is pretty funny if you think on it because my favorite tool, David Skelly’s often has variances larger than that thanks to running fewer PRNG iterations. Well it’s sort of funny anyways.)

I could predict future board states, not looking at current board states, but simply by reading move lists and dice outcomes.

I had enough practical knowledge to look at a board state and the turn number then state what was “odd”, which is a lot more impressive when players learn to do it themselves. In meta discussions that’s why where other posters often react to what they see on the board, I also react to what I don’t see, I’ll ask why part of the board is how it is, what the opponent did, what the player did, and how there’s no way the current board state is normally correct because someone missed the counter or didn’t develop their position properly.

The problem with that sort of “common sense”, though, is other players simply don’t have it. Some don’t even know to look for any of it. There’s also a lot of small sub-disciplines, like wave interference, binomial applications, practical stack building versus bleeding, understanding tank applications, fighters, bombers, the whole naval rigamarole, what key timings are, how to predict key timings based on initial setup, ruleset, territory value, IC locations, logistics, and so on.

Most of that won’t make sense, I’m sure, and that’s all right. It’s just things you can look forward to, or maybe you’ll have your own specialties.

INTUITION AS APPLIED IN THIS SERIES

When I read posts saying players should play ignoring board state, I “knew” that was wrong, not because I already had the specific calculations at hand. No. I knew that Revised edition veterans spoke against tank rush except under certain conditions, I knew I had heard nothing from 1942 Second Edition players (which doesn’t mean that much, the analytic community pretty much retired but still), and something like a decade later even with all the rules changes, 1942 Online wasn’t so different that I thought unsupported tank rushes would be good.

Besides that, I’d already done my own research some years ago into “R1 dice break into G1 WR strafe with Kar/Ukr stacks.” I don’t know, maybe I should call it something like “the aardvark tank rush” like follow subscribe, then discover years later some player in Indonesia wrote it all up and better years earlier - which is typically the case, remember how long the board game has been around, how long different versions have been around, remember current versions are often only adaptations of earlier versions, and if you also know specifically how different versions were “broken” - that is, how players played optimally yet repetitively to win highest percentages in those versions - and you knew how specifically later versions changed to remove those “broken” lines of play - well, let’s just say you get some ideas of what’s going on.

So I was like “yeah no way that’s true” and I started typing, and to my not-too-surprise, I was able to find without much trouble a case that could be mathematically demonstrated that supported my case. That’s intuition at work.

As to claims that G3 pressured Moscow and Allies could fend J3 India, well, that’s not really intuition, that’s more “common sense”. (Oof, there’s that phrase again.) Well, I suppose it’s not really common sense. But think on it. If Axis are seriously pressuring Moscow, then why are the Allies allocating resources to protect India? It’s not like infantry can move from India to Moscow in one turn, it takes a while.

Again, I had some practical experience, writing up the whole Ukr/WR/Cauc Axis line, with J fighter reinforcements, and how India could be “cut off”, Moscow isolated. But . . . I didn’t really need that much.

Anyways! Intuition.

INTUITION GOING FORWARD - WAVE INTERFERENCE, UNIT TYPE AND COUNT, AND BAD VAGUE ARGUMENTS

So far specific cases have been very straightforward. It may not have seemed that way when I started addressing the question of G3 Moscow and Allied defense against J3 India by addressing Szechwan, then I probably at least addressed Mediterranean, north Atlantic, some brief timing, and so forth. But there are sharp limits to what can be achieved using such a limited predictive model…

Before getting into the particulars, a word about bad vague arguments. I’ve spoken to authoritarian arguments that attempt to use reference to authority in place of reasoned arguments (“top rank player” or “my day job is” or “you don’t know who you’re talking to.”) That is different to when I write “that is not relevant, but here is what is specifically relevant” or “that is a question that I will not address at this time”.

The difference is one tries to avoid addressing specifics altogether and goes on and on about things that have nothing to do with the nominal topic, another is simply limited on time so chooses to talk about something that is perhaps not what a querent wants to talk about or even what a querent thinks is related, but which does have some relevance.

People use bad vague arguments catch on and start copying phrases or references, hoping to lend weight to what they write. I read, for example, an argument that units are not about their IPC value, and I thought “very good, they have enunciated what any player that doesn’t purchase battleships already knows”, but perhaps that was uncharitable on my part. Then they said a whopper which amounted to ignoring addressing a major stack battle, and downplaying losing a major stack battle, and I thought “oh no”, but also “it would be really funny to take a screenshot of this to pass around at office parties”. I know, I’m awful, but I also didn’t take the screenshot . . . to pass around at office parties.

While one tries to form an intuition around bad vague arguments, one is bound to have bad intuition.

So what forms good intuition? I can’t say what will work best for others, but I know predictive models I build account for wave interference and unit type and count.

WAVE INTERFERENCE

I expect I shall have to use something than that “wave interference”, as it doesn’t convey well what’s going on to most. Well, I’ll think on it.

Sometimes players of Axis and Allies say it’s about “strategy” or “tactics” or vague grandiose things, which makes sense. It’s a game about conquering the world (or liberating it, whatever). It attracts a certain crowd. When I say “risk management” or “binomial distributions” or even “logistics”, people just sort of grunt and sidle away. They don’t want to get caught up in that nonsense.

“Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics” - Napoleon.

I mean, don’t listen to me, listen to the guy that’s been dead for over two hundred years and has never played the game. Got quotes from Sun Tzu too for what it’s worth.

So what is this “wave interference”? What are “rogue waves”? What does any of that have to do with Axis and Allies?

Sometimes I see players talk about “fair dice”. Some even want dice altered to be more “fair”. Or I’ll read how a player said everything was going great then the dice wrecked their great plan. I’m like hey. Don’t they know what game they’re playing? (Well, no, they don’t, but that’s okay, it’s a marketing thing, they want to play this strategic tactical thing but they end up with a time-consuming game that’s about risk management. Eh.)

I’ve seen a lot of Youtube videos where someone complains about bad dice, not recognizing that they owe their position to a lot of small favorable dice results over the course of the game. I think “they have no right to complain, haven’t they been paying attention? they were literally winning on luck!”

Dice happen. Sometimes a player gets a lot of small good luck, sometimes a lot of small bad luck andd it adds up. Or there’s an unusual result in the first round of a major stack battle, which can turn out to be very costly to someone. It must be understood, it is not just about accepting that dice happen, or believing superstitious nonsense that the dice will turn, or getting caught up in Monte Carlo fallacies. It is entirely expected that there will be a range of results in any combat, and how a player forms plans and contingencies to deal with both bad and good luck influences who is the winner.

(And again, where it comes to ranked play, remember some players have better control over schedule, some have more patience with UI, some - well let’s just say there’s things other than board game skill that influence ranked outcomes).

I’ve written elsewhere about multipeak models and how binomial distributions are “jagged edged”, how Axis and Allies risk models are different to everyday perceptions. I’ll mention a bit of that here. Most people think of risk as something analogous to everyday life; if they throw a dart at a dartboard maybe they don’t hit the center, but near the center. They think dice work like that.

But actually combat in Axis and Allies is a result of interfering waves, reinforced by multiple rounds over time. If a player has a 85% predicted win rate on a battle, they often think it’s like they’re tossing darts at a board and they’ll hit 85% of the time, and 15% of the time it won’t be great maybe but close.

But actually in application it’s like having dartboards on opposite walls. 85% of the time a player hits the dartboard in front of them, and 15% of the time the darts fly out of their hand backwards and hit the target behind them. It’s very weird for players not used to thinking like that. Then if the dart hits near the center of the dartboard behind them, players get really really weird about it, because nothing about what’s happening even seems to make sense.

But a player used to how things work isn’t surprised at all.

So, wave interference. Knowing the probabilities, knowing anomalous results, knowing anomalous results in early rounds reinforce over repeated rounds, players know that odd dice outcomes will happen. They don’t depend on it, they don’t fear it, but they do try to account for it as best they can. The ocean’s surface is not like glass, but a lot of small ripples, then sometimes there’s a giant rogue wave that comes along.

In warfare, commanders deal with these sorts of things by keeping reserves to deal with situations as they come up. Rather than simply committing everyone to battle “if you’re not fighting you’re not doing your job”, they understand that situations sometimes come up that require a fresh and ready force able to respond. Or, with firepower, commanders can shift fire to deal with particularly troublesome targets, instead of everyone just firing ahead no matter what is happening elsewhere. That is, commanders in real life have various abilities to respond, and need to act intelligently.

What does that look like in Axis and Allies? There’s a lot of applications, small and large, but for the time being, I’ll say - a good plan shouldn’t need everything to go right, a good plan ideally has some flexibility to respond to conditions, and sometimes small chances need to be taken early to prevent big things later. Those are only general thoughts, not specific applications, so you can imagine what the final and most important thing to remember is. Don’t get smug and think because you lack a plan, that you’re a master of innovation and response. You will get wrecked by a player that’s prepare, and you’re not smarter than the numbers. Know your position, understand the board stat, and always remember there’s probably something you haven’t considered that’s going to come back and bite you.