Bids, A&A Global 1940 ??

[Gargantua]

[Curtmungus]

@Gargantua:

That’s basically correct!

NERDS!

[Curtmungus]

Idi Amin was right about you guys here at A&A.org… scared of strong guys, afraid of trash talk, hiding behind a game of plastic toys…

Come on bros!  Get down to the gym!  Put some 45s on and pound away!

[Krieghund]

Lighten up, Francis!

[taamvan]

Boys, I think we done been trolled!!!

The only wargames we play are on a battlefield of lines traced in the dust at the foot of the ruins of a thousand destroyed civilizations, with spent shell casings and pull-tabs as our only supporters.

[Ichabod]

@Zhukov44:

On TripleA live 1-1 Global 2nd edition, don’t take Allies for less than 20 (bid to Allies). � Unless you don’t mind being Allies and losing.� � The convention is to bid units, 1 unit per territory, on territories/seazones that start with Allied units.� � Typically, players choose units that will strengthen UK1 attacks or G1 defenses (fig to Scotland, sub to sz98, etc).� �

The “G40 balanced mod” can be played w/o a bid, though there may be a small bid to one side or another to choose sides.

If you’re having trouble figuring out how to be competitive, you can watch other people’s games on the lobby and check out the game histories for ideas.

“Don’t take allies for less than 20…”

Zukov, I’ll take allies against you for 19. I don’t mind being Allies and losing since it helps me continue to get better. Right now on triplea live, only 1 or 2 people I regularly play with are beating me. Against two league players I’ve lost as the allies. I’ve found myself in group think lately in the game. Playing other good Axis players I haven’t before sheds new light and ideas. I will follow this post up with a PM.

Ichabod

[Ichabod]

Next time we play Galendae we can switch sides. I’ll take allies no bid.

[Ichabod]

I agree Shawdowhawk. Dice are a huge factor. That’s why I think the allies need a little bit of an advantage in the beginning. However, there are moments when a bid wouldn’t matter or not…take the following for an example:

I lost a game last night playing the axis where if it was a no-bid game, the allies would still easily have won. The dice results were the equivalent of a better bid.

G1: Yugoslavia killed 5 German infantry…wow 5 hits. Lost a fighter in SZ110. Paris cut into 2 artillery and I didn’t go light (like Normandy or S. France). Germany could recover, but it lost above average.

J1: J1 DOW. At Yunnan, I didn’t go extremely light. Attacked with 2 inf/1 artillery, 1 fig/1 tac / 1 strat. bomber. What are the odds of not rolling a single hit 2x in a row. On my 3rd roll, I was down to 1 artillery. I rolled 2 hits. The Chinese 4 infantry luckily only just rolled 1. China held Yunnan with 2 infantry. China was a huge problem in the game by turn 3.

I4: I kept going on this game as I don’t like to quit even though it seemed unlikely to win. Germany was going to kill a huge stack at Belarus on G5 (but it was still an odds battle, like 86%), however, I called the game before that. For some rare reason Italy was doing well. Cairo was captured on round 3. On I4, there was a stack of UK forces at Sudan. My opponent miscalculated because Italy had a 90% chance. Also, if Italy won this battle, than Cairo was forever to be held in the game because Italy would have been able to make it to the Persian factory. Italy attacked this 90% odds battle and lost miserably. Now the UK could easily get Cairo back because it was going to get linked up with a lot of planes. Simultaneously on I4, Italy was doing a landing at Trans-Jordan, 72% chance battle and lost that one too. Italy getting strong was my only hope to recover the game because at this point the US could go 100% against Europe Axis side.

The dice were bad the whole game…but at least it was all in the same game :lol:

[Galendae]

Hi Ichabod,

Thanks for the game the other night.  I got steam rolled.   I don’t see how to stop that, a 30 bid maybe  :-)

I do fine with Axis, only lost twice. Lost to a guy named Dust, best player I ever met. He is either a genius or has no life, maybe both  :lol:

I get pwned as Allies, won once.

I am like 1-9 as Allies
5-2 as Axis

I noticed people who dominate as Axis declare War early on Everyone.  Waiting just makes the Allies stronger.  Last 5 Games Germans have all declared War on Russia by start of Turn 2.  Japn often on turn 1 have declared war on everybody.

I have lots to learn about Allies.

[Ichabod]

Galendae,

G40 is a hard game. Against other players who’ve been out there awhile, I lose more than I win. Many regular commentators on this forum beat me a lot. I’ve lost more table top games than I’ve won. I think dust is one of top players out there.

I will keep playing no-bid games with you until you start beating me, than I’ll go up small, like maybe a sub for the UK in the med. In playing future games with you, by round 4-5, if it’s clear that the Axis have no chance, I could lose interest in the game. Sorry about that.

Be careful how you select casualties as the defender. It could have been the triplea game mechanics and clicking too fast that caused you to tip all 3 carriers like that. I’m referring to my first counter attack against your ships at Pearl Harbor. I was going to keep attacking your Japanese ships at Pearl Harbor even though the odds were not in your favor. Mainly because a large portion of your main fleet was dying and out of position for the money islands while UK Pacific/China/ANZAC are becoming unstoppable.

Many will have varying opinions for the G1 purchase. Myself, I caution against the 10 infantry purchase because it’s not advancing any teeth forward. For a strong Barbarossa G1 purchase, I like a 7 artillery purchase save 2 IPCs, or 6 art/2 inf; sometimes a variance of that with a mech or tank. Also, other combos of ships/ground, or air/ground or air/sea I might do. Lately, I’ve purchased 1 fighter / 5 artillery because I’ve been losing a fighter on a G1 Sea Battle and I’m of the opinion that Germany must sustain 11-13 planes to be successful. For Moscow mass effort, lots more planes of course.

IMHO, an all ground purchase like you did is still ok if you want to leave Sea Lion open as an option. Others may disagree. I’m of the opinion that if Germany purchases a carrier/ 2 transports, Russia can easily afford 4 tanks and a successful Sea Lion can become pyrrhic. A G1 ground purchase signals to Russia defense. Then of course several factors have to go well, like: Bismark is saved by retreating to SZ112, you won SZ 106, and then UK player purchased wrong. At that point, you have to decide because you have a starting navy and lots of ground to defend against the Russian Bear.

[Ichabod]

Also, IMHO, it’s best for Germany to march towards Leningrad first in order to secure that IC and National Objective.

Rarely do I see many G3 or G4 DOWs on Russia by Germany anymore. Ever since I learned how to get and keep Leningrad on G3, never have I tried different. For me, right on G2, I decide Sea Lion or Barbarossa. If Barbarossa, I stack everything on Baltic. Bulgarians defend Romania, and forces on Yugo defend Slovakia/Hungary. Then on G3, Germany moves into Leningrad. This is very standard play and it works for me well on table top games. This is probably in the Germany play book. Nothing special in this advance, but it’s tried and true for many players. G1 you purchase mostly slow ground (artillery), G2 mostly tanks some mechs, G3 mostly tanks/ some mechs, G4 tac. bombers (cause they can catch up to the stack) and fast movers from Leningrad (should be 3 tanks), G5 bombers…ect if allies aren’t going KGF.

On G3, the slow ground walkers (G1 purchase), make it to e. Poland because they have mechs/tanks catching up. At this point, in most cases, the huge stack at Leningrad, and your stack catching up at E. Poland, forces Russia to evacuate Belarus.

On G4, you stack everything at Belarus; (stack from Leningrad and e. Poland combine, plus you should be moving the Bulgarians up that way too if you didn’t take Greece, ect. because Italy is doing it’s job to defend Romania ect.).

Now, Russia might have enough stuff to stay at Bryansk. In most cases they won’t. But if they do this is where it gets tricky. To force Russia back, I’ve learned from others, you then move into Smolensk on G5 (rarely have I had to do that; mostly when I was very new). Russia has to evacuate Bryansk to the capital. Then on G6 you move into Bryansk. Make sure you’re bringing enough tanks to defend Bryansk from a Russian counter attack. Usually about 16 tanks some mechs and straight leg infantry/artillery is safe.

Now you are in an excellent position to start getting important objectives like Ukraine, w. Ukraine, and hopefully you have enough stuff to work towards getting and holding Stalingrad/Caucasus. Holding Stalingrad/Caucasus is not easy to do for me against very experienced allies players.

[Sovietishcat]

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

[Ichabod]

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

[Amalec]

@Ichabod:

Also, IMHO, it’s best for Germany to march towards Leningrad first in order to secure that IC and National Objective.

Rarely do I see many G3 or G4 DOWs on Russia by Germany anymore. Ever since I learned how to get and keep Leningrad on G3, never have I tried different. For me, right on G2, I decide Sea Lion or Barbarossa. If Barbarossa, I stack everything on Baltic. Bulgarians defend Romania, and forces on Yugo defend Slovakia/Hungary. Then on G3, Germany moves into Leningrad. This is very standard play and it works for me well on table top games. This is probably in the Germany play book. Nothing special in this advance, but it’s tried and true for many players. G1 you purchase mostly slow ground (artillery), G2 mostly tanks some mechs, G3 mostly tanks/ some mechs, G4 tac. bombers (cause they can catch up to the stack) and fast movers from Leningrad (should be 3 tanks), G5 bombers…ect if allies aren’t going KGF.

On G3, the slow ground walkers (G1 purchase), make it to e. Poland because they have mechs/tanks catching up. At this point, in most cases, the huge stack at Leningrad, and your stack catching up at E. Poland, forces Russia to evacuate Belarus.

On G4, you stack everything at Belarus; (stack from Leningrad and e. Poland combine, plus you should be moving the Bulgarians up that way too if you didn’t take Greece, ect. because Italy is doing it’s job to defend Romania ect.).

Now, Russia might have enough stuff to stay at Bryansk. In most cases they won’t. But if they do this is where it gets tricky. To force Russia back, I’ve learned from others, you then move into Smolensk on G5 (rarely have I had to do that; mostly when I was very new). Russia has to evacuate Bryansk to the capital. Then on G6 you move into Bryansk. Make sure you’re bringing enough tanks to defend Bryansk from a Russian counter attack. Usually about 16 tanks some mechs and straight leg infantry/artillery is safe.

I’d like to play this out sometime. Russia in your example feels unreasonably complacent and isn’t taking advantage of it’s options. In practice I’ve never seen this work out so easily at my table. On G3/G4 your stack is effectively split in half, and a well positioned Russia should have the ability to hit one of your stacks with nearly it’s entire force of very cost effective inf/art. If you’re in position to counter, it should be able to decimate your force and then retreat to safety. Or to hit your follow up stack rather than your Leningrad stack, and build 20 infrantry in Moscow before your Leningrad stack can make it using the huge cash influx it gets from pushing briefly into Poland/the Balkans. Or even hit your Scandinavian forces on R2 that you’ve staged for Leningrad, and push towards their NOs in Finland/Norway. Moving into Smolensk to push Russia from Bryansk is asking for them to hit you in Smolensk with every piece they have on the board, and then retreat back to the safety of Moscow when you’ve got 3 units left.

That’s not to say those Russian options can’t be countered, but they generally slow Germany up much more than I ever see referenced on this forum.

[Ichabod]

@Amalec:

"I’d like to play this out sometime. Russia in your example feels unreasonably complacent and isn’t taking advantage of it’s options. In practice I’ve never seen this work out so easily at my table. On G3/G4 your stack is effectively split in half, and a well positioned Russia should have the ability to hit one of your stacks with nearly it’s entire force of very cost effective inf/art. If you’re in position to counter, it should be able to decimate your force and then retreat to safety. Or to hit your follow up stack rather than your Leningrad stack, and build 20 infrantry in Moscow before your Leningrad stack can make it using the huge cash influx it gets from pushing briefly into Poland/the Balkans. Or even hit your Scandinavian forces on R2 that you’ve staged for Leningrad, and push towards their NOs in Finland/Norway. Moving into Smolensk to push Russia from Bryansk is asking for them to hit you in Smolensk with every piece they have on the board, and then retreat back to the safety of Moscow when you’ve got 3 units left.

That’s not to say those Russian options can’t be countered, but they generally slow Germany up much more than I ever see referenced on this forum."

Do you play on triplea live or PBEM? I’d be happy to show you for demonstration purposes only. Let’s set up a date/time.

A “non-complacent” Russia probably will lose a large stack of troops they can’t afford. One stack of German troops may be at Leningrad and the other might be at E. Poland. Both stacks of German troops will be positioned so that were Russia to attack one or the other, the odds will be no more than 40%, but most likely in the ballpark of the low 30s. Also, it isn’t like you’re going to bag all of the German tanks. They’re divided for max defense dice, while my infantry/art soak up hits.

Also, max effort by Russia against Germany also means practically no mechs/tanks going to support China. So there is a 2nd order effect. But even still, with a max Russian anti-German effort, I think attacking either will be a German defensive victory that will lead to Moscow falling for sure despite what the UK gets up there on G6.

[Amalec]

@Ichabod:

snip

I think Russia has more power than you’re giving it credit for. Being able to drive 2 separate stacks into Russia, far from your factories and close to theirs, each of which need to be capable of winning against the entire Russian stack without German air, by turns 3-5? I just don’t think Germany is capable of it. As for Russia taking losses - you’re not wrong but it’s still Russia’s best option in this scenario. With reasonable investment in artillery Russia’s offensive power is nearly as high as it’s defensive power - while Germany only gets a bonus to whatever infantry it lacks artillery for and can’t always make use of it’s air power for defense. What does Russia gain dying in Moscow against the combined German armies and air power, shooting only infantry when it could instead hit half of Germany’s stack, sans German air and with the potential to destroy valuable artillery/mecs/tanks while preserving/taking income?

Don’t get me wrong: I think your German moves are correct. And I don’t think a great Russia can beat even a good Germany, or stand them off indefinitely. I just think you’ll be forced to slow down, and that those who think Moscow can be reliably taken G5-G7 without Allied fighters are likely incorrect.

That said, I’ve never seriously considered dedicating Russian resources to China. Perhaps that’s the wrong approach; I’ll try it out next time my table plays. At a glance though, unless USA is already 100% invested in the Pacific I’d likely rather have Russia keeping those IPCs in the West - or use them to punch down to Iraq for 5IPCs/turn - and have America dedicate extra resources to the Pacific instead.

In any case, I’d love to game some scenarios out with you. I’ve used triplea but only hotseat, never live or PBEM.

[Sovietishcat]

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)