LL created players like Agent Smith. That in itself is enough to make me forever swear off LL.
Rofl!
than in someone knowing based on over-use of simulators that in 3 turns I can have X, Y, Z forces in this territory.
True, but there is variation in LL as well.
more contingent on the skill of the players at taking advantage of changes and shifts openings due
I think here however that it’s very hard to tell skill when the dice go badly. There’s just not a whole lot you can do to shift your strategy if you lost 9 infantry in W. Russia or if the AA gun shot down 6 fighters, you’re just wishing that the opponent makes a mistake or you might take more risks to try to even it out.
True Bean, when the dice go 6 or 7 standard deviations from norm, then it does indeed come down to a dice game. And if those dice go against you, then you are probably in for a loss.
But such massive dice extremes are rather rare. It is the individual battles, and the “+/- 1 INF over expected results” that can create cumulative benefit if played well.
ADS requires that players be able to adjust and adapt more than LL does.
And again, in my personal opinion, the player that can adapt throughout the game is a FAR superior gamer to the one that relies completely on mathematical certainties.
Lastly, remember, victory for the US at Midway was due to “Point Luck”
:mrgreen:
But such massive dice extremes are rather rare.
Hah, every game I peek into seems like someone is whining about massively bad dice. I suppose if you count the number of battles rolled over a game, one of them pretty much will deviate badly…
Plus, how do you adjust to cumulatively bad dice? If you get nickle and dimed to death, there’s just not much to adjust to except overspend men, which in itself isn’t a good idea.
But in any case, I do agree ADS takes more balls simply because strafing is much more tricky.
There is always ONE freaky battle, and sometime you also get slightly bad dice all game long.
The answer is you LOSE a few of those.
But to win consistently, you beat your opponents despite the dice.
1 or 2 in 10 loses (and wins) are dice caused.
It is the games in the middle that separate the good players from the bad.
There will alwayes be dice whiners, just ignore them, u dont lose in life, because u dident hit the right number, but u lose in life if u whine about it :-D
OK, Low Luck vs regular dice do have different consequences and sometimes need different decisions.
… Back to original topic… how 1J counters 1UK explosion…
If Japan has left alone the Buryat RU and sent the northern fleet to Pearl Harbor.
THEN US can attack sz60 (East of Japan) with bmb ftr and land in Buryat.
Against 4tra: 50% to sink them all.
Against 3tra: 76% to sink them all.
Without transports (or even with 1) Japan cannot punish back Buryat, and is strategically helpless for 2 more turns… so VERY bad ! Possibly a Game Over ?
So it’s either a serious escort for transports kept in sz60, or build in sz61 only (West of Japan) - that cannot liberate, say, an UK-raided Borneo in one turn…
@Bean:
Under Low Luck, you NEVER obtain UNACCEPTABLE losses (you CANNOT lose a Russian fighter under the Low Luck attack). About 11% of the time, you fail to take Ukraine, which allows some rather unpleasant German counterattacks.
Aggregate, about 11% of the time, the Russian attack on Ukraine will “fail” the Russian goal. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine can NEVER be QUITE bad for Russia, as Russia’s fighters are never at risk.
Good job, you analyzed half of the problem. Now for the other half? That % do you overkill and take with overwhelming units? I do doubt your subjectivity if all you do is look at the bad part of the dice.
Usually, beating the crap out of your opponent is not viewed as a problem. The fact that you see winning as a potential problem makes me wonder if you have deep-seated psychological issues. Or maybe I have deep-seated psychological issues . . .
All I have to say is that in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly your point isn’t as shiny as it looks in all its capitals.
If that made any sense to me, I would try to respond to it. However, I am totally left in the dark as to what you could mean by “in low luck you never obtain low to no losses, and suddenly (my) point isn’t as shiny”, Bean. I think my point is still SUPER shiny.
… Back to original topic… how 1J counters 1UK explosion…
If Japan has left alone the Buryat RU and sent the northern fleet to Pearl Harbor.
THEN US can attack sz60 (East of Japan) with bmb ftr and land in Buryat.
Against 4tra: 50% to sink them all.
Against 3tra: 76% to sink them all.
Without transports (or even with 1) Japan cannot punish back Buryat, and is strategically helpless for 2 more turns… so VERY bad ! Possibly a Game Over ?So it’s either a serious escort for transports kept in sz60, or build in sz61 only (West of Japan) - that cannot liberate, say, an UK-raided Borneo in one turn…
Yes, quite right Magister. However, a few points -
“A serious escort” - you’ll see this when Japan attacks Pearl with sub, destroyer, 3-5 fighters, and bomber. The Japanese battleship east of Japan stays east of Japan to protect any newly built transports. I opt for this option a lot.
“West of Japan” - this is not necessarily true. Japan may be able to kill the UK navy in the Indian/Pacific on J1, and if UK does not have air in range of the Pacific (happens maybe a third to two thirds of the time), then Japan can move its transport east of Japan to French Indochina (or Kwangtung), ready to liberate Borneo on J2. (The transport east of Japan can even liberate Borneo as early as J1). Correct, the newly built transports may not be able to retake Borneo on J2, but the one already produced probably can.
Newpaintbrush: It’s impossible to “kill ALL the UK navy” when it’s a lot of scattered ships, often standing it the way of cleaning actions. True, it may be not a vital threat early (so ignored for more urgent JA actions), but still a lone JA transport to Borneo cannot survive with them around. Later when JA are ready to clean them, they may run away just before that…
Thanks for the tip - right, the initial transport can go to Kwantung or Indochina with the south fleet, moving some troops along too - if it isn’t needed as cannon fodder (In case of the UK-fighter-landing-on-US-Pearl-carrier variant).
I’m also thinking if in such a situation JA can take out Pearl (with solid remaining fleet - the famous btl des car 2ftr) AND Buryat, and leave China alone on Turn 1. How bad can that be ? Will US reunite in China, or advance 1inf to vacated territories, or even attack with 2inf 1ftr ? Can this incite the building of a Sinkiang factory with even more stalling potential ?
So - with China intact, does Indochina need to stay with a solid JA garrison ? (I figure 3 inf at least).
Then the arty bid - if trying that - is better in Manchuria (choosing Bury/China) not Indochina (choosing China/India). In this case British from India may get cheeky… Of course a tank bid in Kwantung can choose all 3.
Despite some advantages, I still don’t like the “light” Pearl where the battleship does nothing or a minor shore support, instead of adding its good firepower and saving at least a fighter with its first free hit. Then any ships sent to Pearl are marked for sure death, right ? or survivors may be protected only by the counterattack threat from East Japan ?
Yet another variant: Jennifer’s 2 IPC left to Japan to build 4tra. Existing tra lands in Buryat so ends in sz60.
Then 5tra in sz60 (and without Buryat for landing US bmr ftr) are a solid (?) deterrence against UK des sub. Herd of buffaloes keeping lion at distance ?
Pearl: btl des car bmb 2ftr
Buryat: 3inf 1tnk 3ftr
China: 5inf 1arty 1ftr
But 6 IPC for Japan of the 9 bid is already much… still GE 1inf in Libya is useful.
Not attacking China J1???
Are you serious?
Not attacking China J1???
Are you serious?
“Dead” serious. lawl. Let me say by experience, though, 4 inf 1 fighter is a lot nastier than 2 inf; if you CAN whack out China, you usually do.
Newpaintbrush: It’s impossible to “kill ALL the UK navy” when it’s a lot of scattered ships, often standing it the way of cleaning actions.
Well, assuming you have UK car/destr at one place and UK trns at another, Japan can take the southwestern Jap battleship, carrier, and two fighters, and kill the UK car/destr, and still do Pearl with btl, destr, carrier, 3 fig, 1 bomber, while still hitting China on J1 with 7 inf 1 fig. I mean, yeah, it IS situational, not something you want to try every game. But you can still whack out a lot of UK and US Pacific navy at the same time.
Note that I usually prefer to take Jap sub/destr/bomber/4-5 fighters to Pearl, unite the Jap carriers and Jap battleship at Solomons, and leave battleship east of Japan.
I hope discussions like this will build over time an Encyclopedia of A&A Long Openings… if Chess has the Sicilian analyzed to 16-18 moves, then why not A&A at least 1-2 turns (x5 countries, with moves in parallel and dice) ?
The important part being the veteran’s compared experiences on how worthy some continuation positions are.
Newpaintbrush: I still think you answer a different ‘picture’ than the worst case that started this thread !
J cannot use southern fleet (btl car) against both UK des+car for they are scattered: car blocks off Indochina, des (that sunk J tra) off Kwantung and unreachable. Cannot use southern J car to send more fighters to Pearl because transport blocks it, and Solomon sub threatens it.
OK, UK car off Indochina is sunk by southern btl+car. Mandatory to keep Persian ftr out of Pacific action.
Yes, 3 ftr can go to Pearl (2 on the northern carrier, 1 lands back on Wake).
Where does the initial J transport survive ? with Buryat untaken, sz60 is a dead sea for weak forces, even for big 5tra convoy against US bmb ftr then UK des sub. Unless Japan diverts planes or fleet to take them out. Impossible all !
And it can get even worse… what if UK bomber adds to threats everywhere (say from Yakut) ?
Personally, if UK succeds with every UK1 attack in Pac, I would kill the UK units before attempting pearl.
Maybe pearl light, but US dont have any ground units which can occupy any TT’s, UK trans would be my priority nr.1.
The UK sub is no big threat, the most important is to do the most damage J1. by J2-J3 and further, Jap should not spread to thin ofc, but the J1 attacks are really important. To have Russia take Manch, US take either Fic, Kwang or Manch is bad, UK should not be allowed to take Fic, but UK might take back India for 1 rnd, only.
Jap is so strong in the beginning, and only bad dice can f…k up a good Jap start, except poor judgement that is…
I hope discussions like this will build over time an Encyclopedia of A&A Long Openings… if Chess has the Sicilian analyzed to 16-18 moves, then why not A&A at least 1-2 turns (x5 countries, with moves in parallel and dice) ?
The important part being the veteran’s compared experiences on how worthy some continuation positions are.Newpaintbrush: I still think you answer a different ‘picture’ than the worst case that started this thread !
Yeah. What we need is a TripleA .tsvg (preferably version 9_0_2). Actually, forget that. Screenshots. YEAH BABY, SCREENSHOTS! (note that TripleA froodmod gives screenshots)
J cannot use southern fleet (btl car) against both UK des+car for they are scattered: car blocks off Indochina, des (that sunk J tra) off Kwantung and unreachable. Cannot use southern J car to send more fighters to Pearl because transport blocks it, and Solomon sub threatens it.
Well, I ain’t lookin at a board, but I’m sure that isn’t right, at least on the count of fighters to Pearl. You can declare intent to move carrier during combat when you move the fighters, and use the Jap battleship to whack out the blocking transport. Also, in the OP, I think you mentioned UK fighter to Anglo-Egypt to land in India, but I don’t think the fighter can fly that far. Apples and oranges. Wat is going on?! I’m so confuzed.
OK, UK car off Indochina is sunk by southern btl+car. Mandatory to keep Persian ftr out of Pacific action.
Oh, so it WAS a Persian fighter. Or was it? dun dun dun
Yes, 3 ftr can go to Pearl (2 on the northern carrier, 1 lands back on Wake).
Where does the initial J transport survive ? with Buryat untaken, sz60 is a dead sea for weak forces, even for big 5tra convoy against US bmb ftr then UK des sub. Unless Japan diverts planes or fleet to take them out. Impossible all !Yeah, I definitely had a different picture in mind.
And it can get even worse… what if UK bomber adds to threats everywhere (say from Yakut) ?
Well, shoot, didntchoo just say you wanted to use the OP? Because you know, the OP had that UK bomber flying to Africa, not landing in Yakut.
o wait . . .
I knoes wat is happening!!1!one!
oh noes, it’s teh mysterious “jenforces!”
they iz like transformers and stuff . . . change a carrier buy into an infantry buy, teleport your units around . . .
someone should make a variant of A&A wid “jenforces”, it would be kewl.
A “Jenforces” National Advantage reserved only for use by Jen.
I’ll take the Axis with $0, but Jenforces NA…
:-D
(oh, and that was worth a good karma for the laugh, Paint!)
Sorry for the confusion. I’ll try to attach the TripleA 0.902 file for the originally discussed position.
[Damn, no attachment space for files on this forum ? only for Flash, Hyperlinks, FTP links… all mean not putting the file itself. Or is it any option I’ve missed ??]
The UK bomber is dead (by choice) in Africa, for the fighter to live in Persia.
The bomber to Yakut is just a worse-case variant for analysis, like all those Russian chess books (1.UK… J.)
Logically that means no attack in Africa, so I leave to your imaginations better uses for the fighter, transport and troops too. UK fighter landing on US carrier is a classical one. Trying Borneo too.
But then Germans run amok earlier with the African IPC.
I hope discussions like this will build over time an Encyclopedia of A&A Long Openings… if Chess has the Sicilian analyzed to 16-18 moves, then why not A&A at least 1-2 turns (x5 countries, with moves in parallel and dice) ?
The important part being the veteran’s compared experiences on how worthy some continuation positions are.
It is one of the motivations that I have for reading this forum!
I believe that general moves may be analyzed and evaluated from an high level point of view.
A&A is not chess so a move it is not good or bad in a determinist sense.
But also in chess, move are weak or strong but not absolutely winning or losing. It depends by the reaction of the opponent.
Indeed some of the last threads have not analyzed clear situations, but have been involved in discussion with continuous modification of the picture. Often this is slightly confusing.
Generally speaking, if allies let G have afr then in most cases axis win.
The UK sub and trans in Australia have no place in my overall strat, so might as well use it to weaken Jap a little bit.
The Borneo attack is a tricky one, 4 ipc is very tempting, and leaving the AC in Philli to block for Jap retake on J1.
Afr is much more important so one has to look at the map, if G didn’t attack Anglo then Afr is secure, but in most
cases allies should land in Afr with both US+UK. rnd 1.
Sometimes, to take 2 inf from Aus+NZ and move the trans to Afr can be a smart move.
I won’t do this if the sub attack went wrong…
As Jap I don’t care if UK got NG, I wanna kill those trans, but the 1 ipc is no big deal.
Landing the India ftr on the US AC is not a good move imo. I use it in Afr, or with DD in sz59, sometimes I land
that ftr in Bury. The India ftr can land in Cauc together with UK bmr, and 2 ftr from london, (UK1 to WRU) might do a 4 air units
attack to the G med fleet in UK2/UK3, before axis merge their fleets, this is something I usually hate as allies.
If all 3 ftrs land in WRU then they’re set for a baltic wipeout UK2, presuming G didn’t buy any naval units in sz5. :wink:
To have the US trade Italy and UK trading WE means birdy for allies :-)
