YOUR ACTIONABLE TAKEAWAY
It wasn’t my purpose to advocate the line of play, so there is no actionable takeaway in terms of execution or counter. (edit: Come to think on it, I suppose there is an actionable takeaway in terms of counter. But actually a lot of board states may not suit, you have seen the numbers are pretty tight, so there may be cases R3 doesn’t have a good counter to G2 Cauc even after setups. So properly there should really be an address of the transition where Allies press Berlin, and how the Karelia / West Russia / etc. game should play out. Ah well. Returning to what I was saying -) There are some actionable takeaways though.
Competent play requires considering board state. Players do not properly play canned lines into any board, though that is characteristic of meta discussion where some players downplay and dismiss the importance of detail. However, you have seen for yourself the sharp difference single units can make, and the difference in execution between a planned counter, and an unplanned counter. Consider, for example, if R2 attempted to hold with 3 less UK fighters because UK sent air against the G survivors of G1’s attack on sz7, or used the Egypt fighter again in some autopilot variation. That would be a problem. Players that neglect such details are asking to lose.I read a poster on Discord claim they always went for positive IPC battles. Well, you know UK1 to sz7 and actions with the Egypt fighter could be IPC positive. But that’s not the issue, and never was. The question was, what was the opportunity cost? What was the cohesive strategy? Again, not simply my words. There’s enough in this thread to demonstrate the reality of what is not simple “theory”, but very much what players will see in practice.
Single units make a difference. The closer the battle, the bigger the difference. (edit - 14% swing for just removing a single Axis AA gun at R3 into G/J Caucasus.)3, Just because someone’s a top meta player does not mean they execute competently, and it certainly doesn’t mean they can explain things well, or even accurately. Here, we see some assertions that did not stand up to examination, that board state need not be considered, timing dismissed, that unfounded assertions should be accepted as “basic” knowledge, that G3 can hit Moscow under the line, and also Allies hold India against J3 India. None of those is necessarily true, especially in combination. (edit: Well, the Allies can certainly hold India. The question is, what does that cost Moscow?)
That said, that does not mean experienced players should be dismissed out of hand. Even a wrong answer can be useful to a new player, as at least such answers may be clear and brief, so lend purpose to the player, and hopefully get that player thinking - rather than trying to follow rote instructions.
That a player is inarticulate or outright wrong should not be held against them. Typically such players are making an honest effort to be helpful. If they are passionate, or angry, or even abusive, often that comes from their sincere belief. (edit - I’m referencing other players in Discord, as I found conduct to be egregious. For myself, I feel calling people on what they do is not “abuse”. It may be received negatively, and I expect I may give some thought as to what I say (edit: that is, to how what I say is received, and thus reconsider how I make my points), but in the end, I cannot be held responsible for how other people choose to receive a message. Where some complain and complain about how I have all the time I want to write bits, but no time to waste in a game that I find a pointless clash of egos, well, I just see that as manipulative with negative aspersions thrown in. It really is rather off-putting, but I’m used to it by now. At any rate -)
Understanding (edit: in the sense of getting along with others) is all well and good, but that is not the same as moral relativism, accepting all positions as equal. Some actions result in advancing the progress of an argument, whether for or against, other actions distract from it.
===
(edit: reproduced below)
AXIS AND ALLIES ANALYSIS (more or less)
1. Define what is to be examined. 2. Based on past experience, identify then test possible short-term failure states. Typically requires working through many variations of action and response even so. 3. Note and write up all lines studied. If failure state(s) found, concludes here. 4. If no failure state is found, progress to more complicated projections of the predictive model, particularly accounting for anticipated board states as they develop over time. 5. If no particular point of failure identified, proceed to comparative tests of entirely different lines of play, identify key metrics that distinguish when one line should be used over another. 6. Write and edit, including key metrics. The final writeup should ideally have the reader always knowing what to do, and why to do it, in any situation.===
That, and the previous comments about methodology as applied to Axis and Allies. I think the example here was a little too simple, but eh.
