Yeah, I’ve read that and I believe it. I think until 1943 or 1944 the Americans had more ground units in the Pacific?
Yeah, the US built a ton of ships. For some reason the US never gets to seemingly similar numbers in the game.
Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
Hi @crockett36. Thank you for the comment. I assume you are referring to this section of my article.
Risky Attacks: I see plenty of people do risky attacks to gain an advantage. One example is the J1 attack on the ANZAC SZ62 fleet. The goal is to kill the ANZAC destroyer and transport and thus remove the capability of ANZAC to take Dutch New Guinea on A1. Let’s look at that battle:
• 40% of the time the Japanese destroyer dies. (-8)
• 40% of the time the ANZAC destroyer and transport dies (+20)
• 20% of the time both the ANZAC Destroyer and Japanese destroyer die (0)
• 13% of the time the Japanese destroyer kills the cruiser on the counter attack (+12)
• Total Average TUV = $6.3So that looks like a pretty good battle. On average for an $8 investment I can get a $6.3 return. Dang good! So, the battle makes sense to conduct. Right? Maybe; it depends. The real question is do you need to win that battle to win the game? Are you the weaker Player, the stronger Player or are you both the same caliber of Player? If you are the weaker Player you may need to take more risks than your opponent. But if you are not then why make the attack? Let’s look at the battle from a different perspective. If you need to kill the transport to win the game than you have already lost the game 60% of the time. And if you can win without killing the transport why risk your overall game 40% of the time when you get nothing out of the attack? What we want to achieve is consistent winning. Not winning only when we get lucky dice; but due to our good play.
As I mentioned many people will do a Risky Attack to gain an advantage. One normally wants to gain an advantage so they can win. :)
If you perform a risky attack to gain an advantage are you not trying to improve your chances of winning? If the risk fails than have you not reduced your chances of victory because not only did you not gain an advantage you created a disadvantage for yourself?
The whole overall theme of my article was to try and teach a Player to be better so they do not have to rely on the dice. In fact, alleviate the dice as much as possible because dice are random. While trying to gain an advantage by making what is a reasonable risky attack on AVERAGE you will increase your odds of winning. However you will also harm your chances of winning when the dice are not average. If your style of play requires making good risky attacks than you are limiting your total possible winning percentage.
Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say we use a strategy that requires average dice to win. That means I will win my games 66.6% of the time. Good dice of 33.3% plus Average dice of 33.3% = 66.6%. I am only losing when I get Bad dice of 33.3% of the time. Now a Player may be happy to win 66.6% of the time but what I want to do is to win 75% or more of my games againsts good players. And to do that you need to remove dice from the game as much as possible.
So if you need to make reasonable risky attacks to win then do so. I am not saying they are bad I am saying only make them if you need them to win. If you do not need them to win then don’t do them and risk losing. Why take risks you do not need to?
I remember one face to face game where I was Germany and I had a 98% chance of taking Moscow, to essentially win the game. My partner asked me if I was going to make the attack and I said “No. Why should I? Next Turn I will have a 99% chance and there is nothing that will change on the board forcing me to make the attack now.” I did not need to take that 2% risk so why do it? In another face to face game I only had a 48% chance to take Moscow and end the game. I was not planning on taking it. However, my Partner suffered an excruciating loss of the IJN on his Turn and suddenly we had no choice. It was either attack now at 48% or next Turn it would only be worse odds and things would go downhill for us all over the board. So I made the attack at 48% because I had to; it was a reasonable risk. BTW I won. :) Geez that pissed off our opponents.
Nicely written, BUT!
In the end, two Things remain.
A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.
B) even if you play as much as possible without taking risks, if your opponent makes a risky move, doesn’t this call off your whole riskfree playstyle and awareness??
I understand what you are saying, but you also have to consider that it will be a Philosophie of each and everybodys playstyle.
I used tp play taking a lot of risks bc I wanted to make “neccessary” shortcuts.
Most of the time I lost my games.Today, I try to make good calls, but when opportunity arises, I still may consider them in my thinking.
And when I take a risk now, it will come with a back up plan.
G1 is a very risky move when you plan on to knock out two sz at once.
106 is a straight 50/50 gamble when you hit it with one Sub only.
And you just increase your chance for an additional 50/50 outcome by taking a second Sub with you!The best way to engage combat is,
When you take enough force to combat that you should easily wipe out your opponents units in the very first round.So you are right on to wait for another round to get a full 100%-110% of a kill instead of an 86 to 9? % in crucial battles.
You want to have that, everything else is cold coffee if you ask me.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.
If you’re referring to the ANZAC attack on J1, it’s far from 50/50. Worst case scenario the ANZAC cruiser does not get a hit and now you HAVE to dispatch a carrier down to fetch your plane. Starting J2 a carrier down is a BFR for Japan!
-
@crockett36 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
Can I ask about the bid?
As Curly would say… “Certainly!”.
I think there is agreement that a large bid is needed to make the OOB game fair. In my vast experience I have come to feel that a bid of around $60 is fair. I have seen some Players who prefer Axis to go as high as $64-$65 while Players who prefer the Allies go as low as $54-$55. So figure a $10 spread based on side preference.
In my opinion the high bid is one of the things that makes the OOB version so enjoyable. Each game is different and the Axis Player has to be able to adapt to the placement of the Allied bid. Did the bid go heavy into the Pacific? Did it go heavy Russia or UK? Was it a sea bid or a ground bid or an air bid or a combination of all?
One of the great things about the OOB game is that the Axis has multiple ways to win; about 6.
-
Germany takes Moscow by itself
-
Italy gets control of the Mediterranean and gets big money (over $30)
-
Germany takes London on the cheap
-
Japan wins in the Pacific
-
Germany and Japan combine to take Moscow
-
Long Term money game
The Allied bid should remove as many avenues to victory that the Axis has and set up the Allies for a long term game. What is exciting about the OOB game is the early tension in regards to a Victory City win for the Axis. Can they pull it off or be denied? If the Axis are denied then the game usually morphs into a long term game; so it is two games in one yet never the same twice. Cool stuff!
I am not sure there is a specific bid that is best however it does seem a heavy UK bid in Europe is the most common one I have seen. Personally one that hurts Italy, protects London from Sealion and assists in the defense of Moscow is a good mix.
-
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.
B) even if you play as much as possible without taking risks, if your opponent makes a risky move, doesn’t this call off your whole riskfree playstyle and awareness??Good questions… Thank you for contributing.
A) It is only a 50-50 chance if the Players are of equal caliber. The stronger Player is always going to win more than 50% of the games. Thus the stronger Player does not need to take as many risks and the weaker Player does have to take risks to win.
B) That depends. If you are the stronger Player than you may still be able to play conservatively even if the other Player is succeeding in risky attacks. Case in point. I had a face to face AA50 game where our Opponents had a dramatically aggressive G1. They attacked Egypt and every Allied fleet they could get their hands on. None of the battles were greater than 65% and one of them was under 50% yet they won them all. Our Allied position was frankly terrible. Germany was going to swoop through Africa and there was no Allied fleet to do anything about it for multiple Turns. Our team huddled and since it was the very beginning of the game, and night, my partners wanted to concede and start over so we could play at least one game where we might win. I disagreed. My point was the reason they had such an aggressive opening was because they knew we were the better team. Thus they will either a) make a mistake down the road that we can take advantage of or b) they will continue to make very risky attacks and eventually the dice will turn against them. So we continued and I was correct. They made a strategic error the very next Turn and the following Turn had two risky battles go against them so by the beginning of Turn 4 we were right back in the game and eventually won. So we did not have to play risky because we were better than them.
On the other hand I have been in games where the caliber of the Players was about the same and my Opponent started making risky attacks and was successful and you are correct. I had to change from my conservative strategy and start making risky attacks to try and stay in the game. For example while personally I would never like to attack Moscow with anything less than an 80% chance of victory against a really good Player I would go all the way down to 60% because after all, against a really good Player winning 60% of the time is a good thing. In fact if you are playing the best of the best winning 51% of the time is all it takes to be happy.
The point I am trying to make in my article is if you do not have to make a risky attack to win; why make it? I never said risky attacks were bad; many times they are necessary. I said do not make them if you do not have to.
-
@AndrewAAGamer above you listed several allied bid placements that were essential. Can you put them in order and by distinction : Essential non-essential
My question would be, why not codify this? Why leave it up in the air? And come up with a minimum for o o b player VS equal player? This would give us an even starting point even a handicapping mechanic that could slide, adjusting from noob to last year’s champion. Did I mention the need for an Ana players governing body?
-
@AndrewAAGamer that is a great clarification!
-
@AndrewAAGamer Lady luck is a capricious harlot.
-
@crockett36 You can start ranking bids based on how much extra value they will bring on turn 1, either on extra offense or defense or battles-prevented or income gained. A UK sub in the med is way up there to allow for reliable destruction of the Italian fleet. Same with a few extra UK land units in Africa. A Scottish fighter is also massively useful as it generally ensures 1 fewer German naval battles. I also love a Yunnan infantry, making the Japanese battle on turn 1 far more dicey and difficult for a J1 DOW. Nothing beats the return on investment of an ANZAC infantry in New Guinea if you can sneak that on.
In terms of a fair bid, the number keeps drifting up with about 40 being typical. I would suggest another 20-ish points per tier difference between players. as poor gameplay in the early turns can quickly make a big impact. A weak player can still struggle despite being handed a 100 PU bid. Here are the tier boundaries according to League rules. They really should create a category for 8+
Tier boundaries: PPG
Tier M (Master) 5.50+
Tier E (Elite) 4.50-5.49
Tier 1 3.50-4.49
Tier 2 2.50-3.49
Tier 3 0.00-2.49 -
I don’t understand the numbers? 5.50? Ipcs?
-
@crockett36 points per game for the League matches:
[https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/24393/league-standings](link url) -
@crockett36 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
Lady luck is a capricious harlot.
LOL - Too true!
-
According to these principles, it is much easier for the axis to achieve victory in a plain Jane game. No bid I mean. Therefore in order to win they must choose lower percentage battles it also means that if you can see yourself falling considerably behind you also must choose to be adventurous!
And that a good amount of time you will fall short!
-
@crockett36 I’ve thought about this thread a lot in the last two months. I had never really conceived of the notion of the difference between 99.99 and 99.999. Still blows my mind. Life doesn’t seem to present many circumstances that are that sure. And of course most action underdog movies are about how that goes badly.
-
@AndrewAAGamer I see from one of your early articles that you say to never buy a cruiser and rarely buy a battleship. However, for the same price as the battleship you can have a cruiser and a destroyer, which gives a 16% of getting two hits instead of one from the battleship in the first round of combat (assuming the battleship would hit) and a 67% chance of getting at least one hit in that same round (which is marginally better than the chance of getting a hit with just a battleship).
Now you might add that the battleship can be repaired, to which I would counter that two unit build can be split if necessary to provide blockers or handle two needed tasks and therefore I think the benefit of that defensive hit is a wash.
Thoughts?
Marsh
-
The choice usually is between a battleship or two destroyers or three subs. The BB can be repaired, while the latter options have numerous advantages.
In large fleet battles, battleships are slightly more advantageous as they don’t have their attack ability decreased after taking a single hit. The benefit is so minimal that I have never personally purchased one in a game.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris I’m not sure I agree that battleships are slightly more advantageous, but skipping that. Part of Andrew’s position is that it’s better to get your hits in early rather than wait til later. If that’s true on offense, it should also be true on defence.
Marsh
-
The issue here is you are trying to match the $20 for one battleship which gives us odd comparisons. For a real comparison look at multiples of each where the dollars match.
a) (5) Destroyer (5 HP, 10 OFP, 10 DFP) vs (2) Battleship (4 HP, 8 OFP, 8 DFP)
Destroyer versus Battleship = 59.7% DD win, 35.2% BB win, 5.1% both die.b) (3) Destroyer (3 HP, 6 OFP, 6 DFP) vs 2 Cruiser (2 HP, 6 OFP, 6 DFP)
Destroyer versus Cruiser = 66% DD win, 27.3% CA win, 6.7% both die.So, in a straight up battle the destroyers win hands down. If you need defense the destroyers are great. If your fleet is already bigger than subs are even better on offense than above. Subs and destroyers are better than cruisers and battleships.
I have bought battleships when I only have limited space in the factory slot(s) and needed the biggest defense available due to an enemy fleet threatening me. Such as Japan off FIC or the US off Korea. I may have bought a cruiser once in my lifetime in the same scenario when I only had enough space and money for the cruiser and could not get the battleship or multiple destroyers or a carrier and two fighters.
-
@marshmallowofwar if you get into a battle with a high probability of success, the battleships will give you a higher expected TUV swing. Check it out in a typical scenario. It isn’t a huge benefit, ~5 TUV per battleship, and comes with numerous disadvantages
I really do like having 20 subs compared to 15 destroyers or 6 battleships as they are all roughly comparable on defense but the subs are vastly superior on offense.
-
@andrewaagamer That’s awesome, but it’s not really an answer to the question.
5 battleships (100 IPCs) attacking 5 destroyers and 5 cruisers (100 IPCs) wins about 46% of the time according to the Triple A calculation (over 10000 iterations). The defender wins 50% of the time and the other 4% is a draw.
5 destroyers and 5 cruisers attacking 5 battleships wins 50% of the time. The battleships win 46% of the time, and the other 4% is a draw.
If I increase those numbers to 15 stacks, the win ratio for the mixed units goes up to 52%.
To me, those numbers back up my position that it’s better to have two units than one – the two unit combo has a slight edge. Is my math off somewhere?
Marsh
-
Well sure a combo of cruisers and destroyers is better than only battleships by a tiny margin; because of the destroyers involved. That does not change the fact that destroyers by themselves are better than cruisers and battleships.
Not sure what your question is?
Suggested Topics
