@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
What is in your "comfort zone" when it comes to odds?
-
This may be impossible to answer in a vacuum, but could you give a guesstimate as to what odds in an attack you would always feel comfortable carrying out? Something you don’t consider too dicey or if you lost mild mannerd you may turn into the Hulk.
-
90%.
Any time I lose a 90% battle it tweaks me a bit. However, in certain individual battles I have been “comfortable” with less odds.
-
Depends if it is LL or ADS. I actually play dice sometimes, even if I am a LL player :-)
My battles go from 51% and higher. In most battles I actually don’t see a big need for big overkill in ADS. I feel if I have to compensate for possible very bad luck, then I can’t do much about it anyway. There are higher variations in ADS so the attack force should be stronger, as the defense force on the TTs you want to hold. Also in LL I often cannot be 100% sure that I actually see all the units of the opponent 100% of the time, what can reach where 100% of the time, so mental focus is also a factor to be considered in this. When deciding how bid stack is needed to hold a TT I must calculate not only dice, be it LL or ADS, but I might forget some enemy units some weird place on the board :-)
I will use the battle calculator the same way in ADS games like I do in LL, I reckon I need an extent of overkill, but too much will be too defensive play which will not do me any good. I always hope for dice rolls not too far from the average, wild dice swings you cannot control or handle any way.
About comfort zone, for me there isn’t any before after the battles has been resolved, and the outcome of the battle was a decisive victory for me 8-)
-
It entirely depends on situation. What is the strategic value of the territory? Is it imperative that I take the territory to keep the opponent from moving in with air or blitzing? In large part it comes down to how badly am I hurt if I lose the battle. Also, am I ahead or behind? If I’m behind, there may come a time where the best way to change the game balance is to let the dice try to save me, so I will take on riskier battles if they can potentially tip the scales. If I feel I’m ahead I’m looking to manage downside risk. If I’m behind I’m looking to increase upside potential.
-
Typically it comes down to payout if I can pull it off. If I see a roughly 33% or better odds at getting a capital and losing it does not completely nerf me (somewhat of an expendable force), I will try for it. Nothing is better then watching those bombers taken off as early casualties when the battle is still in doubt!
Anything around 60% I feel comfortable with. Mutual annihilation is good enough for me most times…
-
i detest 80% and below. yet i cannot be helped you ust take thoose risks sometimes. " comfort" arises above 95%
-
I don’t look at the odds per se, I usually use a LL calculation to determine if I should take it. I’ll usually round down my hits each round of battle and round up my opponents hits. If it comes out that I’ll still take then I’ll do the attack knowing I should still do well with a slight worst case result. I’m not sure what these battles would translate to in a % in Frood.
Also depending on the situation (am I losing/winning) I may get more/less risky.
I will say with large naval battles, I’m always worried since there are usually lots of 3 and 4’s involved. One bad first rd, even as small as you do 1 less hit and your opponent does 1 more can really mess things up. Plus you have to go through the variations of potential OOLs and that can make any naval engagement sketchy unless you have such overwhemling odds to win, but that seems to be a rarity unless you are already at the end game.
-
maybe a better way to look at it, is by saying what opening move attacks would be to risky for you? Example: would you consider the odds good enough to send 2 fig vs the Destroyer off the Western US as well as 1 des and 2 fig vs the BB on Haw as Japan, or is that move too risky?
-
2 fig vs the BB on Haw as Japan, or is that move too risky?
Considering that the BB itself cannot threaten Japan yet, I think the risk is unnecessary.
If you are “lucky” you will sink the BB on your first round of fire and lose a DES. If unlucky, you could lose 1 fighter too. I haven’t played yet with Japan, but sending all 4 Fighters seem like a possibility (especially since the figther can’t really be used on the ground)I love dangerous battles, because they can change the game. I tend to play all-in when my team is doing badly. I remember a game in revised, where Japan had 2 BB, 2 destroyer, 2 transport and 2 AC (4 fighters), i sent my 3 destroyer, 3 BB, 1 AC (2 fighter) and 2 transports
He defends 6 @ 4
4 @ 3
2 @ 1
What were my odds of winning this?
I had
3 @ 4
5 @ 3
1 @ 1
2 @ 0And I won and even 2 fighters survived and 1 BB!!! Japan Navy was wiped out (so was US navy). But he had 3 IC producing tank and was sending them toward Moscow (so no money to spend for Ships)
I still don’t know how we won that game. I mean, the navy fight was actually pointless. He was on ground with three IC (India, Manchuria and China)
Suggested Topics
