@zarhunter lose the tipped cv, dd, tac, cruiser and 2 ftr.
If 1-2 hits next round you can lose fighters.
crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions
-
For League play, could develop some kind of rating system, where a bid does not mean the same thing depending on the player level.
For example, if the players are equally rated, the bid is as given straight up. If there is a tier difference between players, it becomes the bid + say 5 ipc * (tier level differential). This could scale down or up the bid, depending if the higher or lower tier player is playing Allies respectively.
-
Actually, maybe too complicated to scale up and down, it just needs to go one way. If a strong Tier M axis player is up against a Tier 1, and thinks the fair bid to play Allies is 60, the Tier M would have to be willing to go to an Allies bid of 50, knowing the rating will be adding 10 to the lower Tier 1. This is assuming we think 5 * level differential is the right number.
Could help the strong Axis players get a little bit of variety. :)
-
What you are trying to do, is make the games more even by setting up a handicap system. The problem with that is it would require revamping the rating system as the rating system already has the handicap built into it.
For example, a Tier M Player versus a Tier 1 Player. If the Tier M Player wins they receive 6 points. If the Tier 1 Player wins they receive 8 points. Thus the handicap is already set at 33% more points for Tier 1 winning than Tier M winning. The same is true for losing. The Tier 1 Player receives 4 points for a loss against a Tier M while the Tier M only receives 2 points. The Tier 1 Player receives 100% more points than the Tier M Player does for losing the same game.
When I played at Days of Infamy they had, what I was told, a chess like rating system. If I recall correctly there was a 1 point difference in the value of the game for each 10 (or was it 20?) points of rating difference between the two Players. Thus a Player who had a rating of 1,500 versus a Player who had a rating of 1,400 had a 10 point difference. The mean of the game was worth 15 points so if the 1,500 Player won they received 5 points for the victory (15-10=5) whereas if the 1,400 Player won they received 25 (15+10=25). The loser lost the number of points that the winner gained. If I remember right the maximum to be gained by the lower ranked Player was 27 and the Minimum gained by the higher ranked Player was 3. So if a higher ranked Player consistently played low ranked Players they had to win 90% of the time just to break even.
-
I had a couple of suggestions for playing allies since I think (especially given the hefty bids) that you can win with them.
First, its good to ‘know your enemy’ and plan the bid around what they do. There are some axis players that mix it up, but quite often they have a default opening that they rely on. So you can bid for that. Whenever I play a game now, I check out the last 4-5 games my opponent has played as axis in order to plan my bid. I often see the same opening in all the games and if they adjust their opening as a result, you’ve at least made the choice for them, and they are probably not playing how they prefer.
I’ve mostly played BM since I started playing A&A here, and I’ve played a lot more and become a better player since making the switch. So, I’m rusty on OOB and it is worth taking this all with a grain of salt (and I’m relearning what a challenge the allies are in the one OOB game I’m playing). But, I think the principles are sound and apply across both versions.
I haven’t followed Andrew’s games too closely (since I play BM) but it looks to me that he prefers a J1. This is what I understand is probably the optimal strategy in OOB.
Knowing that, my bid is going to try to make that more difficult. Being able to hold Yunnan early as Oysteilo suggests is key so that Japan has a problem containing China. And you can very cheaply help out India as well.
I’d still prioritize the UK fleet over spending more on the Soviets. More Soviet inf might delay the Germans a turn or two, but it won’t allow the Soviets to alter Germany’s advantage over the Soviets. If the UK gets control in the Atlantic and the Med, it forces the Germans to spend to counter that, and it allows the allies to set up a pipeline moving allied air to Moscow. The sooner that happens the better. If it happens soon enough, you can actually delay the Germans from getting Caucasus and Volgograd, which is huge.
The allied player also needs to be less risk averse. You should still try to avoid risky attacks, but you should be more prepared to offer them to the axis, especially when you know that your opponent plays to avoid risk as Andrew (rightly) does. So for example, in the bid that Oysteilo proposed, he commits a bid of two Soviet fighters to Yunnan (+ the bid of an additional Chinese inf) because, I presume, that is the amount necessary to bring Japan’s chances attacking Yunnan below 50%. But with the bid of an inf and just one Soviet fig (along with the soviet fig and tac in Moscow), Japan’s odds are 51% (with a 5% chance of a draw) if Andrew goes all in (which is harder to do on a J1). Is Andrew going to attack Yunnan with those odds? Probably not, but even if he does, you are forcing someone whose win percentage is about 90% to gamble on a battle that has basically a 50% chance of setting Japan back.
A problem that allied players often have (and I certainly still struggle with it) is understanding that you can often get away with offering these riskier combats to the axis. For a long time, I played the game such that when my opponent had better than 50% odds of winning, I retreated. This is not the right way to play. It will sometimes be better to defend even when their odds approach 80-90%. Just because they have better odds of winning, doesn’t mean the battle is advisable. And Andrew has made clear that his approach to the game is risk averse. I absolutely agree is the right way to play, but that does create an opportunity for the allies to play a bit more forward and aggressively.
When Japan can threaten India you can think about this the same way. Japan may have very good odds of winning, but if the trade is India for a substantial portion of Japan’s airforce, it is probably better to defend India and dare them to attack rather than retreat.
So one reason to offer up these riskier battles is because the axis player will not risk them and in retreating you are conceding territory that don’t actually need to. But there is another reason too. A feature of the game is that both axis powers usually have the ability, when optimally played, to overwhelm the allies within a certain sphere of territory. When, for example, the Japanese fleet and air are stationed in FIC, and 35 or 36 sea zone, they can keep China back from Yunnan, the British out of Burma, the Soviets out of Manchuria, and the American fleet away from the money islands or Japan. But they can’t win the game there. What they need to win is outside that sphere, and as soon as they go for it, they are no longer able to protect much of it. So if India is defended, and Japan goes for it, apart from the risk that they are trading air for inf, it can often mean that Japan is out of position to counter the allies in the Pacific and in Korea. If the British do retreat, than Japan doesn’t need to move out of position to take it and the allies remain on the outside everywhere else.
There are circumstances where even 100% odds on India are not advisable, because it forces Japan out of position and the US is ready to pounce. But you need to set it up so that the allies are ready to pounce (I’ll note that this is probably harder to do on a J1 since Japan can often take India before the US is ready).
This logic also applies to the European theatre too. If the allies are ready, it is hard for the Germans to threaten Moscow without exposing territory in Western Europe and if they do go for Moscow, their air are definitely out of position to defend France and Norway.
This doesn’t mean you should never retreat, but it does mean that you shouldn’t automatically retreat because your opponent’s odds of winning are better. It’s often better to dare them to attack as long as you have set up the groundwork to push them elsewhere on the map.
-
Oh my goodness, Farmboy is giving it away.
Many years ago, cow said it much more succinctly. When you play the allies, “rotate and pray”.
I’m pretty sure a lot of players play with the old mindset, when Axis and Allies games were always 3 on 2, or 3 on 3, don’t give your opponent a chance to get lucky, never give them 50% or greater odds on any battle, never let a negative TUV. I won’t explain any further because farmboy already said too much!!
G40 has 2 massive Axis powers and one little brother. The Allies now have 3 major powers and 2 minor powers (France doesn’t count) and have many more options to work together until mid-late game when the gray and yellow can start doing some evil things, maybe.
Therefore, what farmboy said. Oh my goodness, give up on the old ways (or even players who have only played G40). It’s 2023. Chinese infantry are worth nowhere near what the Japanese are. ANZAC infantry on money islands are worth nowhere near what the Japanese are. USA planes are not as valuable as Japanese ones. UK planes are worth maybe 2/3 of a German one.
And now I’ve said too much. But if you don’t understand these concepts yet, after the game has been out for about 12 years, it’s time you hear them. :hugging_face:
-
In other words, what I’m saying and what I think farmboy is saying, is the Allies don’t need higher bids so much as players need to learn how to play them.
But for over 30 years across all versions I’ve always preferred the Allies, so if Andrew is an Axis player, I am an Allies player. Still, G40 Allies are much, much different than the previous global versions.
Doesn’t matter BM, OOB, PTV, it’s 2 super-major + 1 minor vs. 3 major + 2 minors. In Axis and Allies, the bigger your force advantage over your enemy in a battle, the bigger the win. So Germany and Japan can usually CRUSH whatever they want. You have to whittle away at them. If you don’t offer up + TUV battles to them, you will DIE and die quickly.
-
by “+tuv” you mean that you the allies should anticipate regularly being a loser in the tuv comparison.
-
@crockett36 Its not so much that you should anticipate being a loser in the tuv comparison but that you offer combats in which the axis player has better (but usually not certain) odds (which would mean that if they went for it the axis would indeed, on average, have a better tuv outcome).
One example of this is a game I played with trulpen last year. In Round 3 the German air could attack the British fleet with about 80% odds. He went for it, rolled above average and won the battle. He lost 5 planes, but I lost 5 planes, a carrier, two cruisers and two transports. The TUV exchange was 54, double the average expected. Its a big defeat for the British navy but despite the TUV exchange (which I admit I worried about at the time) it probably lost him the game. He needed his 5 air more than I needed that 54 tuv and he also had to land most of his surviving air in Algeria. His air is either destroyed or out of position and he no longer has the ability to push the Soviets out of Bryansk and can’t reach Volgograd or the Caucasus.
The right move for him was to ignore my fleet because of the risk to his air which was needed elsewhere. So it was actually safe for me to offer those kind of odds.
If I’m worried about offering that 80% odds than I keep my UK fleet back so its putting less pressure on the axis. He then can’t attack the fleet but he also doesn’t have to worry about it and can focus on the Soviets,
-
Who was the hero who gave Andrew 60 for the allies? And if I may tease you, don’t you want to be the best Axis AND Allies player in the world and not just the best Axis player, Andrew?
-
Surfer. I gave him the option of taking either side at 60, and he chose Axis.
As for being the best Axis player vs the best Allies player; the last time I checked the game was called Axis and Allies so my only goal is to be the best Axis and Allies player.
-
@andrewaagamer So, we’ll agree to disagree about that! lol! just asking, but who would you say is the best Allied player on this site? Feel free to name a few or a single standout.
-
@crockett36 I can only speak to 2nd Edition OOB and I have not played everyone yet. So far, @JDOW was the best I have played against.
-
@crockett36
Just see who wins each playoff this year (and take a good look at runner-up)You don’t even have to wait - most of the first round games are done and whoever is in the 2nd round have definitely proven themselves.
I see you have 3 games finished in 2023 and 3 in 2022.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the rankings spreadsheet.Here is a link to the playoff sheet.
It’s pretty safe to say that just about any of the players who have not been eliminated from the playoffs, at this point, would make you sweat in head-to-head combat!
-
Axis-Dominion, Adam514, and JDOW have won the last 5 Balanced Mod championships, and none of them play in league now.
Since none of them are with us presently, watch the 2022 playoff results for who could bash your head in the fastest ;)
Balanced mod seems to draw most (not all) of the highly competitive and active players.
-
Plenty of people can bash my head in for a variety of reasons. I just want to know about the top 3 or 5.
-
Yup, I’d recommend looking at the playoff results thus far for whatever version you want to play.
You’re an out of the box man? Looks like you’ve already received the Myygames experience. He and Andrew have had the best results the past 2 years - -but it’s a pretty small sample size.
-
I’m looking forward to studying the play of the best allied player. I detest playing the Axis. The history gets to me.
-
@andrewaagamer said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:
@crockett36 I can only speak to 2nd Edition OOB and I have not played everyone yet. So far, @JDOW was the best I have played against.
thank you, sir.
-
I am a newer player with a small amount of experience playing people. I have spent a lot of time reading forum over the last year or two. What I put forward is based a lot on other peoples postings.
Crockett36 seems to present 60 is a fair bid in OOB because andrew said 60 is a fair bid. I believe when andrew made that statement he may have been referencing himself. A number of people
have said a fair bid would be a sort of a sliding scale that increases as a persons ability to take advantage of inherent advantages of playing axis in OOB.
I will post some rough numbers for demonstration purposes.
tier m v m 50-60
tier e v e 40-50
tier 1 v 1 30-40
tier 2 v 2 20-30
tier 3 v 3 0-20
play between players of more widely varying skill such as m v 2 -
on with previous post
M v 2 may be more dependent on who playing axis
M axis may give 50-60 where tier 2 playing axis may only give 20-30.
this part I dont feel as confident about but threw something out in case somebody asked.
this does sort of gives me a segway into fair bid between tier/skill levels. somebody posted years ago about bids to level skill differences but dont know how to look up. Booper recently mentioned 5 as addressing skill difference between people one level apart. My rough recollection is that it was more of range of 10-20 per every tier difference. They even had different numbers between tiers, such as tier 3 v tier 2 ---- 15-20. Tier 1 v Tier E -----10-15. etc. I would just use maybe 15 between tiers for this example as being more accurate is beyond me and that people who could possibly be more accurate are not going to spend time on it. so now M v 2 becomes.
tier M axis v tier 2 --------50-60 plus 3 tier difference at 15 each—45 produces a bid of 95-105.
tier 2 axis v tier M-------------20-30 minus 3 tier difference at 15 each—45 produces a bid of 15-25 to the axis.
recent example of tier M v tier 2 is ABH v Crockett allies + 100 as a tutor game that ABH won.
just had this in my head for a few days and wanted to get it out so I could let it go. I am in no way advocating or proposing this for league play. league play is generally about winning,ranking,champion etc. not trying to have everybody have 50-50 records with a 40 way tie for first and last place.
Suggested Topics
