A new G40 online TripleA tournament is getting setup.
2011 Tournament discussion (AA50-41)
-
Is there any constraint on what types of units can be included in the bid… i.e. bombers when the bid is 12 or more?
Other sites have a restriction… I think mostly for the Soviet bomber in Bury reason…
Yea, you can get your tnps and dd in z51 sunk before you start. 8-)
-
Is there any constraint on what types of units can be included in the bid… i.e. bombers when the bid is 12 or more?
Other sites have a restriction… I think mostly for the Soviet bomber in Bury reason…
Yea, you can get your tnps and dd in z51 sunk before you start. 8-)
There’s only a 57% chance of that happening. And then you have no extra infantry to Egypt, no destroyer to 2, etc. Japan starts with 5 transports. Yes, they will be unable to take a money island and that’s an 8 IPC swing, but that’s again only if Russia wins this coin flip of an attack. I’ve heard all this talk about the Bomber on Buryatia like it’s some kind of game over thing, but my opinion is that it’s an over-reaction.
You have a 29% chance of killing the destroyer and the transports surviving.
You have a 14.286% chance of getting NOTHING BUT BROWN JUNK on the Pacific floor for your 12 bid!!!To answer your question, I never saw any rules on this site about bid restrictions other than you have to already have units there and it has to be your nation controlling the territory (No german units to Libya for example).
-
I would support forbidding bomber bids. The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack. If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.
Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here. Seems like a high bid for a dice game.
-
Quick note on round 1 games. Obviously all are not done yet, so keep playing on. Right now the plan is to let the games finish normally. I guess we’ll take another look at it at the end of May.
But a note to all ongoing games. We need to pick up the pace, myself included. :-D
-
Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:I would support forbidding bomber bids. The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.
The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality. It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair. If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want? If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.
If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.
That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.
Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here. Seems like a high bid for a dice game.
Right. Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.
Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov. Very interesting.
-
Quick note on round 1 games. Obviously all are not done yet, so keep playing on. Right now the plan is to let the games finish normally. I guess we’ll take another look at it at the end of May.
But a note to all ongoing games. We need to pick up the pace, myself included. :-D
can U please explain X2
cheers :)
-
All games need to start moving quicker so they get finished before the end of May
-
Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:I would support forbidding bomber bids. The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.
The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality. It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair. If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want? If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.
If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.
That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.
Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here. Seems like a high bid for a dice game.
Right. Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.
Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov. Very interesting.
I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…
That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example. They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.
Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.
So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named). There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.
-
Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:I would support forbidding bomber bids. The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.
The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality. It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair. If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want? If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.
If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.
That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.
Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here. Seems like a high bid for a dice game.
Right. Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.
Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov. Very interesting.
I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…
That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example. They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.
Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.
So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named). There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.
i’m right in the middle, and that’s why i now think no-tech AA50 is the best game there is.
-
I believe strategy is the key to winning but having tech and dice symbolizes the brilliant generals, clever scientists and the difference between recruits and veterans. So I would say If I had to choose a camp I would choose Gamer 90/100 times because of the changes in the game one battle or one round can make. However The reasons I have stated also makes me want to choose to be a strategist because of the annoying results which throw a perfect shuck or an invincible strategy to get defeated because of 0 hits on attack in an Amphib or the 50/100 hits I faced as Germany in a recent face to face revised game when Russia had turled from round 1 and built a 100 strong Infantry. I went on to lose that game. (My first lose for over a year in Face to face revised)
But what does this mean to you fellow AAA gamer??? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is just my opinion. To some it could be the buildings of a gaming ideology and to others I could be worth as much as toilet paper. But when deciding which road to go down that of a strategist or a gamer you must recognize peoples opinion because inside each person’s opinion there will be a grain of truth.
And now back to the topic of unlimited bids. I believe that if we accept Bomber bids eventually things will even themselves out. I.E. for all the times you face the Bry bomber you will have it or it will fail on it’s quest and the bid is down the drain. So I believe that bids should be unlimited (although this may be the gamer in me and tomorrow when I begin to think like a strategist I will think what I have written is rubbish) because limiting bids of bmrs could lead us to banning bids in other places liking banning a soviet AC because it could be seen as a wasted bid and could ruin the game. As I said before this is just my popinion take from it what you will.
-
I’m enjoying the discussion
-
PGMatt over Ol’ Blood&Guts in round 12
-
AS LONG AS BOTH (good) PLAYERS AGREE ON BID
there isnt any problem with any bid
thats the ˝beauty˝ of bid ;)
so
any bid
any combinationas long the units are in the territory in which The Nation(receiving the bid) puts its unit(s) there
so if somebody can play a great game with Axis and win a good player giving him 11 12 13 or 14 IPC
whats the problem
in future maybe bid will be 5-8
or 2-4
or 15-18who knows
or maybe it stays around 6-9
as its today
the thing is that in the bid
you decide
you ˝roll˝ from one side posibilty to play allies with X while giving your oponent oportunity to play with X-1one great thing about this forum playing is bid i enjoy it
as for luck issue
luck can be and it is a factor always
even in the most strategic way of playing
risk luck its part of teh game always more or less
and if U want to have a bom in buryatia
and build your efforts early on on risky attacks push forward
Your opponent is counting on it and he is giving you this őpportunity of risk˝ freely
he is no ˝stupid computer˝ or naive
simplyhe thinks he can take u down with axis with your 12 IPc bid
or even he assumes the bur bom :Dlimiting any limiting in start leads to discussion about new limits
the territory and nation ristriction is logical and almost all agree with it.
other restrictions are simply ˝blocking˝ this great game
which evolved so much so so much from revised in the possibilites of playing in the numbers of difeerent strategies tactics lucks risks and everything else combined in teh same pot…
so i think there s plenty there s everything needed for both sides of players strategists and gamers…
this game offers both… it offers
Great Strategy and Great Fun…
limiting either simply limits both…
Cheers and sorry for my bad english which hasnt improved much over years :lol:
-
Excellent post, Amon, and I agree.
I’m not afraid to give anyone a 12 bid because he might put a bomber on Buryatia :roll:
He then has no extra infantry to Egypt or boats to Z2, both of which can help a lot.
And he only has a 57% chance of sinking 2 transports, and Japan still has 3 others so it’s not the end of the Axis’ world. -
@The:
All games need to start moving quicker so they get finished before the end of May
Right.
But I actually ment end of April, when I typed that. :-D -
LOL WHAT? I thought I was good till may! Damn.
Anyways… As for what DutchmanD said-he’s right. There are 2 kinds of players.
But without calling myself a hybrid, I’d argue there is a third kind as well.
Logistiscist. These are the guys who build no more than 1 or 2 turns ahead in thier head, who react accordingly to what’s happening in the field - with a specific focus on economic game control as opposed to strategic. LL or regular dice is just fine. It’s about what units CAN do - as oppossed to what they will do, That is the focus. Gandeous strategy is prevented however - as it is regularily dependant on the moves of ones opponent, and how best to pragmatically counter them. Using and moving EVERY single piece on the board into a fluid system IS the perfect game. Taking risks here and there, with a general strategy that encompasses all versions of Axis and Allies (spare the mini games).
I fit into this category. And if you disagree with it’s exsistence, where do you put me then? as a strategist because I stick to my plans? Or as a Gamer because I take risks? Hyrbid maybe…
I hope I see Darth in the tournament, I want to pop some of his Jap transports and cruiser again US1 - coming right across the Pacific!
-
Gargantua over Quark.
See you all in the next tournament.
Cheers
Quark
-
Quark fought hard Gentleman. So don’t think less of him just because it was a G4 surrender.
If the dice had even been 40% even favour, he had a good shot at staying in the fight . Except they weren’t.
-
Butcher over Pavlov. He got burned by dice pretty hard multiple times, otherwise our game would have gone on a lot longer.
-
Suggested Topics
