Mantlefan, mine doesn’t crash anymore
1. Get the 10MB version
2. When you replace the file with the old one, you still have to manually delete the old file- you end up getting 2 files marked T40 and I think that is what make it crash.
Kreighund,
Thanks for the fair direction given- everyone just needs to try the strat a few times- that’s what we need right now. I’m also under the assumption that you will try it a few times also. Jen has given MORE than enough info and guidelines for it. So I assume we will hear from you also- that would be most productive. That is what we are asking YOU to do also. There are already several people who agree with Jen and are seeing this in their games.
Quest, can u link the 10 mb version? I alrdy have wonkos 3.1 version, and i don’t have any other T40’s but it still crashes.
Quest, can u link the 10 mb version? I alrdy have wonkos 3.1 version, and i don’t have any other T40’s but it still crashes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22837.0
It the 3.1 version- lower resolution.
I can’t remember how I got rid of the other files, but I know I had to manually do it. It doesn’t replace them right or something- anyway after that mine has worked fine. That’s the best I can do to help. Ask Wonko of TMTM though.
@suprise:
The Allies were victorious, lucky rolls on key battles and the Allies worked together better than last week.
The teams were the same, the score 1-1 next time we’re going to switch sides.
Yes. That is a pitfall of playing one or two games to test a strategy. However, LL and NL games are even worse precisely because (in a game with Krycheck) I had 100% odds of success in a battle for Tokyo America would have NEVER attempted in an ADS game, likewise in previous editions of the game, I have taken and lost battleships to 4 fighter attacks in one round, perhaps getting one fighter, perhaps getting none whereas in an ADS game a 4 fighter attack has a high probability of losing two fighters to a battleship.
Another problem is pulling it on someone who has never seen it before. It is very hard to base the validity of a strategy if the person you are playing has never seen the maneuver before. In subsequent battles they will generally see what is coming and be able to adapt to the situation, thus, ensuring it is strategy, not luck (well, at least more strategy and less luck) that makes the case.
I’d love to hear further evidence on how it goes, if you try it again.
Taschuler:
I have seen and dealt with German submarine strategies. It does draw some from the US away from the Pacific, in the short run.
One method of dealing with it is to have the British fleet (defined as any combat unit able to get there) attack SZ 101 and sink the German U-Boats while a destroyer(s) and American aircraft attack the Gulf of Mexico and sink the U-Boats there.
Given the range from Hamburg to Washington DC, it is relatively easy to see this coming, so staging for it can be readily factored into your game play. However, I agree, it does detract something from the Pacific.
Mantle,
I agree. The T40 module seems very unstanble and it is quite annoying to rebuild when it crashes during England’s turn, if you do not save on a routine basis.
I have not gotten the new one. I’ll wait a bit more, since it is not that annoying to me.
Mantlefan,
If you want to put your IPC where your keyboard is, I’ll be glad to play you in a best of 3 out of 5 games. I just need time to clear my plate a little, so do let me know if you are interested and we’ll make sure to keep the game links in this thread so others can follow the progress.
Typical game rules:
etc.
Yes this forum has got a heavy handed moderator staff. /LOTS/ of censorship and most of it seems to be done on a whim, no rhyme or reason. Don’t think its only you though Mantlefan, we’re all having to take a taste of dictatorship. Still, I don’t see that playing a game vs Jen is going to be much of a test for her Pacific only strat. I think it’d be better tested by having many games between many opponents to see if it works. Rest assured all games I play as allies in the future will be using this rubric to see if it is effective.
Just post about the balance or play the game and employ the new strategy and test.
Play many games using the ideas and see if its true…validate it. see if you get the same result.
Everything else it to that end.
Mantlefan at first I tought you were really a “victim” but now I see that you’re really, and I mean really getting annoying. Jennifer thinks this strategy can’t be countered. Until proven contrary, she will say it no matter what. Either you prove her wrong by playing few games against her, or just calm down and take it easy.
Where did I say the game wouldn’t be played? WHERE? I said the reports would help make the test more meaningful, but now you say that I said that there should be no test. It’s absurd.
You said it by posting 1,000 times since it was first proposed that you should play the game and find out if it works or not. You waste everyones time with incessant off topic posts about why you should philosophize about how to test the game, except by playing it… All those paper thin excuses you make which become roadblocks to getting a test done by any means are nothing but protestations. Just start playing a game to get an idea how it works.
Somehow “using the best counter strat possible” means not playing a game, as well as playing less games to get to the best solution I can come up with is also automatically not playing a single game.
Somehow you invented this as a new tool to avoid a direct game, by talking about why one way is better than another is the same as not doing anything and avoiding playing out the idea….we call that another excuse.
In most fields of study I am familiar with, students get abstract foundational ideas before doing their practicum. If you send students in without any background knowledge they are not likely to have as meaningful an experience. It makes sense to get a foundation before doing the real thing, at least according to a couple hundred years of pedagogical discourse.
That’s just the problem, epistemological arguments of the foundation of knowledge theory are not what these threads are about, they are about a game and playtest is the best way to playtest. Arguing about how somebody should test an idea for you are just thin walls of words created to avoid what is a rudimentary exercise and if its a waste of time as you put it, then your probably not really into AA. Big words from dictionary notwithstanding.
Any further off topic posts are not needed, PM me and i can explain everything again to you. These threads have a specific goal in mind and its not anything related to what your posting.
One can use their analytical skills to their hearts content, but unless they are put into practive, they do neither the one thinking about it, nor the community any good.
I do agree, in some small point, that if the axis KNOW what is coming, they have the best chance possible to counter it. This is not fool proof, as the Russian triple in Revised and a KJF strat (same game) showed against NCSCSwitch, but it did give him the best chance possible (he lost, quit in a huff to be more correct. I can post the map again, if anyone wants it. Hilarious position on the board, IMHO, but off topic.)
However, I am thinking that in any game, known or not known, Japan is going to face an uphill battle against an aggressive America. In most games, where Japan isn’t expecting it, they don’t face an uphill battle, they face a shear cliff, IMHO. At least when they expect it, they can move to maximize the amount of time America is locked up.
Anyway, my game with Krycheck is one example. He conceeded, even though he attacked on round 1 with Japan and was still in a strong position. (Granted, he lost 4 undefended transports attacking Karelia because he failed to take into consideration a Russian scramble and he left Japan under-protected, IMHO, at least for a LL game.) There are others, but that is the most recent.
Of course, in all games I do not ONLY go after Japan. Sometimes I put a few destroyers in the Atlantic. (78 IPC = 9 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, if you have more than that, you have to build them in SZ 101 anyway, or get more expensive ships.) Sometimes (like a lot of the time) I get Brazil too. Eh. Minor things, not enough to change the over all game situation, I don’t think. After all, Germany may decide to get “cute” and try to CRD America, well, if you have a couple destroyers out there, CRD don’t mean squat.
Oh, and I am retracting my SBR run position. By the time you have time to dither around with his scrambled fighters, you may as well have had your money going into the Atlantic instead of into strategic bombers. IMHO. All the rest, as far as I can see right now, and with the last major opponent to the strategy not engaging in a test of mettle, stands until proven false. I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought. Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.
The reason I said to play 7 games is that one person can be the Axis 3 times and the Allies 3 times if by the time game 6 is just about over there may be some opinionated people out there telling you where you went wrong, either one of you. At that time choose a teammate,see if what they are saying can hold any water. Play all 7 games win loose or draw
Stop each game between rounds 7- 15 and see where it stands. This way you can try their strat. on them, they may have the solution when you turn their strat. on themselves.
This still may not be enough it would need all the dice to be even…… yuck … I like the variably, I think if the made a game where every nation was equal and any one of the 5 major powers could take over the world it would’nt be called AXIS & ALLIES
I think the Axis have to have the luckier rolls, less mistakes and be better teammates to win to me thats balanced I like it the way it is (except when I’m rolling like crap with Japan then I think why did they take my planes and Trans.)
One day I’ll download the map and try some online games.
@Cmdr:
I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought. Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.
Well shouldn’t it be proving to be true, not proving to be false?
No. Due to the conveluted nature of a strategy game of this magnitude.
If you had to rigorously prove that each and every contingency supported your statement, you would:
A) go insane
B) never get every contingency covered
C) never have anyone read your treatise as it would now be the maximum permitted length of at least 3 or 4 full posts
D) have some twit say “you didn’t take into account that I magically know exactly what you are going to do three rounds from now, so I know to buy this item” types of arguments (which are strawmen, technically speaking. In a game, you would NEVER know what will happen three rounds from now, you can guess, you can make assumptions based on how the board currently looks that round, but you’ll never know exactly what is going to happen.)
However, the converse is not true. If you state that a hypothesis is false, all you have to show is one instance of it being false. This is why it is the preferred method of mathematicians (and later scientists, the lazy b@stards taking our ideas and calling it their own…scientific method my arse, it’s the mathematical method! we came up with it first!). For instance, the statement that the addition of any two integers is an even integer is false because it can be shown that the summation of an odd integer and an even integer results in an odd integer. However, have you tried to prove that all integers when added to themselves are even? Yea. Good luck! No offense intended, we had to do it as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate the benefits of “proof by contradition” and why it was vastly superior to other types of proofs in some circumstances.
This game is one of those circumstances.
If one truely believes my statement that America is too powerful and thus should be dinged in some manner to make it possible for Japan to win the game through superior game strategy, then I want a “proof by contradiction.” One such argument has been made: Retreating the Japanese navy to the Atlantic Ocean. We have no details, but the hypothesis has been laid out and now we have something to test.
I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…
I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…
You don’t-start at pg. 37 from Jen’s comments- good starting point right now.
I’m guessing this is the strat you will be using against me?
Guess I’ll have to start reading those REALLY LONG posts… :cry:
… I’m going to need alot of stamina …
Who knows? I might go all into the Atlantic. Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no? lol
Sorry, I meant Questioneer. I have never played you.
@Cmdr:
Who knows? I might go all into the Atlantic. Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no? lol
Sorry, I meant Questioneer. I have never played you.
@Cmdr:
Who knows? I might go all into the Atlantic. Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no? lol
Yes, but you will one day…I have faith this will turn into a tournament or the official league game and then you’ll want to go get rated and we’ll eventually play.
…then you’ll want to go get rated…
I already come highly rated. :wink:
