I am filming the whole game and am going to put it on youtube when I am done.
When you do could you post a link here to it. This sounds really interesting to see how it turned out. Also this seems to be focused mainly on pacific, what would you buy it Germany has turned into a powerhouse and Russia is about to fall and Germany is making like 60 ipcs without NO’s and will get russias money soon.
Best US 1 purchase in my mind is Two Carriers, 2 Fighters. Put both Carriers and a Fighter in W US, and one Fighter in Central US. On Round 2, you have a fleet (when evrything is moved toward Hawaii) that can begin to seriously contend with Japan.
Personally I like to purchase Carriers until I outnumber Japan - and if I’m Japan I like to outnumber the US. As a general rule of thumb, in the Pacific, if you outnumber your opponent in Carriers, and are in a SZ with an island airbase, you can hold that space. I said general rule of thumb, because the closer the US gets to the mainland, the more danger because of the dominance of Japanese airpower.
Yet another reason to buy two Fighters on US 1 as well… to begin inching closer to rivalling Japan in the air.
@Young:
Great to hear that my purchase strategy found some success, did they also use my movement strategy of sailing ships to the Queensland shore during peace time?
Yes they did. US ended up with a massive fleet off of Queensland. There was some debate over whether US could use ANZACs naval base if USA was at war with Japan but ANZAC technically wasn’t yet. This was due to Germany taking London, which allows USA to declare war on ALL Axis. We figured out since ANZAC begins the game at war with Germany & Italy, once the USA declares war on all Axis, that makes ANZAC and USA allies and thus can use each other’s bases. Bit of a loophole but still works.
The US fleet ended up pounding the Jap fleet, mostly in two big actions just south of SZ 6. The ANZAC built transports and men/art/tanks and they came behind the US and took/liberated all the islands. Then the US fleet occupied SZ 6 and simply convoy raided Japan to death. Japan was bringing in 0 IPCs for 2 or 3 rounds before ANZAC finally had enough stuff to invade Japan itself.
I HOPE YOU’RE READING THIS ROC-MONSTER…… LOL
Grasshopper I know this works. US can outmatch the Jap fleet. I am contending that it takes longer than you might think. I am currently on T5 and US still cannot take phillipines as japan has a fleet there that is much too large to take out. And attacking the fleet with US and then anzac won’t work because I am playing Low luck. I did the math and Japan would win the battle with both battleships still left everytime and a carrier and some planes. This is if US attacks on T6. So there is a couple more rounds to go before US can completely cripple Japan. Leaving Germany free reign in europe board. Italy has over 30 ground units in europe for defense and this is allowing Germany to throw 100% of her money against russia. I will tell you how the game ends up playing out. I see the allies winning in the end because I don’t think egypt can fall so easily. Even if russia is taken out, which will take at least 5 more turns.
I am filming the whole game and am going to put it on youtube when I am done.
When you do could you post a link here to it. This sounds really interesting to see how it turned out.
I’d love to see that too
I am currently on T5 and US still cannot take phillipines as japan has a fleet there that is much too large to take out.
How is Japan doing in Asia and the DEI? If they are turtling in the Phillipines is India and China holding them back on the land, and India/ANZAC making money from the islands?
LOL it is easier than everyone seems to be saying it is. I was able to take out all the islands on my J3. I even defended 3 out of my 5 transports from a rebuttle from US by blocking 2 sea zones. I sent all my korea and manchuria men south since Russia retreated his 18 inf and 2 aa guns to go against germany. If russia had not retreated these men Germany would take russia by turn 8-9. So right now I have UK trapped inside of india. 2 transports and 18 ground units are in yunan or shan state ready to hit burma if he comes out. I have 1 sub in the sea zone outside india convoy raiding him. So UK india on his best day is making 6 dollars, but most of the time 3-4. This is with all infantry builds for UK india, but what I see happening is that UK india will live as japan cannot stack in burma because the forces that would be there would just die. So eventually the US will break through and UK india will be able to come out of turtle and take back all of china and malaya. This will take many turns. Maybe in the next 2 turns with US be able to take phillipines and hold it and when that happens it is all over for Japan and US will start producing 5 transports and 10 infantry a turn in the atlantic. By the time US is stationed of gibralter Germany needs to have knocked out russia or at the least taken nearly all his money and the oil money in the south.
LOL it is easier than everyone seems to be saying it is. I was able to take out all the islands on my J3. I even defended 3 out of my 5 transports from a rebuttle from US by blocking 2 sea zones. I sent all my korea and manchuria men south since Russia retreated his 18 inf and 2 aa guns to go against germany. If russia had not retreated these men Germany would take russia by turn 8-9. So right now I have UK trapped inside of india. 2 transports and 18 ground units are in yunan or shan state ready to hit burma if he comes out. I have 1 sub in the sea zone outside india convoy raiding him. So UK india on his best day is making 6 dollars, but most of the time 3-4. This is with all infantry builds for UK india, but what I see happening is that UK india will live as japan cannot stack in burma because the forces that would be there would just die. So eventually the US will break through and UK india will be able to come out of turtle and take back all of china and malaya. This will take many turns. Maybe in the next 2 turns with US be able to take phillipines and hold it and when that happens it is all over for Japan and US will start producing 5 transports and 10 infantry a turn in the atlantic. By the time US is stationed of gibralter Germany needs to have knocked out russia or at the least taken nearly all his money and the oil money in the south.
This tune sounds a lot different than what you were singing a couple of weeks a go. As for taking all the Dutch islands by the end of J3, that would be like putting your Queen in the path of my Bishop.
I take all 5 of the islands in one turn grasshopper. I put my 4 transports int he south in range of the 4 dutch islands for the NO, and one transport in sea zone 6 for the phillipines. I block with 2 destroyers from the US taking phillipines and a couple of the islands. I forced the US to retreat from queensland since the US couldn’t reinforce because they couldn’t put any units in the sea zone outside pearl or they would be killed. by the jap purchase on T3 plus 2 bombers and a carrier in sea zone 6. US could block the Japs from coming to pearl, which next game I play I might do so I can keep up the steady stream to queensland. The japanese are strong for the first 6-8 turns and then they start their downfall. I can make 9 subs a turn and 3 mech infs right now. US 9 subs 1 destroyer 1 fighter. and an occasional carrier with US. Right now I have 4 videos up on youtube. Working on getting the others up. Takes forever to put a video on youtube.
What is your youtube account, or could you post a link to all of your videos
I take all 5 of the islands in one turn grasshopper. I put my 4 transports int he south in range of the 4 dutch islands for the NO, and one transport in sea zone 6 for the phillipines. I block with 2 destroyers from the US taking phillipines and a couple of the islands. I forced the US to retreat from queensland since the US couldn’t reinforce because they couldn’t put any units in the sea zone outside pearl or they would be killed. by the jap purchase on T3 plus 2 bombers and a carrier in sea zone 6. US could block the Japs from coming to pearl, which next game I play I might do so I can keep up the steady stream to queensland. The japanese are strong for the first 6-8 turns and then they start their downfall. I can make 9 subs a turn and 3 mech infs right now. US 9 subs 1 destroyer 1 fighter. and an occasional carrier with US. Right now I have 4 videos up on youtube. Working on getting the others up. Takes forever to put a video on youtube.
I would never retreat my navy from Queensland, I would have forced you to deal with what I had there. It seems your strategy for Japan only works when you move the American units yourself. Talk to knp about this, because we both have game experience playing this strategy out using accual living oponents who think for themselves. You can’t base your findings on what you assume your opponent would do, because I’m obviously much more agressive with America than you are. As soon as you make one single move on your you tube video that I wouldn’t have done, I will click it off because everything you discribe after that point becomes erelevent.
after playing nearly 1200 games of axis and allies I can play against myself unbiased. As I said I believe the allies are going to win in my game and I playing both sides to perfection (or at least I believe I am). Retreating from queensland didn’t do much to harm the allied efforts in the pacific. Eventually Japan is going to crumble.
Here is the link for the first video. The other 3 are on my channel. I will try to get 1 up a day, but the vids take at least 2 hours to upload to youtube…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_eswACuC9w&list=FLz-Jb8pQPE4-IGJggi-ycxA&index=1&feature=plpp_video
after playing nearly 1200 games of axis and allies I can play against myself unbiased. As I said I believe the allies are going to win in my game and I playing both sides to perfection (or at least I believe I am). Retreating from queensland didn’t do much to harm the allied efforts in the pacific. Eventually Japan is going to crumble.
I say they crumble before you say they do, and I could easily play more games than you if I were my opponent, because I wouldn’t have to organize a car pool every game.
BTW…. there is no such thing as playing a side to perfection, the dice gods are a vengeful and tormenting group of savages (and they don’t use low luck).
Nice video!
I am using low luck as a base. I don’t want to use dice and then get horribly diced and something turn out differently than what a normal game would be. I am trying to do a basic overall strategy and the best way to show that is just through low luck. Granted dice and Low Luck are different games because you can know the basic outcome of a battle before it happens, but from a teaching standpoint which is better? To show what would happen most of the time, or showing what could happen in dice? Trying to teach newcomers to the game you don’t want them to see that 2 infantry and a fighter looses more times than not to 1 infantry because the dice are against you now do you? I am trying to teach the correct mechanics overall. That is my main basis for these videos. To teach good mechanics to new players or even intermediate or advanced players. We are all trying to get better at this blasted game. My goal is just to try and help some players along.
I don’t completely understand this “Low Luck” thing you use, but I don’t think it is right. My group ONLY goes by the dice roll. Yeah, it is frustrating to attack with 10 tanks and only get 3 hits, or take 6 bombers on an SBR and have the defender get a lucky roll of 4 ones with AA fire, but that’s just the nature of the game. That’s what gives the game it’s variable outcomes.
The way I understand it, this “Low Luck” involves some sort of averaging system where you apply hits without actually getting them due to some sort of average result. That just sounds to me like you are taking any sort of variability out of the game. If you can just say “Well I’m attacking these units with these units and by low luck rules, I win the battle with this much left” then where is the fun in that?
Feel free to explain Low Luck in more detail if I am missing something. It’s been a while since someone else explained it to me. Frankly, I still think rolling the dice is the only way to play the game.
I am using low luck as a base. I don’t want to use dice and then get horribly diced and something turn out differently than what a normal game would be. I am trying to do a basic overall strategy and the best way to show that is just through low luck. Granted dice and Low Luck are different games because you can know the basic outcome of a battle before it happens, but from a teaching standpoint which is better? To show what would happen most of the time, or showing what could happen in dice? Trying to teach newcomers to the game you don’t want them to see that 2 infantry and a fighter looses more times than not to 1 infantry because the dice are against you now do you? I am trying to teach the correct mechanics overall. That is my main basis for these videos. To teach good mechanics to new players or even intermediate or advanced players. We are all trying to get better at this blasted game. My goal is just to try and help some players along.
Good on ya!…. we need more tools to teach this awesome game to new players. Cheers.
Low luck is basically a tool to use to test out certain strategies. When testing an overall strategy it is best to use low luck because on the average of 1000 games Low luck will best way to test how this average of a 1000 games might turn out. Say you roll 100 tanks in dice you will get many different hits. Say you rolled that same 100 tanks a 1000 times. You should get around 50 hits. Maybe plus or minus 2 or 3. Low Luck just says that we take the average (what the roll should produce). 2 tanks=1 hit. 6 infantry attacking=1 hit. Granted this does not allow for much variance, but take 2 infantry and 1 fighter attacking 1 infantry. Sometimes the 1 infantry will actually defeat the 2 infantry and 1 fighter and the fighter must retreat. Low luck still has its variance, btu the main point of Low luck is to test out theories as I will try to get back on point. You want to see what a certain strategy would look like if you played the same way a 1000 games. The best way to do this is Low luck since there is a very low variance in the amount of hits each side will recieve and give. I agree that the best way to play the game is dice, but if you want to play your best game possible all the experts will agree play Low luck for at least 10 games and you will get a good idea of what a good overall strategy might be. Give it a try. It is how I have become such a good player, though I played around 300 games of Low luck and around 900 games of dice.
Oh sorry I don’t think I answered your question on exactly how Low luck works. Say you have 2 infantry and 1 fighter attacking 1 infantry. The attacker has 5 points (1 point for each infantry=2+3 points for fighter). Every 6 points is an automatic hit and you don’t need to roll a dice. The defender has 2 points since infantry defend at 2. You always roll the rollover amount. Since the attacker nor the defender gets any automatic hits the most hits you can give or recieve is 1. The attackers will roll at a 5 or less for a hit, and the defender a 2 or less for a hit. Say the attacker rolls a 6 first round and the defend a 2. Now there is an infantry/fighter attacking an infantry that is still alive. Now you attack at a 4 when rolling on attack and the defender still at a 2. It is sort of difficult to explain without showing it through dice.
Okay, I understand it a little better now. So every 6 hit points is an automatic hit against enemy units (2 tanks, 3 def inf, 6 att inf, etc.). Then any numbers under 6 you still roll dice for. Say you attack with 7 tanks. This would give you an automatic 3 hits and you would roll dice for tank #7, right?
So in your example of 2 inf, 1 ftr attacking 1 inf, you just roll 1 dice for the attackers and try to get a 5 or less? Instead of rolling 2 dice for a “1” and 1 dice for a “3”. And the 1 defending inf simply rolls 1 dice for a “2”. This doesn’t seem fair to the defender. It’s much easier to get a 5 or less with 1 dice than it is to get a 1 rolling 2 dice or a 3 or less with 1 dice.
I do understand what you are saying about this method taking some of the “chance” out of it. So you say this will help you observe and test out strategies better? I guess I can see that now. Like maybe you want to check out different scenarios for Sealion or Barbarossa to see which tactic would likely be more successful in terms of buildup, what round to attack, what units to commit, etc.
I think this would be good if you were simply testing out strategies but when you decide to sit down and really play a game with people, I still think regular dice rolling for each unit is better. Instead of 3 hits and 1 dice roll for those 7 tanks, see if you can get 6 or 7 hits. OR, see if your opponent with the 7 tanks rolls and gets 1 hit. More exciting that way.
One thing that we do to save a little time and wear and tear on the dice is when there is a huge overpowering force attacking a relatively small defense force (1-3 units or so), we just decide the defenders are going to get hit and just roll for them to see if they take any attackers with them. In fact, we just had something like that in our current game. A large US force of tanks, 10-12 or so, attacked Poland which was defended by 1 German tank. We just rolled for the German. Poor guy didn’t even get a hit.
I think I will try a game of low luck very soon. I am very curious about it. So every 6 is a hit (6, 12, 18, 24, etc) and you only have to roll for the leftover, right? If there is 5 left over, you just roll 1 dice for 5 or less, right? Should make things go a little quicker.
