Russian tanks are great if Germany decides to swing down towards the Middle East instead of a straight march to Moscow. They are not going prevent the stackwalk any better than artillery except perhaps if the calculations show that the extra firepower will slow down a critical step like Rostov or Belarus. Hence it could be good to build the tanks on turns 3 or 4, depending on the German DoW. No need for them on Round 1.
America/Soviet Role
-
Losing the UK was only an issue in Alpha 2 and it was, statistically, unstopable so it was the go to move for Germany and why not? You essentially end the British for the entire game and lock the US out of the European theater for quite a while - though not indefinitely, but any round that gives you more than 4 rounds to deal with the US is a massive shift!
Once AA counted as casualties, any hope for the UK to go down was lost - at least early in the game. So it’s a moot point now. Honestly, I think it is FAR more likely for Sea Lion to succeed before the US is in the war than after - historically speaking. I mean, it almost becamse the US/UK against Japan, Italy and Russia! But the men who control the rules - and they are MEN - had a hissy fit and went too far in defending England from an early attack - IN MY OPINION.
-
@Cmdr:
Losing the UK was only an issue in Alpha 2 and it was, statistically, unstopable so it was the go to move for Germany and why not? You essentially end the British for the entire game and lock the US out of the European theater for quite a while - though not indefinitely, but any round that gives you more than 4 rounds to deal with the US is a massive shift!
Once AA counted as casualties, any hope for the UK to go down was lost - at least early in the game. So it’s a moot point now. Honestly, I think it is FAR more likely for Sea Lion to succeed before the US is in the war than after - historically speaking. I mean, it almost becamse the US/UK against Japan, Italy and Russia! But the men who control the rules - and they are MEN - had a hissy fit and went too far in defending England from an early attack - IN MY OPINION.
Ummm… How fun is a game where a country dies 100% of the time on turn 3…? Is that supposed to be a well made game? I think it was a great change. Also it is really historically inaccurate. UK’s navy was HUGE!
-
@Cmdr:
Losing the UK was only an issue in Alpha 2 and it was, statistically, unstopable so it was the go to move for Germany and why not?� You essentially end the British for the entire game and lock the US out of the European theater for quite a while - though not indefinitely, but any round that gives you more than 4 rounds to deal with the US is a massive shift!
Once AA counted as casualties, any hope for the UK to go down was lost - at least early in the game.� So it’s a moot point now.� Honestly, I think it is FAR more likely for Sea Lion to succeed before the US is in the war than after - historically speaking.� I mean, it almost becamse the US/UK against Japan, Italy and Russia!� But the men who control the rules - and they are MEN - had a hissy fit and went too far in defending England from an early attack - IN MY OPINION.
Ummm… How fun is a game where a country dies 100% of the time on turn 3…? Is that supposed to be a well made game? I think it was a great change. Also it is really historically inaccurate. UK’s navy was HUGE!
Not to be that guy but I always thought Sealion was cool because it was a thinly plausible what-if scenario. But Alpha 3 ruined it when USSR was making 14 IPC from the 2 IPC of italian territories in North Africa. But I can see how it sucks to have a power die so early, especially in a multi game (Shut up France no one cares that you die round 1 :-D)
-
The real problem I had with it was that even noobs could do it. That is not axis and allies in my oppinion. “Oh buy a carrier 2 transports, and then you buy 10 transports!” lol dumb!
-
The real problem I had with it was that even noobs could do it. That is not axis and allies in my oppinion. “Oh buy a carrier 2 transports, and then you buy 10 transports!” lol dumb!
That’s a good point. It doesn’t take much knowledge of the game to win with, sort of like the often suicidal but sometimes game breaking russian triple in Revised.
-
the tripple with russia in revised is foolhardy. If it fails you loose. Even if it works it has to work really really well to have been worth it.
-
the tripple with russia in revised is foolhardy. If it fails you loose. Even if it works it has to work really really well to have been worth it.
It seemed like with maxagaz on GTO he would take 5 casualties or less quite a lot as Russia. He ended every game on round 1, I have never seen anything like it. I met a lot a people on their who would not play him. It wasn’t a remotely respectable play style, but it was unique.
-
The reason people don’t like playing with someone like that is because of how risky it is. The player is basically a douche bag and trying to decide the game on the first turn. The tripple that he does is really high risk, and just not fun to play with someone who does that all the time. If they win it is really annoying, and if they loose most of the time the quit.
-
But “I win” scenarios have long been a history of this game!
Classic “I win” strategies:
A) Canadian Shield, until someone figured out how to stop it.
B) Smush Russia First (Dogpile of Axis on Russia), until someone figured out how to make Germany pay and open a 2 front war, thus taking pressure off Russia.
C) Spanish Invasion - until players learned how to deal with it.
D. The Infantry Push Mechanic - again, until people learned to deal with it.Revised “I win” strategies:
A) Smush Russia First (same as Classic.)
B) Kill Japan First - still in use since most players cannot handle a revised battle of the Pacific, as far as I can see. But certainly no longer an “I win.”
C) British Bombardment Strategy (warships park off France and blow the crud out of the defenders.)
D. Note, Revised enhanced had to be created to spread the battle over the globe and make the game a lot more fun again due to the mechanicalness of Revised after a while.Anniversary:
A) Kill Germany first….really, that’s like THE go to strategy for any game of Axis and Allies (theater specific ver. are NOT axis and allies, I dont care WHAT the box says. IMHO.)Global:
A) Kill Germany First
B) Kill Italy First
C) Kill England First - round 3
D. Invade Russia round 2
E) Kill India First
F) Kill ANZAC First
G) Walk Around China
H) Walk THROUGH China
…Thing is, what seems unstopable just has not been stopped yet. All of the above strategies have their flaws, and they can all be stopped with the appropriate amount of thought and timeing.
Ex) Sea Lion Round 3
Sol) The United States liberates on Round 5Ex) Kill India First
Sol) Reinforce from Russia/ANZAC - later US -
I think the difference with the Russian triple is that it is a strategy that relies 100% on exceptionally good dice. With average dice or less the Russian player is doomed, and the game is effectively over Round 1 (sometimes the player about whom I was speaking woulf make it a Russian quadruple with a Manchuria attack as well). Ugh.
The “Kill _______ First” strategies do not live or die with hoping to get extremely lucky on R1, so I think there is a big difference.
-
By extremely lucky, you mean that other than 15% of the time and even then, unless you have catastrophic dice (1-3% of the time) even if you fail, you are out ahead. It is akin to Germany having catastrophic dice when trying to sink the British fleet and losing all their planes without clearing the water even. It happens, and yes it is catastrophic, but I would not shy away from a strategy just because of the very off chance of failure. To do so would be to never go on the offensive again!
As for the Kill __________ First strategies, each are susceptable to both poor dice (or catastrophic dice) and superior game play by your opponent. The whole point of the above post is that there is no “one” strategy that has to be played or you lose. Many “gambits” have come and gone and come again and mainy “do this” strategies have been absolutely destroyed by a “gambit” strategy. Point in fact, I rarely ever win a game by using the Infantry Push Mechanic or the Kill Germany First mindset - I usually win by evaluating the position of the board, the players (if applicable, ie multiplayer) and my memory banks. If there is ANYTHING more entertaining than repeatedly bashing on Germany or Russia - and if I think the odds are in favor or equal to beating on Germany or Russia, I will take the other path. It is more entertaining TO ME - even if I lose, it does nothing but teach me a hole, something to be closed, and they have come and gone.
-
@Cmdr:
By extremely lucky, you mean that other than 15% of the time and even then, unless you have catastrophic dice (1-3% of the time) even if you fail, you are out ahead. It is akin to Germany having catastrophic dice when trying to sink the British fleet and losing all their planes without clearing the water even. It happens, and yes it is catastrophic, but I would not shy away from a strategy just because of the very off chance of failure. To do so would be to never go on the offensive again!
Again I must maintain a distinction between the strats you listed and this AA revised strat in dice games. You mention the German navy, but for Germany to be really hosed, the dice have to be a lot worse than average.
There is a difference between a strat relying on decent dice or even slightly poor dice or better and a strat relying on getting exceptionally good dice or bust.
I would insist that a strat the relies purely on getting lucky on near-suicide attacks repeatedly (it’s not as if the dice Russian triplers play conservatively after the triple) is not a legitimate strat. If a player’s entire plans on beating the odds severely almost every battle, they can’t be counted as actually trying to win the game, even if they think that is what they are doing, IMO.
-
That’s what I am saying, a well thought out Russian opening strategy, resulting in the loss of, or the near loss of (with retreat) most of their forward units does not rely on lucky dice, it relies on average dice, hell, even if it’s 2 standard deviations below the mean, it hurts Germany a lot worse than it does Russia. You have to get within that 0.03% range (on the bad end) for Russia to get seriously hosed in the attack.
In fact, I would liken it exactly to the percentages Germany has against the Royal Navy - perhaps better if Germany gets greedy and tries for other territories with planes as well (as far as I remember, they dont need planes for ground attacks round 1.)
The Germans, meanwhile, have serious complications with each Fighter Russia kills round 1, to the point they may have to pick and choose naval targets on their own Round 1.
-
Perhaps we are talking about separate Russian Triples.
The one I am referring to goes after E Europe ( I realize substituting belo for EE is the LL staple and can actually be a good strat), West Russia, and Ukraine. This player also often attacks Manchuria with 2 infantry. (although that is no longer the Russian Triple.)
-
I dont hit West Russia.
Why?
- It costs manpower I can use elsewhere.
- If you fall in the 0-85% of expected values, the W. Russians don’t have the manpower to do anything of note EXCEPT fall back to a defensible location.
-
I am not talking about your strategy. I am talking about the maxagaz russian triple. The strat relies wholly on a lucky knockout. It’s not well thought-out. It’s suicide hoping for extreme luck. It’s a strategy that relies wholly on dice and beating the odds greatly, repeatedly. There’s no challenge in doing the strategy, there is no challenge in defeating it. It’s ALL dice.
It’s completely different from that big list. It’s not some strategy that people just need time to find a way to beat. If they have amazing dice, it’s unbeatable. If not, it’s garbage. No one is worried about the strat being broken. The problem is that it’s a waste of time. There is less strategy than there is in yahtzee. I am not sure how I can be clearer.
-
I am not talking about your strategy. I am talking about the maxagaz russian triple. The strat relies wholly on a lucky knockout. It’s not well thought-out. It’s suicide hoping for extreme luck. It’s a strategy that relies wholly on dice and beating the odds greatly, repeatedly. There’s no challenge in doing the strategy, there is no challenge in defeating it. It’s ALL dice.
It’s completely different from that big list. It’s not some strategy that people just need time to find a way to beat. If they have amazing dice, it’s unbeatable. If not, it’s garbage. No one is worried about the strat being broken. The problem is that it’s a waste of time. There is less strategy than there is in yahtzee. I am not sure how I can be clearer.
BEAUTIFUL!!!
-
Well, unless you are the worst strategist in the world, if you have amazing dice, odds are significantly in your favor!
What I am talking about is a well orchestrated, statistically investigated and proven Russian open that, even when it fails, you do serious damage to Germany (barring amazing dice by Germany that is!)
In my world, Russia wins if they can kill enemy tanks and not lose any of their own tanks. So even if the attack on Territory 1 fails to take the land, as long as you leave nothing but the fighter there and dont lose any tanks attacking it, you won - you just didn’t win ENOUGH to take the land.
That said, each the odds for each battle are: 85%, 92% and 97% (according to my index card) to WIN which is defined has having at least one ground unit left to take the territory without losing any airpower. Combined that’s 0.850.920.97 or about 76% odds of winning with no loss of aircraft and at most 1 armored unit in all three territories.
Germany loses = 9 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor and 2 Fighters
Russia loses (max) = 12 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor but gets 8 IPC in territories, 3 of which will most likely not be lost until the middle of the game.So the equation is this: -12(3)-2(4)-1(5)+9(3)+2(4)+2(5)+2(10)+8 = +24 IPC for round 1. That does not include position on the board, lost opportunities for Germany against the British Navy (and odds are good they are going to lose one of the attacks normally performed round 1) or lost/increased position for the allies. That’s purely financial gain, but even if you look at JUST that, Russia effectively doubles their income with the attack.
There are other triples, some include Belarus or E. Europe or Finland or W. Russia, or whatever. Each have their pros and cons and yes, most of them are statistically against Russia. But some are not. :P
-
It’s almost like you deliberately are not reading my posts. This strat I am talking about hits EE, WR, and UKR. It often also involves 2 inf from Bury attacking Manchuria (2 inf ftr). And as I have said before, it’s not like after that he starts doing reasonable battles.
I have no idea why you keep talking about these other strats. I am talking about the win-or-lose-the-game-round-1-maxagaz-russian-triple-sometimes-quadruple. Listing a bunch of things you can do and that people can do has nothing to do with what this strat does; relying 100% on getting far superior dice during the game.
You saying that you don’t attack WR doesn’t change that this strat does. You listing a bunch of Kill_________ first strats does not make this strat anything like those (all of those strats have a plan or goal other than throwing every unit you have against the enemy every turn, regardless of odds.)
This strat is essentially attacking with every possible unit whenever and wherever you can. I’m not sure it’s even justifiable to call it a strategy.
I haven’t been concerned about the strats that are “not statistically against Russia.” Look at my previous posts. If you haven’t seen maxagaz play then perhaps you really can’t imagine what I am talking about. If you have a GTO account, see if you can get on when he is on, be axis, and watch the suicidal attacks round after round.
If you want to contest that this maxagaz strat is not suicide-hoping-for-great-dice, then start by talking about the actions of that strat, not a bunch of things that you can do differently from this strat.
You list 85, 92, and 97 as percentages. I am not sure which Russian triple you referencing, but it is not the WR/EE/UKR/(Manchuria?) that I have been talking about. Using TripleA calc and frood:
EE: 3 Inf/Arm/Ftr vs 2 inf/tank/ftr: 52% (avg loss 3 inf 1 arm)
WR: 6 inf/arm/art vs 3 inf/arm/art: 90% (avg loss 4 inf)
UKR: 3 inf/2 arm/art/ftr vs 3 inf/arm/art/ftr: 62% (avg loss 3 inf, arm, art)
and, often enough
Manchu: 2 inf vs 2 inf 1 ftr: 1% (avg loss 2 inf obviously, gets 1 or more hits only 40%)That’s far different from whatever strat you describe, and as the Germans counter, his odds for the attack on R2 aren’t any better. Either he wins huge or russia is bled dry after 2 or 3 turn with Japanese easily tank rushing. Perhaps there is a situation where the dice are just perfectly so where there can be a competitive play, but repeated suicide attacks make a game where your opponent has no real say over whether he or she loses or wins. It’s not a competion, it’s not a strategy game, it’s rolling dice and hoping to beat the odds as each turn the odds get less and less in your favor, unless you keep beating the odds. A strategy that NEEDS better dice to win for most all of the game is not much of a strategy, if one at all.
If you are talking about Belo/UKR/WR that is fine, but it’s been clear to anyone who has taken the time to read my posts that this “strat” is clearly suicide hoping for good dice. Perhaps we play on TripleA and I show you what it’s like?
-
Because I am defending the Russian Triple as a viable strategy. Of course sending a plane against 3 infantry, artillery, armor and fighter defending is a bone headed manuever, there’s no argument there!
In a nutshell, Russia, if going balls to the walls, has to go after 2 fighters. Going after MORE fighters is suicide. Going after less fighters is not going balls to the walls. W. Russia is only a necessary target if you want to pull defense off Moscow. I have forgone the WR attack and ONLY hit Ukraine/Norway or Ukraine/Norway/Belarus.
I wasnt IGNORING your posts, I was moving on to the next salient point. :P What arguement is there when we both agree leaving a bomber as a blitz blocker when an infantry is available is a DUMB move? Eh?
Suggested Topics
