The most effective russian players I’ve encountered are the ones that are able to build up a force that is able to threaten a counter on a german stack. If a good german player wants to go for Moscow they are able to get it, however I’ve seen plenty games where the UK/USA are putting enough pressure on the German player for him to stop just in front of Moscow. If the Russian player only has bought inf at this point there is not much of a threat for the German player to keep russia contained and slowly kill it economically. However if there is a stack of paired inf/art the pushback power is a lot bigger and thus Germany can be challenged and Russia may be able to break the German wall.
Japan's super economy -the end of the world?
-
ItIsILeClerc, where is this league spreadsheet? Is there a link to league games. League or not I’m always up for a game.
-
League standings spreadsheet is a stickied league thread, here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32389.0
Cow has never challenged me, for the record. Not sure if his statement that he needs more games before I would accept a challenge is just an excuse or not. I’m not saying I would play him if he challenged me - he would have to agree to a no comment game :wink: I tire of the endless monologues full of boasts, but is always fun to blast someone who makes all these bold claims
-
Hey Cyanight, the spreadsheet can be found by following the link in this post: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32389.0
Also, from this page http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=54.0, you can find all the rules/standings etc. for league games (all the top bold sticky topics).
League or not I’m always up for a game.
Believe me Cyan, if I would be playing more TripleA games you surely would be on my favorite list. I like the way you communicate and such things I find very important. But I am already in the process of cutting down the number of games I play and TripleA is the first to fall. Maybe next year ;-).
EDIT: Gamerman beat me to it, so sorry for the duplicate link, but nvm ^^.
-
ItIsILeClerc , great to hear and the feeling is definitely mutual. :)
-
Cow has never challenged me, for the record. Not sure if his statement that he needs more games before I would accept a challenge is just an excuse or not. I’m not saying I would play him if he challenged me - he would have to agree to a no comment game wink I tire of the endless monologues full of boasts, but is always fun to blast someone who makes all these bold claims
I put up an open challenge for anyone to accept. I get allies at 14 or you get allies at 13, it was a challenge sent out to everyone.
Most of my games are comment free.
-
OK, true, I meant specifically challenged.
Like LeCleric, I’m finding G40 games take a lot of time and energy, so only have 2 at a time going. I have my hands full with Me1945 and Wheatbeer right now, both top 5 players. Maybe some day -
I see Allweneed & Gamerman play with bids in between 6 and 12 just like everybody else and honestly, guys that win almost every A&AG40 game, Axis or Allies alike, I don’t see why they need to play allies with bids anyway. If you win almost everything with +6/+12 as allies you will still do so with no bid (EDIT: It will take more turns but still). Or maybe you start loosing some games, but my point is, I think it is more because they are simply superstrong players than bidrelated.
Not to give away the game or anything, but from what I’ve observed, the more experienced the players, the higher the bids. I took a year off Global and when I came back the average bid has nearly doubled.
Not to say a superior player can’t win with a low Allies bid–of course they can. You just don’t want to be playing Allies with a low bid against an equally skilled player.
-
^
I do not take allies at less than 13 and I refuse to play anyone with a bid of less than 12 because it means they are inexperienced.
-
O.k., let’s give bids some more thoughts then.
I must admit I never played with a bid before (except with MagicQ from this forum). I am indeed inexperienced in playing TripleA games with the guys here in the league. But that does not make me an inexperienced player.
I’m not saying I got it right, but I do like to give my thoughts, ofc.
I am thinking of course the seasoned players play with higher bids! Who wouln’t need a bid if playing guys like Gamerman01 (or another player of equal level)?! I think, and I mean no offense to anybody, the bidsystem serves precisely as an equalizing tool between different playlevels. The more equal the players, the less need for a bid.
And here our opinions meet: since player levels in any given group will always be very different (even if that group is the league top 10), I admit there will always be a need for a bidsystem. Currently the allies are just much harder to play, especially for a lower leveled player against a higher level. And a player’s allied playlevel does not necessarily match his axis playlevel (an axis ace can be very bad at playing allies).@Cow:
C’mon man, don’t be so elitist-picky about your opponents if they want to play allies for a low bid. You never know what you’ll encounter and no1 has a monopoly on wisdom. There will always be people who can teach you and me or any1 a lesson or two. I am certain there are guys on this forum who can beat your axis with a low bid (max +6). Maybe even bidless but I have insufficient game data to make such a bold statement ;-). -
Wise words there ItIsILeClerc
I remember at the military academy I was part of a chess club and our motto that we lived by was
“Never underestimate your opponent”
-
2 points to keep in mind re. bids
1. A bid is a way to ensure that the game is considered fair by both sides. Players like Cow want a minimum bid because at the end of the game they don’t want their opponent making excuses about how the Allies usually lose because they are the weaker side.
2. Imbalance necessitating bids does not harm the overall quality of the game. On the contrary, bids enhance the quality of the game. A large Allied bid means that there will be dozens (if not hundreds) of options for the bid. This leads to enhanced gaming variety, while a static game without bids is more likely to lead to a few winning strategies played over and over. With Global (as it was in Revised and AA50), an unorthodox bid is frequently the fountainhead of a new strategy.
-
I agree with Zhukov on the above points and I’m not really bothered if the game isn’t balanced playing with OOB rules.
I also agree with ItIsLeClerc, that the Allies are harder (and more time-consuming) to play, but that it is possible to excel at them.
More and more, I think bids should be approaching or exceeding 20* (given how much IPC can swing due to dice anyways, I don’t think it’s unreasonable).
*assuming a 1 unit per territory/sz limit
-
This leads to enhanced gaming variety, while a static game without bids is more likely to lead to a few winning strategies played over and over. With Global (as it was in Revised and AA50), an unorthodox bid is frequently the fountainhead of a new strategy.
Zhukov, That’s a very interesting way to look at it.
-
2 points to keep in mind re. bids
1. A bid is a way to ensure that the game is considered fair by both sides. Players like Cow want a minimum bid because at the end of the game they don’t want their opponent making excuses about how the Allies usually lose because they are the weaker side.
2. Imbalance necessitating bids does not harm the overall quality of the game. On the contrary, bids enhance the quality of the game. A large Allied bid means that there will be dozens (if not hundreds) of options for the bid. This leads to enhanced gaming variety, while a static game without bids is more likely to lead to a few winning strategies played over and over. With Global (as it was in Revised and AA50), an unorthodox bid is frequently the fountainhead of a new strategy.
Fair enough Zhukov, I like this fresh perspecive.
Maybe both the Axis AND the allies should have a standard bid to enhance gaming variety.I must admit playing with an average bid (+10) has had surprisingly minimal effects on my usual game-experience. For the few times I did play with it. In other words: it didn’t seem to hurt the Axis as much as I thought it would and I also didn’t have the feeling I (as allies) wouldn’t have been able to do what I did I if I would not have played that bid (sub in #98 and ART in Alex). Nor did I feel tremendously better equipped.
So I guess low to average bids are great to keep players satisfied without disrupting ‘intended gameplay’ too much…
-
13-14 is average to me.
16+ is the high end. Anything less than 12 is low. A 12 bid is the typical inf new guinea, inf africa, sub 98, less than that is weird.
~I played enough opponents to know if you do not have a bid, you will 95% of the time lose.
I will J1 DOW. Round 3 I will have the same income as the allies. I will take Calcutta round 4-6 you cannot stop this, actually that is a lie, I have lost a 99.9% battle for calcutta and I sent everything for that… sort of like Germany attacking France round 1 and losing… there is like a 1% chance that happens… a bunch of other 1% bs things that can happen to you in this game… but if that is really the only way the allies can win, it is sad.
-
That is the core problem for the allies. The axis can make the allies income really fast.
The allies start out of position and most of their total unit value is in buildings like random air bases in iceland etc, you would much rather have the much cheaper bomber than an airbase in iceland to start with. So there is no unit advantage for the allies. You got no income advantage. You got no positioning advantage.
There is no advantage for you on the map anywhere except in the pacific. There is the only place you can go dollar for dollar with the axis and come out even or on top.
-
The Allies have their advantages. It’s in the number of powers they have, the fact that there are backtoback turns, and the fact that these multiple powers are located in the same place, where they can work together. The Axis only have Germany and Italy together for awhile, and ANZ/France can interrupt their combined moves.
Also, China’s ability to build unlimited in any territory, even newly taken ones, is potent.
Ability of UK to land air on territories the USA or China just took is also very powerful. (Also, ANZ following up on USA/China/UK before Germany or Japan, although not Italy)I think you have to know what you’re doing to win as Allies to be consistently successful - it just doesn’t take as much experience to win with the Axis. If you know what you’re doing with the Allies, you do not need to get lucky to win, so I disagree with Cow on that point.
If you play G40 like previous games of A&A, you will have a very hard time winning with the Allies. There are various situations where the Allies should voluntarily enter situations where they do not have >50% chance to win a battle, or have a negative net TUV expected result. Their units, in general, are not as valuable as the Axis units. If you are afraid to lose units as Allies, the Axis player can just go down their checklist and take out one Allied stronghold at a time using all of their power. The Allies need to try throwing monkey wrenches in the gears, and sometimes those monkey wrenches will just get crushed with little to no effect. In my experience so far, few players are able to grasp this concept. The other thing is, the Axis already have all the powerful units in position, and you are in control of the game situation, the politics, and the game. The Allied player has to react to you. Taking the Axis fits much easier with previous A&A experience - learning the G40 Allies takes some time and experience, but with know-how, they do have a 50% chance of winning. Maybe. :-P
-
Yes the allies need to lose to win…. you see how flawed the allies is? You take battles you know you will lose and there is a higher probability you roll less than average hits compared to the axis probably of rolling more than average hits (more dice = more chances)…
Have one strong power is clearly better than multiple weak ones especially when it comes to attacking. It sucks having to do 3 attacks on one fleet, usa first, then uk, then anzac… I do this all the time too.
~
The lose to win strategy also only works if you have an income lead, because if you start losing higher net tuv units… you need something to make up for it like an income advantage.
-
It’s not just TUV, it’s position. Most players will go out of their way to get a net positive TUV exchange, or to pick up a territory that’s worth a few IPC’s, but it often costs them more than they realize. You can’t quantify everything, there are many qualitative factors. The Allies have to get their hands dirty, they have to get involved.
That’s what’s amazing about G40. You can’t boil it down to a formula, and you can’t always successfully play the economic advantage game just because you’re ahead of the other side by 20 IPC’s per turn. That’s nothing compared to position and the sheer volume of units currently on the board. The way you talk, I’m not sure you even get that, Cow
-
Total units is important. It is the one advantage the allies truly have. Having to split their power into multiple countries is a disadvantage, especially when it comes to attacking.
Yes it is lots of blocking here n there with destroyers moving around and praying.
What happens when Germany bombers enter the pacific? No more blocking Japan.
Suggested Topics
