Well, I am still awaiting R1 moves post… and with the Tournament resuming on Thursday, and me slated to play in the semi-finals, and with being limited to one game at a time… Squash (and everyone else) may have to wait for me to prove that 8VC is an Axis win.
I did post the broad parameters of how the Axis can accomplish this in the Games thread started to test Squash’s theory…
But alas… Squash has yet to post his moves, and no one else seems willing to take up the challenege and try to defeat the strat outline I have already posted…
For anyone who wants to see the results…
I WAS SOUNDLY PROVEN WRONG!
India held up against the J2 attack…
AND they did so even on a re-roll that I did for my own benefit!
Now Squash did have to effectively suicide Russia to accomplish the defense of India, and Russian Jets certainly played a roll in moving the odds in the Allies favor. And with the trouncing Japan took in India, Shanghai likely would have fallen to the US in US2. Karelia was never in question… Germany had it, held it, and could not have been evicted, and had it not been a 2-turn limit game, Moscow would have fallen in G3.
But, by my own parameters… Squash has proven me wrong on a 2 turn limit game that 8 VC is a guaranteed Axis victory…
An extra helping of Crow here please… I need to eat a bit more for my arrogance on THIS one!
Yeah, but it was a two turn game, and so he had the luxery of throwing everything into Calcutta without having to worry about future turns. If he actually had to think about defending Russia, could he have pulled it off?
not likely but the point was that 8vc was a guaranteed win by the axis by the end of round two. We have just seen an example of that not being the case. With the conditions laid out by NCSC the axis are not guaranteed anything.
Sawyer is correct.
Only by the 2 turn limit is it possible.
In a “normal” game where both sides are playing “for the long haul”, there is STILL no way for the Allies to hold Karelia and Calcutta past Turn 2… not without sacrificing Moscow, Africa, and the British fleets.
I agree with Sawyer as well. My point was that you made the conditions. You are right though. Trying to hold those cities is suicide. Let them go and come back for them later.
Yep. When I set a 2-turn game limit, I dramatically changed the conditions of the test. Without the time limit, Russia won;t suicide to save India, and then India falls in 2 turns.
I failled to take that into account when I set the test parameters.
Maybe you sould run another test? I can’t I’m in the process of a move and don’t have the time right now.
And I resume Tournament play in 2 days (an am out of town 1 of those)…
I’ll have to come back to this…
hmm,
maybe India and Karelia will fall at the end of turn 2 at the end of that game,
but isn’t there a possibility that USA or UK can take an important VC from Japan in force?
I think indeed, like squash already mentioned:
a KJF is in place when you play a 8VC!!!
To take one of those initial Japanese VC’s is probably an easy target to keep the Axis under 8 VC’s…
but for how long? that’s the question…
one thing is sure:
if you play a 8 VC game: Axis and Allies both have got other objectives then in a 9 VC game for example!!!
I reckon a fun game would be to 10VC’s with extra VC’s in the Ukraine and Australia and give the UK an IC in Australia.
For a quick Axis victory, they would need Karelia, India and Australia. For a quick Allied victory, they could get Western Europe, Ukraine and one of S Europe, Kwangtung or the Phillipines.
9 vcs is a good idea, me and my friends usually just play until either japan has taken moscow, or germany has fallen to the allies. Usually after one of these goes down the other side has clear victory. It may not be as cut and dry if one falls a turn before the other, but generally one can look at the board and know who is dominating. Sometimes it is tempting to play to the end of the game, but you can generally see when it is going to be 3/4 more hours of beating down an opponent monetarily before he collapses.
You know, it was a fun game, and probably the hardest challenge I’ve had yet, you’re a great player and I liked playing with you - but I did not sacrifice Russia, I’d just like to point that out. You’ve said a few times Russia would fall in G3 - no it wouldn’t. I went through pains to demonstrate it was not a Russian suicide. In R2 I had no reason not to attack Leningrad from West Russia (with my entire army), followed potentially by a British amphibious attack (though you wiped those ships out - but i know that through foresight). But I didn’t and took the more long-term path. Also, I made pains to ensure that there was at least 1 unit on each of the three territories bordering the West of Russia. Are you saying if I had bought nothing but infantry, and moved my jet fighters back to Russia, you could take it in G4? I just don’t believe that any game is doomed from the beginning, and I don’t think any side has over 90% odds to win in any game-starting position. But again, thanks for the game and the input.
Well, you would have lost almost your entire West Russia force in Karelia had you attacked there… even if you had won. ANd I had enough force in Eastern to boot you out again.
I also would not have held Caucuses so thinly after G1, forcing you to split your West Russia stack to try for both territories.
After G2, I would have re-taken Karelia and also taken West Russia, and possibly Caucuses again (if I had lost it in R2), had we been playing a long-term game.
But alas, we may just have to actually “fight this one out” after the Tournament :-)
Good luck with the tourney man!
