@Argothair True true. If you hadn’t done the independent wardec I would have taken that shot, but since you did I think it’s in the Axis best interest to let the US sit out until round 3/4. 😉
The UK and ANZAC give lots of juicy targets as it is… 🤪
2015 League Post Game Results Here
-
how many times are you guys gonna lose to each other :lol:
Shin Ji Axis over Karl7 Allies
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35510.135
THIS:
Battle in 96 Sea Zone
British attack with 1 cruiser, 1 fighter and 1 transport
Italians defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport
1 transport owned by the British retreated to 98 Sea Zone
Italians win with 1 destroyer and 1 transport remaining. Battle score for attacker is -22
Casualties for British: 1 cruiser and 1 fighter
Battle in 97 Sea Zone
British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 submarine
Germans defend with 1 tactical_bomber; Italians defend with 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters and 1 transport
Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Italians
Units damaged: 1 carrier owned by the British
Italians win with 1 transport remaining. Battle score for attacker is -11
Casualties for Germans: 1 tactical_bomber
Casualties for British: 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 submarine
Casualties for Italians: 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 2 fightersAllowed Italy to capture Egypt It1. Unbelievable. The allies rallied to crush Japan but couldn’t reroute to Europe quick enough to save Moscow from Germany’s dozens of bombers.
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Until someone literally dies at his computer….
-
Most likely of a stress-induced heart attack. :-D
All of our games have been white knuckle jobs for real.
-
bmnielsen (aka bomberman) over axis-dominion
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35062.new;topicseen#new
when i lose as allies, it’s usually after 20-30 rounds……when i lose as allies against this ridiculous all-bomber german strategy, i lose within 10 rounds. what am i to do when faced with 27 bombers that threaten everywhere?
one thing’s for sure, at least in my mind, KJF doesn’t seem to work, as a good Japan can easily hold off while the euro axis overrun everything.
-
enough good players have fallen victim to this strategy that the community is currently actively discussing what options the allies might have against it. there are several topics on this, some old and some new, and even some play testing going on to explore counter strategies.
i now have to face bmnielsen and his strategy of terror for our 2014 tier 2 finals, and have decided to accept a bid of 28 to see if that helps any. if that doesn’t work, i’m seriously considering just refusing to play anyone who employs the strategy, at least until an answer is found to what seems a problem with this game, or until we impose some kind of rule refinement or limitation for league play. the real problem IMO is not so much the bomber unit (as many are suggesting), as it is the bomber stack in the hands of the germans, as this strategy VERY much favors the germans due to their unique combination of favorable factors (such as strong starting army, high income and even greater income potential, italy for can-opening, the bombers able to reach everywhere from centralized points such as WG and SI, and germany’s need for very minimal navy)…no other country comes close as far as favorable factors for mass bomber purchasing…america is perhaps the closest, but it’s a far second IMO due to its heavy reliance on ships to get across the oceans to make a real impact, and due to its much smaller starting army. the other problem is clear: intercepting rules need some serious refinement. they suck. period.
bmnielsen (aka bomberman) over axis-dominion
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35062.new;topicseen#new
when i lose as allies, it’s usually after 20-30 rounds……when i lose as allies against this ridiculous all-bomber german strategy, i lose within 10 rounds. what am i to do when faced with 27 bombers that threaten everywhere?
one thing’s for sure, at least in my mind, KJF doesn’t seem to work, as a good Japan can easily hold off while the euro axis overrun everything.
-
There is an answer.
-
and?
-
Intercepting rules, or Larry’s late decision to make SBR damage +2?
Instead of refusing to play against the strategy, I would suggest something like agreeing to a house rule with your opponents that there is no +2 to SBR damage rolls, if it’s the SBR damage that you find objectionable.
-
no, i don’t mind the +2 so much as the fact that bombers dog fight against fighters at the same roll of 1…i think intercepting fighters should defend at 2, and tac bombers should probably also participate, but perhaps at 1. a fighter’s specialty is defending the home skies, so how can it be rolling equivalent to a bomber’s role?
Intercepting rules, or Larry’s late decision to make SBR damage +2?
Instead of refusing to play against the strategy, I would suggest something like agreeing to a house rule with your opponents that there is no +2 to SBR damage rolls, if it’s the SBR damage that you find objectionable.
-
also, i think someone mentioned this somewhere in another thread, but would be good to neutralize the +2 bonus damage if there are any interceptors. that’d be a big help as well.
no, i don’t mind the +2 so much as the fact that bombers dog fight against fighters at the same roll of 1…i think intercepting fighters should defend at 2, and tac bombers should probably also participate, but perhaps at 1. a fighter’s specialty is defending the home skies, so how can it be rolling equivalent to a bomber’s role?
Intercepting rules, or Larry’s late decision to make SBR damage +2?
Instead of refusing to play against the strategy, I would suggest something like agreeing to a house rule with your opponents that there is no +2 to SBR damage rolls, if it’s the SBR damage that you find objectionable.
-
I can tell you this - in AA50 the fighters DID intercept on a 2. Larry (or whatever rulemaker) made a conscious decision to change it to 1 in G40. There must have been a reason.
-
I can tell you this - in AA50 the fighters DID intercept on a 2. Larry (or whatever rulemaker) made a conscious decision to change it to 1 in G40. There must have been a reason.
probably because they play tested the game with the same people over and over and they were all scared of losing their bombers.
Not to mention that for a long time factories in capitols had unlimited production. I don’t recall exactly when that changed. But the current damage rule and the 10 production limit can put the USSR and UK in a real bind.
They should have made Novosibirsk a 2 IPC territory with a Mmic on it. That would help a lot.
-
AA50 introduced production and damage limits.
But the combination of reducing interceptors to a 1 and adding a +2 damage to strat bombers was probably a bit much
I am a fan of the +2 damage especially because then if a strat bomber gets by the AA fire, it will have a 100% chance of disabling a base. But a +1 I think is sufficient because then it’s still 83%.
Maybe they were compensating for the fact that there is ALWAYS AA fire in G40, whereas in AA50 there wouldn’t be any sometimes - especially for a newly built complex with no AA yet.
-
But before AA50 and damage limits, SBR bombed the money right out of your bank account. That would have put UK or USSR, the powers you mentioned, in a much worse bind. Potentially zero money to spend, ever, if you had enough bombers.
-
I honestly don’t understand why everyone seems to want to focus on SBR. SBR is trivial to block. Just put 3 or 4 Fighters there. If the bomber player sends more than 3 or 4, then he’s exposing them to AA for no good reason.
Neither Russia nor England have any trouble doing this.
No, the issue with Bombers in German hands is threat projection. But I’m still not convinced the strategy is unbeatable. If it was , why did it take so many years to catch on? It’s just forcing the Allies to play differently, is all.
-
@Shin:
No, the issue with Bombers in German hands is threat projection. But I’m still not convinced the strategy is unbeatable. If it was , why did it take so many years to catch on? It’s just forcing the Allies to play differently, is all.
Yes the issue is threat projection. SBR is just one of the many threats that the bomber stack presents. It’s waaaay harder to play against this than any other axis strategy I have seen.
-
@Shin:
I honestly don’t understand why everyone seems to want to focus on SBR. SBR is trivial to block. Just put 3 or 4 Fighters there. If the bomber player sends more than 3 or 4, then he’s exposing them to AA for no good reason.
Neither Russia nor England have any trouble doing this.
No, the issue with Bombers in German hands is threat projection. But I’m still not convinced the strategy is unbeatable. If it was , why did it take so many years to catch on? It’s just forcing the Allies to play differently, is all.
Correct.
-
i never said it is unbeatable, but that no one (as far as i know) has an answer. many have proposed ideas, and some think they have the answer but haven’t had the chance to play against it. what i do know is that between bmnielsen and dizznee (so far the only two in the league that i know of who use it) remain unbeaten with the strategy. gamer is playing against it and looks like he has a good chance, but it’s definitely challenging him hard
so what i’d like to see then is a match between bold and bmnielsen!
-
i never said it is unbeatable, but that no one (as far as i know) has an answer. many have proposed ideas, and some think they have the answer but haven’t had the chance to play against it. what i do know is that between bmnielsen and dizznee (so far the only two in the league that i know of who use it) remain unbeaten with the strategy. gamer is playing against it and looks like he has a good chance, but it’s definitely challenging him hard
so what i’d like to see then is a match between bold and bmnielsen!
bmnielson and i have played last year - can’t remember the result. i am up for it, sure.
-
@Shin:
SBR is trivial to block. Just put 3 or 4 Fighters there. If the bomber player sends more than 3 or 4, then he’s exposing them to AA for no good reason.
Attackers just send escort fighters which are not subject to facility anti-air fire (the Axis powers start with plenty if fighters). Attackers just need to make sure they have enough fighters that any dogfight casualties will be their escorts and not bombers. Attackers don’t need to have more planes than the defender to get a good economic exchange for the overall SBR run.
Example:
Germans attack with 2 fighters, 4 strategic bombers
Soviets defend with 12 fightersDogfight net average: -10 for Germany
SBR aa/damage net average: -17 for the SovietsEven with double the planes, the defender will experience a net IPC loss on average.
-
Scratch that, my math is off. I was using low luck numbers. Factoring in the pure luck possibility of losing 2 or more strats to aa, such an SBR attack has a net IPC average close to 0.
But still, that requires the defender to station double the attacking number of planes to achieve.
Suggested Topics
