I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory. It does require skill pulling off the india IC. But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game. If each of you are gonna do your own thing, the game will certainly be over quicker than usual. Thats the key…… Teamwork and persistance. Control the game by limiting the enemy of options. Do this and you’ll win no matter who you are.
What's the consensus on a standard bid?
-
I have won with axis in revised with no bid, at least once.
But me and my friend were both noobs, at that time.
We both played classic maybe hundreds of times, but revised was new for me until 2006.The lobby thats a funny place. U meet al kinds, literally.
Some ppl r totally noobs, and others r really good.
Against the best players, I’m a mismatch, but I also met players who wanted to continue after I took Berlin rnd 4-5 with 4 tanks left….!
I met “decent” players who wanted to play axis without bid.
I played a few games as allies, multiplayer, without any bid, and one game was really tight, but I cannot recall that we lost
as allies against a no bid axis player(s).
I also have been “sealioned” G2, and thats not funny, but sometimes I have to use the battlecalc :|My point is that if u have somewhat experienced players, a bid is necessary.
I think that the best players would beat me with 6 bid or more, more than 50% of all games. 3-5 ipc, I don’t know.
Axis without bid, that only works if the allie player is new to revised.As most players here use open bid, I would have 8 ipc for G, no naval, 1 inf + 1 tank in ukr, is that allowed?
Imo that is perhaps even better than 9 ipc 1 unit pr. TT. -
a 2 unit bid to Ukraine is a fairly common bid… but also pretty easily countered.
Russia can adjust their R1 purchase and combat, and Germany has no real choice but to retreat the units to Eastern.
It bogs down Central Europe a bit more, but overall is a pretty weak choice for the German bid (other $8 bids work better than 1 INF, 1 ARM Ukraine).
-
@ncscswitch:
a 2 unit bid to Ukraine is a fairly common bid… but also pretty easily countered.
Russia can adjust their R1 purchase and combat, and Germany has no real choice but to retreat the units to Eastern.
It bogs down Central Europe a bit more, but overall is a pretty weak choice for the German bid (other $8 bids work better than 1 INF, 1 ARM Ukraine).
I concur. However, if you think the Russian is aggressive and will attack the Ukraine, it might dissuade them saving you a fighter.
Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine. Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.
-
@Cmdr:
Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine. Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.
Took you guys long enough to put that one together… It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D
That’s been my standard opening for a long time.
-
You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.
And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.
Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.
I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.
It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.
There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.
I remembered why I do like to take territories, so let me expand on the reasons you hint at for wanting to take a territory. First, you are not sending your inf to certain death, bad luck can happen to the enemy too, they might send 2 inf 2 figs and come out with 2 figs. Second, if you console yourself with “well I saved an inf” you have to realize you saved the enemy an inf too, if not 2 inf, since he only has to send 1 inf there to prevent a free taking. Third, some territories are worth more than 2 IPCs.
Fourth and best, sometimes you don’t want to allow the enemies after you to be able to reinforce that area with figs. You can’t land figs in areas you just captured or cleared, but if allow for 39% of not taking a territory that could really mean the next turn you see 10+ figs from the powers that come after you land there to reinforce his buddies. I wouldn’t be too happy if say I were Russia and didn’t take Ukraine, then suddenly wtf is this 6 German figs land there along 6 Japanese fighters with the pile of inf? Or the opposite if I were Germany and didn’t take Ukraine, now UK has 6 figs there, compounded with a pile of 20 Russian inf and 3 figs and America’s figs. Or if I were Russia and didn’t Novo, now I see 8 inf + 6 fighters on defense there. All because I didn’t take a territory. It is usually difficult to reinforce an ally’s front territory with fighters due to the limitations on fighters landing and also because sometimes you simply don’t have land forces to clear the area for your buddies, but if the enemy doesn’t take the territory then it becomes very possible.
Your math is good and pure and I got it when I saw the concept, and I would definitely do it (and have had it done to me) in small consequence areas, but one simply must be think about which is the better of the options at the time, not choose to use one theory in all situations. Using 1 inf + airforce is more economical in terms of pure math for some territories, but there are other very important considerations to keep in mind.
-
@Ender:
@Cmdr:
Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine. Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.
Took you guys long enough to put that one together… It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D
That’s been my standard opening for a long time.
Mine as well. Russian armor is far more valuable to me than German armor, whether destroying them or preserving them, no matter which side I play.
-
@Ender:
@Cmdr:
Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine. Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.
Took you guys long enough to put that one together… It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D
That’s been my standard opening for a long time.
Mine as well. Russian armor is far more valuable to me than German armor, whether destroying them or preserving them, no matter which side I play.
I put that opening into a win-win for both sides.
As Germany, I love having an extra ftr, an extra art and an extra tank.There are two schools of thought to the “UKRAINE or not to UKRAINE”. dilema.
One is to trade your attacking units for your opponents key units and get income to replace them. In a KGF move, this might be better as you can bleed Germany dry with this method.
The other is to only attack with your key/expensive pieces when you know they will be preserved. You’ll be safer and play defense, which is a good long term allied strategy. You do allow your opponent to play the same way though.
The answer to the Shakespearian question is ……
“Personal preference”I don’t think there is a ‘mathmatical or statistical’ way to meaure the difference between belo/wru and ukr/wru Russia 1 combat.
Just like in computer programming, there are many ways to code a solution, and style comes into play even though there are certain programming ‘standards’ to which all programmers adhere.
-
Maybe the Ukraine attack can be seen as trading central pawns in chess - it really opens up the game, instead of it getting locked down into defensive positions.
@Bean - Of course YOU get it. Me and you are the two brightest kids in Battle School, after all :). And I get it too - the 1 Inf trade is not for all situations. When there is a TACTICAL or STRATEGIC reason that a territory needs to be taken, then I up the attack.
Just to be clear, tactical or strategic reasons can include:
- Bleeding off more enemy units (when you have unit lead)
- Over-tasking enemy AF
- Preventing a tank blitz through the territory.
- Preventing the enemy from landing air units there next turn
- Preventing the enemy from building an IC there next turn
- Enabling your allies to land AF there before next enemy turn.
- The territory will be sheltered from counter-attack anyway so you don’t have to worry about losing the units you send in.
But when the ONLY reason to take the territory is economic, ie. for the IPCs, then I don’t consider it worth it.
-
As I said, I, personally, don’t like the Ukraine battle. But I also, personally, like to buy a fighter with Germany on G1 (instead of a carrier.) So if Russia DOES hit Ukraine then I net 0 fighters for the game turn (+1 built, -1 destroyed.) Not really a bad thing for me. However Russia loses 3 tanks in Ukraine, period. It’s the only way to get the German fighter there. Why? Because I guarantee my people will come down there and kick you out of Greece, thank you very much!
So what does Russia gain? It’s easy to tell what Russia loses: 3 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor (28 IPC.)
-
What’s nice is if you start with a 3 inf 3 arm build and don’t attack Ukraine, you have a fat stack of 7 tanks in Novo on round 2 ready to hit Ukraine, India, China, and Yakut :mrgreen: Makes Japan walk on eggshells while also keeping the pressure on Ukraine. That’s been cute enough for me to stop doing the Ukraine attack for the moment.
-
@Cmdr:
As I said, I, personally, don’t like the Ukraine battle. But I also, personally, like to buy a fighter with Germany on G1 (instead of a carrier.) So if Russia DOES hit Ukraine then I net 0 fighters for the game turn (+1 built, -1 destroyed.) Not really a bad thing for me. However Russia loses 3 tanks in Ukraine, period. It’s the only way to get the German fighter there. Why? Because I guarantee my people will come down there and kick you out of Greece, thank you very much!
So what does Russia gain? It’s easy to tell what Russia loses: 3 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor (28 IPC.)
Your assumption is not always correct. I prefer to attack ukraine with only 2 russian tanks.
that adds 1 more tank to west russia. faster kill, less units risked in ukraine. more germany key units lost. $3 income versus $2 (belo), Cacuasus safe®.
Again, down to personal preference.
-
Your assumption is not always correct. I prefer to attack ukraine with only 2 russian tanks.
that adds 1 more tank to west russia. faster kill, less units risked in ukraine. more germany key units lost. $3 income versus $2 (belo), Cacuasus safe®.
Again, down to personal preference.
The ukr attack with 2 tanks is almost standard by most LL players. But in reg dice it will fail much more often.
And many reg dice players will only attack WRU in R1.
In LL it fails only 9% or 10%.The sz 59 fails 1 on 6…:)
That is with only DD ofc. This is sad when u stacked bury with 6 inf.Has anyone done a economical calc of the ukr attack?
With 2 tanks, or 3 tanks, based on average dice?
G and R losses etc.?
Compare this with the Arch blitz…? -
The ukr attack with 2 tanks is almost standard by most LL players. But in reg dice it will fail much more often.
And many reg dice players will only attack WRU in R1.That’s when you w/d your attacking units… if it’s not going well.
Has anyone done a economical calc of the ukr attack?
With 2 tanks, or 3 tanks, based on average dice?
G and R losses etc.?
Compare this with the Arch blitz….?The issue here is how far to do you go… into G1 counter… into R2 counter to the counter…
There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle. The economics are not the end-all in A&A. -
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?). You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks. If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory. That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory). And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).
Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter. AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter. IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position. I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks. I think even Ender would concede that.
In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy. And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter. And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine. Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things. I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.
-
I’m still pretty undecided about Ukraine lmao!
All I can tell is that it’s pretty give and take. If you don’t attack Ukraine, then you have a significant number of tanks to threaten Japan with, making their advance slower. But if you attack Ukraine, then Germany is down some important gear before it’s retreated, which the Allies should be looking to do every time the opportunity pops up in a KGF.
-
-
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?). You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks. If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory. That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory). And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).
Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter. AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter. IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position. I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks. I think even Ender would concede that.
In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy. And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter. And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine. Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things. I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.
I’m willing to accept your points on Ukraine. However, Belo is not simply about killing the Inf for me. It really reduces the fodder that Germany has for a counterattack on WRus.
My concern about losing the Russian tanks in Ukraine is that while yes it may be at worst an even trade, early on Germany can afford to trade better than Russia can. However, I’m starting to think that I’m not seeing the full picture there - Germany also has to dedicate production to keeping England and US at bay, so perhaps they come off worse in the trade.
Now, with reference to our other game, I concede that my side’s tactical position sucks. I think Germany was doing as well as it could though - Japan had some unfortunate delays and setbacks though, and IMO should have built more TRNs, among other things, but no need to air dirty laundry here…
-
Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me. I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!
After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway. Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)
-
@Cmdr:
Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me. I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!
After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway. Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)
You were probably a huge Infantry Push Mechanics player in second edition (aka Classic) if you played that a few years back.
You are all about saving units and being ultra efficient.
While that is a good principal to operate under, that type of player doesn’t often think outside the box and can be less apt to see and sieze uncoventional opportunities to win a game that skews a bit outside the ‘normal’ outcome.
-
Uh-huh. That’s what Switch was counting on when he didn’t defend Caucasus properly and now Russia has no army. (neither does Germany, but that’s less of an issue for me after they failed a KJF then switched gears.)
I was an Infantry Push Mechanic in Classic, I’ll admit it. It was about the only way to win your games. Now I’m more of a fighter push mechanic girl. I like fighters. I don’t like loosing them, but sometimes you have to realize that losing your fighters, while bad for you, can make it too expensive for your opponent to attack or recover from.
It’s not abnormal for opponents to see me with 9 Japanese Fighters and 8-12 German fighters in a game. Gives me a LOT of mobile punch without risking my tanks.
Suggested Topics
