Hi Krieghund.
Thank you for the clarifications.
Question about bidding
-
US can hit BRA but the TRAN is around the corner, safe from all but the US BMBR.
Once that wild tranny breaks out into the South Atlantic, all heck breaks loose. Even if the land grab does not last long term, it still keeps the US/UK busy in places besides Europe.
I’m tempted to do a depreciation analysis on IPCs. Like money, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow but that is due to interest rates.
The driving factor for IPC is transport. IPC == combat capability and the sooner you have IPC converted to combat capability the sooner it can get to the front.
If the front is two moves away (and stable) 3 IPC now will put an INF there in two turns but 5 IPC next turn will get an ARM there at the same time. That is a heck of an interest rate!
-
The US also has the option to ignore it if the cost of pursuing the TRN is too great in terms of diminished pressure on Germany elsewhere. But yeah, could be a nice little move if allowed, and the fact is some players would go for it whether it’s the best use of an 8 IPC bid or not.
So we need a ruling on whether it’s legal. Who is our authority? LHTR? Caspian Sub? The Collective Wisdom of A&A.org (which is rarely collective)
-
By waht CS posted, it IS a legal bid under C-Sub.
It is NOT a legal bid by the rules we have been using here (units can ONLY be added to:
1. Land territories that the nation already controls
2. Sea Zones that already contain your units.So you can’t, under our A&A.org rules (this part carried over from Classic Tournaments WAY before my time here), place a naval unit in a vacant sea zone.
-
-
Our site, our rules :evil:
-
Well we all know how to play that one.
Change the venue if you get the wrong answer!!!
8-)
-
I think folks like our venue though…
Our Tournament this year was double last year’s size :-)
35 total players signed up for the Tournament this year.
-
[EDIT to clariy - on the topic of “my site, my rules”]
Well on that topic, if I create a game logging mechanism on my dicey, I’m thinking of posting a statement that none of the battles are certified for tournament/league games unless the results are logged. Because as we all know e-mail can be flaky, and this would prevent silly disputes - results would just always be recorded.
I guess I can’t really impose a rule on tournament play, but I do want to protect myself from people blaming my dicey when their results don’t get mailed. Basically just state that unless my site logs the results, I can’t vouch for their authenticity. Because e-mail can be spoofed, but only I can tamper with the logs on my site.
As for people who won’t play me with my own dicey - at present I’m happy to use insite but if ever the time comes that I want to use frood.net myself, I’ll simply decline to play people who don’t trust me. Once I win the tournament with the in-site dice people will know I don’t need to cheat… :evil:
-
German Bid 8. TRAN in SZ 12. Or Germany could build an ARM/INF on the Eastern Front as a sacrifice to the gods of luck….
Hey Bddy.
The transport is creative. It does let you scoop up some land. But I have to say as an Allied player I would like it.
The specifics:
1. If you’re not going for a United Fleet at the same time, the Allies can afford to sacrifice the UK sub in Z12. They could just pop the tra in Z22 and the German transport couldn’t swing down to hit the landed bomber.
2. Simultaneously, the EUS fleet can come down and take back Brazil.But those are the minor points. The real objections are:
3. You don’t want to engage the richest power early in the game. The US couldn’t care less about 3 IPCs, and they’ll have them back R2 at the latest (with the WUS fleet, probably). So even taking the West Indies plays to the strength of the US - you’re moving closer to their center of production. The later you can wait to engage the US the better. Use your early leverage on USSR and UK.
4. I like a bid that either gives me control of something or breaks my opponent’s control. A bid that tries to smash Anglo and hold Europe will pay off more in the long run than holding Brazil for a short time (and it hurts the UK much more than taking Brazil hurts the US). A bid that is placed entirely in Europe should push Russia back in some substantial way. Such as 1inf in Bel 1tnk in EEu. That makes the Russian Triple untenable and opens up a couple of nice counters.But the transport is a creative move. I’d encourage you to think about control, however, rather than short term gain. For instance, if you break down the IPC value of that move, you’re spending 8 IPCs of naval gear and 7 IPCs of ground troops. To recoup $15 of value from that move you need to hold Brazil for 5 rounds or inflict some significant casualties.
If you take the same principle you came up with for that bid (a nice land grab), what about something like giving Japan a transport to sack Australia early? That is a similar move, but harder for the Allies to retake (in most cases). Potentially you could leverage the EIndies btl and get Aus/NwZ. Or another option: same Z12 placement but go to Africa on the west coast instead. You still have the bmr problem, but you’re more likely to hold the land.
Peace
-
@CrazyStraw:
…
To recoup $15 of value from that move you need to hold Brazil for 5 rounds or inflict some significant casualties.
…
PeaceHey CrazyStraw.
I’m starting to question the idea that you would need to recoup $ in an equal amount. I think it is giving false valuation to some of the calculations being done.
For example 15 IPC now is not equal to 5 turns of 3 IPC.
If you had a bank of 15 IPC at the start of the game, doling it out in 3 IPC increments over 5 turns is not as effective as 15 IPC on turn 1. Conversely, if you can inflict a 15 IPC penalty on your opponent on Turn 1 and pay for it over 5 turns at 3 IPC per turn, you come out ahead.
The TRAN bid is not vulnerable to attack even from a UK SS. It takes a BMBR to reach SZ 22 and then the BMBR becomes a target.
-
I like the logging option.
I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up. And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey! What were thsoe dice?” :-)
-
If you had a bank of 15 IPC at the start of the game, doling it out in 3 IPC increments over 5 turns is not as effective as 15 IPC on turn 1. Conversely, if you can inflict a 15 IPC penalty on your opponent on Turn 1 and pay for it over 5 turns at 3 IPC per turn, you come out ahead.
Since we are talking about 15 IPC of German units, then by your logic it is an even worse move for Germany to do, because even if you hold Brazil for 5 rounds those 15 IPC gained are not worth the same as the 15 IPC of German units you burned in turn 1.
-
I’m starting to question the idea that you would need to recoup $ in an equal amount. I think it is giving false valuation to some of the calculations being done.
Hey Bddy.
There’s certainly some truth to what you wrote. And we could certainly slice the question up in many ways.
If I’m going by my gut instinct, I just don’t like strategies that try to nickel-and-dime the US. They just have too much money. I’d rather see the UK or the Soviets getting the push back.
I agree with you about the bomber being bait in Africa, but remember that if you keep even 1inf on the tra then the bomber should kill $11 of gear. To really do it right, we could analyze the situation by pro-rating the dollars for likely hits, debate counterattacks, implement pull-strategies to minimize the German ability to hit the exposed bomber, allow the Germans to land twice in Brazil to bleed them a bit, etc. The full range of options is large.
But in the end, I don’t see numbers that get me too excited ($8 bid to collect about $6 in income), and it goes against some of my broader principles, so I’m not going that way myself. But if you find some subtleties to the move that would change my valuation significantly, by all means post! Some big, valuable ideas start from smaller, less profitable gambits.
Peace
-
@ncscswitch:
I like the logging option.
I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up. And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey! What were thsoe dice?” :-)
Okay, I have created a “Make game record page” which creates records that AACalc will soon be able to log to - another couple hours coding should do it. This also incorporates an optional bidding function.
One question that was raised about bidding in software development forum was whether we should use an “Ebay” style bid where the winning bidder gets their optimal bid - ie. if you bid 0 and the other guy bid 10, then you would get it for 9 - so your bid is how low you are willing to go, but you don’t necessarily have to go that low. It’s an interesting concept, and I could just make a choice on my page for which bid system to use.
Thoughts? Would A&A.org consider switching to this bid? It would make the bid less nerve-racking because you know you won’t be leaving money “on the table”. Eg. I just bid 7 for my round 2 game against a player who took the bid for 10 in round 1. If he bid 10 again this time, I could have had it for 9. Of course with that you can’t declare your bid placement with your bid (or you could just get the change in $ to the bank) because you don’t know exactly what it will be yet.
Suggested Topics
