POLL:favorite player

[Jennifer]

That’s the problem with all these games that are rated, they stifle experimentation.  See what their arguements are?  They can’t defeat my ideas on their merit, so they go to my record to try and prove I don’t know what I’m talking about.

However, I know of one game where my strat was Trn, BB every round with America.  I lost, but does that mean my comments on Fighters/Bombers for England is a bad strategy?  Maybe if I played 30 games of Fighter/Bombers for England and lost 23 of them, but that’s just simply not the case.

[saburo sakai]

Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

SS

[Jennifer]

@saburo:

Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

SS

That’s not the choice.  The choice is the record with no context or reading the thought processes and concepts and attempting to picture how to defeat the tactic, if possible.

Given that choice, I’ll stick with the situational tactics over the record every time.  Any moron can stack infantry until you get 100+ then walk to Moscow.  It takes a genius to take Moscow on Germany 3.

[newpaintbrush]

@froodster:

Well, to be fair to Jenn, she also says that she likes to try experimental strategies, and often they don’t work out. But she does have some interesting theories about certain dicey’s rolling all 1s on AA fire against her, or on Defending Inf against her.

burrrrrn

[newpaintbrush]

1.  As soon as I get internet up, Imma challenge saburo sakai!  meh heh heh heh.  Right now, I’m at work, so I can’t really download executables.  Oh wellz.  You down for that SS?

2.  Yeah, I like having a lot of transports.  I actually think 5 is pretty solid for UK.  I’m seriously considering 6-7 or even 8.  It SOUNDS stupid, then you start using that many, and you’re like “hm, this is some pretty badass s***”.  I have to thank the Caspian Sub Yahoo group for putting me on to 5+ transports for UK.

Although I still think 2-3 transports in Baltic for Germany is reckless.  Damn, I have to write a paper one of these days.

@saburo:

You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played? Â

Jen talks a good game, but, with all due respect, she can’t back it up with her play.  At AAMC, she’s only completed one AAR game (which she lost).  At Flames of Europe, she has played 23 AAR games and won only 7.  She is ranked 199 of 217 ranked players (as of March 6, 2007).  Her 7 wins have come against two players, rainynite (ranked #213) - 4 wins and uboot (ranked #214) - 3 wins.  It doesn’t look like she has ever beaten a player ranked above her in the rankings.

How much can you blame dicey?  If after playing dozens of games, you have a winning percentage of no better than 33% and you can only beat the lowest ranked players, you should face reality and admit that you’re not much of a player.

By the way, I am ranked 16th at FOE in AAR with a record of 14-3.  At AAMC, I am ranked 5th out of active players with a record of 11-5 (a lot more 2nd Edition games played at AAMC).  At AA.org, I’ve played only one game, which I lost.

And, to more directly respond to the UK transport issue, 3 is clearly not enough.  You need 4 for most of the early part of the game.  Often, when UK income has grown past the 32 mark, I will build a UK IC in Norway and build 3 infantry or armor there each turn.  The UK doesn’t need a large air force.  3 ftrs and a bmr are good enough for most purposes.  The US can build a large air force if it is needed to counter the Japanese fleet or bolster the defence of Russia.

SS

[frood]

To take Moscow on G3 you need not just genius, but a phenomenally stupid Russia player. It’s just not physically possible.

What I would like is to see Jennifer play a game where she actually is willing to put her true ability on the line. No goofy “just for the hell of it tactics” (although from reading a post of hers she considers 1 Bom v. 3 Inf to be “risky” while I put that under “suicidal” but whatever)

[Jennifer]

Suicidal is a good word for it, but that game was already lost at that point, it was a hail mary attempt to knock the wind out of the allies for a turn so I could recover slightly.

Game 3497 Flames of Europe, I’m not trying anything radical.  Well, other then a 1 turn 100% armor build for Germany in Germany 5.  It’s my AAMC Tournament game. (their dicey doesnt play nice with IE 7.0 or Firefox.  Crashes a lot.)

[losttribe04]

Hey all,

Jen I don’t dispute your theories or ideas, (althoe others here do). I like you concepts on keeping the game from falling into its old ruts of KGF then focus on Japan. What I get a kick out of most is when you counter-attacking others criticizing you ideas like a rabid junk yard dog. :-)

[frood]

Gotta say, if Germany/Japan is everyone’s favourite, why does the Axis get a bid?

Anyone have any clue how many games are won/lost by the Axis? On this board at least?

[losttribe04]

Hey,

I couldn’t tell you Froodster. I live way up in the northern regions of NY State. (some day we hope to be annexed into the US and get a sheriff and such, he he) So the noobs I play FTF always loose.

[saburo sakai]

1.  As soon as I get internet up, Imma challenge saburo sakai!  meh heh heh heh.  Right now, I’m at work, so I can’t really download executables.  Oh wellz.  You down for that SS?

Yeah, but only if you’re willing to play at AAMC or FOE.  I really don’t like the PBF format.

SS

[saburo sakai]

@Jennifer:

Suicidal is a good word for it, but that game was already lost at that point, it was a hail mary attempt to knock the wind out of the allies for a turn so I could recover slightly.

Game 3497 Flames of Europe, I’m not trying anything radical.  Well, other then a 1 turn 100% armor build for Germany in Germany 5.  It’s my AAMC Tournament game. (their dicey doesnt play nice with IE 7.0 or Firefox.  Crashes a lot.)

If you can beat Atlantikwall in that game, kudos to you.  He’s one of the best AAR players anywhere.

SS

[Jennifer]

Dunno if I can beat him or not.  I got unlucky on the draw when I got him.  However, I’m currently in a strong position with both Germany and Japan and I think I have a good chance of winning.  At the least, I am in a position to force England and Russia to retreat to Moscow with America just starting to reclaim British Africa in Round 6.

But then again, it is only round 6.  There’s a lot that can happen between then and now.  But I think I’ll be playing you in the tourney soon enough, bwuhahahahah!

[saburo sakai]

Well, I won’t comment on a Tournament game while it is underway, but I think you’re still quite a long way from forcing England and Russia to retreat to Moscow.

SS

[rjclayton]

@froodster:

Gotta say, if Germany/Japan is everyone’s favourite, why does the Axis get a bid?

Anyone have any clue how many games are won/lost by the Axis? On this board at least?

Just checked the league results and the Spring Tourney results. They are as follows:

Spring Tourney Round 1: Axis 9 wins vs. Allies 7 wins
Spring Tourney Round 2: Axis 5 wins vs. Allies 3 wins
2007 League to date: Axis 4 wins vs. Allies 5 wins

Overall: Axis 18 wins vs. Allies 15 wins

It seems pretty competitive on this board.  Hence the bid?

[newpaintbrush]

@rjclayton:

Just checked the league results and the Spring Tourney results. They are as follows:

Spring Tourney Round 1: Axis 9 wins vs. Allies 7 wins
Spring Tourney Round 2: Axis 5 wins vs. Allies 3 wins
2007 League to date: Axis 4 wins vs. Allies 5 wins

Overall: Axis 18 wins vs. Allies 15 wins

It seems pretty competitive on this board.  Hence the bid?

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

(puts wings behind back and starts to pace back and forth while smoking mysterious pipe)

“Well, class!  Let us first consider the possibility that 60% of games end in Allied wins and 40% in Axis wins.  Then what could cause the discrepancy in the reported results?  Well, there are a number of answers.  The first that will probably come to mind is that any given set of examples may contain some deviation from the average expected results.  The second is that possibly, games that end in Axis wins are finished more quickly than games that end in Allied wins, and so the results for the Axis wins are reported more swiftly than the Allied wins, so it appears at this point, before all results are in, that the Axis have a stastical advantage, even though they actually may not.”

What bid is the Spring Tourney and league using, rjclayton?

[rjclayton]

@newpaintbrush:

What bid is the Spring Tourney and league using, rjclayton?

I believe all participants in both competitions are using blind bid, LHTR 1.3, no NA.

Darth has compiled the bid stats on the first two rounds of the tourney here, you can see average bid results and stuff:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9078.msg173405#msg173405

@newpaintbrush:

“Well, class!  Let us first consider the possibility that 60% of games end in Allied wins and 40% in Axis wins.  Then what could cause the discrepancy in the reported results?  Well, there are a number of answers.  The first that will probably come to mind is that any given set of examples may contain some deviation from the average expected results.  The second is that possibly, games that end in Axis wins are finished more quickly than games that end in Allied wins, and so the results for the Axis wins are reported more swiftly than the Allied wins, so it appears at this point, before all results are in, that the Axis have a stastical advantage, even though they actually may not.”

Good theory, let’s look at this more closely:

1. Spring tourney was through 2 complete rounds of play, so there are no games from the first two rounds unreported.  However Spring Tourney games are timed, so the competition format may favour the axis compared to a non-timed game
2. League games are not timed, but possibly many of the longer games (not yet finished) will have an Allied victor, skewing the results even more

These statistics are admittedly using small sample sizes (what we had available here), but certainly a trend can be seen of the timed tournament games favouring the axes, and the untimed league games favouring the allies.  I wonder if participants involved in both competitions would bid the same regardless of which competition their game is in, or if they would factor in whether or not the game was timed, and modify their bid accordingly?

[Baghdaddy]

Would you bid higher or lower in a time limit game?

[Wazzup]

Lower to get Axis because of the strategic value of their being able to take IPCs from the get go while Allies have to take time to build up.

[newpaintbrush]

There is ALSO the possibility that players of different skill levels will attain different proportions of Axis versus Allied wins.

And since LHTR is used, that changes the ruleset . . . the bid placement rules also affect the ruleset . . .

–

Personally, my bid is for two extra German units against Anglo-Egypt.  In TripleA Ladder, you can only pop one unit in per territory.  So instead of popping 2 infantry in Libya, I have to put 1 infantry in Libya and 1 tank in Algeria to get those two extra units against Anglo.  (Note that TripleA Ladder rules also prevent capital invasion on the first turn, or I’d buy a transport and go for long range aircraft to take London . . . well, I forget, but it’s a decent percentage).

–

Unless the game is REAL short, that is my minimum bid for the Axis.  If someone wants to underbid me, and only put one unit in Africa (or wherever), that’s their business.  Of course, if I COULD invade London on G1, or if I could place multiple units in a territory, my bid would change from 8 to 6, or maybe I would place a transport instead of tank/infantry as mentioned, etc. etc.