Well, because a D&D session lasts all day and doesn’t involve calculators and name calling? :P
Actually, I can’t picture myself having to deal with acne faced kids over a board game. Easier to deal with them around a table working together against a DM. That way I can kick them as needed (not to mention I can take the foot of the table to avoid wayward hands, etc. :evil: )
That and D&D is just so much more fun then A&A.
yey D&D.
Living Greyhawk much?
Well, because a D&D session lasts all day and doesn’t involve calculators and name calling? :PÂ
Actually, I can’t picture myself having to deal with acne faced kids over a board game. Easier to deal with them around a table working together against a DM. That way I can kick them as needed (not to mention I can take the foot of the table to avoid wayward hands, etc. :evil: )
That and D&D is just so much more fun then A&A.Â
Actually, the A&A crowd at Gencon is quite “old”. There are a few young people, but the vast majority are not the “acne” crowd you fear…
Squirecam
–
That’s what I thought would happen. I was talking about being happily married, I mention a battle scnerio and I get ACTTUAL calculations on a battle that would not normaly happen :lol:. We are such nerds in here!
Now I’m starting to feel old.
The odometer is on 40 and I am definitely happily married for the past 16+ years.
Now if only I could get the kids to tell me where they left my “Life of Brian” DVD…
The 7.43% was for one round, in-case that wasn’t clear.
@CrazyStraw:
yada…yada…yada…Sorry the link is so long, but I wanted you to be able to go see for yourself. 3 Transports vs 1 Battleship (Transports on defense) isn’t 44% it’s closer to 37%.
Nope. The assignment to was to “take down the battleship” so you have to include mutual kill. You’re right that it’s about a 37% WIN for the defense, but the btl dies 44% of the time.
I don’t use Frood (I use the CSub simulator), but you can even see that in your own results:
A. survives: 55.8% D. survives: 37.9% No one survives: 6.3%
37.9 + 6.3 = 44.2% you take down the btl.
Peace
THat’s where we differ. I consider it a loss if I lose as much cash destroying my target as they lose from the loss of their target. :)
What if you bought the trannies, but the Battleship you started the game with.
I consider that a win if you take out something you start the game with, vs. something you had to buy… and it cost the same or close.
If all your little green army men are dead and some of mine are alive then the battle was a success!!! If they all die at the same time, well that is not success. That would be the oppisite of success. :mrgreen:
What if you bought the trannies, but the Battleship you started the game with.
I consider that a win if you take out something you start the game with, vs. something you had to buy… and it cost the same or close.
I’m not saying that isn’t a perfectly acceptable assumption, okay? I am just saying that in my mind, it’s a loss if I don’t at least kill more IPC worth of units or get a significantly stronger position then I lose from my move.
Trade the luftwaffe for a crippled England’s navy? Sure! That’s a significantly stronger position even if it cost me more in IPCs.
Trade 1 plane for 5 infantry? Again, it’s a good trade to me because 5 infantry = 15 IPC and 1 plane = 10 IPC. Both sides could have started with those units or built them later, it’s really irrellevant to my mind. The unit has intrisic value, in an of itself.
What if you bought the trannies, but the Battleship you started the game with.
I consider that a win if you take out something you start the game with, vs. something you had to buy… and it cost the same or close.
I don’t accept the idea that units you start the game with are of lower intrinsic value than ones you purchase. If position has any bearing on the value of a unit, and I believe it does, start units that are forward deployed are of significant value compared to the same unit sitting at the IC.
As for the arguement that “Germany doesn’t need an XX”, I would instead offer the idea that imaginative players (good ones anyway) can make every piece on the board count. One measure of player effectiveness is what percentage of units are engaging the enemy each turn. If you have “starting” units that you are not engaging the enemy with, I would rethink your strategies.
What if you bought the trannies, but the Battleship you started the game with.
I consider that a win if you take out something you start the game with, vs. something you had to buy… and it cost the same or close.
I don’t accept the idea that units you start the game with are of lower intrinsic value than ones you purchase. If position has any bearing on the value of a unit, and I believe it does, start units that are forward deployed are of significant value compared to the same unit sitting at the IC.
As for the arguement that “Germany doesn’t need an XX”, I would instead offer the idea that imaginative players (good ones anyway) can make every piece on the board count. One measure of player effectiveness is what percentage of units are engaging the enemy each turn. If you have “starting” units that you are not engaging the enemy with, I would rethink your strategies.
I think that poor sentence structure may have led to an interpretation of Wazzup’s statement as that newly produced units are more valuable than starting and placed units. I think we can all concur that units that are already placed on the board are typically of HIGHER intrinsic value (thanks to better positioning) than purchased units.
Similarly, I am sure Baghdaddy does not mean to say that ANY piece is worth purchasing (as opposed to other pieces), but instead that any piece that is on the board can be used. That is, I am sure Baghdaddy is not recommending Russian bombers and battleships, but is instead recommending that one make the best of what one has.
Is that the sort of arrant pedantry up with which you shall not put?
