After Three Games of Global

I will break my vow of leaving this discussion.

i write for a living, and english is my first language, so i don’t think it’s me, despite my disinterest in caps

A disagreement does not mean an attack on ones intelligence, but for you it seems so, and qualification of your background seems important for you. So I will indulge you. Writing for a living does not mean your good at it, example: some doctor had to be the last of his class in grades but he is still a doctor. I understand what “first principle” means. English is my first language also. I have served in the military in a command situation and understand warfare and its logistics (does this mean I’m good at A&A no, does it mean I have a different view yes) And what is with the Caps comment? What are you referring to?

And here is another you will never find in my posts a emoticon:  :?

Rockin,

I think we have had a disagreement that is not easily defused by the medium of posting boards.

To your last post:

i dont think it is time to say the game is broken

axis seem to be having a hard time of it.

We are in agreement on one of these two statements. I am not taking issue with either since my support of them are my opinion. And I offer my hand (of course symbolically since this is a board) as a sign of an agreement to disagree.

Well met my friend shakes hand.

But you said! But you said! But you said!

You guys sound like a pair of old ladies at a quilting B.

The issues come from the 1939 start date and the political rules.  It’s inherently impossible to perfectly balance, because you don’t know what people want to do, what they are going to build when not at war, and that determines the best turn for Axis attacks also enough.

The 39 start also means the axis have a STEEP climb to reach relative economic parity, and if they F*ck up early along the way, or gets dice it Exponentially slows them down.

Time will tell with this game, we can’t call it “broken” until there is a strategy (Japan or America) that is so tight and perfect that solid dice can’t even prevent it. (Like A Brazil Factory in Revised, or German Super-Stack in original Europe)

A Brazil factory never beat anyone in our revised games. A super stack can be countered with a defensive super stack, neither made an assured game win.

@rockrobinoff:

Simply put, we are running out of ideas for Germany/Italy. Zooooma has worked out Sea Lion in detail, and has concluded that Sea Lion is only worth it if UK skimps enough on defense.

Whoa!

We are just scratching the surface of ideas (I really don’t have much time foe A&A).  I’m still exploring Sea Lion in conjunction with A Japanese invasion of America.  My Mediteranean game plan has been neglected  - I’ve only just clued in to a decent Axis start there.  And I’ve devoted next to zero thought about solid Barbarossa play.

Our last second game involved a half baked unconventional strategy on my part that I was really just feeling out.  I abandoned this last game because I simply didn’t have time to adjust for your preemptive response to said strategy.  So I played Barabrossa which I hadn’t thought about much at all.

@rockrobinoff:

maybe i am not being clear, but all i am getting at is that Axis strats are not at all obvious, and that the obvious Axis strats, are failing.

I think you also said something about me running out of ideas.

I don’t think a strategy can be said to be failing when we tried it but once.  In those three games the Axis used three radically different strategies.  We’ve been stumbling through - We’ve played sea Lion with no forethought of post sea Lion, we played a Japanese KAF which had barely been analised and was uncoordinated with the European Axis powers, and I played a Barbarossa which I’d devoted roughly zero thought towards.

I’m now finally starting to think about Barbarossa a little.  But it’s slow going.  I’m still working out KRL and its counters.  Basically, I’m nowhere near out of ideas.  The players who are out of ideas already are playing alpha I think.

@rockrobinoff:

yes, you havent had time to work out complicated and nuanced axis attacks…

@rockrobinoff:

…Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”

I’m saying there is insufficient evidence to suggest the Axis don’t have a roughly equal chance.  The onus is on anyone else to give me sufficient time (and a freakin’ break) before expecting an answer to “how”.

now, i think you are at least as good as me, and probably on the balance of things, still a solid notch above, and yet our games have not been all that competitive. all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top. this suggests to me, that ideas for axis are at a minimum more difficult to come by, and that, again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

@rockrobinoff:

the evidence thus far suggests axis does not (have an equal position), even though it is far from conclusive.

I disagree.  The evidence is that Axis optimal strategy (or even sound strategy) is far less prosaic, and far more precise than sound or optimal Allied strategy.  It is highly conclusive!  There is no evidence either way as to whether or not the game is ultimately balanced.

@rockrobinoff:

…you, on the other hand, have put at least some serious time in working out ideas for axis, and have failed miserably.

That’s not fair.  To the extent that I’ve put serious time into ideas, I have not failed miserably, and o the extent that I’ve failed I have not put serious time into ideas!

I put lots of thought into accomplishing Sea Lion (less into post Sea Lion).  If you recall I won the Sea Lion game.  I got lucky at the end, but I blundered at the end too.  We both played poorly early game.  I Don’t see this as a miserable failure, and haven’t ruled out Sea Lion.

Game two was KAF which hadn’t been thought out at all.  I had a terrible time G1, and did not try and could not play Sea Lion which was the purpose of KAF to begin with.  Germany did almost nothing that game, including not attacking Russia soon enough, and handing over Southern Europe to the UK.  I consider that game was a wash, but not a failure!  I think You’ll be buying ground units US1 from now on - and that still might not stop me…

Game three I tried a “standard” Axis approach, but this was really the only time I’d ever tried this, and I’d not put any thought into how to play it.  This a loss but not such a defeat that I can’t look back and think about what I could have changed to possibly come out ahead.  I don’t consider that a miserable failure.

In all three games I played the Med like a newb.
@rockrobinoff:

i think i have been winning not due to superior play or to fortune, but for having the much easier job.

@rockrobinoff:

…all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top.

Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?

You seem to believe the former. But your evidence rests on your impression on how much thought I’ve put into the game, how much of this thought has translated into my performance (surprisingly little - I’ve cleaned up several strategies but then not tried them again) compared to how much room I have left to refine and improve these strategies.

Me, I agree it’s been harder for me to discover a sound Axis system.  I also think this has caused me to make far more mistakes than you (by virtue of having more vital moves to miss).  Put another way, My position being more complicated than yours means you easily have outplayed me - despite my having put in extra thought and a possible skill discrepancy.  Although your moves may have been more obvious than mine, I nonetheless think your play has been more sound than mine.

@rockrobinoff:

…again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

Personally, I believe I have to explore and improve with both KRF & KRL.  Maybe I’ll discover neither work.  But I insist there is no onus on anyone to demonstrate optimal play 'at this time".  That is not reasonable.  The onus is on the kindred intellect to look thoroughly for non prosaic winning Axis strategies, and for everyone else to give us time.  Ask me in six to twelve months.

Rockin,

I have to second your statement at this point, you have never said it was broken.

Since that’s what I’m famous (infamous  :evil:) for, I’ll say it.

G40 is broken.  Just like P40 was OOB.

Until you show me a consistent Axis strat that can lead to victory with the starting setup and even more especially, the Alpha P40 setup which people think makes the G40 setup more even…

Then I will counter with the game is very set piece.  Do this G1 etc.    The game is broken to me in that there is little room for Axis flexibility if you want to win.  Relying on hot dice to win as axis is not a balanced game.

@deadbunny:

Rockin,

I have to second your statement at this point, you have never said it was broken.

Agreed, Robin doesn’t laim the game is broken.

But he claims I’m out of ideas for the Axis and that beating me two out of three times means that any plans I’d been previously working are worth abandoning.

@Robin -

I think I have notions of how the Axis could have a strong competitive game by applying new innovations, further refinements, and different combinations to my previous attempts.  If you disagree, you must think you have probably considered all the same ideas I have, and dismissed them.  Given that you admit to having had no real study of this board and set up, and that I’m at least as good as you at this and have taken more time to think about it, I just think you should give me the benefit of a doubt when I say there is much to test and reformulate.

@MaherC:

Since that’s what I’m famous (infamous  :evil:) for, I’ll say it.

G40 is broken.   Just like P40 was OOB.

Indeed.  It atkes time to establish infamy, and you’ve been saying this since early on.

It also takes time to develop and less obvious strategies for a game this complex (Global 1940 is far more complex than AA50), but you haven’t allowed this time.

Yes, the haste with which you declare this game broken allows me to completely dismiss your opinion.  If your are right, it’s a coincidence.

Case in point (as Robin already mentioned) AA50 was thought for months (or more) to heavily favour the Axis.  Since then, some bizarre and sophisticated Allied tactics have been developed which can slow the Axis down to the point where the game is roughly even.

But you don’t find these strange but winning strategies by whining that the game is broken when the conventional and obvious strategies don’t work.  You rack your brain diligently until you’ve explored every angle.

@MaherC:

Until you show me a consistent Axis strat that can lead to victory with the starting setup…

And unless we find one in the first four weeks the game is broken?  You do undertand the idea that one side can have an easier game when obvious strategies are employed, while the other side might have a stronger position when more complicated strategies are developed?  It takes longer to develop complicated strategies than obvious ones (obviously), so it’s natural to expect one side will take longer to study and develop.

This is common in A&A.  A&A:Europe (1999) was though to be too hard for Germany at first.  The game is now considered broken in Germany’s favour (and the German Start is fairly simple).  AA50 was the same.  Even when Pacific 1940 came out the Allies were claimed to be winning most at first.

If you don’t want to take the time and effort to study AA50 OOB box that’s fine, run away and play alpha.  We’ll let you know.

and even more especially, the Alpha P40 setup which people think makes the G40 setup more even…

Then I will counter with the game is very set piece.  Do this G1 etc.    The game is broken to me in that there is little room for Axis flexibility if you want to win.   Relying on hot dice to win as axis is not a balanced game.

@rockrobinoff:

That said, autopilot Germany attacks Russia sinks UK ships and waits for Japan to help strats fail miserably.

At least they seem a bit slow.  What if Japan delays the India crush to burst through China more quickly and fierily?  My Mediteranean play could stand much improvement too.  Based on just our games (ignoring the buzz on these boards) I’d not give up on a standard Barbarossa just yet.

You agreed (suggested even) after our last game that the Indian campaign didn’t accomplish anything meaningful.  What if the land and air units burst straight through China and the fleet crawls towards Europe?

Even the standard approach has a lot of variation in this edition and is by no means straight forward.  I’ve got lots of ideas yet to rule out here.