After Three Games of Global

@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.

looks at the thing on the wall with the dates on it.

I’ve had my copy of Europe since August 21st.  It’s now October 25th.  Hardly 4 weeks as you suggested.

P40 OOB, Broken.  Almost a year later and they are still kicking around the “alpha” setup to fix it.
The same people who brought us that gem brought us the G40 setup.

I love that you are playing around with this strat, that strat etc and not just admitting defeat like our group has now after roughly 8 weeks of play.  We WANT you to succeed.  PLEASE.  PROVE.  ME.  WRONG!!!

Make this game be not a waste of $$$$

Unfortunately I’ve found on this planet, that your first instinct is usually the best.  Hate my posts?  I don’t give the replacement tac bombers that WOTC sent me for P40 which all came with missing (broken) wheels.    I doubt you’d by my first choice to the dance either buddy.  But like it or not, more and more people are seeing that the game favors the Allies, in either setup.  :sad face:

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)