2011 Tournament discussion (AA50-41)

All games need to start moving quicker so they get finished before the end of May

@gamerman01:

Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.

The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality.  It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair.  If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want?  If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.

If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Right.  Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.

Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov.  Very interesting.

I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…

That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example.  They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.

Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.

So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named).  There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.

@DutchmanD:

@gamerman01:

Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.

The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality.  It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair.  If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want?  If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.

If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Right.  Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.

Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov.  Very interesting.

I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…

That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example.  They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.

Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.

So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named).  There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.

i’m right in the middle, and that’s why i now think no-tech AA50 is the best game there is.

I believe strategy is the key to winning but having tech and dice symbolizes the brilliant generals, clever scientists and the difference between recruits and veterans. So I would say If I had to choose a camp I would choose Gamer 90/100 times because of the changes in the game one battle or one round can make. However The reasons I have stated also makes me want to choose to be a strategist because of the annoying results which throw a perfect shuck or an invincible strategy to get defeated because of 0 hits on attack in an Amphib or the 50/100 hits I faced as Germany in a recent face to face revised game when Russia had turled from round 1 and built a 100 strong Infantry. I went on to lose that game. (My first lose for over a year in Face to face revised)

But what does this mean to you fellow AAA gamer??? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is just my opinion. To some it could be the buildings of a gaming ideology and to others I could be worth as much as toilet paper. But when deciding which road to go down that of a strategist or a gamer you must recognize peoples opinion because inside each person’s opinion there will be a grain of truth.

And now back to the topic of unlimited bids. I believe that if we accept Bomber bids eventually things will even themselves out. I.E. for all the times you face the Bry bomber you will have it or it will fail on it’s quest and the bid is down the drain. So I believe that bids should be unlimited (although this may be the gamer in me and tomorrow when I begin to think like a strategist I will think what I have written is rubbish) because limiting bids of bmrs could lead us to banning bids in other places liking banning a soviet AC because it could be seen as a wasted bid and could ruin the game. As I said before this is just my popinion take from it what you will.

I’m enjoying the discussion

PGMatt over Ol’ Blood&Guts in round 12

AS LONG AS BOTH (good) PLAYERS AGREE ON BID

there isnt any problem with any bid

thats the ˝beauty˝ of bid ;)

so
any bid
any combination

as long the units are in the territory in which The Nation(receiving the bid) puts its unit(s) there

so if somebody can play a great game with Axis and win a good player giving him 11 12 13 or 14 IPC

whats the problem

in future maybe bid will be 5-8
or 2-4
or 15-18

who knows

or maybe it stays around 6-9

as its today

the thing is that in the bid
you decide
you ˝roll˝ from one side posibilty to play allies with X while giving your oponent oportunity to play with X-1

one great thing about this forum playing is bid i enjoy it

as for luck issue

luck can be and it is a factor always

even in the most strategic way of playing

risk luck its part of teh game always more or less

and if U want to have a bom in buryatia

and build your efforts early on on risky attacks push forward

Your opponent is counting on it and he is giving you this őpportunity of risk˝ freely

he is no ˝stupid computer˝ or naive
simply

he thinks he can take u down with axis with your 12 IPc bid
or even he assumes the bur bom :D

limiting any limiting in start leads to discussion about new limits

the territory and nation ristriction is logical and almost all agree with it.

other restrictions are simply ˝blocking˝ this great game

which evolved so much so so much from revised in the possibilites of playing in the numbers of difeerent strategies tactics lucks risks and everything else combined in teh same pot…

so i think there s plenty there s everything needed for both sides of players strategists and gamers…

this game offers both… it offers

Great Strategy and Great Fun…

limiting either simply limits both…

Cheers and sorry for my bad english which hasnt improved much over years  :lol:

Excellent post, Amon, and I agree.

I’m not afraid to give anyone a 12 bid because he might put a bomber on Buryatia  :roll:
He then has no extra infantry to Egypt or boats to Z2, both of which can help a lot.
And he only has a 57% chance of sinking 2 transports, and Japan still has 3 others so it’s not the end of the Axis’ world.

LOL WHAT?  I thought I was good till may! Damn.

Anyways… As for what DutchmanD said-he’s right.  There are 2 kinds of players.

But without calling myself a hybrid, I’d argue there is a third kind as well.

Logistiscist.  These are the guys who build no more than 1 or 2 turns ahead in thier head,  who react accordingly to what’s happening in the field - with a specific focus on economic game control as opposed to strategic.  LL or regular dice is just fine.  It’s about what units CAN do - as oppossed to what they will do, That is the focus.  Gandeous strategy is prevented however - as it is regularily dependant on the moves of ones opponent, and how best to pragmatically counter them.  Using and moving EVERY single piece on the board into a fluid system IS the perfect game.  Taking risks here and there, with a general strategy that encompasses all versions of Axis and Allies (spare the mini games).

I fit into this category.  And if you disagree with it’s exsistence, where do you put me then?  as a strategist because I stick to my plans?  Or as a Gamer because I take risks?  Hyrbid maybe…

I hope I see Darth in the tournament, I want to pop some of his Jap transports and cruiser again US1 - coming right across the Pacific!

Gargantua over Quark.

See you all in the next tournament.

Cheers

Quark

Quark fought hard Gentleman.  So don’t think less of him just because it was a G4 surrender.

If the dice had even been 40% even favour, he had a good shot at staying in the fight .  Except they weren’t.

Butcher over Pavlov.  He got burned by dice pretty hard multiple times, otherwise our game would have gone on a lot longer.

DM, should we begin playing second round games as soon as both people are finished with their first round game or should we wait for everyone to finish round 1?

Yuh!  inquiring Gargs want to stomp me sooner rather than later  :cry:

Ksmckay (allies) over HannibalSW(axis)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22568.195

@Butcher:

DM, should we begin playing second round games as soon as both people are finished with their first round game or should we wait for everyone to finish round 1?

good question :-))

@Amon:

@Butcher:

DM, should we begin playing second round games as soon as both people are finished with their first round game or should we wait for everyone to finish round 1?

good question :-))

Good question indeed, but it doesn’t really matter now, when all games should be finished today. :lol: