How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

Mantlefan at first I tought you were really a “victim” but now I see that you’re really, and I mean really getting annoying. Jennifer thinks this strategy can’t be countered. Until proven contrary, she will say it no matter what. Either you prove her wrong by playing few games against her, or just calm down and take it easy.

Where did I say the game wouldn’t be played? WHERE? I said the reports would help make the test more meaningful, but now you say that I said that there should be no test. It’s absurd.

You said it by posting 1,000 times since it was first proposed that you should play the game and find out if it works or not. You waste everyones time with incessant off topic posts about why you should philosophize about how to test the game, except by playing it… All those paper thin excuses you make which become roadblocks to getting a test done by any means are nothing but protestations. Just start playing a game to get an idea how it works.

Somehow “using the best counter strat possible” means not playing a game, as well as playing less games to get to the best solution I can come up with is also automatically not playing a single game.

Somehow you invented this as a new tool to avoid a direct game, by talking about why one way is better than another is the same as not doing anything and avoiding playing out the idea….we call that another excuse.

In most fields of study I am familiar with, students get abstract foundational ideas before doing their practicum. If you send students in without any background knowledge they are not likely to have as meaningful an experience. It makes sense to get a foundation before doing the real thing, at least according to a couple hundred years of pedagogical discourse.

That’s just the problem, epistemological arguments of the foundation of knowledge theory are not what these threads are about, they are about a game and playtest is the best way to playtest. Arguing about how somebody should test an idea for you are just thin walls of words created to avoid what is a rudimentary exercise and if its a waste of time as you put it, then your probably not really into AA. Big words from dictionary notwithstanding.

Any further off topic posts are not needed, PM me and i can explain everything again to you. These threads have a specific goal in mind and its not anything related to what your posting.

One can use their analytical skills to their hearts content, but unless they are put into practive, they do neither the one thinking about it, nor the community any good.

I do agree, in some small point, that if the axis KNOW what is coming, they have the best chance possible to counter it.  This is not fool proof, as the Russian triple in Revised and a KJF strat (same game) showed against NCSCSwitch, but it did give him the best chance possible (he lost, quit in a huff to be more correct.  I can post the map again, if anyone wants it.  Hilarious position on the board, IMHO, but off topic.)

However, I am thinking that in any game, known or not known, Japan is going to face an uphill battle against an aggressive America.  In most games, where Japan isn’t expecting it, they don’t face an uphill battle, they face a shear cliff, IMHO.  At least when they expect it, they can move to maximize the amount of time America is locked up.

Anyway, my game with Krycheck is one example.  He conceeded, even though he attacked on round 1 with Japan and was still in a strong position. (Granted, he lost 4 undefended transports attacking Karelia because he failed to take into consideration a Russian scramble and he left Japan under-protected, IMHO, at least for a LL game.)  There are others, but that is the most recent.

Of course, in all games I do not ONLY go after Japan.  Sometimes I put a few destroyers in the Atlantic. (78 IPC = 9 Destroyers, 1 Submarine, if you have more than that, you have to build them in SZ 101 anyway, or get more expensive ships.)  Sometimes (like a lot of the time) I get Brazil too.  Eh.  Minor things, not enough to change the over all game situation, I don’t think.  After all, Germany may decide to get “cute” and try to CRD America, well, if you have a couple destroyers out there, CRD don’t mean squat.

Oh, and I am retracting my SBR run position.  By the time you have time to dither around with his scrambled fighters, you may as well have had your money going into the Atlantic instead of into strategic bombers. IMHO.  All the rest, as far as I can see right now, and with the last major opponent to the strategy not engaging in a test of mettle, stands until proven false.  I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought.  Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.

The reason I said to play 7 games is that one person can be the Axis 3 times and the Allies 3 times  if by the time game 6 is just about over there may be some opinionated people out there telling you where you went wrong, either one of you. At that time choose a teammate,see if what they are saying can hold any water. Play all 7 games win loose or draw
        Stop each game between rounds 7- 15 and see where it stands.  This way you can try their strat. on them,  they may have the solution when you turn their strat. on themselves.
        This still may not be enough it would  need all the dice to be even…… yuck … I like the variably,  I think if the made a game where every nation was equal and any one of the 5 major powers could take over the world it would’nt be called AXIS & ALLIES
        I think the Axis have to have the luckier rolls, less mistakes and be better teammates to win to me thats balanced I like it the way it is      (except when I’m rolling like crap with Japan then I think why did they take my planes and Trans.)
        One day I’ll download the map and try some online games.

@Cmdr:

I work under the “True until proven False” school of thought.  Although, the “Proved to be True” is just as valid, it leaves too much power to nay-sayers who have no empirical evidence to support them, they just claim false and now you have to go prove true.

Well shouldn’t it be proving to be true, not proving to be false?

No.  Due to the conveluted nature of a strategy game of this magnitude.

If you had to rigorously prove that each and every contingency supported your statement, you would:

A) go insane
B) never get every contingency covered
C) never have anyone read your treatise as it would now be the maximum permitted length of at least 3 or 4 full posts
D) have some twit say “you didn’t take into account that I magically know exactly what you are going to do three rounds from now, so I know to buy this item” types of arguments (which are strawmen, technically speaking.  In a game, you would NEVER know what will happen three rounds from now, you can guess, you can make assumptions based on how the board currently looks that round, but you’ll never know exactly what is going to happen.)

However, the converse is not true.  If you state that a hypothesis is false, all you have to show is one instance of it being false.  This is why it is the preferred method of mathematicians (and later scientists, the lazy b@stards taking our ideas and calling it their own…scientific method my arse, it’s the mathematical method! we came up with it first!).  For instance, the statement that the addition of any two integers is an even integer is false because it can be shown that the summation of an odd integer and an even integer results in an odd integer.  However, have you tried to prove that all integers when added to themselves are even?  Yea.  Good luck!  No offense intended, we had to do it as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate the benefits of “proof by contradition” and why it was vastly superior to other types of proofs in some circumstances.

This game is one of those circumstances.

If one truely believes my statement that America is too powerful and thus should be dinged in some manner to make it possible for Japan to win the game through superior game strategy, then I want a “proof by contradiction.”  One such argument has been made: Retreating the Japanese navy to the Atlantic Ocean.  We have no details, but the hypothesis has been laid out and now we have something to test.

I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…

@jim010:

I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…

You don’t-start at pg. 37 from Jen’s comments- good starting point right now.

I’m guessing this is the strat you will be using against me?

Guess I’ll have to start reading those REALLY LONG posts…  :cry:

… I’m going to need alot of stamina …

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

@jim010:

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Yes, but you will one day…I have faith this will turn into a tournament or the official league game and then you’ll want to go get rated and we’ll eventually play.

…then you’ll want to go get rated…

I already come highly rated.  :wink:

@Cmdr:

@eudemonist:

I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.

Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you’re talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya.  You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you’re halfway to controlling the DEI, you’re taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia’s navy while they’re still tiny.

For a modest income boost early in the game, you are handing the Americans 75 IPC + the ability to drop 10 units a round into the Pacific?  This does not seem wise.  In fact, I have play tested it and I happen to know this is not wise.  America can recover from early losses, Japan can never recover from a single loss, anywhere.

Handing them 75ipcs?  I guess you’re talking about their bonus 25?  I think, if you look at the math, attacking J2 instead of J4 actually only “hands” them 25, as they would collect the bonus at the end of US3 anyhow.  The VERY MOST you could hand them would be 50, with a J1 attack.  Hyperbolic math does not help your case.

Did I mention we’re talking about a thirty IPC swing in territories, which makes up for that 25?

I have also playtested it quite a bit, and have reached a very different conclusion than you.

@jim010:

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

@jim010:

…then you’ll want to go get rated…

I already come highly rated.  :wink:

Endorsed by 9 out of 10 Doom bots!

Endorsed by 9 out of 10 Doom bots!

The 10th Doombot was defective and had to be destroyed.

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

After looking at this, it will be hard to come up with a counter.  It’s more of a philosophy than a strategy, so there will be no set moves.  I doubt any 2 games will look the same.  I’ll see what I can do.

One thing that may worth considering here is that shifting some US NOs over to the Atlantic may be better for the overall fun factor of the game.

Even if the “US 100% Pacific” strat isn’t broken, but merely viable, do we want it to be viable?  Isn’t one of the design goals to have the US be at least somewhat active on both boards?  In previous versions of AaA, KGF (to the point of basically ignoring Japan with the US) became a common and effective strategy.  G40/Alpha2 took great pains to make sure ignoring Japan with the US is no longer viable.  I would assume that allowing the US to instead go KJF and ignore Europe is equally undesirable.

@jim010:

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

After looking at this, it will be hard to come up with a counter.  It’s more of a philosophy than a strategy, so there will be no set moves.  I doubt any 2 games will look the same.  I’ll see what I can do.

It does make it harder.  Much akin to handling the 3 on 1 games of yester-year where it was more overall strategy and less “do this, then that…”

I find any overly detailed strategy becomes easy to thwart, primarily because it’s overly detailed!  Just kill one step, and you kill the micro-managed strategy.