8 bid, RR, Axis victory

DarthMaximus’s post on the top of the games forum should have the necessary links. On the AAMC downloads page, GhoulLord’s map is the third from the top. You can also take a look at the recent game between DarthMaximus and madscientist for a sample of how these games are done. DAAK also has a Play by Mail guide and a LowLuck guide. I see you started another game with TriHero; let me know when you’re ready to start.

I see your game with Trihero is over; are you interested in starting a game soon? I play LowLuck so that no one can blame the loss on bad dice, and I walk away from each game I play satisfied that regardless of whether I won or loss, it wasn’t because of luck. If you’re trying to evaluate a strategy then that adds further reason to use LowLuck, because it’s possible to have a superior strategy and lose because of dice and vice versa. With LowLuck the same is still possible, but much less likely of course. Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion, if we’re not doing LowLuck, as 221B said, we would need to play several games to even out the statistical anomalies. I don’t know if I can commit to that, but if you are adamantly opposed to trying lowluck, I could give it a whirl.

While I think there is indeed a reason to go LowLuck, there is also a very good reason to not do it. LowLuck rounds the game out to be more chess-style where you can nearly fully predict each battle’s outcome once started. While nice because it disallows the extremes, it takes out the element of risk-taking that you will sometimes see in a full luck game, and it also doesn’t make for a realistic game because invariably in a real game there will be some good rolls/bad rolls that influence the strategy; it is just as unlikely that every single battle will go according to average statistics as it is unlikely that every battle will go badly or well. On average over many games of course the dice should even themselves out, but LowLuck  doesn’t take into consideration the nuances of what happens in a real game.

@ncscswitch:

Why not just have Fiendish or one of the other simulation/probablity wiz’s run the numbers then, if you just want the flat statistical analysis?

I’m not a odds wiz by any means, I just believe in following them strongly. I also know about a useful program: http://www.jason.bilbrey.com/aasim/

I don’t understand why you guys say that the Axis has no chance and that Russia can cream Germany.  You guys do play with th economic victory right?  If Russia attacks Germany, a skilled Germany player will whip them by trading his infantry for Russian armour.  Russia cannot afford a large fighter corp and must constantly lose armour by moving them to the fornt lines to be taken by fighters.  I really don’t see how you guys think that Russia creams Germany.  They lose armour while Germany loses infantry when them attack Germany.  Russia cannot afford to replace those losses.  Germany can.  Bad Germany players throw their armour into the front to get killed by Russian armour, hence and even trade.  Skilled German players use their fighter corp to take out Russian armour and keep their armour safe.

@limitedwhole:

I don’t understand why you guys say that the Axis has no chance and that Russia can cream Germany.  You guys do play with th economic victory right?  If Russia attacks Germany, a skilled Germany player will whip them by trading his infantry for Russian armour.  Russia cannot afford a large fighter corp and must constantly lose armour by moving them to the fornt lines to be taken by fighters.  I really don’t see how you guys think that Russia creams Germany.  They lose armour while Germany loses infantry when them attack Germany.  Russia cannot afford to replace those losses.  Germany can.  Bad Germany players throw their armour into the front to get killed by Russian armour, hence and even trade.  Skilled German players use their fighter corp to take out Russian armour and keep their armour safe.

It almost always works the other way with Germany trading tanks for Russian infantry, particularly on R1 (which is why the Russia Restricted first turn rule was invented).Â

You are correct that Russia cannot beat Germany.  However the USA, UK, and USSR will beat Germany and Japan 90+% of the time in a normal game with good players on both sides…think about it, three against two really isn’t fair is it?

As pointed out above, it is the 3-1 that kills Germany, not Russia alone.

Russia is only on her own for the first 3 rds.

By rd 4 both UK and US are reinforcing Kar.

Allies to Afr on rd 2, reinforce fin rd 3, kar rd 4.

Also, Russia doesn’t need to trade arm for inf.  Strafing is a VERY poweful tool that many people over look.

As Russia, I don’t need to take Ukr or EE, if I know I can attack and in the process kill more German inf then I’ll lose.  Then you can safely retreat to Kar, place your reinforcements and repeat on the next turn.

Yo, hah, hah, hah.  I figured out why I think you guys are crazy and you guys think I am crazy.  We have played with a house rule for so long I thought it was a standard rule.  We play were all production centers are limited to the I.P. value of the territory hence Russia cannot plop down massive stacks at KArelia.  They have to march the the bulk of the ground troops up.  Good rule.  Makes the Russian/German war more messy and doesn’t leave GErmany with -5auto.  Hence they can afford to contend for Russia and Africa.  Also you will have some stalemate turns which leaves more room for tech development to break open the war.  My bad.  Seriously, We’ve played that way so long I thought it was a classic rule.

The classic rule is IC’s that you do not start with are limited.

So if Ger takes Kar, they can only place 3 on subsequent turns when they maintain control of it at the start of the turn.

IC placement rules are similar to ftr/bmr landing rules.  It can only happen on territories you controlled at the start of the turn, prior to any purchases.