POLL:favorite player

@Jennifer:

And the difference in defensive forces against 8 ground units and no air vs 6 ground units and dozens of planes is in Germany’s favor how, exactly?

Where are you landing those FIGs?
In UK?  Great, they can;t reach Berlin
In Moscow for defense?  Again they can;t reach Berlin
In Eastern?  I smell a German counter attack of Eastern coming.

Or were you planning on spending another $96 IPC’s on carriers?

You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played?  :evil:

ouch. i’ve said jenn plays AA just a little better than W plays president.  :-D

I don’t play at DAAK, the Dicey there hates me. =p

The few games I have there, are mostly team games.

And no, you can land the fighters easily in Karelia and Norway, very easy to hit Berlin with.

You can also stack 6 units a round in those areas and march to Berlin with the Russians and Americans.  Really, your lack of imagination is astonishing, it’s little wonde you have one method of winning and one method alone.

Oh yeah, some good old trash talking - YEAH!

Jenn - I’ll just say it’s better to have one way of winning than no way of winning. Ouch! Okay, just having fun here.

Seriously though my record is a little too limited (It’s actually 3-1, I’ve played one non-DAAK game) to claim that I have any superior ability. My last game in the tournament really humbled me - out after G4 I think I was. I played very poorly strategically, I think I was a little over-confident after 3 axis wins in a row.

But in the coming weeks I expect to clean Switch’s clock and humble him a little  :evil: Nah, I expect it will be a tough fight, but a very interesting one. I just hope he doesn’t spend the game peppering me with analysis and surrender offers…

Actually my hope is to beat switch using the in-house dicey, because if I can do that then people will know that I can win without cheating and not worry about whether I would rig my own dicey.

Say what you like, I still win better than 3 games out of 4.

You LOSE more than 3 of 4.

So again, which of us has a better handle a=on tactics and strategy?

Go ahead, park those FIGs in Karelia.  Would be a nice excursion for me out of Eastern… and since you are landing your troops in Norway or Karelia to provide fodder defense for those FIGs (so that I do not trounce them with my own airpower), then you certainly do NOT have forces massed in eastern…

Switch, the problem is, when you are faced with a strong strategy from a different avenue you dont know how to adapt.  The reason you win 3 of 4 games is because people play YOUR game, not THEIR game.

Why do you think JSP was beating you consistently with the KJF tactic?  You had to learn a new game!

Me?  I play a lot of games for fun, that means I try weird stuff like building 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters with Russia on Round 1.  or buy an IC for England and put it in E. Canada on Round 1.

Or I set up a Jap invasion of North America.

Do I lose a majority of those games with weird and new tactics?  Yea.  But you know what, I learned that those tactics don’t work and why.

What do you learn from doing the infantry push mechanic in every game, every time you play Germany/Russia/England?  Would you even have a clue how to handle Russia with Japan completely dominated and a strong British fleet sailing rings around Europe?  Do you know how to handle a Germany staged to invade North America?

@Jennifer:

Why do you think JSP was beating you consistently with the KJF tactic?  You had to learn a new game!

Considering my actual record vs. JSP in solo games is 2-1, not exactly a good comparison.  YES, I was becoming a bit too predictable in certain circumstances, and JSP taught me a lesson in that regard with a strat tailor made to defeat me.  Since then, he has lost to me TWICE.

Hardly convicing evidence that I have no idea what I am doing.

While it usually takes some help, I love beating back the German offensive while having half (or less) of the money with Russia.

Yea, the only time I’ve ever lost to the Germans as the Allies is when they are extremely tank heavy from teh get go.  I’m actually considering a German strategy of 100% tank builds, since you can build as many tanks as Russia can infnatry.

Hey Jen,

I would like to know how that 100% tank build goes.  :-D

I seem to be more comfortable with about a 50-50 IPC split with INF and ARM. For example:
(15IPC = 5 INF) + (15IPC = 3 AMR)

Then every time you X that by 2 add  1 FTR. Thats what I feel gives me the most blood for the buck!

@Jennifer:

Yea, the only time I’ve ever lost to the Germans as the Allies is when they are extremely tank heavy from teh get go.  I’m actually considering a German strategy of 100% tank builds, since you can build as many tanks as Russia can infnatry.

You can build as many tanks russia but what about the units from UK and USA

You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played? Â

Jen talks a good game, but, with all due respect, she can’t back it up with her play.  At AAMC, she’s only completed one AAR game (which she lost).  At Flames of Europe, she has played 23 AAR games and won only 7.  She is ranked 199 of 217 ranked players (as of March 6, 2007).  Her 7 wins have come against two players, rainynite (ranked #213) - 4 wins and uboot (ranked #214) - 3 wins.  It doesn’t look like she has ever beaten a player ranked above her in the rankings.

How much can you blame dicey?  If after playing dozens of games, you have a winning percentage of no better than 33% and you can only beat the lowest ranked players, you should face reality and admit that you’re not much of a player.

By the way, I am ranked 16th at FOE in AAR with a record of 14-3.  At AAMC, I am ranked 5th out of active players with a record of 11-5 (a lot more 2nd Edition games played at AAMC).  At AA.org, I’ve played only one game, which I lost.

And, to more directly respond to the UK transport issue, 3 is clearly not enough.  You need 4 for most of the early part of the game.  Often, when UK income has grown past the 32 mark, I will build a UK IC in Norway and build 3 infantry or armor there each turn.  The UK doesn’t need a large air force.  3 ftrs and a bmr are good enough for most purposes.  The US can build a large air force if it is needed to counter the Japanese fleet or bolster the defence of Russia.

SS

Well, to be fair to Jenn, she also says that she likes to try experimental strategies, and often they don’t work out. But she does have some interesting theories about certain dicey’s rolling all 1s on AA fire against her, or on Defending Inf against her.

In Jenn’s defense, I will say that UK Royal Airforce is effective.

Why……well it depends.  What it depends upon is what Germany has.  Flat out.

Do you have to keep buying fighters?  No way!  Bombers are nice.

However, I will admit that I am biased.  Each time I’ve built up on RAF I have 4 trannies doing the grunt work with my RAF supporting ground.

Did I buy all 4 trannies?  That is the question.

Fighters are good for three major purposes, in addition to being very mobile:

1. Sinking enemy naval units without having to have a navy yourself (good for Germany in this regard)
2. Trading territory with Infantry only left behind.
3. Reinforcing a territory just captured by a friendly power

There are others too, but I think those are the main ones. Purely for defence, 3 Inf are way better than 1 Ftr. Offensively, 3 Inf are better too: they have the same total punch, but can sustain three hits. You can also use fighters to add punch to an amphibious assault, but I think long-term you are better off to have extra transports for this purpose.

The UK’s starting fighters are enough I think because it doesn’t need to do a lot of any of the above, unless Russia needs help really fast.

That’s the problem with all these games that are rated, they stifle experimentation.  See what their arguements are?  They can’t defeat my ideas on their merit, so they go to my record to try and prove I don’t know what I’m talking about.

However, I know of one game where my strat was Trn, BB every round with America.  I lost, but does that mean my comments on Fighters/Bombers for England is a bad strategy?  Maybe if I played 30 games of Fighter/Bombers for England and lost 23 of them, but that’s just simply not the case.

Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

SS

@saburo:

Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

SS

That’s not the choice.  The choice is the record with no context or reading the thought processes and concepts and attempting to picture how to defeat the tactic, if possible.

Given that choice, I’ll stick with the situational tactics over the record every time.  Any moron can stack infantry until you get 100+ then walk to Moscow.  It takes a genius to take Moscow on Germany 3.

@froodster:

Well, to be fair to Jenn, she also says that she likes to try experimental strategies, and often they don’t work out. But she does have some interesting theories about certain dicey’s rolling all 1s on AA fire against her, or on Defending Inf against her.

burrrrrn

1.  As soon as I get internet up, Imma challenge saburo sakai!  meh heh heh heh.  Right now, I’m at work, so I can’t really download executables.  Oh wellz.  You down for that SS?

2.  Yeah, I like having a lot of transports.  I actually think 5 is pretty solid for UK.  I’m seriously considering 6-7 or even 8.  It SOUNDS stupid, then you start using that many, and you’re like “hm, this is some pretty badass s***”.  I have to thank the Caspian Sub Yahoo group for putting me on to 5+ transports for UK.

Although I still think 2-3 transports in Baltic for Germany is reckless.  Damn, I have to write a paper one of these days.

@saburo:

You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played? Â

Jen talks a good game, but, with all due respect, she can’t back it up with her play.  At AAMC, she’s only completed one AAR game (which she lost).  At Flames of Europe, she has played 23 AAR games and won only 7.  She is ranked 199 of 217 ranked players (as of March 6, 2007).  Her 7 wins have come against two players, rainynite (ranked #213) - 4 wins and uboot (ranked #214) - 3 wins.  It doesn’t look like she has ever beaten a player ranked above her in the rankings.

How much can you blame dicey?  If after playing dozens of games, you have a winning percentage of no better than 33% and you can only beat the lowest ranked players, you should face reality and admit that you’re not much of a player.

By the way, I am ranked 16th at FOE in AAR with a record of 14-3.  At AAMC, I am ranked 5th out of active players with a record of 11-5 (a lot more 2nd Edition games played at AAMC).  At AA.org, I’ve played only one game, which I lost.

And, to more directly respond to the UK transport issue, 3 is clearly not enough.  You need 4 for most of the early part of the game.  Often, when UK income has grown past the 32 mark, I will build a UK IC in Norway and build 3 infantry or armor there each turn.  The UK doesn’t need a large air force.  3 ftrs and a bmr are good enough for most purposes.  The US can build a large air force if it is needed to counter the Japanese fleet or bolster the defence of Russia.

SS