Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

Perhaps you could share some of your allied strats with us.  Do you focus on pacific, balanced, etc?  Are any of your games on a forum you could point us too?

Not to be rude i’m just wondering what i’m doing wrong!

@ cmdr Jenn, send a pm and we make an appintment when to play. Then start TripleA unstable and choose “connect to networked game” I’ll send you my ip address when we got things worked out. You as allies with 5 bid LL, or you as allies with no bid and regular dice.

PM sent.

Anyway, I have to agree with TC, the game is less than a year old and people are still figuring out strategies to use as base play (modified based on outcomes of the dice, but over all strategies.  Like in AAR the overall strategy was either ignore Japan or send only America after Japan and everything else at Germany and for the Axis to go full bore at Russia and only Russia.)

there is no set allied strategy as of yet, right now it has to do with the gazillion axis attacks in g and j1. where do the attacks fail? where do the axis win big? does russia turtle or purchase tanks and charge across europe?  this game is so different than revised in that a lot of the opening battles are so close. one real biggie is the g attack on egypt……that battle can determine if italy is gonna get 20 plus ipcs for a couple of turns or just collecting around 10 or 12… right now i would have to say the best allied strat is hit the axis whereever they are exposed after round 1.

i just say for references look at my league games against pin(1 and 2), flesh and gargantua, they are all different, pin had a terrible g1 and surrendered on j2 in game1, in game  2 verses pin he couldnt clear the bb in sz53, i hit him with the bb and wusa bomber in sz50 putting a big hurt on the jap fleet(1 bb 2 tranny sunk), flesh pile kicked azz on g1 and j1 russia is already on its heels, the game against gar is pretty even at this point.

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do.

Actually it’s 14 for my part, and I’m playing LL. I could easily cut it down to 13, but thats about it. I would do the same number of attacks in ADS.

Edit: when I think even more about this, I can actually reduce it down to 12 attacks. But now I’m expecting to choose my attacks as I want to. And if important attacks fails too often for axis rnd1, then why not reduce the number, those of you who play ADS?

@Mazer:

1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing.  Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side?  In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU.  Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls.  This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin.  I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.

The only important strafing attacks I’ve done so far in AA50 is in the 42 scenario with Russia. R1 against eastern Ukraine and Belo. I count 4 hits against EUkr and 2 against Belo, then I retreat to Moscow and Caucasus.

All other situations I try to conquer most TT’s in the shortest amount of time possible. I want global victory. I generally dislike that my opponents steal TT’s from me, which logically belongs to me b/c it’s my property, which I have lawfully and in all fairness won by excellent warfare  :-P  :lol:  :-D

@souL:

Low Luck, no luck, it doesn’t matter.

Hear! Hear!  8-)

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

Ok, so you agree that in AAR it doesn’t matter if the game is LL or ADS when determining the bid levels?

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

Then I suggest I only do 14 attacks with G+J rnd1, I still think I will win almost every game with NOs, NT, LL, no bid.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Then I suggest I don’t do the Egy attack G1. I still think I will won almost all games with NOs, no tech, low luck and no bids.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

What if I don’t do the most risky attacks? I skip 1 DD + 2 ftrs against one BB. I could also skip the attack against the US DD in sz 56. I usually don’t do the sz 12 attack. Let’s say I don’t do the sz 12 attack, I don’t think it will matter much.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

Not so much if I remove the numbers of attacks.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Then I reduce the numbers of attacks, AND I also don’t attack Egy G1.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

Ok, I bid maximum 14 attacks with G+J rnd1, no Egy attack, and no 1 DD + 2 ftrs against 1 BB, no Kalia attack G1. 
I still think I win with NOs, low luck, no tech and no bids.

Seriously, if anyone still think allies are favored, or that the game is balanced to the extent that there’s no need for any bids, then my offer is: 14 attacks maximum G+J rnd1. Low luck, no tech, NOs, no bids. I’m playing axis.

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

@Subotai:

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

Uhm, I think you are really, REALLY handicapping yourself here.

Well, yes, but remember that those are 4 different options. You may pick any1 of them if you want. Not all together.

And if you think I’m handicapping myself, then why don’t you play against me?

@Cmdr:

Uhm, I think you are really, REALLY handicapping yourself here.

Which one of them is most favorable for allies then?

@Cmdr:

Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

1942:
Allies - 8
Axis - 2

But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.

I bugged you about the 42 stats before, and I’m not quite sure myself, the 42 stats are also with NOs?

I think 42 is favored for axis as well as the 41 scenario, with NOs. I’m not quite as sure about the 42 as I am with 41, I haven’t played it enough yet.

Then there is a lot of disagreement on the balance issue. Which is good thing imo.

The only thing which has total consensus, is that allies are favored in both setups w/o NOs.

@Subotai:

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

Which one of them is most favorable for allies then?

I would have to say IMHO these would be the most favorable to the Allies in order of most favorable to least favorable.

1. no Egy attack in the first rnd. - Not doing this attack ensures UK’s NO for the first round, probably means that Italy will only collect on 1 of its NOs, and if sz12 is not attacked, allows UK to sink Italy’s navy on UK1.  Also, it just plain gives UK more options in the Indian Ocean.  Not attacking Egypt on turn 1 is a big mistake for the Axis.

2. maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd. - There are so many attacks which the Axis need to do in Turn 1.  IMHO Germany MUST do 5 attacks, but probably SHOULD do 6-7, while Japan MUST do 9 attacks (I’m counting the Philippines as 2 battles - the naval one, and the amphibious assault), but SHOULD do 12.  Limiting the number of attacks forces the Axis to play slower, but IMHO the way that the game is set up, if the Axis play slowly, then they lose.

3. no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!! - Not doing this attack could very easily come back to bite you if Russia invests a little into China.

4. no Karelia attack first rnd. - I don’t think that a G1 attack on Karelia is a good move for Germany, so I would NEVER choose this option.

Thx for the reply, Bardoly.

I actually don’t know what of the options which is most devastating for the axis, except when I think about it more and more I agree that “no Kalia attack G1” is not at all a serious bid in order to gain the allies.

Maybe I should bid: “must do Kalia attack G1”  :lol:

It’s interesting to hear what other players think is important and not so important. Also, imo, there’s no point in calculating, or playing against one self for more than one rnd. I have done it a few times, but I didn’t learn anything from it.

That’s because so many things can happen after the first rnd, and they do, for good and bad, both in ADS and in LL. Thats why the first rnd is always the most interesting to analyze. The opening moves can be studied because the game always has the same units on the same places in turn 1.

If other players feels the same about the Egy attack rnd1, then this will be my “main bid” for 41, LL, NT, NOs.

So what exactly are your G1 attacks in a normal Low Luck game?

With no bids it would be G1:

Baltic, EPL, Ukr, Egy, sz 9, sz 6.

I’m posting a typical J1 also:

Kwantung, Yunnan, Fukien, Suiyuan, Phillipines, sz 35, sz 53, sz 50, sz 56.

I’m off course speaking of attacks, not combat moves. Combat moves with no battles are 100% the same in LL and ADS. It’s the battles which are different. With a bid like no Egy attack G1 I would perhaps attack sz 12 instead of Egy.
Also possible I would do the Kalia attack G1.

What do you think U-505, is most favorable for allies, of the options I mentioned?

Oh, what the hell. I’ll play. I can take on another game and I have nothing better to do anyway. I will request that we post maps in the “play boardgames” forum so the people here have a chance to discuss it there while we play.

I do believe, like DM and Mazer Rackham have said before, that Low Luck eliminates a portion of the risk which makes your claim that the Allies need a bid in Low Luck probably true. However, if you were playing ADS, your typical German opening looks solid, but your typical J1 attacks are a bit risky and you would likely lose a battle or 2 OR take a good amount of losses if you won them all. But, ADS is a different animal and we are here to play Low Luck. We aren’t going to learn anything if you hold back the Axis openings so we will play straight up AA50 no bid, no tech, yes NO’s.

How do you want to do this? I have the latest unstable version of TripleA but I’m not very adept at using it so you’ll have to help me a bit.

U-505, fine, I send you pm when I can play and other details. I agree with the terms.

If you have the latest TripleA unstable, I can host directly or we can enter the unstable lobby.

As we know, TripleA is not 100% free from bugs, and not 100% AA50 yet, but we both know the rules and we use edit mode if necessary.

I see this as a win win situation for me, I really think I have better odds to win because of the balance, but also, I truly believe that I played horrible with allies in the games w/o bid which I felt I had no chance to win. So even if I loose, I think and hope I will see better allied play than both me and my previous opponents have showed.

Have enough games been played to really establish the need for an allied bid?

I also don’t like the idea of bids being used to place units instead of just extra cash to spend.  I’ve seen silly things done to completely change opening moves with bids before and thats not what I would like to see.

I do agree with earlier posts that moving the Chinese fighter would be a good idea.  It never has a chance to make any real difference, which I think is a shame.

Perhaps a few games where we move the fighter back off the frontline to see how it would change the momentum of Japan?