Favourite axis openings

@rockrobinoff:

for the record, i am all for tech. i just think 10 IPCs on G1 an extravagance almost certainly sub optimal.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.
My opinion is 10 IPC’s is a modest investment that has a good chance of bearing tremendous benefits.
Also, now that we’re back to the Classic method where you can’t pick your tech, getting tech you don’t really want is good, too.  Obviously, it increases your odds of getting the ones you do want in future turns.

@gamerman01:

You know, you could miss with that 40 bucks and have absolutely nothing.  It sounds like YOU’RE the gambler  :lol:  What do you do if it misses, quit?

Well, i don’t think rolling 8 dice for a tech a very high probability of missing, and I would certainly take that risk if the payoff was a lock on a capital falling. Note failed invasions that were a low probability of failing often result in the other side winning - no different then rolling for lots of tech at critical moments in my opinion.

@gamerman01:

My opinion is 10 IPC’s is a modest investment that has a good chance of bearing tremendous benefits.

The same argument is being made by Funcionetta about the chances of Egypt failing… and that works out 75% the time, and not 33% (plus the times you dont get the right tech). If you are planning on investing even more money later if you miss the right tech, it also isnt 10 bucks any more.

I’ll take the two extra inf + art in east poland or karellia guarunteed at turn 3.

I’ll take heavy bombers.

What’s ironic is I got onto this thread by sticking up for your ideas.

@gamerman01:

You have now lost a lot of credibility with me.  It is a terrible idea to gamble with 40 IPC’s on US1 in revised for heavy bombers.

Dude, i said round 6 in a theoretical game where it results in a lock on a capital take. You’ve lost a bit of credibility with me in your ability to read. kidding

Whup - you are sooooo right.
:oops:
Overlooked the lil Rd6 part.  (Goes back and makes several edits)
OK, you got credibility back.  Peace.
I agree, was nice to choose your tech, but I don’t miss it, myself.

@gamerman01:

I agree, was nice to choose your tech, but I don’t miss it, myself.

I don’t miss it either. In fact, I like the new rules better. That said, i think it more of gamble in some senses.

Buying tech on G1 for Germany has to have immediate effects to be worth it. The argument “even if i dont get the right tech its still worth it cause it gives me a greater chance of hitting the tech i want later” doesn’t hold much water. Germany has 31 bucks, and if G is playing in such a way as to pressure Russia for as long as possible, has now lost valuable time with only 21 bucks in units and no tech 69.5% of the time. Speed!

Now, heavy bombers, jet power, super subs, and long range aircraft, all go toward an even deadlier G1, and radar isn’t a disaster either. Shipyards is only useful if you are going to build a navy - and only barely useful since it cost $10 to get it.

If I could start with $21 as Germany and also have my choice between Heavy Bombers, Jet Power, or Super Subs, I would do it every time. However, you (as in you, gamerman) can’t say “ill take heavy bomers” as a retort to my guarunteed 3 units in karellia or poland. You are saying “i’ll take my low probability shot at getting heavy bombers over three units in poland”.

OK, maybe this will explain my position.
I play #1 for fun, #2 to win.  Getting tech is fun.  2 infantry and 1 art in Poland is not.
Also, I don’t always try to pressure Russia as much as possible.
Finally, a big part of my strategy is to be unpredictable.  My opponent knows exactly what I can do with ground units that can only move one territory at a time.  But if I have tech tokens in, he has to worry about all the things I might get.  And when I do get the tech, my attack becomes more unpredictable.
We just have two different styles of play, that’s all.  Wanna game?

@gamerman01:

@Funcioneta:

@axis_roll:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

And we could play also LL to kill all the fun  :-P

Haha - Funcioneta, the irony is we strongly agree about some things.  I love tech, and agree LL would really kill the fun ;)

I said to remove the variability that is part of the tech game… not the fun!

I THOUGHT you were trying to prove how decisive taking/not taking an opening battle was… tech throws that experiment out of the water for two reasons:  You got tech, and now you are DELIBERATELY not using it (albeit for 1 battle)… but I think you see my point (hopefully)

But it’s your game, so do what you want with it… after all, it is a game, and having fun is the MAIN point.  :-D

Right on….
And the Axis are rolling…  :-)

i play on triplea. be happy to take on all commers.

:lol:
That’s awesome, thanks for sharing!
Get to 'em young, that’s what I say!
And you tell her she doesn’t have to attack Egypt G1 :D :D :D

@axis_roll:

I said to remove the variability that is part of the tech game… not the fun!

I THOUGHT you were trying to prove how decisive taking/not taking an opening battle was… tech throws that experiment out of the water for two reasons:  You got tech, and now you are DELIBERATELY not using it (albeit for 1 battle)… but I think you see my point (hopefully)

But he used it! My british BB at z2 can tell you!  :cry:

Tech and non tech changes the game dinamics. You don’t make the same decisions in a tech game than in a non-tech (same applies to LL). Why trying a non-tech game if we both like more playing with tech? If we want test our teories and we both use tech as default, the logic decision is using tech. I’m not interested in non-tech games so that format is irrelevant for testing my strats

@Funcioneta:

Tech and non tech changes the game dinamics. You don’t make the same decisions in a tech game than in a non-tech (same applies to LL). Why trying a non-tech game if we both like more playing with tech? If we want test our teories and we both use tech as default, the logic decision is using tech. I’m not interested in non-tech games so that format is irrelevant for testing my strats

I agree completely. I have some reservation about the role tech plays in some games (for instance, there is no way to counter a G1 successful tech roll as the allies in some cases (like 5 dollar G1 super subs/jet fighters/heavy bombers/long range aircraft has a profound influence on the effectiveness of G1, and before allies have a chance to do anything about it). However, on the whole, we can counter tech by investing in our own tech, or punishing the tech player for their fewer units. Also, there are many times when people should be rolling for tech but don’t, and vice versa (or spending way too much). Hence, tech is a difficult problem to be addressed, not some game changing flukey thing that just happens.

Long live tech!