I’m just catching up on these posts so apologies if I missed anything.

I’m not opposed to the changes proposed around cruisers and Battleships and I’m curious about how the game plays with more of them on the board. Although I’m not sure what the price point is that makes them more common. Air has the advantage of being relevant to both land and sea whereas naval has very limited relevance to land, although I suppose that is also an argument to change the relative pricing of naval units relative to air. And at least with BM the marine unit mitigates that somewhat.

For air, while I’m also not opposed to trying something I am more hesitant about reversing the relative costs of figs and tacs/bombers. Figs are definitely the most common buy but, unlike naval purchases, I do see all 3 bought regularly. And I think because figs are the defensive unit and tacs and bombers are offensive there is some logic to the current relative costs . The axis need to play offensively (and in my experience they are consequently more likely to buy tacs and bombers) and the allies need to play defensively for much of the game (and so primarily buy figs until late game if they have managed to go on the offensive) So making offensive units more expensive does help mitigate against the axis advantages and changing it the other way might impact game balance to the benefit of the axis.

I think it is a good idea to make sure that people don’t have too much trouble finding opponents to play. That is both in the interests of some players individually but it is also in our collective interest. If some players, and especially new players, have difficulty finding opponents, than we will have trouble keeping people in the league and getting new people to join.

I don’t think mismatched games are necessarily a problem. It may be less interesting for the better players but it is a good learning experience for newer players and helps them become more competitive in the long run.

At the same time, I don’t want to add to the work of those who manage the league. So I would support an ELO system if it can be implemented in a way that doesn’t add to Gamerman’s work.

If that is too complicated, another option is just to score tier 3 the same way as tier 2. M and some E ranked players would still lose score in those games, but they would lose less, and everyone else would still go up.

Also, its worth noting, with new players at least, that losses to E and M players increase their average. There is a very good chance that players who start out at tier 3 will end up at tier 1 or 2 by the end of the year, and the more losses they have to E and M ranked players the more likely that is. So there is less of a disincentive than might appear at first.

@amon-sul welcome back!

the majority is still BM but games of ptv and oob are pretty common too. Bids for BM have moved to around 20 lately (although I think that is a little high).

I’m not opposed to trying an ELO (or another) system either but would worry that the small sample size is going to mess it up more substantially. I do think past results should matter each new year (As far as I’m aware, in the current scoring, they just matter until someone has played 3 games and then their score is based on the outcome of the games played in the current year. So their effect is to increase the score of the opponent in the early games). And I also think we need a reset each year to ensure some variation in who gets to play in the league finals. A longer term ELO with the relatively small number of games played may make it harder for new (or much improved) players to break in.

My view is that if it isn’t (that) broke don’t fix it. I don’t doubt there are some issues with scoring. But we are a small amateur (and very niche) league with a small number of games played and with variation in the number of games played by player. Nothing is going to be perfect. And I don’t think changes in scoring will dramatically shift how the final standings look. Of course if we can use a method that is more streamlined, easier to use (not just for gamerman but for who comes after), I’m not opposed to that either. But the existing method of scoring doesn’t strike me as particularly onerous either.

And if we want to avoid having too many players ranked E or M one way to address it is to just to shift the thresholds where one crosses over. E could be set at 5 and M at 6 or higher for example and that would spread things out more.

@gamerman01 I think I know the big game of which you speak! And I agree that AA is underrated.

I’ll add that in large battles, even with the battle calculator average, adding AA (as long as they would be able to roll a die) is comparable to buying figs in terms of its impact. And since so many smaller attacks involve small numbers of land units supported by several air, having one AA in the mix really complicates the choices for the attacker.

That single AA in Caroline Islands has probably won some games for Japan.

@lmterrell welcome to A&A! As barnee says, triplea is a good way to play online and for free. But if you do want the boardgame itself, it probably just depends on what you are looking for. If you are new to this kind of boardgame or you want something that is lighter and quicker (games that take an evening rather than a few days) you are probably better off with the 1942 or 1941 versions, at least to start. The Europe and Japan 1940 games are a bit more complicated and they combine for a Global game. These ones require quite a time commitment though and games can last days.

I’ve been playing online for a bit so I’m a bit rusty on the physical versions of the games but that is my sense. And if you are looking for people to play against the online game and this site are a good resource.

I like Oysteilo’s choices except I would hesitate on the sub in 110, the inf in Yunnan, and the transport in 71.

Yunnan increases the chances for a Yunnan disaster for Japan, but Japan is almost always going to go for it and the most likely outcome is just China losing one more inf.

The transport is probably only useful if you are fairly sure you are going to hit the Italians first in Ethiopia. But I think they often have other priorities that would demand the other units needed.I suppose it can go to Persia to allow the India transport to go to the islands, but I think the islands are often a mistake on UK1.

The sub in 110 is useful because the naval base gives it range but it doesn’t add much to the defense since the German attack there is mostly air and because that is the one spot the Germans are definitely going to hit. 106 may be more useful for defense since it likely blocks that attack or forces the Germans to send 3 subs (in which case the sub can submerge and join the counter)

UK Europe is almost always the best bet for the bulk of the bid since that is the one ally that is certain to be at war in round 1, (so I agree with Oysteilo’s emphasis on that) but I might still consider adding to the pacific. More UK inf in the pacific, or a second ANZAC sub, or Art for China.

Also, the sub in 91 is for me a must, as it discourages an attack on that cruiser (which is an option for Germany if they ignore 111 or 106) and it threatens everywhere the German navy ends up plus the Italian destroyer in 96.

But I haven’t really played much OOB for a while (and never had a chance to play with a 50 bid) so I might be misjudging and identifying things that are more appropriate for BM.

Dawgs input is welcome as well. How the league determines playoffs should be a question that everyone who is playing in league can speak to, although I assume gamerman gets to make the final decision. In past years, multiple playoffs have been set up to include people below the top 8. The point is to find rules that are inclusive enough of the different preferences people have, so that people are not discouraged from participating.

@martin welcome to the league martin!
You can play either BM or OOB here, or other variants such as PTV. The issue is only being able to find opponents that want to play the version you want. More people now play BM here, so if you are not too committed to OOB you may have more luck finding a game if you are willing to play both. BM is fairly close to OOB, but with a little more complexity and a little more balanced. PTV is more substantially different, but I believe it is also still being workshopped.

It can sometimes be hard for new (and unranked) players to find a game right away so you might need some patience. If you don’t get a response in a day or two, it can be worth posting here again … and again. And also look for others posting as well and message them. You will likely have more luck (as a new and unranked player) with players that are lower in the rankings then higher.

It is worth reviewing the league rules and standings to see how they work while you wait for a game. And somewhere on this site, you should find explanations for BM and PTV if you are interested in those.

@oysteilo I did see that. It looks like quite an epic game. I think you are right that Andrew has the edge but you have made it pretty tough for him. I had some thoughts but want to save those for when the game is done.

@axis-dominion yeah, the new price put them on the edge of consideration. I can certainly imagine situations where Italy or ANZAC will see a cruiser as an affordable way to get both naval combat and amphibious attack. And the other powers will probably have more occasions to buy them or battleships. Its still going to be rare but will happen. The basic problem will always be that fighters are more useful and generally already present so carriers are still going to be the most common capital ship.

@Pinch1 one thing you could do is try this in a league game and see how it plays. There is a range of skill levels there, it is easy to join, and fun. And the best way to assess how well a strategy works is to play it of course. Games are typically played with a significant allied bid which is meant to balance against the innate axis advantage in the OOB game.

I’ll just say that in my experience, the strategic choices the axis make have trade offs and a way the allies win is by recognizing what the costs of different axis choices are and exploiting them. If, for example, Japan focuses on Russia, it becomes harder for it to take/hold India and the money islands. Or if it can do that too, it means that the US is focusing on Germany which will make the German naval builds harder to defend. And if Germany is not putting sufficient pressure on the Soviets to get into caucasus and volgograd, it both impacts their income (making it harder to match US/UK spending in the atlantic), and makes it easier for the Soviets to deal with pressure from Japan too (which at this point in the game is going to be a small fraction of what the Germans and Soviets have). The Soviets don’t need to break through Germany early, they just need to keep them contained before they get in reach of Volgograd and Caucasus.

@Pinch1 I don’t think @Arthur-Bomber-Harris was quite right to say the carrier buy is a guaranteed L for the axis, but the problem he points to is a real one. If Germany is buying significant naval early, it is not buying land units. And if it’s air is in 110 or 112, it can’t threaten Bryansk or even Belarus. It makes it very easy for the allies to block them in Bryansk and prevent them from getting their objectives in the USSR. They can try to make up for it later but they will be doing so with less income than they otherwise would have and against a soviet union that has more income than it otherwise would have. It will typically be easier and safer to drop carriers in 112 when you are making 80 ipcs than doing so early and trying to keep up with UK/US naval spending on one side and Soviet spending on the other.

I’ll add to that not buying a battlehship or cruiser was more a function of how this particular game played. teh Allies were dominant on the Europe side pretty early so I never really though it made sense to buy fleet there. I considered it lots of times iwth Japan, but I always either needed to buy air or had air so it was more efficient to buy carriers.

@axis-dominion I think that is right. Its always hard to know how it would have played out if I had played differently, but I think I put to much focus on Japan moving West when I should have been trying to push more for the final VC in the pacific. And to the extent I did go West, I probably should have kept the pressure on the Mid East, since teh Germans could pressure without hopefully opening up too much space for the soviets and it would be harder for you block a Japanese stack in E persia and a German one in NW Persia.

That final VC was going ot be tough though since you had already been stacking for it and I thought I might have a shot at a 1,2 punch on Moscow. I never really thought you would let me take Finland, but I had hoped forcing you to stack air there would give Germany more freedom (that didn’t amount to much).

That was a crazy amount of allied air in Europe.

Definitely a fun game!

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

@farmboy How many battleships and cruisers were bought in total?

A note for others that we were playing with Battleships at 16 and cruisers at 10. I bought none as axis. I believe the allies bought 2 battleships (1 US, 1 UK) and 2 cruisers (1 US and 1 ANZAC). BUt possible I’m missing one or two. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part not to buy at taht price, but I always thought I needed air more and so stuck with the usual carrier/sub buys.

@axis-dominion said in AD (L+28) vs FB (X +10) #4 BM:

well i was about to complain about how all my aa in all three big battles missed, but wow you got smashed in these last big ones lol

they were all longshots, especially Hawaii. But yeah, the dice didn’t offer me any miracles here. Not that it would have mattered at this point. It was possible I could have won any one of htose , but to win the two in the pacific and then keep India another turn was more or less impossible.

AD over Farmboy, … again!

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41288/ad-l-28-vs-fb-x-10-4-bm

good game. Sorry for dragging it out. It was always hard to concede with Japan where it was, and I always thought I should play on because I might be able to steal it.

At the end there too, I miscalculated the threat to India and thought you would have good but not certain odds on teh attack and that I might be able to hold if for one more turn. And I thought I would have a better (although not great) shot at Sidney. I went for Hawaii now just to save us the time.

Midgame I decided to use Japan to rescue Germany. Probably had I just made the desperate gamble then with Japan, I would have saved us a tonne of time and give myself better odds than I had now.

And I’ll note I still never ended up buying a cruiser or battleship. There were points earlier on where I had thought I might, but it just never seemed to make sense (to me). Maybe that was me misjudging, but I think even at this price, they are not goingt be much more in demand.

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: Japanese round 38

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3

Game History

Round: 38

    Purchase Units - Japanese
        Japanese repair damage of 6x factory_minor; Remaining resources: 73 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 
        Japanese buy 2 destroyers, 3 fighters, 7 infantry and 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 

    Combat Move - Japanese
        1 unit repaired.
        3 bombers moved from Shantung to India
        15 artilleries and 39 infantry moved from Burma to India
        3 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Yunnan to India
        18 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers moved from French Indo China to India
        1 infantry moved from Johnston Island to 30 Sea Zone
        1 armour, 2 artilleries, 2 battleships, 24 carriers, 31 fighters, 7 infantry, 2 marines, 44 submarines, 15 tactical_bombers and 5 transports moved from 30 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
        1 cruiser and 1 marine moved from 30 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
        1 armour, 2 artilleries, 31 fighters, 7 infantry, 3 marines and 15 tactical_bombers moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands
        1 infantry moved from Baltic States to Belarus
              Japanese take Belarus from Russians
        1 mech_infantry moved from Baltic States to Western Ukraine
              Japanese take Western Ukraine from Russians

    Combat - Japanese
        Battle in India
            Japanese attack with 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 3 bombers, 18 fighters, 39 infantry, 2 mech_infantrys and 4 tactical_bombers
            British defend with 1 aaGun, 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 49 infantry and 26 mech_infantrys; ANZAC defend with 1 infantry and 2 marines; UK_Pacific defend with 1 airfield, 1 factory_minor and 1 harbour
                British roll AA dice in India : 0/3 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                Japanese roll dice for 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 3 bombers, 18 fighters, 39 infantry, 2 mech_infantrys and 4 tactical_bombers in India, round 2 : 30/84 hits, 29.50 expected hits
                UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 aaGun, 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 50 infantry, 2 marines and 26 mech_infantrys in India, round 2 : 42/96 hits, 32.50 expected hits
                39 infantry owned by the Japanese and 3 artilleries owned by the Japanese lost in India
                1 infantry owned by the ANZAC, 1 aaGun owned by the British and 28 infantry owned by the British lost in India
                Japanese roll dice for 3 armour, 12 artilleries, 3 bombers, 18 fighters, 2 mech_infantrys and 4 tactical_bombers in India, round 3 : 21/42 hits, 19.83 expected hits
                UK_Pacific roll dice for 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 21 infantry, 2 marines and 26 mech_infantrys in India, round 3 : 19/67 hits, 22.83 expected hits
                3 fighters owned by the Japanese, 2 mech_infantrys owned by the Japanese, 12 artilleries owned by the Japanese and 2 armour owned by the Japanese lost in India
                21 infantry owned by the British lost in India
                Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 3 bombers, 15 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers in India, round 4 : 13/23 hits, 12.67 expected hits
                UK_Pacific roll dice for 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 2 marines and 26 mech_infantrys in India, round 4 : 16/46 hits, 15.83 expected hits
                1 tactical_bomber owned by the Japanese and 15 fighters owned by the Japanese lost in India
                13 mech_infantrys owned by the British lost in India
                Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 3 bombers and 3 tactical_bombers in India, round 5 : 5/7 hits, 4.17 expected hits
                UK_Pacific roll dice for 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 2 marines and 13 mech_infantrys in India, round 5 : 17/33 hits, 11.50 expected hits
                3 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese, 3 bombers owned by the Japanese and 1 armour owned by the Japanese lost in India
                5 mech_infantrys owned by the British lost in India
            UK_Pacific win with 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 2 marines and 8 mech_infantrys remaining. Battle score for attacker is -242
            Casualties for Japanese: 3 armour, 15 artilleries, 3 bombers, 18 fighters, 39 infantry, 2 mech_infantrys and 4 tactical_bombers
            Casualties for British: 1 aaGun, 49 infantry and 18 mech_infantrys
            Casualties for ANZAC: 1 infantry
        Battle in 26 Sea Zone
            Japanese attack with 2 battleships, 24 carriers, 1 cruiser, 44 submarines and 5 transports
            Americans defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport
                Japanese roll dice for 44 submarines in 26 Sea Zone, round 2 : 14/44 hits, 14.67 expected hits
                Americans roll dice for 1 destroyer and 1 transport in 26 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                1 destroyer owned by the Americans and 1 transport owned by the Americans lost in 26 Sea Zone
            Japanese win, taking 26 Sea Zone from Neutral with 2 battleships, 24 carriers, 1 cruiser, 44 submarines and 5 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 15
            Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer and 1 transport
        Battle in Hawaiian Islands
            Japanese attack with 1 armour, 2 artilleries, 31 fighters, 7 infantry, 3 marines and 15 tactical_bombers
            Americans defend with 1 aaGun, 1 airfield, 33 fighters, 1 harbour, 13 infantry, 2 marines and 16 tactical_bombers
                Americans roll AA dice in Hawaiian Islands : 0/3 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 2 artilleries, 31 fighters, 7 infantry, 3 marines and 15 tactical_bombers in Hawaiian Islands, round 2 : 29/59 hits, 29.17 expected hits
                Americans roll dice for 1 aaGun, 33 fighters, 13 infantry, 2 marines and 16 tactical_bombers in Hawaiian Islands, round 2 : 37/64 hits, 35.00 expected hits
                7 infantry owned by the Japanese, 4 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese, 21 fighters owned by the Japanese, 2 artilleries owned by the Japanese and 3 marines owned by the Japanese lost in Hawaiian Islands
                1 aaGun owned by the Americans, 13 tactical_bombers owned by the Americans, 13 infantry owned by the Americans and 2 marines owned by the Americans lost in Hawaiian Islands
                Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 10 fighters and 11 tactical_bombers in Hawaiian Islands, round 3 : 14/22 hits, 12.83 expected hits
                Americans roll dice for 33 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers in Hawaiian Islands, round 3 : 19/36 hits, 23.50 expected hits
                8 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese, 10 fighters owned by the Japanese and 1 armour owned by the Japanese lost in Hawaiian Islands
                3 tactical_bombers owned by the Americans and 11 fighters owned by the Americans lost in Hawaiian Islands
                Japanese roll dice for 3 tactical_bombers in Hawaiian Islands, round 4 : 1/3 hits, 1.50 expected hits
                Americans roll dice for 22 fighters in Hawaiian Islands, round 4 : 16/22 hits, 14.67 expected hits
                3 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese lost in Hawaiian Islands
                1 fighter owned by the Americans lost in Hawaiian Islands
            Americans win with 21 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is -175
            Casualties for Japanese: 1 armour, 2 artilleries, 31 fighters, 7 infantry, 3 marines and 15 tactical_bombers
            Casualties for Americans: 1 aaGun, 12 fighters, 13 infantry, 2 marines and 16 tactical_bombers

    Non Combat Move - Japanese

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Americans regular : -1.50
Japanese regular : 2.67
British AA : -0.50
Americans AA : -0.50
UK_Pacific regular : 11.33

Savegame