Posts made by crispyHaole

please remember that your “bread and butter” US opening should usually NOT include a pacific purchase with the intent to KJF with US only. Don’t “kinda” do a KJF, in fact dont ever plan on “kinda” doing anything in this game….you’ll get a lot of “almost” results with that ideal. Do it and do it hard! If you think KJF is the “best bet” vs the axis opening, die, and opponent then it should be a combined effort with at least some UK and Russia support. 9/10 times a KJF isn’t called for and I have a strong suspicion that OP needs to polish his US KGF game. Take a look at the main page and some of the basic “allied strategies” listed there for US.

rereading my own post I’ve decided I type like I think, which is awfully jumbled. sorry :)

@KGB:

@crispyHaole:

I think the real question here is, if you’re not stacking cau sufficiently, where are those units placed instead and how are they of better value there? There could be an argument when 3inf are bid in ukr, to R1 push absolutely everything into wru and possibly belo and defend cau 1 inf(placed). The argument being that wru might get wiped out otherwise. I rarely play against 9 bid in ukr so i dont have much there…any1?

If you attack Belo and leave 10 units in Cau, that means you’re hitting WRu with 6 inf, 2 art, 3 tank. On average, you will lose 2.6 units in WRu. If you lose 4 units (or even 3), Germany can counter with 3 inf, art, 3 tank, 4 fig, meaning you are offering him to trade at 1:1 rate or better.

Also, each additional unit in WRu helps to deter a G1 Kar stack. If you take Belo and WRu with 3 inf, 2 art, 3 tank (and have 3 tank, 2 fig, 7 inf in Cau), attacking 7 inf, 5 arm in Kar on R2 doesn’t seem like a good idea for example. This principle also applies if you don’t attack Belo (leaving 10 ground units in Cau gives you a 7 inf, 2 art, 6 arm, 2 fig attack against 9 inf, 6 arm on R2 if you lose 2 inf in WRu).

Interesting idea a44 of hitting the German Med fleet with Russia. I prefer to fly one or two UK figs to WRu on UK 1 and kill it with help of the Indian Ocean AC (and fig if need be) if I want it dead fast though.

I think there’s a slight miss communication here…

I wasn’t suggesting hitting wru and belo and stacking cau with 10 ground/2 planes. My opening is almost always as i stated earlier, wru with all (excluding 3inf/arm cau) then stack cau.

What I was stating was that IF you decide to open as I do BUT not stack cau as I do, then where oh where did you put those units instead (the ones I stack cau with). Furthermore, how are they of MORE value (wherever you place them) in that position.

I went on to say that 1 possible (good) answer to my question was in the instance of a 9 bid in ukr. Here some ppl have a good argument for hitting belo with all(3inf 2 ftr), wru with the rest(including all cau units) and leaving cau with 1 purchased inf.

About stacking Kar, this is a VERY GOOD point. I’m not thrilled about attacking 9inf/6arm R2 with 7inf/2art/7arm/2ftr (you said 6 arm, my purchase for this R1 is always 3inf/3arm so I have 7arm here). However even with 6/2/6/2 Russia is about a 2 to 1 favorite (7/2/7/2 is about an 8 to 1 fav) and IMHO because of position, is FORCED to make this attack. I think strafing this stack to 1 or 2 arm is optimal(especially when G1 purchased 5inf/5arm and therefore has a solid counter), but alas the dice don’t always cooperate in these small stack strafes. Another side benefit of that G1 9/6 is that the z5 navy stayed put(unless germany split it up?), meaning any surviving UK ftr (odds are 1) may land in wru and threaten z16(possibly z15 depending on Africa situation) since if R2 leningrad goes bad, cau units inevitably travel north, tempting the G2 amphib, especially if a few german inf remained in ukr rather than moving to eeu G1(not likely though).

Most of the time, if Germany stacks len on me it’s because of a combination of poor R1 wru, bad Russian trades(ukr/belo/len) in the next few rounds, and Germany sacrificing planes in the atlantic, slowing UK and US reinforcements/counters. Not that often in my experience.

Great discussion btw!

it would help if u post the map of this. But then again I’m not too sure how taboo it is to give advice about a current game. Better you find your own solution and discuss it post game IMHO.

I have a heavy poker background … full disclosure and all. The dynamic here very much reminds me of a poker concept that goes something like this: If you are playing against someone who has proven to be a worse player than you, avoid close gambles because you dont have to “gamble” to beat that player. Against someone proven better than you, take the close gambles because those are going to be your best spots. When I say “gamble” I"m talking about (in poker anyway) those 55-45 situations and even those 60-40 spots. IMHO i think in comparison to A&A, these would be around 65-35 and 75-25 situations, respectively. I also believe R1 ukr(no bid/1unit bid)/G1 cau(10ground + red planes) are both spots that fall into this category. So I guess If u ever see me try this on you, you should feel complimented!

I think the real question here is, if you’re not stacking cau sufficiently, where are those units placed instead and how are they of better value there? There could be an argument when 3inf are bid in ukr, to R1 push absolutely everything into wru and possibly belo and defend cau 1 inf(placed). The argument being that wru might get wiped out otherwise. I rarely play against 9 bid in ukr so i dont have much there…any1?

I stack with ftrs, most commonly my R1 ends with 8inf, 2arm, 2ftr in cau. The  german option to attack it on g1 to me, feels like the same type of gamble the russian player was trying to avoid in ukr r1. the most likely result of that g1 attack on cau is germany being forced into sacrificing a plane just to take cau with 1 arm, which is countered handily on uk1 with inf, ftr, bmr. the only arguable reason to commit to this is the killing of those russian ftrs. is forcing yourself into a best-case-scenario-trading-of-cau-while-constantly-having-germany-purchase-4±arm(usually the g1 buy for this battle is 5inf/5arm) while praying jpn moves its heiny quickly enough worth those 2 red planes?

1inf bid in ukr for me changes nothing (germany usu takes with 1 unit still)

2inf bid means germany just as often takes with 3 arm as 1 so i still stubbornly stack as above. also a 2inf bid in ukr means at most 1 inf in lib…does the german player really hose himself in africa just to do this? another allied advantage?

3inf bid ukr means germany often takes with 4arm, which is a problem since the next wave can be 7inf/4arm/planes(if belo wasnt touched). But then a 3inf bid in ukr means no bid units in lib and no need to focus any us or uk troops in africa. this means the fastest buys/placement of brits and yanks toward berlin is very smooth. does the german player like to play this high-risk race type game? DDay uk2? hmmmmmm chances are that if he does he’ll make other mistakes that can be taken advantage of.

Ive personally given up messing with either the r1 ukr or the g1 cau. Just doesnt seem worth it in a serious game. MAYBE, MAYBE this can be good if there’s a silly error or dice catastrophe on r1. even then, i believe the advatage you receive from that r1 snafu can be utilized long term and safe-like, rather than giving yourself an opportunity to eat some of russia’s crow.

any1 know how the bids work or are placed at facebook AA?

Since this is relevant to this discussion ill post it here.

Gnasape, when you gave me the LL rules on SBR i took them on blind faith that you got em from play tested and mathematically proficient sources. However it seems to me that base dmg for SBR’s should be 3 or 4 based on whether or not u hit on a d3, not a d1. If average SBR dmg was 3 1/6 then a d1 would be correct. But average SBR dmg is 3 3/6 so it seems to me that a d3, not a d1, should be rolled where a hit = 4 IPC dmg and a miss = 3 IPC dmg.

Change it up or prove me wrong friend. And hurry up with your turns! I swear u have the attention span of a gnat! Seems your only interested in a game for the first few turns then u wanna start another! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@Veqryn:

i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2

This works fine for 1v1, but what about multi-player games?

@Veqryn:

I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through.  By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out.

This is a very astute observation. Taking this further, one could abuse this by getting to the point in the game where they’ve basically lost due to poor moves and then decide to just “go for broke” buying all “re-roll” chips and picking/setting-up some long-shot, game-changing battle and rolling for it 6-8 separate times to get the desired result. This is just like the old “last ditch tech” hail-mary turn ppl used to see in 2nd ed.

I still think that for what OP is trying to accomplish, buying “re-roll” chips is a decent enough option. Perhaps to combat the aforementioned abuse you could make it a rule that only 1 chip may be used per battle? per country turn? per side turn?

RE: LL chips……hmmmmm I wouldn’t think anyone should be forced to pay IPC for these. Maybe some hybrid system? 2LL chips given to each country at start of game and re-roll chips only for purchase? …starting to get a bit too complex for my taste here, but hey, whatever makes the game more enjoyable for both sides!

RE: AA shots, I still think that any re-roll activities should be limited to dice YOU roll, therefore when u have that big battle and your opponent rolls 3/5 AA hits, well, too bad so sad for you. It was his roll, congratulate him!

oh and by the way i checked your other posts and perused those threads. For the sake of everyone having fun, I’d like to suggest that IF one chooses to use “re-roll chips” (purchased or given at the start of the game) then I think that they should only be able to use those chips on THEIR bad rolls, not to nerf their opponents good rolls. I’ve never gotten upset because of my opponent’s beautiful die, just my own horrible ones. Reason? I took the time and energy to plan MY battle and so I want my “Scooby snack” as a reward for that effort! However I put no effort whatsoever into planning my opponents attack, he did, so no skin off my back if he rolls well. I think most people feel the same way.

Conclusion: re-roll chips for your rolls only = my vote!

nope. I use aaSIM. it works well enough for my purposes. If u have a link to this other calc I’d be glad to give it a whirl though. Sorry for the excessive banter, I just felt that your original post insinuated that LL generals were crybaby bitches who had noone to blame but themselves for choosing borderline situations in the first place. Peace.

I think we are in fact agreeing here, where it seems we are not. When you say that a +2% (51to49)edge in LL translates into a -80%(90to10) edge in dice, what I take that to mean is that you have or are confident you can find a better spot in the future to “put the money in”. This is exactly what I am saying happens when one general is more skilled than another. EV is a LONG TERM measure, meaning that if this particular event could be played out infinitely, where do the numbers fall. It is not a short-term measuring device.

So many OTHER things come into play in skill/chance games that this is but one aspect that I’m saying should have SOME bearing on your decision making. I’m also saying that this aspect is STATIC for any given bid. In other words this should be one’s “basic strategy”, or foundation of one’s play.

Other aspects of play include(like you are saying) the variance factor, which is a decision to fight or not fight a certain battle based on it’s possible good/bad results, and how those results affect for ill or good, your OVERALL goals. Yet another aspect is your opponents general method of play…what you think HE/SHE will do when presented with the options you give him/her. I know a player who is ultra conservative. I know another who just can’t stand to play a game for more than 7-8 rounds. I play against them differently. To the conservative guy I don’t need to bid more than 1 unit in UKR to dissuade him from attacking it in AAR R1. The other guy, I tend to wait him out and let him “take his shot” at round 7 or so. Heck I’ll even give him a key-looking battle as bait so he goes ahead and makes the move.

I’ll give you that “risk-management” is part of a good generals game plan. I’m favoring LL atm because I’m exploring different openings/bids in AAR and can’t say for sure if one is better than the other without there being something in place to assure me that the results I’m getting are actually based on the opening, not the die rolls. I don’t know how to be more clear on this point. You ever play or even watch on TV that texas hold’em game? When u start with AA u are a 4 to 1(80% to 20%) favorite against 1 other hand. Suppose player A plays AA against player B, who plays 72. To be clear about the numbers, for every 5 times played, A wins 4 times(4/5) and B wins once(1/5). They play 5 times and all 5 times player B wins. This happens 1 time in 3125 trials, therefore out of 3125 ppl who play this scenario, 1 guy may draw the conclusion that he should fold AA always, and one guy may draw the conclusion that he should play 72 always. Is this picture becoming more clear yet? This is obviously a poorly drawn conclusion of basic strategy based on variance. That’s a most extreme example, but showing that to be correct should allow you to understand that when edges are smaller, the fact remains that there is a clear mathematical “basic strategy” that you should follow UNLESS some other aspect of the game(variance/opponent tendencies) STRONGLY favors another path to victory.

How can anyone evaluate the long-term effect of a particular 1st turn move or purchase without letting “luck” trick them into drawing the wrong conclusion?

@Veqryn:

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable.  But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.

The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.

All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.

To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …

I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.

gnasape pointed this thread out to me so i’ll chip in my 2 cents. I’m the guy he is referring to who gets irked planning out strategies to test but not getting an accurate idea of how those strategies succeed/fail because i can’t roll die to save my life. LL obstacles should be resolved (imho) based simply on probabilities, like gnasape explained about SBR’s.

Of any idea posted thus far, i like “player’s choice” the best. Reason? I don’t get upset when my opponent has a nice roll, in fact, good for him! I DO get upset when it feels like an hour long plan looks retarded because 2BB shots, 2inf, 1art, 2arm, ftr & bmr all fail to hit on offense, and 3inf all hit on defense. Other considerations include “1st round woes.” Meaning (again imho) i believe the starting board is strategically flawed, that it is the MISSION of all countries whose turn is before another country, to TAKE ADVANTAGE of those flaws. This, I believe, is why most 1st turns are so static.

A quick and common example is AAR R1’s attack (or no attack) on UKR. Mathematically, with 2 or less bid units in UKR, Russia is able to at least clear UKR without losing and planes. However, when dice are involved, almost NOONE wants to attack UKR on R1 when there are ANY units bid in UKR. Why? many, many BAD experiences with dice. Then on G1 Germany is again a mathematical favorite to take CAU (when foregoing EGY). However, once again, Germany doesn’t often attack. Why? often the same reason. In the interest of full disclosure, other strong reasons G1 may not attack CAU would include the desire to get rid of the EGY ftr, the desire to completely clear and close off the Mediterranean, and the general desire to play a longer, more conservative game.

All in all, this argument boils down to one question. “Why do you play this game?” If you want to “beat the game” then LL is for you. If you want to have fun, then die are more your cup of tea. When I play FTF, I don’t even CONSIDER playing LL. I’d rather drink a cold pack of beer and have fun! But on here(PBF), since i have a competent opponent, I’d prefer to explore different strategies and be able to draw a conclusion other than “strat A worked cause i had good dice but strat B failed cause i had bad dice.” These conclusions are, of course, meaningless.

Player preference seems a good solution because it satisfies the “gambler’s” need for variance, and the “strategists” need for consistency.

PS i like regular sized pieces

I see my error, thanks! 41 is AOK but 42 (because i used the same bmp which was meant for only 41) has ger/jpn pieces swapped. I liked and used Holkan’s file (on p12 of this thread). I really like that color scheme with p@nthers map. seems very clear to me. Holkan do u have that same toolpieces.bmp(.jpg) for 42?

i live in Hawaii (Ewa Beach) and i have a few friends that play as well. Been awhile but i might be able to convince at least 1 friend to come to a FTF game. which version do you play mostly?

Hi, i d/l the 1st link in this thread and followed the instructions…i also added one of your(i think it was panthers, i like dark) map modules for 41 + 42. then i added a pieces mod(also darker…forget whose it was though) but now it seems that jpn/ger pieces are flip flopped. can any1 help me out?