Best posts made by farmboy

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.

@adam514 welcome back!

@enno of course. You just need to find someone willing to play. That shouldn’t be too hard but can take some patience at first and you may need to post here a couple of times before you find an opponent. It’s a good idea to review league rules while you are waiting.

If you are willing to also play bm or ptv that can make it a little easier too.

Anyone have room for a game with enno?

@axis-dominion glad you are getting the break you need and looking forward to your return when you are ready!

With my yahoo account, I’ve occasionally noticed some delays with dice (including in the last two weeks) but I always get them within 48 hours. And I’ve sometimes had the dice end up in my spam folder. If folks are only are having issues with gmail accounts than the solution might just be to switch to yahoo or another email for the dice.

I’m not too worried about cheating (although in my early days here I played someone who seemed unaware that the first dice rolls are the ones that normally count. I’m not actually sure that was intentional) but I do prefer getting the dice. It keeps people honest and provides more info to help address disputes.

@donutgold welcome to the league! I don’t have time to play right now but I wanted to let you know it can sometimes take a few days to get a game especially when you are new and unranked. If you don’t hear back from someone who can play just post a reminder or two and also message those who looking for games. Also be sure to read through the league rules as well (its another category on the league main page). Good luck and have fun!

@MrRoboto I was enjoying seeing standings change as the results come in.

I can’t really expect any system to get things exactly right. As long as players of comparable level are ranked close to each other that would be enough. And that certainly seems to me to be happening here. That being said, I suspect that more data will still make some significant changes to what the standings are. I expect that players like Adam and Axis-D (and JDOW when he appears) and a couple of others will move up relative to the rest of us, and a few others (like me) will consequently move down a bit.

I’m happy to add some data when I have the time. But right now this is only read only for me so not sure how to do that.

The other thing I still have a concern around is the yearly playoffs. If we want a playoffs based on the top 8 (or top 16 as ghostglider suggested) in a given year, I’m not sure how we pull that data from this (such that one’s lifetime ranking doesn’t impact it). I’m sure there is a way but am curious what the thinking is there.

@gamerman01 @crockett36 I went through the video the other night. Skipped around a bit so may have missed some stuff, but appreciate the comments and critique. It was very fun to watch. I thought I would provide a bit of a response to some of the comments there.

I’ll note the obvious that some moves that look like mistakes are just mistakes. As noted I ultimately lose this game despite being in what seems like a strong position as allies in round 3. A mistake I may have made was not take the same kind of risks in this game that I did in our first. Those risks are often good to take as allies regardless (they seem like risky combats for the allies to offer but the axis can’t actually safely go for them without undermining their own position) but particularly against a player like Andrew who I know plays in a risk averse way. I think my win in game 1 caused me to worry that he might gamble more and so I then played too conservatively. I think you saw some of that in the early game already. But of course I want to be careful explaining my defeat in terms of my mistakes. Its worth thinking through how one might have played differently, but the best explanation for one’s defeat is that one’s opponent just played better. Or just blame it on the dice :)

Its been a while so I may not remember my thought processes at the time that well anymore.

Crockett asked around the two chinese in in sikang in round 2. That was just to protect the fighter which I had to leave there since I had just taken Yunnan and was leaving Burma. The Japanese bombers could reach it. When you are commenting in the video, there are still soviet units there, so it may appear defended, but they are leaving before the Japanese turn.

I think this is caught in the comments but the US build in round 1 on the atlantic side was relatively safe. I was going to knock out the German subs with the UK before the Germans could hit me (and it was pretty unlikely that the Germans were going to want to bring the US into the war at that point anyway) and that was a fairly safe combat (although it turned out closer than it should have been)

The move to Samoa may seem odd but its one I learned from others here and I think the right move with the Atlantic fleet when you expect that the US will not enter the war until round 3 or 4. The US has to build on the Atlantic side until the DOW because it can only build 3 on the Pacific side. US units on the Atlantic side can be at New Zealand on round 2 and so in range of Java and the Caroline Islands on round 3. So its better to move those units where they can be more quickly utilized when war begins than have them simply wait for it on the Atlantic coast. And once war begins, the US can quite quickly build up on the Atlantic side.

Gamerman is right of course that in moving so many soviet fast movers and air east is going to hurt me against the Germans. I think the costs of that are relatively small though as there was no way I was going to slow Andrew that much in the early stages. Maybe I save a couple of inf in a couple of counters if more units are back. My aim is to get these units back for round 4/5 to block the Germans in Bryansk. I suspect (though haven’t checked the calculator) that I actually didn’t need so many units in China and was playing too cautiously. So gamerman is probably right that I was overdoing it.

With the Holland landing I think the goal was just to soften the Germans up and force them to delay sending some units to the Soviets. And Holland had more and higher value units so I went for that. I get worried with all inf amphibious attacks though that if the bombardment messes up, the inf may lose. So I commit all 4 inf and I also need a fig. But if the AA hits the fig, I need a second one. So that is how cautious thinking can take you down a dumb path. In hindsight if I was going to go there, I should have gone for both. Normandy would be an easy win and the bombardment would likely at least softened Holland.

Just some random comments in response. Again, I enjoyed watching it!

@poptech Everything about this game is unrealistic nonsense, but it is fun and plays well. Air bases and naval bases both help balance the game (without them the allies would be at even more of a disadvantage) and add to the complexity of the game. You don’t have to like it and can play without if you wish. There are other games that prioritize realism, and you can always try one of those if ‘realism’ is something that you want in a board game.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway

I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think

Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.

Interesting to see the data. Also, one of your longer games was with me and I think I also have that problem. So maybe you and I just have to be careful when we play against each other. :)

The cost is that you are going to lose 3 inf that could be in Moscow. The benefit is that you deny him 7 ipcs and his air builds for Moscow become slightly more expensive (he loses a chance to build tacs in Leningrad). Probably this denies him a bomber which might make the trade closer.

It does give you an opportunity to mess with Scandinavia. I would still be concerned that he might just gamble on the Italian bomber thinking its a low risk route (about 30% odds) of hitting the Soviet air. Probably he wouldn’t do that since he is not in desperate shape.

If you don’t go with Leningrad, the mechs (at least 1) are probably better placed in Moscow since the inf still have time to reach there from Stalingrad too.