Suggested Topics

B

L24 BM4 - BombsAway (Axis) v Avner (Allies + 22)

League
• • • BombsAway

63

0
Votes

63
Posts

332
Views

A

@BombsAway said in L24 BM4 - BombsAway (Axis) v Avner (Allies + 22):

@Avner G8.tsvg

I’ll try to answer this tonight
6

PTV24 Elche V 666 (axis +12)

League
• • • 666

8

0
Votes

8
Posts

17
Views

6

TripleA Turn Summary: Japanese round 1
TripleA Turn Summary for game: WW2 Path to Victory

Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 3 marines and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Chahar Japanese take Chahar from Chinese 1 mech_infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Shansi 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Jehol to Shansi 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe Japanese take Anhwe from Chinese 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi Japanese take Kiangsi from Chinese 1 artillery and 4 infantry moved from Kwangsi to Yunnan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangsi to Yunnan 2 bombers moved from Japan to Yunnan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Southern Manchuria to Shansi Combat - Japanese Battle in Yunnan Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 4 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Yunnan, round 2 : 3/9 hits, 3.33 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 4 infantry in Yunnan, round 2 : 1/4 hits, 1.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Yunnan 3 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Yunnan Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Yunnan, round 3 : 2/8 hits, 3.17 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Yunnan, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Yunnan 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Yunnan Japanese win, taking Yunnan from Chinese with 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Japanese: 2 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 4 infantry Battle in Shansi Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Shansi, round 2 : 3/5 hits, 2.00 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Shansi, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Shansi 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Shansi Japanese win, taking Shansi from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 infantry moved from Iwo Jima to 7 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Hokkaido to 7 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 7 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 37 Sea Zone to Kwangsi 1 infantry moved from Fukien to 21 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Formosa to 21 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Okinawa to 20 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Southern Manchuria to 20 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 21 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from 37 Sea Zone to Kwangsi 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 7 Sea Zone to Marshall Islands 2 destroyers and 1 submarine moved from 7 Sea Zone to 34 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 7 Sea Zone to 34 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Japan to Caroline Islands 1 battleship moved from 20 Sea Zone to 7 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 7 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 battleship moved from 7 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 cruiser moved from 21 Sea Zone to 7 Sea Zone 1 destroyer and 1 submarine moved from 20 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from Caroline Islands to 34 Sea Zone 1 cruiser and 1 marine moved from 34 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from 37 Sea Zone to Kwangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi 2 bombers moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi 1 fighter moved from Korea to 37 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Japan to 37 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Formosa to Kwangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsu to Kwangsi 3 infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Jehol 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Shansi to Shantung 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Kiangsi 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to Anhwe 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Fukien to Kiangsi 3 infantry moved from Korea to Southern Manchuria 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Northern Manchuria to Southern Manchuria 1 tactical_bomber moved from Japan to Caroline Islands 1 aaGun, 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Japan to Kyushu 2 aaGuns moved from Japan to Kyushu Place Units - Japanese 3 marines placed in Japan 2 transports placed in 7 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Japanese collect 32 PUs; end with 32 PUs Objective Japanese 1 Trade With America: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 42 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Chinese regular : 1.00 Japanese regular : -0.50
Territory Summary for Japanese :
Marshall Islands : 2 fighters, 1 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Kyushu : 3 aaGuns, 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 5 infantry Paulau : 1 infantry Southern Manchuria : 1 flag, 1 aaGun and 5 infantry Kiangsu : 1 flag Northern Manchuria : 1 flag Marianas : 1 infantry Siam : 2 infantry Shantung : 1 flag, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber Caroline Islands : 1 aaGun, 1 airfield, 1 fighter, 1 harbour, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Jehol : 1 flag, 3 infantry Japan : 1 airfield, 1 factory_major, 1 harbour and 3 marines Kwangsi : 1 flag, 1 artillery, 2 bombers, 3 fighters, 5 infantry, 1 marine and 2 tactical_bombers Fukien : 1 flag Anhwe : 1 flag, 1 artillery and 3 infantry Chahar : 1 flag, 1 infantry Shansi : 1 flag, 1 artillery and 1 mech_infantry Kiangsi : 1 flag, 2 artilleries and 4 infantry Yunnan : 1 flag, 1 artillery and 2 infantry 7 Sea Zone : 1 battleship, 2 cruisers and 2 transports 34 Sea Zone : 2 carriers, 3 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber 37 Sea Zone : 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 3 transports
Production/PUs Summary :
Germans : 41 / 70 Russians : 46 / 46 Japanese : 32 / 42 Americans : 53 / 53 Chinese : 11 / 12 British : 28 / 28 UK_Pacific : 17 / 17 Italians : 10 / 10 ANZAC : 10 / 10 French : 13 / 0 Dutch : 8 / 0 Mongolians : 0 / 0 Neutral_Axis : 2 / 0 Neutral_Allies : 7 / 0 Neutral_True : 20 / 0
Savegame
A

Why I Don't Play Ranked, And Sample Game With Commentary

Axis & Allies 1942 Online
• • • aardvarkpepper

6

0
Votes

6
Posts

23
Views

A

Oh, and to add my usual disclaimer, this isn’t meant to be some comprehensive address, it’s just a few random not terribly well organized thoughts. There’s much much more to everything, numbers, strategies, tactics, timings, opportunity costs, and so on.

Just picking one - the strategic use of small UK and US forces in Europe

Let’s say Axis want to cut UK/US reinforcements off at Karelia. This is pretty essential if the Allies are not to send cheap UK/US ground reinforcement to Moscow. There’s some timing issues where Axis are trying to shift off Karelia but I won’t get into how Axis handle that and Allied counters here.

The rules for land retreat are, all units retreat to a ground territory that at least one unit came from. This can be used to set up “teleports” where, say, Allies use UK ground units on Finland and West Russia to attack German-controlled Karelia, and all UK units “retreat” to West Russia. The same is true for US.

But thinking on it, UK and US won’t typically have units just sitting around in West Russia. (A related issue, one of the problems with 1942 Online is inability of defender to select the controlling power of a unit taken as a casualty, which definitely is problematic for this sort of tactic). Typically UK units have to deliberately be sent in from India in advance, and US ground unit(s) from China must be preserved.

But having a small number of ground forces has loads more applications.

For example, I mentioned above using German infantry to keep Japanese fighters safe. If UK only has air units in range, UK would end up trading expensive air units for cheap German ground - though that bleeds the German stack, it’s really often not worth the trade (as UK fighters can be used in a combined Allied stack defense as well).

But if UK ground units are in range, suddenly Germany has to use a lot more units to defend, which bleeds its major stack, or Japan’s air becomes unsafe, or any number of unpleasant scenarios.

Or, I mentioned if USSR attempts to move its Moscow stack into Kazakh, that Germany can smash it. If US has ground forces to recapture Kazakh from Axis, though, USSR fighters can land on Kazakh, which can make a difference, especially if a good portion of Germany’s attack units are at West Russia and/or Archangel instead of just a simple stack on Caucasus, which is what’s going to happen in the game described above.

When players attempt to “optimize”, often they may ignore these small but important things, instead doing things like “I must defend India with everything possible, because defending India is important”. True. But other things are also important. Depending on dice outcomes and player decisions, both the player’s own decisions and the opponent’s decisions, games change a lot.

But I don’t understand? India is important? Look at the screenshots. UK is holding India, but I don’t think any player would seriously claim Allies are in a winning position.

Or I don’t understand? Japan needs to be the major Axis stack controller against KGF? Look at the screenshots. It’s a KGF. Japan is far from the major Axis stack controller. Again, seems it’s working out for Axis.

And for those that say “well it’s not that simple, there’s other factors” - exactly. Which is why I detail and open for discussion what I think those factors are, and how different factors need to be weighed in the balance.

In closing, 1942 Online’s lack of communications is on some level understandable. There are costs to implementing features. Simply removing communications options reduces options for toxicity. Sure.

But after a couple years of play, the 1942 Online meta is pretty awful by and large.

Maybe the thought was, players are going to be so casual, they won’t actually want to develop or learn. Communication? Who needs all that? Make 'em jump through hoops!

But for the same reason, I don’t find 1942 Online particularly compelling, particularly ranked with stale meta and compulsory 24 hour checkins.

What was the desired experience, really? What is 1942 Online’s “ideal player”?

On the one hand, a casual player that isn’t going to care if they can’t see unit movements and deal with an obfuscating UI, because “it’s just a game.” No need to chat, “it’s just a game.” But on the other hand, 24 hour checkins are pretty demanding, and where with other “free to play” games missing a day usually means losing some virtual currency or negligible opportunity cost, here a single missed checkin means losing potentially hours of investment made in multiple ranked games.

On the other hand, noncasual players that don’t need chat because they’re already synched outside the game. But then, all the limiting rules changes, lack of bid, and obfuscating AI make the program a bother to use. (Just use TripleA!)

So if the product fundamentally does not appeal to casuals or to noncasuals, the playerbase ends up being only players with very particular preferences, or one might say tolerances. Is that “just my opinion” or isn’t that just how things are?

Sometimes people protest that complaints don’t understand the realities of the situation (yet typically such arguments never provide such “realities” or leave anything open to discussion). For my part, I think the programming team was given limited time and limited budget to accomplish certain tasks that were designated by the design team; I think the design team was probably constrained by orders from up the chain which in turn were likely influenced by licensing and investor considerations. So where I would say the design was not good enough, or there are demonstrably bugs, well, I think that’s understandable, to some point.

But at some point someone needed to step in and take responsibility. Someone had to be in charge. It’s two years on, and I’m playing ranked games in a weak meta, with the altered rules, the no-bid, no balance, 24 hour checkin, and no-comms.

Look, I’ll tell you how I know it’s a weak meta.

Some might argue “not everyone wants to have a discussion, aardvark!” So true. But you don’t need a discussion if you understand fundamentals. If you understand the fundamentals, it takes ten seconds to respond in an intelligent way to basic questions.

. . . like?

Let’s take the basic topic of Axis vs Allies balance. The so-called conversation around that was, Axis win 55%, Allies win 45% at one point. And the narrative was, that’s balanced. That’s defined as balanced, you understand, that was the nature of the so-called “conversation”.

But the problem is, over large sample sets, 55% versus 45% indicates imbalance. And further, as I pointed out at the time, the data collection itself was suspect, because if weak players tend to play Axis, then reports would naturally skew against the “true balance” of the game when played by skilled players. (Similar things happen with fighting games and Starcraft, but I digress.)

The developers put in separate ratings for Axis and for Allies, which I disagree with, but all right, at least that addresses some concerns over imbalance. But the discussion I mentioned above was not about ratings validity, but game balance in general; Axis versus Allies. And again, the argument was made using facts that was presented as having one meaning when the actual meaning was literally the opposite.

Well, mistakes can be made. But back to player skill in the meta.

When you have players of a certain ability, they’re going to naturally draw up probability distributions, as was done in some articles for 1942 Revised edition. Seems most of what I remember has been lost to time, but I remember reading and writing such articles, so I know very well it happened.

And what is the nature of these probability distribution writeups? Well, what happens is one takes different proposed moves, writes up the probability distributions and sequential decisions based on information available, and creates probable outcomes. Over multiple turns, different opponent and player responses are each explored, each action having its own probability distribution. By understanding the probability distributions and their consequences, “balance” is proved or disproved for a skilled player set.

And that’s really all there is to it. If that sounds stupidly complicated, literally that was what I did this entire thread (without so much numbers) but one can very much see the numbers and the thinking behind everything if one looks. Would help if had TripleA’s .tsvg system but eh.

So how do you know when it’s a weak meta? When players keep asking about balance regularly, and they keep getting the same stock answers using statistics with no context with suspect data. Okay it’s pretty funny for some people, but come on. At some point you’ve just got to be like really now.

But nobody wants to do some sort of complicated writeup or analysis just to answer a question that doesn’t even apply?

Well, no. When a decent player creates strategies, they must understand their tactical tools, they must understand how to evaluate board state, how to optimally distribute forces and plan purchases not just for the current turn but subsequent turn. I hope that just makes sense. So naturally if they’re thinking through such things and trying to identify key timings, then they are going to do a certain amount of necessary work.

Which is why it was simple for me to understand quite early how Japan could use submarines to counter the KJF, and why and how Japan should pressure India, the timing of the German advance to cut off units at India, and various contingencies. Sure, a lot of the lessons in how to evaluate numbers and distributions came from reading up on Revised. But Revised allowed transports to be used as cannon fodder, had different setup at India and East Canada; anti-KJF in 1942 Online is a different animal.

And as a side note it’s nuts for me when I read players write about “shucking” East Canada like it’s Revised. In Revised, you needed one transport per transport drop from East Canada to northeastern Africa, there were fewer territories in Revised making it faster to march through, transports acted as ablative armor protecting Allied fleet cores. In 1942 Second Edition, you need two transports per transport drop, Japan capture of Alaska threatens the Eastern Canada sea zones, etc. etc.

The real key identifier for lack of thought in a meta is a lack of discussion about pros and cons and real consequences.

Oh, G1 can build Berlin tanks to help secure Karelia on G2? Well I suppose that might not have been incredibly obvious to some players so was worth mentioning. But what about the loss of infantry on the G4 push towards Ukraine? What, nothing? Somehow Germany magically makes up the difference? But look at the numbers on the income, these different branches - no? Just take your word for it because you’re “top platinum”? What about where you say this and this happens, but it doesn’t happen if an opponent reasonably does this and this? Doesn’t the whole supposition just break apart?

Like okay, players don’t want to have involved discussions? Sure. But when there’s authoritarian commands like “build 2 tanks on round 1”, well, there’s an old joke I think about George Washington and the Continental Congress, something like that. Someone proposed that the army be limited to whatever number of soldiers, and Washington said “Let’s also pass a motion that we’ll never be invaded by armies above a certain size too” or some such thing. Ha ha. No, it’s really funny, you know?
M

L24 OOB cwglee51 X vs Martin L+44 #2

Play Boardgames
• • • Martin

140

0
Votes

140
Posts

567
Views

M

Thank you for having posted Italy. I didn’t realize that I could go on with ANZAC, and you would have waited forever…

40742 OOB Round 11 France.tsvg

Game History
Round: 11 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 destroyer, 2 infantry and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 2 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 43 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 43 Sea Zone to Borneo 2 fighters moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone Combat - ANZAC Battle in 43 Sea Zone ANZAC attack with 2 fighters and 1 transport Japanese defend with 1 destroyer ANZAC roll dice for 2 fighters and 1 transport in 43 Sea Zone, round 2 : 2/2 hits, 1,00 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 destroyer in 43 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 destroyer owned by the Japanese lost in 43 Sea Zone ANZAC win with 2 fighters and 1 transport remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Japanese: 1 destroyer Battle in Borneo Non Combat Move - ANZAC 2 fighters moved from 43 Sea Zone to Java 1 destroyer moved from 62 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 2 infantry placed in Queensland 1 transport placed in 54 Sea Zone 1 destroyer placed in 62 Sea Zone Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 17 PUs; end with 19 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 24 PUs Combat Move - French Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Japanese regular : -0,33 ANZAC regular : 1,00
A

L24 BM4 Playoff Semi-Final Adam514 (Axis) vs Gamerman01 (Allies+22)

League
• • • Adam514

65

1
Votes

65
Posts

326
Views

G

TripleA Turn Summary: French round 2
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3

Game History
Round: 2 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 fighter and 2 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC Combat - ANZAC Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 infantry moved from New South Wales to 62 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 62 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 1 aaGun moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 aaGun, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 33 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 1 aaGun moved from 33 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 1 cruiser moved from 63 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 3 fighters moved from Java to India Place Units - ANZAC 1 fighter and 2 infantry placed in New South Wales Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 10 PUs; end with 10 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 13 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 1 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Egypt 1 infantry moved from Nigeria to French Equatorial Africa Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame
W

L24 BM4 Cwglee51 X vs WindowWasher L+18

League
• • • WindowWasher

118

0
Votes

118
Posts

404
Views

W

@cwglee51 yep, got bogged down with work, ill do all my moves tonight hopefully
T

How do I create my own custom A&A map from scratch? (Global 1920)

Customizations
• • • TigerTankIncinerator

5

0
Votes

5
Posts

39
Views

B

Sorry only just saw this

So step one would be finding the right image editing program for what you’re trying to achieve. TripleA uses raster graphics images (basically png) and is not suitable for printing. Upscaling the largest relief I’ve made in tripleA and trying to print it at 600 dpi the filesize gets quite beefy. Basically an image that’s like 50mb for use in tripleA is going to climb way up by orders of magnitude into the many gigabytes. It will also tax the RAM pretty hard if you’re trying to edit an image that large (in actual dimensions) like trying to use multiple layers at once. I have a pretty high end gaming laptop and I topped out around 8000p before GIMP started giving me headaches and slowing to a crawl.

What you probably want is an image that you can manipulate as SVG rather than PNG. A vector so you can upscale the image to any dimensions the way (basically the same way font works.) I would try Inkscape or Adobe, and try to get a pull of the image as a vector graphic.

You can start the same way as you would in tripleA by creating a baseline image of the basic world map, the continent contours or world warp you want and the territory or sea zone divisions, showing just the basic borderlines in 100% black at 1px width at the desired dimensions for the digital thing.

A physical print would be much larger, so imagine that on your screen you got 72p per inch, on paper that needs to be 600 dpi. You can go lower say 300 dots per inch if it’s very graphic, but a photo quality print is basically like 600p, which is pretty hefty. In a program like inkscape or illustrator etc you can translate a raster image into something that works for stuff like signage, you know, so like making a giant banner image to put on the side of a truck or hang outside a building - same sorta deal here for the scale of the image you’d want to make. Probably the size of a 6 or 8 foot banquet table, possibly larger depending, on what you’re trying to pull off.
A

PTV ArtofWar (Ax+12) v AxisDominion (Al)

League
• • • ArtofWar1947

126

0
Votes

126
Posts

317
Views

A

you meant sz7 not 17 right? but still same thing applies: if there’s a dd it blocks loading from that sz… it’s the reason why i sent my dd to 65, to prevent you loading those units from new zealand. but 18 is not blocked as there are no surface ships there (and subs do not prevent loading during cm)