2017 League Post Game Results Here

[simon33]

regularkid (Axis) over simon33 (Allies) http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39036.0

[regularkid]

good game bra

[regularkid]

and, Adam, u a ho

[oysteilo]

@Adam514:

I really don’t have the inclination to play vanilla. I’ve been challenged countless times as Axis vs a bid my opponents considered exaggerated, with the bid ever increasing with time and I haven’t lost as Axis in 3 years, which amounts to easily over 100 vanilla Axis games. The only chance they had was many massive dicings, and even then I pulled through. At 50 bid I am nearly certain of beating you, and if it were low luck I would be certain.

I consider my Allied play to be among the best I’ve seen, and I would lose more than I win if I played myself at 50 bid. I recently lost as Allies at 35 bid, with dice being in the reasonable spectrum.

You certainly don’t have to take my word for it, especially since I’m refusing the challenge. But I think you’ll understand if we play BM and you extrapolate to vanilla from there.

I have no reason to question you Adam on this, so I am not doing it. A bid of 50 just seems unreal. Out of curiosity if you were to play yourself 100 times what bid did you need (you think) for a 50:50 result? Also what is the biggest weakness in the vanilla game given such a massive bid is required?

[simon33]

With a 50 bid, that gives the Allies so many moves to block Axis openings.

I’d be looking at:
ftr Scotland
Sub SZ98
DDs  110 & 91
art Sudan and Alexandria
Tank Egypt
Anzac TT off NZ
art Kweichow and Suiyuyan
ftr Moscow
ftr Malta

That’s gotten only to the mid 70s so you could use more than half of that.

[Adam514]

I’d say around 60 would be fair.

About the need for such a massive bid, I can go on for a long time but here are the main points:

1. Axis air starts off huge and it will always be in a great, centralized position: Since Allies are split into more individual nations than Axis are, they all need to more or less consider the following: what if the bulk of the Axis air were suddenly focused on this one nation/area? For example, this can affect if Russia should buy artillery to deadzone a certain territory, since Germany can always send some of its air to help defend it, and then the Russian art buy gets turned useless (if Germany breaks through Rostov for example).

Another important example is the necessary Allied fleet to be able to stand up to German air in order to be effective in landing troops in Europe. If Allies don’t spend enough on protection, Germany can just shift air around and perhaps buy a couple and deadzone the important sea zones, hence preventing unloading. If Allies spend enough on protection, Germany can simply ignore the fleet. The landing will be smaller and/or later, allowing Germany to deadzone the land territories easily with a land purchase. This is only one example of the required fine tuning and efficiency the Allies need to remotely stand a chance vs a competent Axis player.

2. Extremely powerful Axis canopening: Italy canopening for Germany/taking territories and then being stacked by Germany renders Russian offensive and defensive possibilities to nearly nothing. Only Anzac can potentially realistically counter it, but they have a handful of units in that area. For Japan, German bombers prevents the Allies from being very threatening in the Pacific while giving Japan huge opportunities. Nothing close to this magnitude exists for the Allies. It’s always the powerful nation (US) going before the weaker one (Anzac).

3. Transports not defending: it makes effective fleets extremely costly especially for US, since their tps are often a one time use.

4. Axis easily taking enough territories to surpass Allied income by round 6-7, and then waiting patiently for the last few desperate Allied moves until the Allied surrender: this is related to costly tp fleets and not enough Allied income. It’s the Allies that need to rush to get in there and try to prevent the switch in the income advantage, but it takes many turns to get things going for the US for example.

All in all, the effort I put into my Axis games compared to my Allied games must be about 1:25. You need a near perfect Allied play to stand a chance against the Axis, with the most efficient buys and moves possible and being right on the knife’s edge to losing in one theater in order to maximize damage in the other. Everything needs to fit together like clockwork, and for that you need to accurately predict what the Axis will do right down to their buy. One bad US buy and it’s essentially over against a good Axis player. Meanwhile, my Axis are on autopilot in most cases.

Sorry for 500 words  :lol:.

[Adam514]

@simon33:

With a 50 bid, that gives the Allies so many moves to block Axis openings.

I’d be looking at:
ftr Scotland
Sub SZ98
DDs  110 & 91
art Sudan and Alexandria
Tank Egypt
Anzac TT off NZ
art Kweichow and Suiyuyan
ftr Moscow
ftr Malta

That’s gotten only to the mid 70s so you could use more than half of that.

Yeah, with 50 you can stack Yunnan, keep most of the UK fleet alive, cripple Italy and do some miscellaneous stuff like inf in New Guinea.

[simon33]

Except the ng inf is illegal under standard league rules. No other land unit in the territory. Or am I confused about that one?

Most players would tolerate it though.

[simon33]

BTW thanks for the 500 words.

I’ve had players still hit 111 and 110 in spite of a fighter bid on Scotland. Costs them most of the Luftwaffe when the UK scrambles.  Which weakens your point 1.

So I guess you would hit 91 and 110, but with the dd in 91 that one can go bad.

[gamerman01]

@simon33:

Except the ng inf is illegal under standard league rules. No other land unit in the territory. Or am I confused about that one?

Most players would tolerate it though.

You are correct

[gamerman01]

I’d like to know how Adam’s German airforce can “deadzone” Allied Atlantic seazones and also focus on the Russians.  Throughout his 500 words, the biggest key for the Allies was…… missing  :-)

No wonder you have so much trouble winning with the Allies - you don’t seem to understand one of the most important things that they should try to do.  I’d explain it, but since you are already supremely confident and believe that you have already found optimum play for all situations, there’s no need.

I have won against very good Axis players with bids of 8 and 10
won a league championship with the Allies with a bid of 12
won a league playoff game with the Allies with a bid of 28, with Axis resigning in round 6

You would lose against yourself more than you win with a 50 bid??  No wonder JDOW beat me in the playoffs - my bid was only 25  :roll:

[gamerman01]

@Adam514:

I consider my Allied play to be among the best I’ve seen, and I would lose more than I win if I played myself at 50 bid.

It’s getting stuffy in here.
Seems you’ve won too many games against weaker players to stay humble.
Allow me to point out, since you don’t, that you are 0-1 in league playoff games.  Might be a little premature to anoint yourself God of A&A

I also find it funny that I keep reading you saying you’ve “never seen” this or that, and I’ve seen it several times, and do some of these things myself.  And I don’t play anywhere near the # of games you do, nor do I watch others’ games - it bores me.  I have a lot of success playing A&A too, you know.  Maybe you haven’t seen the full spectrum of A&A play yet.  Maybe you should stop talking like you have.

[axis-dominion]

ohhh shots fired!!! this could get interesting fast!!! maybe adam needs to show you around his axis in vanilla?  :evil:

[axis-dominion]

there’ve been a lot of exhanges/disagreements between you two in recent times, i think the best way to settle some of those arguments is to battle it out in a best of 3 series or something like that. maybe one series in vanilla to start out with, then follow with a BM series. i think it’d be an enjoyable game for the community to see the former champion play against the world’s current top player.

[oysteilo]

It would definitely be interesting to see Gamerman01 +50 vs Adam514……

[gamerman01]

It would, but I think we’re both done with 2nd edition
I don’t like switching back and forth between rulesets - I’m all Balanced Mod now
And 2016 playoffs have started - game with VonAlba starting soon
I don’t think Adam wants to play me anyway.  He obviously likes to win, and win easily (as do I)
I play the game for fun, not to prove anything.

But my Allies +50 would definitely win more than 1/2 of the games against perfect Axis play
Oh, I just saw he said +60 is fair.  That’s ridiculous.  And yes I’m talking 1 unit per territory

[gamerman01]

I guess you need +60 when you don’t know the importance of islands

[-Pete]

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif

[666]

@Gamerman01:

And yes I’m talking 1 unit per territory

I wonder if it was wise to implement the 1 unit per territory rule that was adopted? Perhaps if we hadn’t changed our bid rules to this the game might have been better balanced w/lower bids? I think one could easily argue that this rule change “watered down” the bid and is why a 20+ bid was soon to be the norm?

Adam or G Man, do you think if stacking was allowed, that bids could be lower and effective in terms of balance?

[666]

Adam & Gamerman, let me add, as someone who has been playing here a long time, your results are very impressive!