@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
@gen-manstein
Can you just decide which year the game starts in?
This serious question or u just funnin ?
Could try to come out with a 37 game !
Lol
@gen-manstein
Just jokin’ lol
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
One would think that but you won’t be taking off Japanese planes with a little something they have access to called cannon fodder. When I do my pearl harbor strikes I bring in a strategic bomber, 3 fighters, 3 tac bombers, 4 destroys and 2 subs, and yes I’ve playtested these odds against the entire starting Pacific fleet of America and the US fleet always gets obliterated.
Well, at the risk of being offensive, duh.
The US has to rely on blockers early until its fleet can be moved forward without such protection. In the interim, it should reinforce Hawaii as possible. If Japan wants to take Hawaii early, it’ll be forced to defend it and won’t achieve victory.
Marsh
Like Squire said, blockers really aren’t a factor in this with Japan’s ability to control the diplomacy between them and the Allies, so blockers aren’t going to help you as America. More often than not players will consolidate their navy on the Hawaiian islands which in turn will have it destroyed, and if they dont move it there and leave it in San Francisco than I’m doing my job keeping you out of the Pacific and away from places like Sydney and the Money Islands. Japan won’t be taking Hawaii with ground forces early in the game. There’s absolutely no reason to do such a pointless action unless you were wanting to get that 5 IPC national objective for controlling Honolulu but other than that Japan doesn’t have to dedicate forces to keeping it, they only need to keep it in their sphere of influence.
@thedesertfox Never count on your opponent doing dumb things. Be happy when they do, but assume they’ll do smart things like not stack units in kill zones. But hey, you do you!
I will do me, thank you very much for the concern. And like I said, for the 3rd time that there’s nothing the US can do to stop Japan from attacking their navy, dumb player or not dumb player, it’s not a dumb thing for the US to consolidate their navy on the Hawaiian Islands regardless, it doesn’t make you dumb for not seeing the attack, there are plenty of ways to hide an attack as Japan or Germany or frankly any playable country, not granted if the attack was plane as day that reads in big white font that “I’m going to attack you” then yah dumb is what the US player is. So no, this conversation with everybody here hasn’t been based on players doing dumb things for them to work, if that was the case nobody here would be wasting their time trying to explain why KJF doesn’t work. But if that’s what you think then I guess that’s what floats your boat.
There is absolutely no way that Japan before mid-to-late game can force the US to put its fleet in harm’s way. Of course, you may be referring to the paltry collection of ships in sea zone 26 that can be attacked on J1. If so, we clearly have different definitions of “fleet”.
It absolutely IS a dumb thing for the US to consolidate their fleet in sea zone 26 if sea zone 26 is a dead zone.
So, either toss dice (PM me your address and we’ll do a game. I’ll take the Allies with a 30 bid.) or keep talking to yourself.
Marsh
Then if denying factual evidence is your jam then I dont think there’s any point continuing this convo. You’ve been proven wrong dude, so take the new understanding you have, throw out the old understanding, and move on already instead of denying what’s already been proven factual because I to include alot of other people have told you countless times now that there is nothing America can do to prevent their navy from being destroyed whether it’s on Hawaii or San Francisco, this point has been made crystal clear from the start of this thread buddy.
As I said in my other thread, I don’t do bid games as neither of us are of the new player skill level so don’t waste your time flying out to the Pacific Coastline.
@marshmallowofwar said in Converting to KJF:
There is absolutely no way that Japan before mid-to-late game can force the US to put its fleet in harm’s way. Of course, you may be referring to the paltry collection of ships in sea zone 26 that can be attacked on J1. If so, we clearly have different definitions of “fleet”.
It absolutely IS a dumb thing for the US to consolidate their fleet in sea zone 26 if sea zone 26 is a dead zone.
So, either toss dice (PM me your address and we’ll do a game. I’ll take the Allies with a 30 bid.) or keep talking to yourself.
Marsh
I thought your bid was 24? Is it now 30?
Is this for another sub in 110?
I don’t even know what bid he uses at this point, all I know is 24 or 30, that’s still too much lol. But that’s just me
What bid would you normally use for the British?
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
What bid would you normally use for the British?
See this thread.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/29613/bids-a-a-global-1940
I am a ftf player and my “short” answer would be a bid of 12-18. My long answer is alot more complicated in that what bid is necessary to “balance” the game differs in peoples minds. I can post my longer version if you really want to know my thoughts.
I’d be interested, granted I don’t usually prefer bids but I definitely can see why they’d be of need since the Axis definitely do have the game in their hands from the beginning
If you wanna post the longer version I’d read it since I do actually want a more typical understanding of fair bids to use
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
I’d be interested, granted I don’t usually prefer bids but I definitely can see why they’d be of need since the Axis definitely do have the game in their hands from the beginning
If you wanna post the longer version I’d read it since I do actually want a more typical understanding of fair bids to use
So I’ve been playing tournament games at Gencon since 2004 revised. And that game was pretty balanced with a tank bid in Egypt which was considered “necessary” for the axis to get med income quickly and not fall behind considering there is a time limit to the game.
But in reality tank bid doesnt have much of an overall effect as beyond that first round it really comes down to the dice rolls. IIRC in that game UK had a 50% chance of getting one more hit or not, so the tank was really more of an insurance policy to get Egypt but in half of the games Egypt was taken with more than the rank surviving. So is it really necessary? You could win at least 40% of the games as axis between those of equal skill without any bid.
AA50 is the same way. A gencon AA50-42 bid with interceptors and no objectives is generally either 5 or 6 depending on whether you want the sub for germany or the tank for Japan. But having one means that the other attack is without aid. And people do both attacks anyway. So in reality it’s not really “necessary” to balance the game. You dont need either unit. But playing competitively you need a bid and most people would want that insurance. So for a tournament game I’d say it is “necessary”.
With that as background, a high bid in global isnt really necessary. No one needs tobs of extra units in china or Russia. And if you buy conservative for UK you should protect vs a sea lion. But it’s acceptable in my book to bid a fighter and/or sub to have that insurance. So that’s why I say 12-18.
Also ftf players dont have 48 hours to run endless simulations to get the right answer according to the dice statistics.
Interesting, you’ve given me a much better understanding of bids.
From the way I interpreted it, most people treat bids as if they’re something that a player should have to get an age over someone else no matter what the circumstances, which obviously was in the aspect of the Allies since granted they are arguably a bit more complicated to play than the Axis and have a tougher time winning, but it absolutely does make sense that these individual pieces of say a fighter and sub act as insurance or that extra thing to remove in the fight in the event that battle takes place, it just cuts the UK’s losses and limits their attrition all the more since even a player of lower skill level to another doesn’t need an unrealistic bid to win over against an Axis player.
Also, sorry if I ever conveyed that all of us have the time to set up the board to test stuff out, I definitely do know that now especially in these circumstances that not everybody has that kind of time like other people such as General Hand Grenade or Young Grasshopper to sit down and just continually test out strategies and different bids, but I do still try to get in what time I can to revising my Axis strategies.
Other than that, a bid of 14-16 IPC’s feels like the sweet spot for the UK. Likely 14 since it still keeps them from killing both the Bismarck and doing the Taranto Raid without cutting their losses to sharply since even if the UK has loose ends, I don’t think they should be given a handicap just to get back on their feet to properly fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
Interesting, you’ve given me a much better understanding of bids.
From the way I interpreted it, most people treat bids as if they’re something that a player should have to get an age over someone else no matter what the circumstances, which obviously was in the aspect of the Allies since granted they are arguably a bit more complicated to play than the Axis and have a tougher time winning, but it absolutely does make sense that these individual pieces of say a fighter and sub act as insurance or that extra thing to remove in the fight in the event that battle takes place, it just cuts the UK’s losses and limits their attrition all the more since even a player of lower skill level to another doesn’t need an unrealistic bid to win over against an Axis player.
Also, sorry if I ever conveyed that all of us have the time to set up the board to test stuff out, I definitely do know that now especially in these circumstances that not everybody has that kind of time like other people such as General Hand Grenade or Young Grasshopper to sit down and just continually test out strategies and different bids, but I do still try to get in what time I can to revising my Axis strategies.
Other than that, a bid of 14-16 IPC’s feels like the sweet spot for the UK. Likely 14 since it still keeps them from killing both the Bismarck and doing the Taranto Raid without cutting their losses to sharply since even if the UK has loose ends, I don’t think they should be given a handicap just to get back on their feet to properly fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.
I just mean that during ftf play people cant take forever to decide moves. You play with gut instinct and experience. So people rely on that vs the right bid amount or the best math move.
Ahh okay sorry my bad lol
Still though I tend to have a mindset that everybody can just sit down and play out test runs even though I know not everybody has time to do that.
I kinda do like a battle clock though. It doesn’t give your allies time to really tell you what you’re doing wrong and what you’re doing right, and you really have to commit to getting opening moves for playable nations implanted in the mind so that you’re ready to go.
@squirecam a deal breaker?! Wow. Glad technology wasn’t an important factor in ww2. I’ll do no tech but I wasn’t asking for a bid.
Greatest failure in design of both ana and war room. It allows for a shrinking of strategic options and a standardization of play that can bore.
@crockett36 said in Converting to KJF:
@squirecam a deal breaker?! Wow. Glad technology wasn’t an important factor in ww2. I’ll do no tech but I wasn’t asking for a bid.
Greatest failure in design of both ana and war room. It allows for a shrinking of strategic options and a standardization of play that can bore.
Yo crockett. What do you mean by failure ?
