China is also the shortest path to Russia.
Take another look at the map. A chain of Japanese units thru SFE is the shortest path to Moscow. New inf units take 5 turns.
Preferred option to stall Japanese expansion.
-
Just AABattlemap, normal forum dices, techs and NOs in play.
Do you like the randomness of tech? To me, I would run a pacific strat when playing with tech just because I MIGHT get long range or heavy bombers or even jets that can turn a naval stand-off between Japan and USA into a huge decisive winning battle. I guess it works for Japan as well if they roll for tech.
I think a no-tech game makes it even harder to run a USA pacific strat.
-
I like complexity that gives tech, and the variations it adds. If you get surprised by LRA or HBs, you didn’t planned a counter to those techs
USA should build Pacific all the games. You don’t want Godzilla running freely across the whole world. It can seem a slow Godzilla, but in fact is much more quick than USA and it’s sluggish KGF shuck. It can hit America at pleasure or make a easy rush against Africa and Mediterranean. You are giving tons of free IPCs in Pacific (aus, nzel, haw, NOs and probably also Alaska) and Africa, etc.
-
Just one thought on a house rule - has anyone place 1 UK inf on each of the UK islands from Borneo to the Solomons?
Maybe it would at least delay Japanese expansion. After all they have the best NO in the game - 3 territories with no resistance on? Even the Germans have to kill some Russian inf G1… and that’s still a giveaway!
-
I like complexity that gives tech, and the variations it adds. If you get surprised by LRA or HBs, you didn’t planned a counter to those techs
I’ve heard this before and I think it’s a lousy arguement.
You think planning to handle a low outcome event like getting HB’s or LRA makes the game better?
Let’s say I roll 6 tech dice (just to help eliminate that variable somewhat)
I SHOULD get a tech break thru (odds are probably less then 100%, but I will let the statisticians point that out).
so then I might get LRAs or HB’s. 1/6 of either one.So assuming my opponent CAN roll for 6 dice, I SHOULD plan for 16% of LRA? or HBs?
I guess maybe that is a personal preference, but I think the instant, surprise, game winning tech does not make the game better.It’s such a low odds event, but you are saying that good players SHOULD plan for that…. I guess I am not seeing how 84% of the time, that planning is not needed, but that makes the game better?
Don’t get me wrong, I like tech, just not the instantaneous aspect of it: SURPRISE, we got a 6 and then a 6 and now we win.
**YAHTZEE! **
-
I am sorry axis but you do not understand the tech game or the mindset of tech players. That is all there is to it.
I exclusively play tech games and there are many times in the PTO that I make my moves based on the assumption that my opponent will get LR regardless of the %chance because I do not need to loose these units.
Some techs are better than others and that also varies by nation. Most of the techs also require having units on the board and in position to benefit from them. There is very little Yahtzee I win to tech games.
-
I agree with the big Dog. Big Dog, I can finally give karma now that I’m playing a game by forum, so here you go.
-
I am sorry axis but you do not understand the tech game or the mindset of tech players. That is all there is to it.
I exclusively play tech games and there are many times in the PTO that I make my moves based on the assumption that my opponent will get LR regardless of the %chance because I do not need to loose these units.
Some techs are better than others and that also varies by nation. Most of the techs also require having units on the board and in position to benefit from them. There is very little Yahtzee I win to tech games.
Oh, I understand the tech game and the mindset: You have to ALWAYS play against the low odds, which is fine, because I have seen (many times) battles with outcome chances of less than 1%, win, and it’s part of the game. This is in ‘regular’ battles.
Now you can add even more chance for ‘low odds’ outcomes (tech rolls) to sway the outcome of the game if that is your bag. Is this a better game? How much do you want dice to determine the game’s outcome?
I personally prefer LESS of these sorts of dice results … to me, less dice that affect the outcome equals a more strategic game. I am OK with this if tech weapons are minimized by delaying their affect to the next round.
However, I do not like the exactness of Low Luck. Why? Too exacting. NO chance is involved.
Again, personal preference.
-
+1 Karma Big Dog,
I have to agree with you over Axis Roll, although I believe that I can see both sides of this issue. It just seems to come down to more of a personal preference and where on the scale of no luck (chess) to pure luck (Yahtzee) people like to play. Yes, playing with instant tech is slightly closer to Yahtzee, but it does not turn the game into a pure luck game, it just increases the variables and options which players must look at, so it actually increases the complexity of the game.
If players don’t want to increase the complexity of the game by using tech and having to think, “What if my opponent gets _____ tech.” then that’s fine with me, but it is definitely NOT Yahtzee.
-
Yes, playing with instant tech is slightly closer to Yahtzee, but it does not turn the game into a pure luck game, it just increases the variable and options which players must look at, so it actually increases the complexity of the game.
So randomness = complexity?
How about ‘more options’ = complexity. I can agree with that, but randomness is not a necessary component of ‘more options’.
And I never said that the game was a pure luck game because of tech. I said it increases the randomness of the game.
BTW, yahtzee is not 100% pure luck game. I may roll two 1’s a 3 and two 6’s in Yahtzee. I decide to pick up the two 1’s and the 3 and roll ‘for’ 6’s. I could just the same try for 1’s… so there IS a decision that is made by the player.
Is it strategic? not likely… but it’s not PURE luck.
I am getting off topic, sorry.
Let’s debate the Russian opening move of 7 inf in Bury as a slowing tactic against Japan.
Can that work?How about if you buy a Russian bomber for some range so those 7 inf can have some offensive power behind them.
Now does that help? -
Yes, playing with instant tech is slightly closer to Yahtzee, but it does not turn the game into a pure luck game, it just increases the variables and options which players must look at, so it actually increases the complexity of the game.
So randomness = complexity?
How about ‘more options’ = complexity. I can agree with that, but randomness is not a necessary component of ‘more options’.
Exactly what I said. Playing with tech (and instantaneous tech, at that), increases variables and options, which, in turn, increases the complexity of the game by forcing players to plan for those options. I’m glad that we agree.
Actually, I agree with you that technology should not be “instantaneous”, in that, how did those US fighters in Persia suddeny get retrofitted with jet engines just because scientists back in the 48 contiguous discovered how to make jet engines work?
I DO think that tech should be a surprise though, because the UK tried all sorts of ways, including lying about their flak tower gunners eating lots of carrots to improve their eyesight (which is a myth), to hide the fact that they had discovered radar, and Germany’s way of telling the world that she had discovered rockets was by shelling London.
So, for now, in the interests of simplicity, I don’t have a better way to model technology surprises other than the OOB rules of instantaneous tech.
Back to Soviet moves against Japan.
I usually like to stack 7 inf in Bry and purchase 1 bomber - placed in Caucasas.
These moves can threaten sz38 and a first turn IC in Manchuria.This move can not always be done, especially if Germany and Italy gun hard for Caucasus. As happened recently in my tournament game. (Link below)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14958.0
I have made some mistakes, but we just finished round 5, and even with my losing Caucasus on G2 :-( , Japan has been kept in the mid-40’s for the entire game, and has not collected for all 3 of his NOs even once so far.
-
I also prefer an IC in India… even if I lost it the last time I played with the allies.
I think that is the only way to stop Japan in Asia and, most of all,
to avoid that Japan eats alive Russia while Moscow is being defended from Germany. -
BTW, yahtzee is not 100% pure luck game. I may roll two 1’s a 3 and two 6’s in Yahtzee. I decide to pick up the two 1’s and the 3 and roll ‘for’ 6’s. I could just the same try for 1’s… so there IS a decision that is made by the player.
Is it strategic? not likely… but it’s not PURE luck.
So if I CHOOSE to buy a lottery ticket, and then CHOOSE my numbers - it makes it less to do with luck than if I was randomly assigned 6 numbers by a computer. Well I think you are confusing making a decision based on solid information about the likely outcome and a decision made with no basis in that.
In fact - that argument shows that if you choose tech - to some degree you are making a decision based on pretty good odds. You get to roll until you make a discovery, and then the discovery is likely to help you - even if it wasn’t the one you hoped for.
So yes. Depending solely on getting ‘heavy bombers’ is probably less sensible than basing your strategy on investment in what will over time become a qualitatively better army than your opponent.
Example - in the 1980’s the US researched using ‘psychics’ as weapons. They invested about $80 million. A lot of money (though a drop in the ocean of military spending). It turned out that psychics were not useful militarily. So. That was a research ‘roll’ wasted.
All nations over time have spent money on research dead ends - the ones who are ‘luckiest’ and whose scientists (often working at the edge of their fields with not much idea of what they will discover) are lucky enough to get there first change history. So no. Tech is no more random than hoping the 5 IPC you invested in that tank will result in the destruction of that infantry you just sent it against. After all - we have more control over what units we buy - but less control over what our scientists can produce. So I think it mimics real life. You throw money at scientists and hope you get something good back!
However - I do think that with unit improvements - they should only apply to NEW units built after the discovery of technology. After all - it wasn’t like the germans stuck jet engines of their heinkel 111s or Me 109s. They built new aircraft models incorporating the technologies as did the brits and the rest.
This sudden ‘Oh all 6 of my bombers are now HEAVY bombers GREAT!’ is really the crux of the problem and why I don’t like tech. It’s not that it changes the course of the war - it’s that over the course of a single turn it changes the layout of the board - suddenly navies which were secure become vulnerable (LRA, HB, SS), front lines which were well thought out become ineffective (Adv Art, Mech Inf).
Of course we could take it further in that technology did lead to dramatic surprises for example: Russian use of new artillery tactics to encircle Stalingrad genuinely did set in motion a series of hammer blows which surprised and knocked back the German southern front leading to the repeat of this tactic in the North and Central fronts. But I think this is a flawed argument as nothing else in the game is secret. Navies move around the pacific in full view of their opponents, we all see exactly what new materiel our opponents place in their capitals each round etc. In fact in AAP40 I wonder how Japan is supposed to ‘surprise’ the allies as she actually did in 1941 with her lightning assaults across the Pacific.
So. Overall tech is annoying (and I don’t play with it) because it throws the board into chaos and it’s effects can be so widespread as to turn the game in a single round.
-
I simply feel the game is too easy and less complex if you don’t have to worry about tech. Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech, but the whole game gets more scripted without tech. I like the tactical thinking required against a possible LRA, HBs, JF or super subs. If the enemy has a balanced navy/airfleet, it’s very possible he get some valuable tech and then toast you. If youd didn’t take tech into account and abuse of battle calculator to see the exact amount of boats you need without the tech, you deserve being punished by the tech. The same applies for land combat: you need more effort and more thingking, nore less, because you have more variables
If you base your strat only in HBs, you deserve lose, because you have a very slight chance of getting them when you want it, and there is also a chance of your rival getting the proper counter before you get the HBs. The better strat is always the most balanced: ignore a point of the game, being a theater of war or tech or you want, and you are probably lost
No tech gives a too scripted game also. You can play LL if you fear complexity and non-scripted games
-
I agree with Funcioneta here. +1
-
seconded +1
-
Thank you, guys! +1 to both :-)
-
Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech, …
This was my original point about tech that brought up the whole tech discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15129.msg478194#msg478194WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
You almost will get as much difference of strong opinions when you discuss low-luck versus ADS game as you will get with Tech versus no-tech.
Seems like there’s a lot of tech fans here willing to hand out +1 Karmas to those who share the same opinion. Tech is fine. It’s a different game, that’s for sure.
And I even seem to remember those who say it’s better BECAUSE it’s more random. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about why this game is so great.
Good gaming!
-
WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
I doubt it. Japan can also roll tech, has more income available than USA, and also starts with more figs than USA. It can absorb more bad rolls than USA in any case, tech or not, since Japan’s position is superior. What tech does is making the Pacific theater more difficult of handle for both sides, since tech adds more options and more complexity
LL, that leads to more scripted games and changes the game dinamic very much, serves axis purpose pretty good, due axis great default advantage and due axis attacking first. I’d probably change my usual opening as axis in a hipotetic (very hipotetic) case I wanted play a LL game, and I’d probably would do a double against UK in Egypt and z2, a thing I would never do in normal games
-
WITH TECH, USA has a better chance to run a pacific strategy. Without tech, it is much more difficult to crack the japanese naval monster.
I doubt it.
And you also say that
Naval battles specially are pretty scripted unless you have to worry about tech
which can imply that scripted naval battles lead to the already superior force (japan)….
So are you saying that the US should not try to run a Pacific strategy?
I don’t know how you voted above.
-
Back to the original topic, about stalling Japanese expansion. I guess I’m not offering a way to stall it today, I’m just going to give another anecdote about how Japan is unstoppable in the '41 scenario.
I am playing a skilled opponent on the forums right now. It’s the first time I’ve played as Axis in '41 against someone good. I’m more of an Allies player, traditionally, and I struggle to really play a mean Germany. I do know what I’m doing with Japan, though, I think. (She is similar to playing USA or UK, which I have a lot of experience with). I did sneak in on round 3 and conquered the UK and 40 IPC’s, but that was just a speedbump for my opponent, who had already secured France.
So anyway, as Germany and Italy are “turtling” in round 5, Japan is going crazy, with about 80 IPC income, Heavy bombers (I own 5) and have secured Western USA. It is very soon going to be Japan against the world, and it’s going to be very interesting. You can check it out in the Play by Forums. It’s called “Solo game” because I started playing solo but my new on-line gaming friend jumped in at G1 (for which I was glad).
Remember that Larry’s theory about A&A starting scenarios is that he just tries to accurately depict the military situation at that point in history. Then “you are in command” and whatever happens is whatever you make happen. Of course, the games also ignores many “facts of life” and is an abstraction, and is designed for fun.
Suggested Topics
