L22 Global 1940 OOB surfer (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (L+60)

[AndrewAAGamer]

Thank you for the game. I enjoyed it. I also agree that the attacker got hosed all game. Since the Axis attack more than the Allies I think that made life difficult for you.

[surfer]

@andrewaagamer Perhaps. But I really think I was outplayed, so congrats. That said, would you mind analyzing my play style. I seem to be missing some aspect to move up to a higher level of play. I beat anyone Tier 1 and lower and have even matches at E level, but never get off the ground with Masters.

[surfer]

For the fun of it, I ran the Fleet battle. Just chose default losses – max defense. Surprisingly, I was able to get a draw. Still negative TUV battle… So just had to resign to get the attackers to fight. :)

[AndrewAAGamer]

Interesting. I will say it is a lot easier to teach a poor player to be a good player than a good player to be a great player. However, let me see how I can be of help.

First off, I agree you are a good player. We have played two games and neither one was a walkover. You obviously have the grasp of the basics of the game both tactically and strategically. Both games were competitive for a while till small imbalances become larger imbalances over time. It is removing those small imbalances that make a good player a great player.

One thing that makes a good player a great player is being able to “see” the entire board. In both our games you had one attack where you were surprised by the actual battle. What I mean by that is, you missed how additional units could get into the battle, so the percentage battle chance was different than you had anticipated it to be. In our first game you missed Germany building aircraft carriers and, in this game, you missed UK fighters coming from Moscow. Playing a great game means never being surprised in a battle. Now I am not talking about dice. If I expect that it is a 20% battle, and you make the attack and win that is fine. What you don’t want to happen is think you are giving your opponent a 30% battle but you miss some units and instead it is a 70% battle.

One way to improve in “seeing” the board is to play out a full Round. Take your Turn on local then move forward through the other Powers Turns. Many times you will catch something that you would otherwise have missed. Of course, you can only do this electronically and not in a face to face game.

I can think of twice in my online gaming where I was caught unexpectedly this way. One cost me the game and the other luckily didn’t. Both times were due to missing something based on Turn order. I started playing out the Rounds as I just suggested and greatly improved my ability to “see” the board. Now I rarely must play it out as I am more used to it though occasionally, I still do if it seems complicated.

Another skill great players have is balancing their forces in theater. It is easy to have too many resources invested in one goal and not enough in another. In our most recent game, as Japan, you had a significant number of resources invested in the land war and probably not enough in the sea war. As you saw, after you accomplished both your land goals, take China and India, and had significant land forces left over. You probably could have still succeeded in your land goals and not invested quite so much.

At sea, you lost the battle which cost Japan any chance of winning the game on their side of the Board. Yes, you had India and China, but you could not take Sydney or Hawaii for the victory. Having more money invested in sea units would have helped you in that endeavor. Remember, the battle for the Pacific is the same in every game for both sides. If Japan can sink the combined Allied fleet the Pacific is up for grabs and the Allies are on defense. As soon as the Allied fleet is strong enough to withstand an all-out Japanese attack, the Allies can now go on offense. The allies do not have to be able to blow up the IJN, they just must be strong enough not to be blown up. Thus, every game is a race as the Allies try to beef up their fleet while the Japanese strive to maintain their superiority. By not investing enough at sea the Allies were able to win in the Pacific because a stale mate is as good as a win for the Allies.

One other skill great players have is balanced force composition. Having the right type of unit to get the job done for the least investment. In our game you had too many artilleries versus infantry. Artillery are good as long as they are paired with infantry. Once they have no infantry to be paired with their utility dramatically drops. So, the goal is to have enough infantry that the artillery fire multiple rounds before they have no infantry to be combined with. Having a greater artillery vs infantry ratio gives you a higher attack on round 1 but weaker attacks on subsequent rounds. Think of it this way. If the defender has 60 units defending at 2 that is a 120 defensive firepower or DFP. That means on average they are going to get 20 hits. So, if I have 20 artilleries than I need 40 infantries to make sure on round 2 I still have enough infantry paired with my artillery. If I want my artillery to be paired even longer, I need far more infantry than artillery. I like a 4 to 1 ratio. My gaming buddy likes a 5 to 1 ratio.

You can easily check this by taking a battle in TripleA and revising the units. For example, at one point in our game you threatened Moscow with 22 infantry, 30 mechanized infantry, 23 artillery, 12 armor, 3 fighter, 3 tactical and 3 bombers; a 2.26 ratio of infantry vs artillery. Russia had 60 infantry, 2 mechanized infantry, 17 artillery, 3 armor, 10 fighters, 1 tactical and 2 AA guns. AFP of 190 with 96 units vs DFP of 218 with 97 units. Average success = 13% TUV of -167. Let’s remove 6 artillery and add in 8 infantries making it a 3.5 ratio. Your AFP drops from 190 to 180 and your total units increase from 96 to 98. Results change to Average success = 14% TUV of -162. I realize that is a small change, yet it is still a change for the better, and it is only small differences that make a good player a great player.

I realize it seems counterintuitive, “Wait I am killing almost 2 fewer units on round 1” yes but you also have two more units to take hits on and those two units you did not kill are not going to kill two units, they most likely are only going to kill one of your units. Therefore, your future rounds are more powerful.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Enjoyed playing against you.

[surfer]

@andrewaagamer Thanks for the insight. I should have guessed that your recommendation would be based on incremental changes. It’s all about getting the most for your money.

You made good sense in the Pacific sea war. I was a bit off based on the fact that I usually play BM4 games where you have to have extra land forces for Japan to cover all the Chinese territory.

but regardless, I never felt like the Axis were making any early progress to threaten Russia. Even when they gang’ed up on them from both sides. The only possible outlier was when my mobile force evaded death and was able to run amok for 2-3 rounds in the north. I know there are other ways to win the game, but the Crushia gambit seems the most straightforward and game balancing strategy when facing a better opponent. I just was unable to shrink Russia, and that inability started earlier than I would have expected, i.e. Turn 6-7.
Any thoughts?