Any war against the USA will get nowhere fast without the Money Islands. Therefore, attacking UK/ANZAC is an absolute must, so that you can rake in that badly needed +20 IPCs.
Report playtest thread for TOTAL PACIFIC US strategy
-
The key to this is surprise. So I am going to delete it now.
-
Too bad nobody quoted my moves.
-
-
What why? I was intrigued and went back to my 1v1 and now it’s gone?! :?
-
@Imperious:
Just a side note: This is not a proper thread title because it does not lend itself to identify what the topic is about and further puts people posting on another site.
Good point.
-
@mantlefan:
You are such a troll Daedelus. Don’t you know that it’s already been proven in every way shape and form that Russia can hold the Germans back indefinitely?
Why don’t you do something to help the game rather than just putz around annoying people with that fiendish concept of “skepticism?” Since you don’t agree 100% with our extremely vague posts that obviously prove that we are right, (You don’t believe them because you didn’t read them obviously. Since we said them, they must be right so it’s YOUR fault you don’t agree you stick-in-the-mud!), you are just a troller since you haven’t proven that we are wrong. And since you haven’t proven that we are wrong we are right. And since we are right, let’s fix the game using these solutions we have, allthewhile pretending that these ideas only came after several scientifically tested games showed us that the allies are too strong. You don’t believe us? Well you are an idiot because we NUMBERED our handful half-sentence claims about 10+ hours of board game that are obviously enough to provide meaningful context. We had at least 6! That’s one more than 5! And since there are 5 allied powers that totally dominate Japan you know that if there are six of something it’s all the more right!
Just don’t point out to us that the claims of Japan being grossly underpowered came about only AFTER our plans to change the game didn’t find a lot of supporters. We don’t like it when you use logic, we prefer sweeping generalizations, ad hominem, straw man arguments, and just plain ignoring things we don’t want to have to justify.
How dare you disagree with us! We have more games and more posts than you! That makes us right and you wrong you trolling troll!
–—
Not my views Daedelus but I figured I’d save questioneer some time by giving you the same fundamental spiel he gave me.Your a DRAMA QUEEN :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
where are yours question?
-
Mantlefan first- he’ll set the standard with format for us all. :-D
-
HA HA- Nice try- “because my ideas didn’t gain support”- LOL- I could care less about that pal. I just want the game balanced the way it should be. Like the thread says pal- JUST FREAKIN TRY IT
Still avoid my question??? Where are your game reports???
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right? So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.
Why?
-
I like the game the way it is, I prefer the huge challenge of playing the axis and the jubilation of winning with the axis. On the other side, playing the allies is a operation of perfect execution, sure it’s easy to win, if you do everything perfectly. And finally, how can we say that an allied victory is a sure thing every game when every battle is based on the random outcome of little six sided game changers. I played a game recently where I had incredible odds to destroy the entire Japanese fleet, I never hit once in 2 rounds of combat and I had to retreat with 2 empty carriers a damaged battleship and 1 cruiser, just saying.
-
@mantlefan:
Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right? So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.
Why?
A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.
Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.
You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.
In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.
All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.
-
@mantlefan:
Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right? So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.
Why?
A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.
Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.
You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.
In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.
All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.
That’s really funny. I never said the game was balanced. Somehow you are the expert of logic but equate my asking for proof of someone else’s claim as refutement of the claim.
Your “analysis” ignores the fact that a claim was made. Your statement that because Alpha 2 exists the game is unbalanced means that because changes were made to make the game balanced, the game is automatically unbalanced. What you ignore is whether or not the game is balanced.
You state that according to what you call logic, there would be no discussion of imbalance if balance existed. Why does the act of discussing whether or not something exists have direct impact on the existence of that which is being discussed?
Does the sky change color based on whether or not we are discussing what color it is? Isn’t the color independent of whether or not it is discussed?
Essentially, you are saying that saying that imbalance exists means imbalance exists, because if balance was the case, then no one would think there is imbalance. Why then does saying there is balance (which I have never done), not mean that it is balanced?
-
Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.
-
Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.
Because question does not want to post his thoughts on the other thread apparantly
-
Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.
i think that is for balance purposes :-D
-
SHUT UP AND TRY IT :-D
-
@Trisdin:
I like the game the way it is, I prefer the huge challenge of playing the axis and the jubilation of winning with the axis. On the other side, playing the allies is a operation of perfect execution, sure it’s easy to win, if you do everything perfectly. And finally, how can we say that an allied victory is a sure thing every game when every battle is based on the random outcome of little six sided game changers. I played a game recently where I had incredible odds to destroy the entire Japanese fleet, I never hit once in 2 rounds of combat and I had to retreat with 2 empty carriers a damaged battleship and 1 cruiser, just saying.
This is the most enlightened quote in this thread… I agree with Trisdin. I’m gonna go have fun.
-
@mantlefan:
@mantlefan:
A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.
Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.
You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.
In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.
All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.
Your “analysis” ignores the fact that a claim was made. Your statement that because Alpha 2 exists the game is unbalanced means that because changes were made to make the game balanced, the game is automatically unbalanced. What you ignore is whether or not the game is balanced.
You state that according to what you call logic, there would be no discussion of imbalance if balance existed. Why does the act of discussing whether or not something exists have direct impact on the existence of that which is being discussed?
Does the sky change color based on whether or not we are discussing what color it is? Isn’t the color independent of whether or not it is discussed?
Essentially, you are saying that saying that imbalance exists means imbalance exists, because if balance was the case, then no one would think there is imbalance. Why then does saying there is balance (which I have never done), not mean that it is balanced?
mantlefan, you fail to grasp the very meaning of words. Therefore you flail against the very trees which define the forest you fail to accept.
Alpha 2 exists because oob is unbalanced. This is a given, a tautology. Heap on all the invalid infantile analogies you wish, the game remains unbalanced. An adult response would be to find a solution. What’s yours?
-
@mantlefan:
Is balance… EVER attainable for AA global?
Maybe if a completely new setup not just a few modifications here and there. And maybe we need different victory condition instead of victory conditions.
-
@mantlefan:
Is balance, in your mind, EVER attainable for AA global?
Ah. An adult question.
Yes. Balance is attainable. After lots of testing. Ideally players will test alpha2 and report their experiences. If players find a specific strategy for one side yields a consistant successful result regardless of opponent strategies then the game remains unbalanced. It is up to playtesters to continue offering alpha2 modifications, and playtesting those modifications, until a previously consistantly successful strategy becomes uncertain.
Any modifications to alpha2 may in turn create new consistantly successful strategies. This is expected and should result in new mods or rejections of old mods. If however no new consistantly successful strategies emerge from a set of alpha 2 mods then we could reasonably claim the game is balanced. At this point a final round of testing from all testers, without further mods, should yield 50% results for each side. If it doesn’t, the game remains unbalanced and new modifications are required and the process repeats.
To conclude, the game remains unbalanced until demonstrably proven otherwise.
Suggested Topics
