• '10

    After reading this whole thread, i can confidently say that Alpha 3.9 favors Cow.


  • I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing.  That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either. :roll:

    There are many gambits in chess that are playable or standard, but that’s not the point I making.
    J2 by definition is a gambit.  You are giving Allies something extra when you do a J2, whether by income, material, production etc to gain position and/or tempo or some other advantage.  It is simply an early tradeoff that involves some risk at whatever amount.

    Defintion- Gambit-

    1.(in chess) An opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.
    2.A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage.

    So again Cow is wrong- it IS a Gambit.  Playable??? Yes.  Standard???  For some.  I don’t see hoards of people playing J2 all the time.  Optimal???  Too early to tell IMO.  Cow is afraid to play anyone PBF so he wouldn’t dare try to prove it me.  Cow=talk, no action.  Not to say he doesn’t have good ideas.  He just needs to back them up.  Something he avoids to do.  Likes to give lame excuses.


  • @Axisplaya:

    After reading this whole thread, i can confidently say that Alpha 3.9 favors Cow.

    Of course, its his thread.  Talk is cheap.  Ask him to play a PBF game.

  • TripleA

    I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing. � That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either.

    A) carrier/fighter are solid naval buys for USA not at war. carrier can go west usa fighters central also dd sub west.

    Can usa spam subs or dd instead with a major? yeah sure, but most naval purchases end up being mixed and the fighters can go central. usa has 52 to spend on majors instead of minors, it can make him buy cheaper units instead. Sure I’ll give you that, but usa starts with plenty of those units… carrier / fighter would give him range and better defense.

    J2 is not a gambit, it is economically efficient. The most conservative japan players always war on japan 2 and they go strait for the income.

    J2 is a gambit if you are more calcutta oriented instead of cash money.
    ~
    From this point on, I am ignoring you and jen. Neither of you can add or subtract, let alone do statistics on odds. Pointless to argue, I just showed you how it is beneficial for japan to DOW j2 in terms of increased japan income and decreased allies income as a whole.

    Also the more successful japan players DOW on J2 every game. People have figured it out already.


  • @Cow:

    J2 is not a gambit, it is economically efficient. The most conservative japan players always war on japan 2 and they go strait for the income.

    Cow, I have question.  This is not meant to be a criticism, but just a question.  If attacking J2 is your standard move, that means that America can declare war on USA2 and American units can leave the Atlantic coast.  That would include bombers that could go to UK as (very expensive) hit soakers to deter sea lion, or to Tunisia where they could threaten German transports in z100.  So If you are doing your J2 attack as the standard would it be right to assume that you completely rule out those other two strategies (sea lion and z100)?

  • '16 '15 '10

    Gotta agree that J2 is usually the turn to go.  Japan can’t afford to wait much longer–otherwise UK Pacific collects too much cash and becomes too big a nut to crack.  If Japan is going on J2, USA is going to need to spend much or most of its income in the Pacific to prevent an Axis Pacific victory.  So even though USA will be able to intervene in the Atlantic sooner than Western Axis would like, USA won’t be able to afford enough to make a decisive difference without risking losing in the Pacific.

    The circumstances where I would question a J2 declaration would be if China has let itself wide open on J2 (allowing Japan to focus all its air on killing China units J2), or if USA has spent all of its money on the Atlantic or has moved Pacific units into the Atlantic.  In the latter situation, it may be useful to hold off to stall USA’s offensive in the Atlantic.  But on the other hand, if Japan waits, then it puts off applying additional pressure in the Pacific.


  • @questioneer:

    I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing. � That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either. :roll:

    There are many gambits in chess that are playable or standard, but that’s not the point I making.
    J2 by definition is a gambit. � You are giving Allies something extra when you do a J2, whether by income, material, production etc to gain position and/or tempo or some other advantage. � It is simply an early tradeoff that involves some risk at whatever amount.

    Defintion- Gambit-

    1.(in chess) An opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.
    2.A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage.

    So again Cow is wrong- it IS a Gambit. � Playable??? Yes. � Standard??? � For some. � I don’t see hoards of people playing J2 all the time. � Optimal??? � Too early to tell IMO. � Cow is afraid to play anyone PBF so he wouldn’t dare try to prove it me. � Cow=talk, no action. � Not to say he doesn’t have good ideas. � He just needs to back them up. � Something he avoids to do. � Likes to give lame excuses.

    I’ve taken to playing a mean G1/J1 thanks to someone in my ftf A&A group, cow’s stumping, and my own analysis. I’d love to play you another game with me as axis and maybe you’ll see it personally and at least agree that it’s a viable strategy, even if it’s not one you’d do yourself. I would not do a J1 on it’s own since it’s too easy for US to eventually crush Japan if they invest all into the pacific. My goal is to force a rapid and level US response by creating situations in both sides of the map. Too little into the pacific and Japan can create at least economic parity with US and get the VC win they need. Too little in Europe and Germany will be outproducing US and racing for that last VC. I’ve only lost once, and that was due to a huge flop by my Japanese partner when we played ftf. I’m not saying it’s foolproof or a guaranteed win, but I’m 3-1 with this strat so far and it’s looking like I might reach 5-1 if the allies don’t turn things around soon in my active games.


  • Sounds intriguing, since Cow refuses to play.  Open up the thread with Germany and send me the link.  BTW- our other game crapped out somehow with that error message you got.  I tried to edit it somehow or fix it but it wouldn’t work.  It won’t let me do my turn after your error message you got.

    We’ll have to start it over again.  League game I assume.  Got my first G40 League win yesterday.  What is the thread that you report these results- can’t find it???

    BTW- make sure you download the new 2.7 edition.


  • Talking about gambits and risks. Does anyone see any Japan strategy that would not be risky ? I think that by essence every choice the Japanese make is kinda gambit, especially because from that depends the US economy and fleets size and moves. And in that sense, J2 is a gambit too. That being said, it doesn’t mean it should not be done, neither that it is a 95%-gamewinner.

    Now, for your J1 strategy. Doing so, you want/let the US to trigger right on US1. I don’t think any of your Allies-playing opponent(s) will prevent you from doing that.
    Maybe you are taking an undecisive but, fair enough, early advantage in the Pacific (I’ve read you India/ANZAC/China cash argument and IPC swing - event though I think it may be hard to achieve all you plan to do, ending with a good position),

    But, because, the way I see it, IPC is not eveything, you do allow the US (should they want it) to just start building an Atlantic fleet from the beginning (at least more than it should, you’ll give me that). German player gonna hate, and I bet you don’t want that either. Don’t take London, you’ll loose it soon enough. As for Russia, you’re not gonna make it. Well, I don’t see how.
    Is it a good strategy for Japan/Axis that Germany be paralyzed out of the game (would it be so ?) even before getting Moscow ?

    How do you see this ?


  • I never go sealion if I’m opening the ball up with Japan on turn one. It’s straight Barbarossa and believe me, you can make significant headway with a G1 Barbarossa. I’ve taken Moscow by turn 5-7 in every game I’ve tried this out, even the one I ended up losing. If Japan’s playing their part well, Japan will get the win in the pacific if US goes full bore Atlantic. That’s the beauty of it, the axis only have to win on one side while the allies can lose on both and must play accordingly.

    Quest, did you want a bid? I’d start it up if we were playing just a normal game right now, but want to at least give you the option of a bid if you wanted it.


  • I think the new way to play the game should be the axis have to take 14 victory cities to win. 6 on pacific, or 8 on atlantic just seems too easy to one of the axis to get.


  • @theROCmonster:

    I think the new way to play the game should be the axis have to take 14 victory cities to win. 6 on pacific, or 8 on atlantic just seems too easy to one of the axis to get.

    It won’t work. If that’s the case USA goes 100% Euro side untill UK can manage Euro Axis alone and then strike back Japan.

  • TripleA

    14 vc is really hard for axis, there is a reason for the current VC conditions.


  • Maybe 12 victory cities for axis? or 13? I just don’t like that the axis can win on just 1 board even if they are getting hammered on the other. Makes the game unbalanced IMO.


  • @theROCmonster:

    Maybe 12 victory cities for axis? or 13? I just don’t like that the axis can win on just 1 board even if they are getting hammered on the other. Makes the game unbalanced IMO.

    And US spending everything on one side or the other is unbalanced either? If the allies had to lose on both sides, it’d be too easy for them to concentrate on one or the other and destroy one before moving on. I’d trade one or two allies for either Japan or Germany/Italy and still have pretty good odds of winning the game.


  • For vitory it cant be 12 cities, because Japan can go from 2 to 5 in a single turn. And Germany can get 7 pretty easy. 13 victory cities is just the same as 8 in Europe or 6 in Pacific because the axis on both maps can get 1 short of their goal pretty easy. 14 would be like having to win on both maps and would be pretty hard to do.

    So imo the split victory conditions work the best.


  • I just don’t like how one axis can be totally getting destroyed while the other one wins the game even though the allies are killing. Makes the game in favor of the axis just for the sheer reason they can dictate the game so well, and they have 36 planes combined….


  • @Noll:

    It won’t work. If that’s the case USA goes 100% Euro side untill UK can manage Euro Axis alone and then strike back Japan.

    I agree. The way I see it, the spirit and aim of the game is to see the Allies share their efforts and work together on both fronts. If they concentrate on just Germany or Japan, they will kill it, but fail against the other because it’s too late, that is the beauty of the game. That is why the Allies are harder to play.
    Changing to more VCs would lead to make that possible.


  • @theROCmonster:

    I just don’t like how one axis can be totally getting destroyed while the other one wins the game even though the allies are killing. Makes the game in favor of the axis just for the sheer reason they can dictate the game so well, and they have 36 planes combined….

    I think the split VC works best, maybe you could add in a requirement that the axis control all 3 axis capitals. But even that i think would allow the allies to just play on 1 board, it might end up being a race for Moscow and Tokyo to see which one falls first.  So I think it best to leave as is.


  • Then how do we balance this game to make allies have a better than just 40% chance?

Suggested Topics

  • 26
  • 46
  • 122
  • 29
  • 24
  • 31
  • 17
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts