You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.
America/Soviet Role
-
I dont hit West Russia.
Why?
- It costs manpower I can use elsewhere.
- If you fall in the 0-85% of expected values, the W. Russians don’t have the manpower to do anything of note EXCEPT fall back to a defensible location.
-
I am not talking about your strategy. I am talking about the maxagaz russian triple. The strat relies wholly on a lucky knockout. It’s not well thought-out. It’s suicide hoping for extreme luck. It’s a strategy that relies wholly on dice and beating the odds greatly, repeatedly. There’s no challenge in doing the strategy, there is no challenge in defeating it. It’s ALL dice.
It’s completely different from that big list. It’s not some strategy that people just need time to find a way to beat. If they have amazing dice, it’s unbeatable. If not, it’s garbage. No one is worried about the strat being broken. The problem is that it’s a waste of time. There is less strategy than there is in yahtzee. I am not sure how I can be clearer.
-
I am not talking about your strategy. I am talking about the maxagaz russian triple. The strat relies wholly on a lucky knockout. It’s not well thought-out. It’s suicide hoping for extreme luck. It’s a strategy that relies wholly on dice and beating the odds greatly, repeatedly. There’s no challenge in doing the strategy, there is no challenge in defeating it. It’s ALL dice.
It’s completely different from that big list. It’s not some strategy that people just need time to find a way to beat. If they have amazing dice, it’s unbeatable. If not, it’s garbage. No one is worried about the strat being broken. The problem is that it’s a waste of time. There is less strategy than there is in yahtzee. I am not sure how I can be clearer.
BEAUTIFUL!!!
-
Well, unless you are the worst strategist in the world, if you have amazing dice, odds are significantly in your favor!
What I am talking about is a well orchestrated, statistically investigated and proven Russian open that, even when it fails, you do serious damage to Germany (barring amazing dice by Germany that is!)
In my world, Russia wins if they can kill enemy tanks and not lose any of their own tanks. So even if the attack on Territory 1 fails to take the land, as long as you leave nothing but the fighter there and dont lose any tanks attacking it, you won - you just didn’t win ENOUGH to take the land.
That said, each the odds for each battle are: 85%, 92% and 97% (according to my index card) to WIN which is defined has having at least one ground unit left to take the territory without losing any airpower. Combined that’s 0.850.920.97 or about 76% odds of winning with no loss of aircraft and at most 1 armored unit in all three territories.
Germany loses = 9 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor and 2 Fighters
Russia loses (max) = 12 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor but gets 8 IPC in territories, 3 of which will most likely not be lost until the middle of the game.So the equation is this: -12(3)-2(4)-1(5)+9(3)+2(4)+2(5)+2(10)+8 = +24 IPC for round 1. That does not include position on the board, lost opportunities for Germany against the British Navy (and odds are good they are going to lose one of the attacks normally performed round 1) or lost/increased position for the allies. That’s purely financial gain, but even if you look at JUST that, Russia effectively doubles their income with the attack.
There are other triples, some include Belarus or E. Europe or Finland or W. Russia, or whatever. Each have their pros and cons and yes, most of them are statistically against Russia. But some are not. :P
-
It’s almost like you deliberately are not reading my posts. This strat I am talking about hits EE, WR, and UKR. It often also involves 2 inf from Bury attacking Manchuria (2 inf ftr). And as I have said before, it’s not like after that he starts doing reasonable battles.
I have no idea why you keep talking about these other strats. I am talking about the win-or-lose-the-game-round-1-maxagaz-russian-triple-sometimes-quadruple. Listing a bunch of things you can do and that people can do has nothing to do with what this strat does; relying 100% on getting far superior dice during the game.
You saying that you don’t attack WR doesn’t change that this strat does. You listing a bunch of Kill_________ first strats does not make this strat anything like those (all of those strats have a plan or goal other than throwing every unit you have against the enemy every turn, regardless of odds.)
This strat is essentially attacking with every possible unit whenever and wherever you can. I’m not sure it’s even justifiable to call it a strategy.
I haven’t been concerned about the strats that are “not statistically against Russia.” Look at my previous posts. If you haven’t seen maxagaz play then perhaps you really can’t imagine what I am talking about. If you have a GTO account, see if you can get on when he is on, be axis, and watch the suicidal attacks round after round.
If you want to contest that this maxagaz strat is not suicide-hoping-for-great-dice, then start by talking about the actions of that strat, not a bunch of things that you can do differently from this strat.
You list 85, 92, and 97 as percentages. I am not sure which Russian triple you referencing, but it is not the WR/EE/UKR/(Manchuria?) that I have been talking about. Using TripleA calc and frood:
EE: 3 Inf/Arm/Ftr vs 2 inf/tank/ftr: 52% (avg loss 3 inf 1 arm)
WR: 6 inf/arm/art vs 3 inf/arm/art: 90% (avg loss 4 inf)
UKR: 3 inf/2 arm/art/ftr vs 3 inf/arm/art/ftr: 62% (avg loss 3 inf, arm, art)
and, often enough
Manchu: 2 inf vs 2 inf 1 ftr: 1% (avg loss 2 inf obviously, gets 1 or more hits only 40%)That’s far different from whatever strat you describe, and as the Germans counter, his odds for the attack on R2 aren’t any better. Either he wins huge or russia is bled dry after 2 or 3 turn with Japanese easily tank rushing. Perhaps there is a situation where the dice are just perfectly so where there can be a competitive play, but repeated suicide attacks make a game where your opponent has no real say over whether he or she loses or wins. It’s not a competion, it’s not a strategy game, it’s rolling dice and hoping to beat the odds as each turn the odds get less and less in your favor, unless you keep beating the odds. A strategy that NEEDS better dice to win for most all of the game is not much of a strategy, if one at all.
If you are talking about Belo/UKR/WR that is fine, but it’s been clear to anyone who has taken the time to read my posts that this “strat” is clearly suicide hoping for good dice. Perhaps we play on TripleA and I show you what it’s like?
-
Because I am defending the Russian Triple as a viable strategy. Of course sending a plane against 3 infantry, artillery, armor and fighter defending is a bone headed manuever, there’s no argument there!
In a nutshell, Russia, if going balls to the walls, has to go after 2 fighters. Going after MORE fighters is suicide. Going after less fighters is not going balls to the walls. W. Russia is only a necessary target if you want to pull defense off Moscow. I have forgone the WR attack and ONLY hit Ukraine/Norway or Ukraine/Norway/Belarus.
I wasnt IGNORING your posts, I was moving on to the next salient point. :P What arguement is there when we both agree leaving a bomber as a blitz blocker when an infantry is available is a DUMB move? Eh?
-
Um you don’t leave West Russia… I really want to to play you now Jen. I will even play as axis with no bid!
-
Um you don’t leave West Russia… I really want to to play you now Jen. I will even play as axis with no bid!
I have, and I will again. Not exclusively, but I have done so.
-
@Cmdr:
Because I am defending the Russian Triple as a viable strategy. Of course sending a plane against 3 infantry, artillery, armor and fighter defending is a bone headed manuever, there’s no argument there!Â
I don’t really recall anyone attacking the Triple in general, only this specific one, but you have the right to post about what you want.
-
Maybe you should move this thread you hijacked to whatever game it belongs in…
Suggested Topics
