Ok, so if I corrected all the mistakes I made in my first PBF game with you, we should see the second game created HERE!
GL&HF
:)
Defending against a 21+ bid Power Europe
-
All I can say in response to the simluations and the counter posts…
The allies ahve to get a HELL of a lot of fighters to Russia ASAP!
And the UK and US need to go balls to the wall in Europe… D-day after D-day…
-
A ftr heavy approach is one possibility but ultimately its not a solvent one assuming the Axis responds appropriately. For one the UK/US has to build some sort of ground force with which to challenge Fortress Europe. IMO the US should not be building much air and the UK should build only 1ftr or so a turn so in effect the Allies can build only ~2 ftrs per turn for Russia either 2UK ftrs plus some guys or 1US and 1 UK.
However, there is an Axis counter to this and that is to play Japan different as well. While its not an obvious conclusion to reach Japan under a PE bid doesn’t really need to worry about Asia b/c Russia has to defend its capital against Germany and therefore can’t press eastward so Japan should get Yakut,Sfe,China, Sink and India pretty easily. This means that they can even very early on commit heavily to an air campaign, and if Japan builds a few bombers the first couple turns they can do some serious damage to Russia. Enough damage in fact so that by turn 4-5 or so Russia has no income left. This is actually more damaging to Russia than building up in order to take Novo and surrounding Moscow with Japan and Germany . Anyway at this point the Allies can do nothing but add air to Russia which they will lose once Moscow becomes tundefendable and attacked. Ultimately, Japan and Germany should be able to kill moscow before the Allies can get to Germany. A side benefit to a Japanese air campaign is that the bmbs which strike Moscow can reach Karelia on the same turn and therefore the extra air by Japan say 4ftrs + a bmb buildup will pressure the Allied fleets in the Atlantic making them less effective as well. For example, if it comes to the point where Britain wants to siege Europe by going to Spain/Berlin then they have to move prior to the Japanese move which will either expose their fleet or the US fleet to Japanese air attack. If they stay and try to shuck to WEuro/FinNor then it is really easy for the Axis to counter this by an IPM mechanic which blocks the Allies from going to WEuro w/o first going to Spain b/c of the threat of counterattack but it also allows the Germans to continue their buildup too.
-
@AgentSmith:
by turn 4-5 or so Russia has no income left…Anyway at this point the Allies can do nothing but add air to Russia
AS:
I agree that what you say makes sense.
But couldn’t the US “leapfrog” from Norway into Moscow? This would assume the US retreated at least one inf from Sinkang to Moscow and is able to deliver troops to Norway via the shuck, both of which should be possible by turn 5. Then the US strafes Karelia with the inf. from Moscow and the forces in Norway, then retreats them all into Moscow. I think the US would lose more than they gain by the strafe…but they will have suceeded in moving reinforcements to Moscow…which buys the Allies more time.
-
This is clever but ultimately the cost to the US is too great. Generally speaking the offensive ability of the US is very limited ie they have only 2ftrs and a bmb which makes it hard to gain momentum without sacrificing their IPM either by building tanks. The Japanese and Germans can also use their ftrs as a shield against this while leaving Berlin underdefended. This works by moving around Jap-German ftrs btwn Karelia and Berlin so that that Allies cannot ever attack either. I’ve not see this move you suggest attempted so it might work but I would be very inclined to think otherwise. In otherwords I’d have to be beaten by it before I was willing to think it had any merit. Keep in mind that with most PE bids the Axis is going to be going for a very quick victory so I’m not sure you’d ever have the time to mass up the troops necessary for such a grandiose plan as this. It might work around turn 12-18 but I’m inclined to think the Axis should win easily by then or not at all so this would therefore not be needed.
-
You can do it as early as rd 4 with the US.
(this is approx)
Rd 1 - 2 inf to Fin (retreat Sin inf to Novo then Mos)
Rd 2 - 4 inf to Fin
Rd 3 - 6 inf to FinRd 4 - attack with planes ~14 inf (2 from mos), maybe 1 arm.
Retreat to Mos.
Now whether this helps or not??? If you lose a plane in the attack probably not, as you would need to be +2 inf to cover the def pts or +4 inf to cover the cost. But if you can retreat more than 2 inf to Mos without losing a plane it may be better. Maybe you don’t bring in planes or just the bom or something.
But with 14 inf, 1 arm, 1 bom all the Germans would need is ~16 inf and 9 arm in Kar to inflict heavy loses in 1 rd of battle. Now throw on a G ftr or 2 and it probably won’t be worth it of the US. And by rd 4 I’m sure G could have +20 inf there.
-
Wouldn’t the best strat be to tech heavy with the Allies early???
With PE, strategy is out the window anyway.
UK buys 6 dice, US buys 6 dice. And hope for IT or HB. It’ll still take Germany 2 rds to take Mos.
With 6 dice the odds of getting no tech is ~34%, so 66% of the time UK will get 1 or more techs, and same for the US.
Would this not shift the balance back to giving the Allies a shot. I suppose the Axis could tech as well, but I’m guessing not till at least rd 3, after Russia falls.
-
But what are the odds of getting IT or HB (the only techs that will really help the allies – super subs won’t do them any good)?
Wouldn’t it be 66% * 2/6 = 22% for the UK and the same for the US … or about 44% that one of them will get either IT or HB…which wouldn’t be too bad of a gamble (and the US could chose to NOT roll for tech if the UK did get one of them).Â
The only problems that I see is that this one turn build delay could mean Russia falls before these tech advantages can really have an impact on the game…even with IT or HB can the Allies still win if Russia falls? And if the Allies don’t get these techs, then they had better keep rolling for technology because I don’t see how Russia can stand.
-
Yeah, it would be a total gamble.
Plus I reviewed the LL tech rules, they are a lot different and would prevent this strat from being employed.
So this would only be good for an ADS game, and in ADS you can always get good defensive rolls so maybe it wouldn’t be worth it after all.
-
Wouldn’t the best strat be to tech heavy with the Allies early???
No absolutely not b/c to defeat the Axis the Allies are going to have to force them out of Karelia rather than beating them out to this end the Allies need to be able to create enormous pressure in the West. A tech strat leaves too many t’s not crossed and i’s not dotted and a m84 lurch becomes a real possibility. As far as the Sink move something not mentioned above is that this might be impossible as well. Consider that if Manch isn’t hit and b/c of it the Japanese can try to push several attacks they might not otherwise including an attack on Sink. If the goal is to reduce the overall # of Allied troops in Moscow then this would be better than trying to establish a strong base in Asia given that Asia will be conceeded to you very early in the game. In otherwords Japan just might attack China, Sink, and or Yakut.
In general the problem with a tech yahtzee against a PE bid is that should it not work on the first turn or so then the Allies are going to be doomed b/c they can’t recover the lost time needed to rebuild their fleet.
-
Yeah. But would this not be the answer to how you beat the 8 inf PE bid.
Gamble with tech, hope to get HB with UK and/or US then bom Germany to zero cash?
If the Axis win 24 bid 95-100% of the time and the odds of getting HB are better than that, then would that not be the best option?
21-23 bid, you can still win conventionally, so yeah why gamble with the tech.
-
Yeah. But would this not be the answer to how you beat the 8 inf PE bid.
Gamble with tech, hope to get HB with UK and/or US then bom Germany to zero cash?
If the Axis win 24 bid 95-100% of the time and the odds of getting HB are better than that, then would that not be the best option?
21-23 bid, you can still win conventionally, so yeah why gamble with the tech.
Except that you aren’t taking advantage of the potential for dicings to happen. Its always better to have some units down on the board to use to take advantage of situations that do occur. Whats more if you point all your eggs in the tech basket right away then you are going to need to get it very fast otherwise you’re toast. However, if you build a very modest navy for both the Allies you can still do essentially the same thing but for a few more turns a little later in the game. IMO a lot of what it takes to beat a PE bid(especially one @24) is to stall effectively. If you can do this you should will with or without tech which is always the best time to tech.
-
I agree, it was a total “yahtzee” counter, if you can even call it a counter.
My only point was, if I (for example) cannot beat a 24 PE bid no matter what I do, meaning I lose 100% of the time, why not try tech?
If the odds of getting HB with one or both the other Allies (UK/US) on rd 1 are greater than 0%, which they are, then why not do it.
I would by no means call this a skillful win, it would simply be a lucky win.
I’m not a fan of the PE play to begin with. I’d like to learn how to better counter it, but I do consider it a “putting all your eggs in one basket” strat. You are going for a kill by rd 2, 3, or 4. So I’d see no problem countering it with an “all your eggs in one basket strat”.
Now this is just personal preference but I perfer the games to have a little more strategic value than “did I bid enough to Europe so no matter what Russia does they will fall by rd 3”.
That’s no fun, I can play that by myself on the CD version.I’d be much more willing to give larger bids to ensure a more strategic game.
Which of course leads to the dilemma of your other thread.
-
For me, technology rolls are useful only when:
-
I have already won the game, but my opponent refuses to concede. If I get HB, then it becomes easier to convince my opponent to concede by crushing him quicker.
-
I have already lost the game. If I get lucky and get HB or IT, then there is again the opportunity to win.
In the case of a large PE bid, unlucky R1 rolls and lucky G1 rolls (ADS) resulting in a fabulous position for the Axis by UK1, then I might believe the Allies are already losing and consider the Yahtzee roll as you suggest DM. I’d probably buy some items (bombers and/or navy) and tech rolls at the same time because as AS stated, you do need some units on the board.
-
-
It could also work the other way (in ADS) as well, if Ger rolls bad and Rus rolls good, then certainly that would help the Allies, which would negate the need for a tech “hail mary”, since you rolled up.
But again, your win would still be lucky, since in this scenerio Russia would have rolled well above average.
I have seen a successful Japan Tech strat. Rds 1-3 do normal stuff. Rds 4-5 buy 1 bom each rd and rest inf. Rd 5+ start teching. You should have 40+ IPC and a 3 rd cushion where you can still put normal pressure on Moscow. So you can easily spend 20-30 on Tech rolls for 3 rds without losing a beat. Then if you get HB, you can be in position to do some real damage.
-
I agree this is a luck thing either way its not really strategy except to ask yourself: When have I lost the game and need to tech to turn it around? There usually isn’t a clear point when the game is “lost” and you must roll for tech for any chance to win.
I have played this way with Japan before, but only in a no-bid game :| and I consider no-bid games to be a lost cause from the start for the Axis against decent players. I didn’t win (I didn’t get the techs I needed). I usually play no-bid, but the fun for me is to see how long I can hold out (or even win :-D ) as the Axis. Or if I am the Allies, how quickly I can win.
-
I’d like to learn how to better counter it, but I do consider it a “putting all your eggs in one basket” strat. You are going for a kill by rd 2, 3, or 4.
The problem with PE however is not that the games are quick but that it is unbalanced with PAfrica. PAfrica is also putting your eggs into one basket and generally if you can prevent the Axis from consolidating in Africa you will win. So while the game may not be technically over it is often fairly obvious who will win by turn 6-7 and whether victory is very realistic for the Axis. IMO the point of leveling PE should be to force it to take a few more turns for the Axis to win this way other than the quick 2-3 turn crapola I put on you a while back. There really isn’t a counter b/c that’s what its designed to do and can be done by anyone. Maybe if I actually taught Newbies ‘how to’ do this the online clubs would respond and change their rules.
It could also work the other way (in ADS) as well, if Ger rolls bad and Rus rolls good, then certainly that would help the Allies, which would negate the need for a tech “hail mary”, since you rolled up.
But IMO the dice hail mary with the Russians doesn’t happen b/c most are unwilling to take the risk. Most players believe in strategy and therefore don’t want to attack 6inf bid into Ukr b/c even if it works what does that prove. Most players want to believe they won b/c they deserved it and so aren’t going to make the necessary R1 attacks to be able to take advantage.
I have seen a successful Japan Tech strat. Rds 1-3 do normal stuff. Rds 4-5 buy 1 bom each rd and rest inf. Rd 5+ start teching. You should have 40+ IPC and a 3 rd cushion where you can still put normal pressure on Moscow. So you can easily spend 20-30 on Tech rolls for 3 rds without losing a beat. Then if you get HB, you can be in position to do some real damage.
Be very careful when trying this strat yourself DM b/c it is IMO weak. One of the best reasons for an early purchase of a few bombers by the Allies is to preclude this from happening. If the Allies get a bmb lead b/c they go first(the axis reacts to them) then they should be able to build and maintain a bmb edge over Japan. If Japan starts a tech war/bmb race when the Allies already have on the board 3-4 bmbs then they are asking you to let them slit their own throats b/c they should not win such a tech race. The loss to the Allies is minimal in doing this as well if the UK builds its fleet on turn1 and turn 2 moves its carrier 1boat to Africa to start the retake with the US then they can put off the rest of their fleet build enabling them to do something exotic. I for one have never seen the Japs start a tech war when the UK has 3bmbs to their 1. This is a great example of how its necessary to think outside of the box as the Allies. As I always say a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and getting 4inf as the UKto Africa on turns 2-3 can be almost as good as 6 on turn 3, but getting something like an extra bmb to prevent losing the tech race…priceless.
-
There really isn’t a counter b/c that’s what its designed to do and can be done by anyone. Maybe if I actually taught Newbies ‘how to’ do this the online clubs would respond and change their rules.
Is that what you’re looking for then, the Clubs to try and do away with PE bids, or lower the frequency of their use?
Are you saying, if you teach new players PE bids, then they could go in beat the the higher skilled players in PE, thus forcing clubs to rethink this, or to do something about it, because that club’s “rankings” aren’t really a valid indication of who is the most skilled.
Is this the jist of it, or did I completely miss what you are getting at.
I wonder if you could give PE victories less points if they win. A PE victory gets you 5 pts, but a PAfr gets you 15 pts, while a PA might get you 20pts.
You’d have to define what each bid type is, but that would be fairly easy.
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
No bidding, No PE, PAfr, or PA. I and those helping to start it would come up with what we believe is a fair starting pt.
Example Ger gets 4 inf, 1 arm in Afr, 1 inf in EE/Ukr and J gets 1 inf for Man
Then every 3 Months (or whatever time frame you desire) or “X number of games” the Club leaders re-evaluate your standard set up and adjust accordingly based on all the game results.
If your first setup yields Allied victories 60% of the time, then you must add to the Axis at your next adjustment period to level the playing field.
And adjust the Rankings due to the skewing of the first set. If the results come out 55% Allies, you might say that is good enough and stick with it, until that starts to skew more.Be very careful when trying this strat yourself DM b/c it is IMO weak. One of the best reasons for an early purchase of a few bombers by the Allies is to preclude this from happening. If the Allies get a bmb lead b/c they go first(the axis reacts to them) then they should be able to build and maintain a bmb edge over Japan. If Japan starts a tech war/bmb race when the Allies already have on the board 3-4 bmbs then they are asking you to let them slit their own throats b/c they should not win such a tech race. The loss to the Allies is minimal in doing this as well if the UK builds its fleet on turn1 and turn 2 moves its carrier 1boat to Africa to start the retake with the US then they can put off the rest of their fleet build enabling them to do something exotic. I for one have never seen the Japs start a tech war when the UK has 3bmbs to their 1. This is a great example of how its necessary to think outside of the box as the Allies. As I always say a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and getting 4inf as the UKto Africa on turns 2-3 can be almost as good as 6 on turn 3, but getting something like an extra bmb to prevent losing the tech race…priceless.
I’m not a fan of Tech, so the likelyhood of me using this are slim, but it is still an option. And I definitly WOULD NOT press my luck if UK bought 2 boms on UK 1 or something. Like you said that is just inviting disaster.
BUT if I was putting a pretty good move on Russia, and maybe the UK or US bom was shot down in rd 1 or 2, I might sneak a 2nd Jap bomber in rd 4, then if it appears to go unnoticed or unchallenge I may try in the next rd as well since Boms can directly stike Russia’s Eastern border with ease they aren’t harmful to buy. Then maybe just then Tech could be an option.
But if the Allies make an early bom purchase or maintain a bom lead over Japan, I would not go this route. You don’t want to wake a sleeping giant.
Also, this strat is helpful in RR with Axis Adv, since SuperSubs is out of the way, but you do still have to play attention to what the Allies are doing as you pointed out.
-
Is that what you’re looking for then, the Clubs to try and do away with PE bids, or lower the frequency of their use?
No not exactly. It would be nice however if they were to realize the game is broken and that there no longer is on great incentive to play the game. I’ve spoken to several of the old school players and this accounts for a great deal of the high frequency of brain drain instead of pure burnout.
Are you saying, if you teach new players PE bids, then they could go in beat the the higher skilled players in PE, thus forcing clubs to rethink this, or to do something about it, because that club’s “rankings” aren’t really a valid indication of who is the most skilled.
I was largely being facetous, but there is some truth behind this. The rankings may or may not reflect a skill heirarchy but it may not just as easily. The clubs I’ve seen haven’t been very concerned with change an innovation and have as a result found themselves behind the curve. Players can then decide to accept that or not and that decision will affect whether they continue to play or not. I do think there is some distortion but how much is pure speculation but there seems to have been a great deal of upward mobility of lower rated players about the time when bids started to dramatically rise and PE became more prevalent. You connect the dots.
I wonder if you could give PE victories less points if they win. A PE victory gets you 5 pts, but a PAfr gets you 15 pts, while a PA might get you 20pts.
Maybe this would work but for many players its about the pride of defending their record that motivates them to play. I really could care less about my (points) but do care about winning more than I lose. So like some I think winning only 50% but gaining points would seem cheap. IMO nobody plays for ratings or points but for the thrill of competition and the unexpected. Its nice to see that lower ranked players can knock off a top player by getting lucky occasionally b/c it means that the outcome of any game is undetermined beforehand. Its not interesting to see the game become so irrelevent that a PE player can get high ranked without really ever playing a game much past turn 5.
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
But that would absolutely kill it. I like seeing variation it makes things interesting. Also its nice to sometimes see a player use inferior strategy and succeed in spite of themselves. If the best player always won why play? Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
-
@AgentSmith:
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
But that would absolutely kill it. I like seeing variation it makes things interesting. Also its nice to sometimes see a player use inferior strategy and succeed in spite of themselves. If the best player always won why play? Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
I disagree.
Lower skilled players could still win. There are still dice rolls, and even the best players make mistakes get over confident, underestimate their opponent.
Or better yet, they learn something and improve and come back to play another day.
But you don’t want lower skilled players being Ranked #1,2,3 etc. just because a certain play or bid style gives the lower skilled an adv.If I were to run a Club, I wouldn’t think it is fair that one player wins with 21 bid while another wins with 23. The pts they get (for winning) should be adjusted because they had the adv of starting out with 2 more IPC.
All competition needs a level playing field. The whole point of bids is to give the Axis a shot at winning and level the playing field.
In the case of my fictional A&A Club I would need a system to either have the starting point be uniform, or adjust the winners score based on their bid amount due to the varying bids.
Or perhaps even seperate divisions for players that like different styles much like LL or Revised, etc: like the PE division, PAfr, PA, or the whatever you want division.If the best player always won why play?
To beat the best! Thus becoming the best.
Why play the Patriots, they were world champs and the best. You play them to see how you stack up and to try and become the best. And hey Denver beat them and Pit beat the Colts, then Pit beat Den and Sea beat Car. Now we are left with Pit vs. Sea for the best.
But next year, you start over to see who the best is again. You didn’t see the NFL give up after SB I.Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
True. That’s why you wathc rds 1 and 2, to see which #2 seed will crumble.
But then why will people watch Duke vs. whoever in the Final, or N.C. vs. U of I last year.And unlike Charminade, who only gets one shot a year, an A&A player can learn and continually get better to ultimately challenge the best.
Best vs. best is the challenge.
Texas vs. USC.
and now Pit vs. Sea in the SB.
-
But consider the sheer amount of luck involved in all sporting contests. Hell if Iowa hadn’t gotten unlucky and been cursed by the crappy officiating they probably would’ve won the Outback Bowl. :wink:
Or what if that INT dropped by Polamalu in the Indy game had led to an Indy TD. Pitt doesn’t go to the Superbowl then. There are a plethora of underdogs winning in sports which is why they are so compelling to watch.
All competition needs a level playing field. The whole point of bids is to give the Axis a shot at winning and level the playing field.
And believe me a bid does just that. Even at 21 I could argue the game is too balanced. If you and I had played all those LL games ADS you probably would’ve one a few more just b/c of dice rolling. If minimizing this is something you’d like try using larger faced dice. A while back a friend of mine and I played some games with 12,18 and 24 sided dice which really took the luck out of the game b/c there was a greater field of potential numbers in play.
Suggested Topics
