• A) Squire, you’re a weasel for that Masters un-update.

    B) I wrote something incorrectly before.  I said I used a tactic that was like jumping up and yelling, “HEY! LOOK AT THAT MONKEY!”

    In fact, what you would yell at GenCon is “SWEET MOSES!  LOOK AT LEIA’S METAL BIKINI!”

    Aaaaaand with that we can now be sure to see TriHero at the next GenCon.

    :wink:


  • Well CS,

    I am not going to get into this a lot further because…
    1.  This thread is now dreadfully off-topic
    and
    2.  You are not likely to admit error.

    Now, I am going to correcft you on your final post, then allow my previous words to stand.

    As I said, there have been a number of posts regarding C-Sub strats here to allow folks who are not members of your yahell group to read them.  You claim that I am picking nits when I distinguish between advocating a core concept and state that you are using canned strats, what you called a “script.”

    I stand by that distinction, and will allow others to decide if my distinction is valid.

    Example of Caspian Subs canned strats/scripts…
    From:  “The Z42 Progression: One Island Hopping Plan for Japan During KGF”

    Round 1: Build 3tra 1tnk
    Round 2: Take 2tra of gear and a battleship to Hawaii (Z52).
    Round 3: Take 1tra of gear to Australia (Z46) and 1tra of gear to New Zealand (Z41).
    Round 4: Move gear toward Africa (1tra to Z42, 1tra to Z25).  (Now go figure out the sucker punch before you read further)
    Round 5: Hit the sucker or take Brazil/Africa

    From:  “Cracking the Canadian Shield”

    The basic move is this:

    Round one do a 3tra German opening (Policy Paper #11) and buy 3tra 1tnk with Japan.

    Round two unite your German fleet in Z07 and buy 1tra 3tnk 3inf with Japan and shuttle gear to Buryatia; between Buryatia and Japan you should have 5inf 5tnk.

    Round three take the Germans and land 5inf 5tnk in E. Canada through Z09.  Take Japan and land 5inf 5tnk in W. Canada.  Unless your opponent is prepared for it you ought to get DC or LA.  Capturing either US city should get you a win.

    Now compare these to “core concepts” posts…

    From:  Japan Strategy Concepts

    South Asia:  To my mind, this is perhaps one of THE best avenues of attack for Japan.  UK is likely to use their India forces to hold Africa (giving up 3 IPC’s to keep the 9 in Africa from Egypt south.  Again this allows Japan to advance quickly, with the risk of advancing too quickly and being decimated by a small strike of USSR forces coming south from Caucuses.  The south Asia avenue of attack can be supported with an IC in FIC, as well as by 1-2 transports that scavenge INF from the islands (Phillipines and East Indies in particular), and later with “tranny exchange” where a loaded tranny brings forces to FIC from Japan 1 round, then travels back the next round to “bridge” forces to Bury or Manch, being replaced by another loaded tranny heading to FIC from Japan.  Thus all trannies are able to ferry forces each round.  The south Asia strike has two additional advantages that make it such a strong threat to the Allies.  The first is that it adds a second threat to the Russian IC in Caucuses.  With Germany pushing via Ukraine, and Japan pushing through India and Persia, Caucuses becomes an issue for Russia.  And control of that IC by either side, with supporting defensive forces flowed in by the other plus subsequent builds, means that Russia is in serious trouble.  If Caucuses is too well defended, you can possibly slip some forces past and move on into Africa.  But again, be careful, if Caucuses is well held and you move past Persia, Russia can strike at your supply line and even back toward your FIC base while your advance forces are cut off in Trans Jordan or Egypt.  An IC in FIC should probably be the first built by Japan since it allows for use on 2 otherwise slow to supply avenues of attack.

    Now, let’s let the readers here decide which is more valuable…
    An XYZ script that is easilly blocked by even simple (and shall I say traditional?) Allied moves?
    Or a post that discusses the basic outline of a strategy and allows the player to flesh it out in details and timeline, with FIVE OTHER optional concepts listed in teh same paper in the event South Asia is blocked?


  • I’m with the core concepts crowd. Sound grasp of fundamentals will always serve you better than tricks.

    I even have an Axiom about it that I recently disobeyed to my detriment,

    Axiom 6 “Be more concerened with the sure paths to defeat than the uncertain paths to victory.”


  • I suppose the question now is when does a core concept become a canned strat? Or does its very nature as a core of strategy sheild it from ever falling into the realm of being canned or a “sucker punch.”

    For instance taking out the US fleet at Pearl on J1? Canned strat or core concept?


  • That is a single battle, and no more of a canned strat than attackign West Russia on R1.

    A Canned Strat goes beyond a single opening round battle, and starts to details specific equipment purchases, 3, 4 or 5 turns into the game.  No one can predict that far ahead, not in ADS anyway.

    Hell, the cumulative odds over 5 turns of even being able to ATTEMPT a specific move move that far down the line are nearly astronomical, since not only do you have the cumulative variable of about 70 battles by then, but also the cumulative effects of every single unit in NCM.

    For example “take Africa” on Turn 5 in that Z42 move on Turn 5… OK, sure, I’ll hit Africa on Turn 5.  But what if the US has been landing there in a North African Dominance strat for the past 5 turns?  Or just a T2 South Africa Interdiction?  And if they are, then hitting Brazil instead is a 1-turn gain of 3 IPC for Japan since the US can turn from SZ12 to SZ18 the next move and obliterate half of the forces you ahve been staging with the past 5 turns.


  • The CSub papers more complex that you give them credit for, Switch. The Canadian Shield paper talks about a few different variants, and the Baltic paper recommends 2 transports against good players, not 3. You can pick apart one little idea in the overall scheme, but the paper is always talking about the bigger picture and the pros and cons once you’ve seen the sucker punch.

    Would it help you to know that CrazyStraw won Gencon by himself just recently? That he used a partial Canadian Shield to beat one guy, and built 8 transports and 1 carrier as Germany as well? Not all the “advanced” players have seen every strategy, and it’s easy as hell to beat on a strategy that is laid out for you all nice and neat instead of an unexpected move in a tournament.

    I agree that CSub papers lack full discussions of basic details like the hemming and hawing of deadzones, the various builds and attack as Russia or whatever, etc, but none of their papers are so shallow as to be canned.


  • They are, by and large, presetned as fairly detailed blueprints.

    So he won a Tournament.  So have I.  So he has beat some good players, so have I.

    But when your strategy relies on moves and builds 5 turns into the game, THAT is canned, no other way to say it.


  • Aaaaaand with that we can now be sure to see TriHero at the next GenCon.

    :lol: metal bikinis where?  :? :-o :-D

    CSub papers are hardly canned. They discuss so many different variants of how things go. The paper would be canned if it said, you must build 3 transports as Germany, and then you will win. But it hardly says that at all. The paper would be canned if it said, you will take the USA for sure. But it doesn’t even say that.


  • Well heck, I was going to log in again to give you credit for starting a new thread, so I figure I may as well post a real post.

    A) Good idea for a new thread.  That’s good moderatin’.

    B) Ok, you quote the Canadian Shield paper which says, “The basic move is this”.  Doesn’t that imply immediately that there are other ways to do it as opposed to the move only being a script? Â

    More importantly, doesn’t the paper go on to detail many variations of the basic move?  So that’s not a script, that a discussion with a starting description of the basic concept.  It’s weird that you’re trying to split this semantic hair.  Must be the influence of that darn post-modernism

    C) You write “You are not likely to admit error.”  1) Like you are?  I admire your undaunted self-righteousness in the face of evidence to the contrary.  2) In fact, this may be one of the ways we are most different.  In the link Squirecam posted you can see that I give him credit for several points and say that I’m going to go back and work on a couple of concepts.  We were having a good debate (though later on in our history we did get a little raucus.  Heh  :-D).

    You, on the other hand, have a track record of starting debates off like a knob.  And I quote: “What this idiot who wrote this paper misses when he advocates the 3 tranny build…” Â

    See http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5719.msg85316#msg85316

    I don’t usually push back hard on folks, but when you’re both wrong AND obnoxious it tends to get my dander up.  I tend to try and look for things to give people credit for (evidenced in a vatiety of threads), you tend to look for things to call people idiots.

    I guess you must feel like you’re succeeding.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Even if they ARE canned strategies and even if you CAN destroy them, they do serve purpose….to make you think.  Do you know how boring this game gets when you can basically predict the first 5 rounds of combat given average dice?  It’s the same thing over and over and over again.  A little variety, even if it doesn’t work, at least adds some flavor to the game!  And who knows, maybe it’s that first guy to build a carrier with Germany or the first guy who orchestrates a masterful conquering of Canada or the first guy to do almost nothing but build infantry with Germany in classic that changes the game forever.

    That’s, personally, what I aspire too.  That’s why I come up with some kooky ideas.  If the bounce back seems canned with no real response other hten “infantry stacks are better” I might even try it.


  • And Jen I do believe that i stated, twice so far in this thread, that those essays are valuable in terms of sparking thought.

    What they are nearly useless for though is taking them verbatim and trying them against an experienced player.

    That was my initial point (of taking C-Sub with a grain of salt), and remains my consistent point throughout this thread.


  • I would have to say that core concepts are more effective for me.  It is the way I approach the game a country doesn’t have scripted moves but rather responsibilities.  I think that scripted or canned strats don’t factor in bad rolls or your opponents counter measures.  IMHO the only moves that can really be scripted are the R1 moves.  after that the game becomes highly reactionary.  I can’t tell you how many times I have had perfect plans for my next few rounds only to have those plans crushed by an enemy counter measure forcing me back to the drawing board again.  So for me scripts don’t work.


  • I definitely think the CSub essays spark thought, and are fairly good for newer players like myself when I first picked up the game.  They give a player food for thought on how to approach the game, and maybe ways to go about coming up with strats of their own.  Sure, once you get better you don’t have to follow everything to a T, but it’s all about ideas and developing your own, with a good kickstart from others,whether it be CSub or from some other source.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    And Jen I do believe that i stated, twice so far in this thread, that those essays are valuable in terms of sparking thought.

    What they are nearly useless for though is taking them verbatim and trying them against an experienced player.

    That was my initial point (of taking C-Sub with a grain of salt), and remains my consistent point throughout this thread.

    Kay kay, musta forgotten you said it earlier in the thread.  When you’re tracking 400 threads a day, it’s hard to remember every point made in them. :)


  • Not a problem Jen :-)

    Let me sum up a few of my earlier points, in case tehy did not cross over from the original thread, and just so folks understand me…

    The C-Sub essays have some good info.  They present ideas that folks may not have considered.  Many of them have some great statisitcal analysis of specific units, and others have some good analysis of specific combat situations you may encounter.  On that last item, it is not so much the specific analysis that is valuable (except of course for the Round 1 analysis, since beyond that too many variables creep in), but HOW to analize that makes them worthwhile.

    They are a good jumping off point.

    But they are not then end-all and be-all of how to win Axis and Allies.

    And, trying to use them as many of them are presented, as a blueprint for what builds and moves to make to achieve victory, is more likely to cause you a lot of grief than it is to be of any real benefit to you or your game play.  Thus, take them with a grain of salt.


  • If you are anywhere near Michigan or Ohio, you should play in Crazy’s border battle tournament. I think it is in November.

    See who has the better strategy?

    Squirecam


  • I am in north central North Carolina.  That Tournament is about a 20 hour drive from here…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    What’s 20 hours when immortality is on the line???


  • And a chance to disprove/insult/embarrass your opponent and his “canned strats.” :-P

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’ll send $2 to your paypal address to see you quash him, any other takers? smile

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 26
  • 3
  • 18
  • 5
  • 4
  • 54
  • 5
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

20

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts