• 2007 AAR League

    @Jennifer:

    Yea, the only time I’ve ever lost to the Germans as the Allies is when they are extremely tank heavy from teh get go.  I’m actually considering a German strategy of 100% tank builds, since you can build as many tanks as Russia can infnatry.

    You can build as many tanks russia but what about the units from UK and USA


  • You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
    I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
    Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
    You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
    Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played? Â

    Jen talks a good game, but, with all due respect, she can’t back it up with her play.  At AAMC, she’s only completed one AAR game (which she lost).  At Flames of Europe, she has played 23 AAR games and won only 7.  She is ranked 199 of 217 ranked players (as of March 6, 2007).  Her 7 wins have come against two players, rainynite (ranked #213) - 4 wins and uboot (ranked #214) - 3 wins.  It doesn’t look like she has ever beaten a player ranked above her in the rankings.

    How much can you blame dicey?  If after playing dozens of games, you have a winning percentage of no better than 33% and you can only beat the lowest ranked players, you should face reality and admit that you’re not much of a player.

    By the way, I am ranked 16th at FOE in AAR with a record of 14-3.  At AAMC, I am ranked 5th out of active players with a record of 11-5 (a lot more 2nd Edition games played at AAMC).  At AA.org, I’ve played only one game, which I lost.

    And, to more directly respond to the UK transport issue, 3 is clearly not enough.  You need 4 for most of the early part of the game.  Often, when UK income has grown past the 32 mark, I will build a UK IC in Norway and build 3 infantry or armor there each turn.  The UK doesn’t need a large air force.  3 ftrs and a bmr are good enough for most purposes.  The US can build a large air force if it is needed to counter the Japanese fleet or bolster the defence of Russia.

    SS

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, to be fair to Jenn, she also says that she likes to try experimental strategies, and often they don’t work out. But she does have some interesting theories about certain dicey’s rolling all 1s on AA fire against her, or on Defending Inf against her.

  • 2007 AAR League

    In Jenn’s defense, I will say that UK Royal Airforce is effective.

    Why……well it depends.  What it depends upon is what Germany has.  Flat out.

    Do you have to keep buying fighters?  No way!  Bombers are nice.

    However, I will admit that I am biased.  Each time I’ve built up on RAF I have 4 trannies doing the grunt work with my RAF supporting ground.

    Did I buy all 4 trannies?  That is the question.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Fighters are good for three major purposes, in addition to being very mobile:

    1. Sinking enemy naval units without having to have a navy yourself (good for Germany in this regard)
    2. Trading territory with Infantry only left behind.
    3. Reinforcing a territory just captured by a friendly power

    There are others too, but I think those are the main ones. Purely for defence, 3 Inf are way better than 1 Ftr. Offensively, 3 Inf are better too: they have the same total punch, but can sustain three hits. You can also use fighters to add punch to an amphibious assault, but I think long-term you are better off to have extra transports for this purpose.

    The UK’s starting fighters are enough I think because it doesn’t need to do a lot of any of the above, unless Russia needs help really fast.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That’s the problem with all these games that are rated, they stifle experimentation.  See what their arguements are?  They can’t defeat my ideas on their merit, so they go to my record to try and prove I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    However, I know of one game where my strat was Trn, BB every round with America.  I lost, but does that mean my comments on Fighters/Bombers for England is a bad strategy?  Maybe if I played 30 games of Fighter/Bombers for England and lost 23 of them, but that’s just simply not the case.


  • Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

    SS

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @saburo:

    Well, if the choice is between anecdotal evidence of your “superior tactics” and the empirical evidence based on your record, I will rely on the record every time.

    SS

    That’s not the choice.  The choice is the record with no context or reading the thought processes and concepts and attempting to picture how to defeat the tactic, if possible.

    Given that choice, I’ll stick with the situational tactics over the record every time.  Any moron can stack infantry until you get 100+ then walk to Moscow.  It takes a genius to take Moscow on Germany 3.


  • @froodster:

    Well, to be fair to Jenn, she also says that she likes to try experimental strategies, and often they don’t work out. But she does have some interesting theories about certain dicey’s rolling all 1s on AA fire against her, or on Defending Inf against her.

    burrrrrn


  • 1.  As soon as I get internet up, Imma challenge saburo sakai!  meh heh heh heh.  Right now, I’m at work, so I can’t really download executables.  Oh wellz.  You down for that SS?

    2.  Yeah, I like having a lot of transports.  I actually think 5 is pretty solid for UK.  I’m seriously considering 6-7 or even 8.  It SOUNDS stupid, then you start using that many, and you’re like “hm, this is some pretty badass s***”.  I have to thank the Caspian Sub Yahoo group for putting me on to 5+ transports for UK.

    Although I still think 2-3 transports in Baltic for Germany is reckless.  Damn, I have to write a paper one of these days.

    @saburo:

    You know Jen, you keep putting out all of this stuff about how screwed up players like Dan and I are in our strategy analysis.  Yet when I look over at DAAK…
    I am ranked 13th with a record of 26 and 8
    Dan is ranked 52nd with a record of 2 and 1
    You are ranked 80th with a record of 3 and 11
    Now… which of us have a better tactical/strategic grasp of the game as it is played? Â

    Jen talks a good game, but, with all due respect, she can’t back it up with her play.  At AAMC, she’s only completed one AAR game (which she lost).  At Flames of Europe, she has played 23 AAR games and won only 7.  She is ranked 199 of 217 ranked players (as of March 6, 2007).  Her 7 wins have come against two players, rainynite (ranked #213) - 4 wins and uboot (ranked #214) - 3 wins.  It doesn’t look like she has ever beaten a player ranked above her in the rankings.

    How much can you blame dicey?  If after playing dozens of games, you have a winning percentage of no better than 33% and you can only beat the lowest ranked players, you should face reality and admit that you’re not much of a player.

    By the way, I am ranked 16th at FOE in AAR with a record of 14-3.  At AAMC, I am ranked 5th out of active players with a record of 11-5 (a lot more 2nd Edition games played at AAMC).  At AA.org, I’ve played only one game, which I lost.

    And, to more directly respond to the UK transport issue, 3 is clearly not enough.  You need 4 for most of the early part of the game.  Often, when UK income has grown past the 32 mark, I will build a UK IC in Norway and build 3 infantry or armor there each turn.  The UK doesn’t need a large air force.  3 ftrs and a bmr are good enough for most purposes.  The US can build a large air force if it is needed to counter the Japanese fleet or bolster the defence of Russia.

    SS

  • 2007 AAR League

    To take Moscow on G3 you need not just genius, but a phenomenally stupid Russia player. It’s just not physically possible.

    What I would like is to see Jennifer play a game where she actually is willing to put her true ability on the line. No goofy “just for the hell of it tactics” (although from reading a post of hers she considers 1 Bom v. 3 Inf to be “risky” while I put that under “suicidal” but whatever)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Suicidal is a good word for it, but that game was already lost at that point, it was a hail mary attempt to knock the wind out of the allies for a turn so I could recover slightly.

    Game 3497 Flames of Europe, I’m not trying anything radical.  Well, other then a 1 turn 100% armor build for Germany in Germany 5.  It’s my AAMC Tournament game. (their dicey doesnt play nice with IE 7.0 or Firefox.  Crashes a lot.)


  • Hey all,

    Jen I don’t dispute your theories or ideas, (althoe others here do). I like you concepts on keeping the game from falling into its old ruts of KGF then focus on Japan. What I get a kick out of most is when you counter-attacking others criticizing you ideas like a rabid junk yard dog. :-)

  • 2007 AAR League

    Gotta say, if Germany/Japan is everyone’s favourite, why does the Axis get a bid?

    Anyone have any clue how many games are won/lost by the Axis? On this board at least?


  • Hey,

    I couldn’t tell you Froodster. I live way up in the northern regions of NY State. (some day we hope to be annexed into the US and get a sheriff and such, he he) So the noobs I play FTF always loose.


  • 1.  As soon as I get internet up, Imma challenge saburo sakai!  meh heh heh heh.  Right now, I’m at work, so I can’t really download executables.  Oh wellz.  You down for that SS?

    Yeah, but only if you’re willing to play at AAMC or FOE.  I really don’t like the PBF format.

    SS


  • @Jennifer:

    Suicidal is a good word for it, but that game was already lost at that point, it was a hail mary attempt to knock the wind out of the allies for a turn so I could recover slightly.

    Game 3497 Flames of Europe, I’m not trying anything radical.  Well, other then a 1 turn 100% armor build for Germany in Germany 5.  It’s my AAMC Tournament game. (their dicey doesnt play nice with IE 7.0 or Firefox.  Crashes a lot.)

    If you can beat Atlantikwall in that game, kudos to you.  He’s one of the best AAR players anywhere.

    SS

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Dunno if I can beat him or not.  I got unlucky on the draw when I got him.  However, I’m currently in a strong position with both Germany and Japan and I think I have a good chance of winning.  At the least, I am in a position to force England and Russia to retreat to Moscow with America just starting to reclaim British Africa in Round 6.

    But then again, it is only round 6.  There’s a lot that can happen between then and now.  But I think I’ll be playing you in the tourney soon enough, bwuhahahahah!


  • Well, I won’t comment on a Tournament game while it is underway, but I think you’re still quite a long way from forcing England and Russia to retreat to Moscow.

    SS

  • 2007 AAR League

    @froodster:

    Gotta say, if Germany/Japan is everyone’s favourite, why does the Axis get a bid?

    Anyone have any clue how many games are won/lost by the Axis? On this board at least?

    Just checked the league results and the Spring Tourney results. They are as follows:

    Spring Tourney Round 1: Axis 9 wins vs. Allies 7 wins
    Spring Tourney Round 2: Axis 5 wins vs. Allies 3 wins
    2007 League to date: Axis 4 wins vs. Allies 5 wins

    Overall: Axis 18 wins vs. Allies 15 wins

    It seems pretty competitive on this board.  Hence the bid?

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 56
  • 3
  • 1
  • 38
  • 27
  • 48
  • 21
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

21

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts