All tapped out for strategies? Is it Game Over?

I realize A&A Revised has been out for a couple years, but with the way people play this game nonstop and almost religiously, is it possible for there to be no more strategies left to come up with?Â Have all the major stats been used and thought up and played and discarded quicker than anyone knows about?Â I’m just curious because the CSub guys are saying they’re coming up with a new strat, or at least a new venture they areÂ going to/are ready to employ soon.Â I realize this game will keep going for a while, and considering its daddy was born in the 80s and there are now 4 to 6 different incarnations, it won’t die off soon.Â But have all possible strategies been deployed/used already?

There are always little things you can do that can have a big impact on the outcome of the game. While all the major strats have been dissected over and over, there is always a luck factor that makes me think Game On.

I don’t know but it definently does seem kind of repetitive to me now that I have been playing it more often.

@AJGundam:
I don’t know but it definently does seem kind of repetitive to me now that I have been playing it more often.
So after a while, would you stop playing and maybe come back to it later on, after enough time has lapsed for you to want to play it again?

Probably … it is a good game but I think that after I finish up the 3 games I got going now I will take a little break.

I think that’s the best step to take. You don’t want to burn yourself out. The same goes for a lot of things in life that person likes/loves (aside from significant others). If you play a game or do something for a super long time with a lot of intensity, you just burn out. And then you don’t ever want to touch it again.

It will take me another 50 games to explore all the things that I have come up with over the past year or so… during which time I will come up with MORE things to try…

Every game (even chess) has a finite list of moves/strategies.
The dice make games different.
Revised (like classic) has certain strategies that are more prevelant (read “win more often”) than others. If you are playing in tourney mode all the time (read: always trying to get a win), you will burn out a bit faster than playing trying new things.
Good Gaming!

AAR has gotten to the point all the copiers have their strategies worked out. Original thinkers will always come up with something new. Like strategies to kill America first, why? Because it’s different and infantry stacks just don’t get me all wet. Sorry. It’s boring and plodding and relies a lot on getting average dice. Not like attacking JSP’s fleet with a 50/50 chance of being obliterated and leaving him floating and not only winning, but winning big. Or deciding that Russia’s going to put up an IC in Manchuria because they can totally piss off the Japanese.
Winning strategy or not, sometimes doing something different is more fun. Besides, if you do something different and your opponent does the classic proven method, who really is the better strategist and who just knows the formula?

Chess has 32 pieces and 64 spaces.
A&A has a LOT more pieces, and more spaces.
A&A adds pieces.
And A&A has dice.Yes, there are a finite number of moves…
Call it Chess to the Google power (for thsoe who know the meaning of google instead of just the online service).

It is googol, just to correct you.

And a googol PLEX on you! :evil:

Axis and Allies is much more dynamic. You can attack with 30 fighters and not get a single hit. Or you can get 15 hits (LL) or you could get 30 hits.
But odds are, if you have 24 infantry, 6 Armor and 4 Fighters attacking you will get 9 hits. And that’s what reactionary, formulaic players count on. They don’t think for themselves. They just know that X% infantry + Y% artillery + Z% armor with nnumber of fighters and bombers will win the space for them. They rely too heavily on calculators and not enough on tactics and strategy. And worse still, they don’t utilize luck.
The best thing you can have happen to these people is get 33% accuracy with your attacking infnatry in round 1 of a major engagement. (I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been tracking my infantry and fighter accuracy lately, because they seem wrong. I’ve averaged 32.476215% accurate with Infantry on attack; 12.978248% accurate with attacking fighters over the past 9 games so far.)
BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate. It’s a Newton thing. Anyway, the point is, sometimes it pays off to attack a superior force with just infantry because you lose 3 IPC units and you might throw his entire strategy off because now his formula is all screwed up. You’d be surprised how often they count on those infnatry units to sit as a defensive wall ONLY and how surprised they are when you take their stack from a 3:1 ratio of infantry to artillery to a 1:1 ratio and totally discombobulate their entire stack building strategy.
Fun times! Fun times.
It is googol, just to correct you.
And Nuk’s right, minus the plex. But I wasn’t going to mention it. Since it was a petty correction and you’re just a lawyer, not a mathemetician.

Calculations, odds, and percentages of being victorius are great until Lady Luck strikes. I’m sure everyone has played in games where they have seen a mathmatically superior force get crushed. I’ve seen Japan send 1 INF and 5 FIG into India against 1 INF only to lose 4 FIG to AA fire. It’s the little things like that which make the game fun and I agree with Jennifer if it gets boring try something new.

You guys might want to check out Low Luck. It’s adds all kinds of new dimensions to the game. Like 1 bmb, 2 inf will always take a territory defended by any one unit. And since you won’t lose your bomber, SBR’s become a viable strat. I was saying to myself “My baltic fleet is sunk. Why is the US buying a second bomber? What an idiot!”. Fooled me good he did. I learned that perhaps too late in my DAAK tourney game (thought it was ADS) but I’m getting up to speed pretty quick. And you have to pay close attention to not only what you bring to an attack but also what you leave behind. Like UK/US suicide attacks on Germany could guarantee a Russian follow up victory when in ADS it would lose the game for the Allies to even attempt it. And it’s always comforting to know that victory is certain in Ukr/WR on R1, Egypt on G1, and sz52 on J1. you might lose an extra unit here and there on good defensive rolls but you’ll never see Russia lose 8 inf in the WR attack. I’m not knocking ADS, but I’m beginning to like Low Luck just as much for the novelty.

Since it was a petty correction and you’re just a lawyer, not a mathemetician.
Mathematician?
BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate. It’s a Newton thing.
We do, do we?

I have found to keep the game fresh and interesting you need to constantly bring new people into it. The up side is they all have their own approach to the game. The down side is if they have never played before you tend to slaughter them without even trying for some time this may lead to their disintres in the game or an overwhelming urge to beat the one who introduced them to it down. So it can be a blessing and a curse.
LT04

Axis and Allies is much more dynamic.Â You can attack with 30 fighters and not get a single hit.Â Or you can get 15 hits (LL) or you could get 30 hits.Â
But odds are, if you have 24 infantry, 6 Armor and 4 Fighters attacking you will get 9 hits.Â And that’s what reactionary, formulaic players count on.Â They don’t think for themselves.Â They just know that X% infantry + Y% artillery + Z% armor with nnumber of fighters and bombers will win the space for them.Â They rely too heavily on calculators and not enough on tactics and strategy.Â And worse still, they don’t utilize luck.
The best thing you can have happen to these people is get 33% accuracy with your attacking infnatry in round 1 of a major engagement. (I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been tracking my infantry and fighter accuracy lately, because they seem wrong.Â I’ve averaged 32.476215% accurate with Infantry on attack; 12.978248% accurate with attacking fighters over the past 9 games so far.)
BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate.Â It’s a Newton thing.Â Anyway, the point is, sometimes it pays off to attack a superior force with just infantry because you lose 3 IPC units and you might throw his entire strategy off because now his formula is all screwed up.Â You’d be surprised how often they count on those infnatry units to sit as a defensive wall ONLY and how surprised they are when you take their stack from a 3:1 ratio of infantry to artillery to a 1:1 ratio and totally discombobulate their entire stack building strategy.
Fun times!Â Fun times.
It is googol, just to correct you.
And Nuk’s right, minus the plex.Â But I wasn’t going to mention it.Â Since it was a petty correction and you’re just a lawyer, not a mathemetician.
My room mate is once of those guys. and I get a great joy from discovering his strategy and throwing a wrench into it and then watch him just fall apart. At this point I’ll be the axis with no bid and beat JUST becasue of this.

Some times it can feel like watching a fly with its wings pulled off, but I wouldn’t to that to another A&A player. :evil:

Turn on all 6 National Advantages for all 5 nations. It’s a whole new game, trust me. (I play LHTR)
~Josh

SBR in Low Luck has two agreed upon methods.
 (Most prevalent): Attacker takes 3.5 IPC in Damage to the Bomber and does 3.5 IPC in damage to the defender. This one is stupid, IMHO, because 15 IPC / 6 is 2.5 IPC, not 3.5 IPC. Wheras, the midpoint on a Die 6 is 3.5. Which leads me to # 2:
2) Attacker does 3.5 IPC damage to the enemy and sustains 2.5 IPC in damage to repair the bomber. Much more mathematically accurate and returns a reason for SBR to the game.
And RJ: Yes. According to Newton and the modern mathematical community, 6 decimal places for a single variable equation is considered accurate. More is nice, but it is not necessary to be considered accurate in a single variable equation such as percentage of infantry units that hit on attack or percentage of fighter units that hit on attack.

:evil: If your going to add all 6 national advantages you might as well as throw in Nuke’s for the US and Germany. :evil:
LT04

And RJ:Â Yes.Â According to Newton and the modern mathematical community, 6 decimal places for a single variable equation is considered accurate.Â More is nice, but it is not necessary to be considered accurate in a single variable equation such as percentage of infantry units that hit on attack or percentage of fighter units that hit on attack.
But aren’t your examples 8 decimal places?

And RJ: Yes. According to Newton and the modern mathematical community, 6 decimal places for a single variable equation is considered accurate. More is nice, but it is not necessary to be considered accurate in a single variable equation such as percentage of infantry units that hit on attack or percentage of fighter units that hit on attack.
But aren’t your examples 8 decimal places?
No.
I’ve averaged 32.476215% accurate with Infantry on attack; 12.978248% accurate with attacking fighters over the past 9 games so far.
There are two integers followed by six decimal places. Thousands, Hundreds, Tens and Ones are not decimal places. Thousandths, Hundredths, Tenths are decimal places.

But the probability that you have calculated is .32476215 for Infantry on attack and .12978248 for fighters on attack. 8 decimal places. That you chose to display them as a percentage does not change the fact that the probability is to 8 decimal places.
BTW, for the record, in Math we consider 6 decimal places to be accurate. It’s a Newton thing.
So, you wouldn’t happen to be referring to Newton’s Method, would you? A guess and check method for calculating the root? Because I don’t see what this calculation has to do at all with calculating the average number of hits with your infantry?
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/2413/NewtonsMethod.asp