Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Lets discuss Japan Round 1
-
@Subotai:
In Revised, Axis can win at least 40% of the time without a bid. Are you saying that in Anniversary they can’t win at all?
So far I think the balance in AA50 is better than revised, that is, any bid needed is less than $9 in units.
But it’s not true that in revised axis will will about 40% of all (no bid) games between equally experienced players, assuming both players are decent. Not even the best players I played or seen, will play me w/o bids.
I don’t think any player will win 40% of all (no bid) games against me, if I’m allies. Perhaps 10% or probably the number is even lower, maybe 1%-5% perhaps.
Unless you are talking about Germany spending everything G1 on tech, long range aircraft, and then they go for sealion G1. I thought you meant playing balance, and not some stats based on every single game decided at the end of G1.Ok, lets examine this for a second. Lets presume you are correct, and 8 is a “fair” bid for Revised. Now where and how bids are placed can be the subject of many rules, but lets say you cant place both somewhere, and must be limited to 1 per territory.
As a basic example, we will purchase an inf/tank, one placed in UKR (to somewhat dissuade an attack there, or to aid in taking more tanks) and one in Lybia.
A Normal attack on Egypt can involve the transport, or not (should Germany decide to go west instead). W/o a bid, Germany can bring 1 inf 1 armor, 2 fighters (reason for UKR bid) and 1 bomber (14). Egypt has 9 Defense.
Germany should get 2-3 hits the first round. UK should only get 1-2. This is sufficient force to “guarantee” taking the fighter, but not the territory.
Adding a bid unit means you are more likely to take Egypt, but in “many” games Uk will only get 1 hit back. I’m sure everyone has also seen UK get three hits as well. So the bid unit could just as well be lost.
Now, as to the unit itself, an art or armor makes the attack force a 17. Still not quite a “guarantee” of 3 hits, but close. But the UK still can hit back, possibly with 3, and 50% at 2.
The point is this…
In 50% of the “w/o bid” games, UK may only get that 1 hit. In which case, Germany has 1 unit (armor) left.
In 50% of the “bid armor” games, UK gets 2 hits. Germany still has 1 armor left.
That bid unit actually left you in no better shape than you would have been in without any bid, but UK got one less hit in defense.
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
The secondary effect (dissuading a first round attack in UKR) may happen, but the result is USSR just attacks elsewhere (belo/WR) OR perhaps USSR wasnt going to attack UKR in the first place.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2. put reinforcements in Manchuria to protect IC. on G1, take ukraine. on J2 take india, use fighters, then land fighters in ukraine. prepare to take caucusus. play defense in pacific. put IC in india. use ICs in SE asia to take east african coast, and put pressure on russia. sometimes i have ICs in india burma, FIC, and east indies. depends on allies. use subs to deter americans in pacific.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2.
Are you talking 1942?
-
yes
-
Good topic Squirecam,
I definitely think #1 is the Brit fleet over the Chinese ftr because the ftr can’t fly out of China proper anyway. #2 is Bury (because the main goal is always Russia), then #3 US fleet.
My buy in the 42 is 2trn and 1IC in Manchuria. I pretty much build an IC every round until the 5th round. Japan needs major land production to assualt Russia effectively.
With this said though I think the Allies have a 60%-40% advantage over the Axis in the 42. In the 41, I think it is Allies 55-45 advantage.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2. put reinforcements in Manchuria to protect IC. on G1, take ukraine. on J2 take india, use fighters, then land fighters in ukraine. prepare to take caucusus. play defense in pacific. put IC in india. use ICs in SE asia to take east african coast, and put pressure on russia. sometimes i have ICs in india burma, FIC, and east indies. depends on allies. use subs to deter americans in pacific.
So you only have 1 transport. Do you sacrifice planes? Or dont attack China/Pearl? Or what?
-
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
If you think I will win largely based on skills vs the best players w/o bids, then why won’t they play w/o bids?
I don’t think emprical date is only “inside our heads”, while I probably lose against some players with 8-9 bids, I will probably win most games w/o bids, you think this is only psychology, and not the effects of the bid itself?
Some players use a fixed $9 bid, and let opponent choose side, and the TripleA warclub ladder have been restored, and they use a fixed $9 bid.
I’m not sure how many games I would lose against the best players, in a game w/o bids, but probably very few, and most interesting is that no player who is regarded as very experienced will play w/o bids.
-
Good topic Squirecam,
I definitely think #1 is the Brit fleet over the Chinese ftr because the ftr can’t fly out of China proper anyway. #2 is Bury (because the main goal is always Russia), then #3 US fleet.
My buy in the 42 is 2trn and 1IC in Manchuria. I pretty much build an IC every round until the 5th round. Japan needs major land production to assualt Russia effectively.
With this said though I think the Allies have a 60%-40% advantage over the Axis in the 42. In the 41, I think it is Allies 55-45 advantage.
Im playing this out w/o NO’s. Japan doesnt have the income to support 5 IC’s….
-
@Subotai:
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
If you think I will win largely based on skills vs the best players w/o bids, then why won’t they play w/o bids?
I don’t think emprical date is only “inside our heads”, while I probably lose against some players with 8-9 bids, I will probably win most games w/o bids, you think this is only psychology, and not the effects of the bid itself?
Some players use a fixed $9 bid, and let opponent choose side, and the TripleA warclub ladder have been restored, and they use a fixed $9 bid.
I’m not sure how many games I would lose against the best players, in a game w/o bids, but probably very few, and most interesting is that no player who is regarded as very experienced will play w/o bids.
-
If you are talking some sort of ladder or tournament, then you are correct. If someone will give you +IPC, then you naturally will accept them (even if they only slightly aid you Round 1).
-
That does not mean that a bid is necessary.
-
If Triple A, starting tommorow, used a fixed “3-6” bid, the ultimate split of games will be the same approximate 50/50, give or take. Don’t be misled that “9” is the magic number. It’s not.
-
-
It’s not about magic numbers, it’s about balance.
A bid is not necessary if balance is not important, but the amount could be lower than $9, although $9 in the former TripleA ladder was 51% axis and 49% allies wins.
I have lost as allies in AA50 41 w/o NOs and no bids. This doesn’t prove anything about balance in AA50 though.
A better player would probably beat me with 6 ipc, maybe 3, who knows, but the premise for this discussion is NO BID!
I have not yet tried to get any opponents in the TripleA lobby with this game description: “no bids, I’m allies.” :roll:
If you’re trying to be a pain then it’s easy, if I played chess against Kasparov, and he started w/o the queen, he would almost certainly win against me anyway, would you then suggest that the queen in chess is not so important?
How about chess grand masters starting w/o a pawn and still beating newbs?
This happens all the time, but no one is claiming that it is ok to start a chess game w/o all the pieces.I don’t see why you trying to make this difficult, b/c it isn’t. The A&A balance discussions should only affect how high bid is needed, and what kind of bid is the best option.
-
@Subotai:
It’s not about magic numbers, it’s about balance.
A bid is not necessary if balance is not important, but the amount could be lower than $9, although $9 in the former TripleA ladder was 51% axis and 49% allies wins.
I have lost as allies in AA50 41 w/o NOs and no bids. This doesn’t prove anything about balance in AA50 though.
A better player would probably beat me with 6 ipc, maybe 3, who knows, but the premise for this discussion is NO BID!
But there is little difference between a +3 or +6 bid and a no bid. Re-read the Egypt example I gave you.
Statistically, you can easily end up with just one tank in Egypt, whether you bid a unit or not. So the ENTIRE OUTCOME of a game does NOT hinge upon the outcome of one more/less unit in Egypt. It just doesn’t.
And that’s a +5 bid…
Search the forums. You will find that most people have agree that the Axis can win 40/60 with no bid.
Sure, people are happy to get bids. Why not? But they are not necessary to having a decent chance to win.
-
Search the forums. You will find that most people have agree that the Axis can win 40/60 with no bid.
Not against me, and I’m not even among the best AAR players.
I don’t think even best AAR players would win 40% against me, assuming many games, (as axis w/o bid), and they won’t even bother trying…
-
1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)
I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice. I crush everything else though.
China has 2 inf and a fighter. Japan can bring 3 Inf + bomber + 1-2 fighters. That’s enough to reasonably guarantee that the china fighter dies.
Wouldn’t you rather kill the fighter than take a 1 IPC China territory? You really reduce China’s offensive punch w/o that fighter…
The only other option is to send 1 less fighter to kill the british (so only 2 total), and send 3 fighters plus 3 inf to kill the chinese fighter. This means you can not attack Hupeh at all, leaving 1 inf in Kiangsu, and you have to attack Suiyang with 3 inf and 1 fighter, leaving 1 inf in manchuria and bringing back only 1-2 fighter to manchuria too after combat.
This is a good move except that it is more risky, you risk losing 1 fighter or your BB during the attack on the british, and you also may lose all 3 of your inf attacking the chinese fighter.
You must use the bomber against pearl harbor, or else you will risk losing that btl. You want your fighter, bomber, and cruiser to live that way the USA can not take the solomons their first turn. -
Sure, people are happy to get bids. Why not? But they are not necessary to having a decent chance to win.
A bid is necessary to have decent chance to win against me, or any decent players.
-
you guys are way off topic, please continue properly.
For myself, I like to hit the Hawaii and the India fleet, as well as the 4 Chinese territories available to me. This means China is mine! No more qualms. For buying, I like to take 2 tech and 3 trans. Turn 2, I move 2 trans to Philipines, and 2 to FIC, pushing further into China, and moving to Burma as well. This lets me hit both India and Australia turn 3. Of course, this isn’t always an option, depending on how the Allies react, but it is nice :). Say the Americans bolster Australia, I’d move all 4 trans to FIC to absolutely NAIL india. In any case, by turn 4, I usually take control of India, Australia, and Hawaii, and the east coast of Africa. The big trick is getting transports into the sea. People like the industrial complexes, but those can wait. They aren’t mobile. Does it really make a difference if you can produce those 3 tanks in Manchuria turn 2?
-
What is Japans 3 turn plan?
What is their early goals (besides the obvious 3 Japanese targets for turn 1 (in order of priority):- Yunnan Chinese ftr
sz35 UK fleet
sz53 US fleet
I think the UK india complex is very doable and an extreme pain to japan in 1942. Russia can stand on her own much easier in 1942. The chinese are much more powerful in 1942, and USA pacific navy is much more powerful in 1942. I really don’t see any easy wins for the axis in 1942. They have a much greater hill to climb than in 1941.
When Japan sends a loaded carrier and BB to SZ35 to sink the UK fleet (necessary), that fleet is way out of position: 2 turns to get home and get cover.
So the Japanese goal is to sit in sz62 and pump units, you better buy some surface vessels (not all tpts). If you do not buy any navy (surface vessels), the US will come hunt you down. They have 3 bombers that can be stationed in alaska USA1. The USA start with so much more and can put incredible heat on SZ62 right away. Buying a carrier and 2 bombers puts a sub (if Japan does not buy a DD), 2 ftrs, 5 bombers in range of sz62 for USA2. scary. That is planes alone, I didn’t even consider any of the starting navy the US may want to risk to threaten/draw Japanese units out as well.
For these reasons (US navy, UK India complex) , I think it might be best to concentrate on the south pacific / southern asia area first. I think 2 ICs might be a good opening move: French Indo China and Borneo. Then the SZ35 fleet can move to borneo on J2 and have a DD or two added for safety or two inf, 2 tpt. This solidifies the southern asia corridor and enables the Japanese to put some great pressure (in 2 rounds) on the UK india complex if desired.
I like these J1 attacks:
*** Indian Ocean Seazone (BEN/Z35)
1 AC
3 Ftr
1 BB*** East Pacific Ocean (EPO/Z53)
1 Ftr
1 Sub
1 Bmr
1 Des*** East Chinese Sea (ECH/Z61)
1 BB
1 Trn
1 Cru*** Fukien (Fuk)
1 Arm
2 Inf*** Suiyuan (Sui)
4 Inf
1 Ftr*** Yunnan (Yun)
3 Inf
2 Ftr - Yunnan Chinese ftr
-
Some questions re. NOs…
-
the OP refers to playing w/o NOs. Does Axis have any chance in this w/o NOs? I’m thinking probably not. This looks fairly even with NOs. Germany’s early strength and its ability to snag all 3 NOs G1 indicates a small Axis advantage, but Japan is in a way weaker position compared to 41.
-
How does the British Pacific NO work in this? For example, I’ve found that in TripleA, when the USA liberates Solomons, it goes to British control. Do Borneo and Solomons work the same way? How do the British get their Pacific NO…does taking Solomons and/or Burma count, or is it necessary to take a territory that starts as Japanese in the 41 version?
I find any Jap attack on Pearl kinda risky, but I suppose it has to be done in some capacity–perhaps simply with a sub and whatever air can be spared. For the Allies, an India IC is tempting given Japan’s weakness in that region–I’m not sure a FIC factory is Japan’s solution, it could become a liability. I guess the main advantage to FIC is that unlike Manchuria it can’t be attacked by China. Fortunately for Axis, Germany should have Russia’s full attention–otherwise the Russians could blitz China and it would be lights out on the mainland for Japan.
-
-
Playing w/o NOs is a real dry game- personally I hate in. I think this is what makes the game. The tech is great also, though you could live w/o it. If you don’t play with the NOs, you might as well play Revised or AA42 (The Revision of Revised) :wink:
-
In my experience with AA50-42 which is with NOs Japan is irrelevant. Germany will have the game won before Japan is anywhere close to getting to Moscow. China is not that much more to deal with than 41. An Indian IC does have a better chance of holding and annoying the Japanese and the US fleet can be a quicker pain, but again none of this matters as Germany will be in London or Moscow very quickly.
As far as the UK Pacific NO it works the same way as 41. These are the territories that UK must take one of, Caroline Islands, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and French Indo-China. Solomons, Borneo, Philippines, and the East Indies are considered as liberations, not captures.
-
In my experience with AA50-42 which is with NOs Japan is irrelevant. Germany will have the game won before Japan is anywhere close to getting to Moscow. China is not that much more to deal with than 41. An Indian IC does have a better chance of holding and annoying the Japanese and the US fleet can be a quicker pain, but again none of this matters as Germany will be in London or Moscow very quickly
Mostly agreed. Japan is not irrelevant but Germany has a big chance of arriving Moscow before the western aid comes. I think one of the big problems is that German IC at Karelia. I know, starts as soviet, but there is no way of holding, and as much soviets will trade it one or two rounds. Maybe soviets need a special rule in that scenario to moving ICs as in real life … but I guess the IC would be better at Arkangel or Novo (at start) than in Karelia. I don’t think germans can take London anyway…
The India IC can hold and usually does, just you need also another at SAF if you want fight Europe and Africa at the same time. Also, SAF tanks will arrive to support India or Caucasus soon or later
A uphill battle for allies but better than in fantasy scenario (1941). Seems they tried mimic Revised setup in various points but failed testing Europe (or China for that matters, it still falls too easy even if a bit slower)
However, I think a triple strafe with soviets can work (bel, euk, ukr). I tried some times and usually keeps valuable tanks alive and makes easier trading kar (if you retreat bel attackers to ark)
Suggested Topics
