Posts made by 03321
RE: New Release Date - November 18?
I think there is not much chance for allies even playing a traditional axis strat against KGF. Japan is simply too powerful in a KGF strat, playing Japan traditional or innovative. I think the only slim chance allies have of win is building fleet at California
You are playing a rather different game than the rest of us, if you think that the only chance the Allies have of winning the game is to build a fleet at California. Sorry, it just makes it hard for me to follow the rest of what you’re saying when I hear suggestions like that.
You and your edits.
You know he’s talking about AA50 here, right? Not saying he’s right or wrong, just trying to clarify.
RE: New Release Date - November 18?
Well, most of your post was talking about how he must not be playing good players because he’s playing vs. KJFs, which has nothing to do with anything he ever said at all. He said that he, as Allies, plays KJFs and wins, that’s it. Also, he never said Japan controls the Allies’ strategy, or that the KGF counter is even mainly dependent on Japan, or that the KGF counter forces the Allies to go KJF.
As for your point in this post about him suddenly discovering a KGF-counter, yeah, I am both curious about what he might have found and aware that the chances of him making some miraculous discovery like that aren’t great. /shrug
And yes, I know I come off blunt and sarcastic, don’t take it personally.
RE: New Release Date - November 18?
To Funcioneta- No offense, but I don’t think your gaming experiences are representative of the norm. Japan rarely has any control over which strategy the Allies adopt, and certainly nothing that can halt a concerted KGF strat. If you’re seeing more KJF games than KGF, I suspect that you’re just not playing against very skilled opponents. Either that, or they’re just so bored of ‘business as usual’, that they are intentionally adopting the weaker strat just for the change of pace.
I think you should re-read his posts and try again.
Yep. Like I said, I wasn’t trying to argue in favor of a heavy bomber '“strat”, just trying to get a bit more accurate numbers since the difference between 2 turns/tech and 3 turns/tech is pretty significant. But because I was working off faulty assumptions, the difference is far less significant than I thought. With the system the way it is, rolling less dice offers you more techs per IPC investment AND per roll, which works against tech-heavy builds.
Step 4: Mark Development
If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers inside the appropriate advancement box on the research & development chart. Your development becomes effective immediately.
Looks like yes.
Okay. I did not know that, so yeah a lot of my previous post was wrong. That means that it will be more like 2.5 turns/tech if you spend a set 10 IPC/turn, I think.
In Classic you could get more than 1 tech/turn right? I was assuming it would work the same way.
_Example: America spends 10 IPCs per turn on tech giving them 12 rolls by each third turn. For the sake of argument we’ll say that on they’re a tad lucky and on each 3rd turn they get a tech. On which turn do they you get the heavy bombers? 16% on turn 3. 33% by turn 6. 49% by turn 9. 74% by turn 12. Your chance does not exceed 50% until turn 12 but with a spot of luck you might have them turn 9. There’s a good chance one side has won (or cannot be stopped from winning) by turn 9. So unless you get lucky or the game goes into super over-time you’re paying a fortune for techs that are not worth the investment or won’t come into play soon enough to see the desired effect.
12 rolls to get a tech is a tad lucky? Spending 10 IPCs on techs per turn will average you a tech much closer to once every 2 turns than once every 3 (it might average exactly once/2turns, have to think about it). And with techs working the way they do in AA50 you don’t have to worry about multiple tech hits in a single turn being wasted the way they were in Revised. So, every now and then you will get 2 or more techs when you roll multiple die. I believe that’s how it works anyway, it would make much more sense than the alternative. But, just to go flat averages with that, it would be turn 2 = tech1, turn 4 = tech2, turn 6 = tech3, turn 8 = tech4, turn 10 = tech5, turn 12 = tech6.
The probability that you get heavy bombers BY one of these tech rolls would be:
tech1 = (1/6) = 16.67%
tech2 = (1/6)+(5/61/5) = 33.33%
tech3 = (1/6)+(5/61/5)+(5/64/51/4) = 50%
and so on…tech4 = 66.67%, tech5 = 83.33%, tech6 = 100%.
Now, obviously you can’t just say there’s a 1/6 chance of having the tech by turn 2 because of the 1/6 chance to get it on your first tech. Nor can you say you will have half of the techs by turn 6. But on AVERAGE you will have half of the techs (3) after turn 6’s roll, not 1/3 of the techs (2). That’s how I see the math at least. And I’m not trying to argue that US SHOULD go tech-crazy in the hopes for heavy bombers. Simply that they should hit techs more often than in your example, and that their chance of hitting heavy bombers specifically is slightly different than your numbers.
And by the way there is a slight flaw in how you guys were looking for the probability to hit a specific tech by a specific roll. That is, you weren’t taking into consideration the chances that you would get multiple tech hits by a certain roll. You were only figuring the probability to get at least one tech hit by a certain roll. If you were to draw your formulas out to infinite rolls you’d end up with a 100% chance to get ONE tech, and still only a 1/6 chance to get a specific tech.
To figure out the precise chance of getting heavy bombers with a specific number of rolls, I think you would have to find the odds of hitting EXACTLY one tech in those given rolls (multiplied by 1/6 to get the specific tech), then the odds of hitting EXACTLY two techs (multiplied by 1/3), then three techs (*.5), four techs (*2/3), five techs (*5/6), and six techs. Add all those odds together and that would be the chance you get heavy bombers after a specific number of rolls.
EDIT: As an example of what I was saying at the end of my post, there is a 1/6 (16.67%) chance to get heavy bombers (or any specific tech) by your 6th roll, contrary to Turgidson’s 12% by roll #7. This is because, while there is only a 66.51% chance to get at least one tech (which would result in an 11.1% chance to hit a spec. tech) a lot of that percentage is comprised of multiple hits. More boring math…to get the specific tech:
Probability of getting the exact # of hits * Probability of hitting the specific tech after getting that # of hits
1 hit = 40.2% * (1/6) … + 2 hits = 20.1% * (1/3) … + 3 hits = 5.36% * (1/2) … + 4 hits = .8% * (2/3) …rest is almost negligible
6.7% + 6.7% + 2.68% + .54% + .054% = 16.7%
RE: Unbeatable Allied Strategy
I’m not sure how you can say that an unbeatable allied strategy (OOB) would certainly not include bombers, but then admit that heavy bombers (OOB) are overpowered. I believe I have seen several ‘serious’ players around here mention how broken a US strat bombing campaign is without LHTR. I would consider myself decently ‘serious’ and was recently discussing with Jennifer (who I would guess also considers herself decently ‘serious’) an Axis strategic bombing strategy against Russia in the Most Surprising First round purchases thread, even under LHTR bombing rules. a44bigdog tested it and reported that it was fairly viable.
And on top of all that people have been expressing their fear (for weeks, if not months) of overpowered bombing campaigns in the AA50 board because bomber cost was dropped to 12, plus the fright that heavy bombers will once again be overpowered - despite random techs, AND that rockets could be game-breaking - also despite random techs. Now, I’m not saying those fears will be correct, they may they may not, but the fact that they are there in significant amounts tells me that people don’t consider bombing ‘too unpredictable’ for ‘serious’ consideration.
I understand and agree that bombing is less predictable than large-scale battles involving far more die, but I don’t see how you can so lightly dismiss bombing as a whole the way you did, especially in the hands of the US under OOB rules.
RE: Forbidding ICs…?
Thank you for clarifying, 03321.
Well, between defending you and making fun of Switch I seem to have become one of the less popular people around if the karma’s to be trusted. Works for me
I am curious, though. Do you still prefer KJF if Japan gets a solid opening? I don’t know how you move pre-J1 (such as the Russian inf that I personally like to stack on Bury), but say Japan takes China with a good number of inf, you don’t manage to kill the sz 45 sub, and then that sub ends up as his only Pearl casualty (+maybe a fighter). Say you didn’t take Borneo either, maybe you took New Guinea although that’s obviously not as important. Do you still prefer KJF in that situation? I would be worried about going KJF there, but as I said I don’t have much confidence in my KJF game. And do you ever go with an India or Australia IC?