www.mediafire.com is the one IL’s always linking
http://www.imageshack.us/ and http://photobucket.com/ are a couple others.
Posts made by 03321
-
RE: How do I upload pictures to the site?
-
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. :P
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.
-
RE: Techs
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.
-
RE: Techs
@Craig:
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.
-
RE: Techs
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.
-
RE: Techs
_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…?
@Cmdr:
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 :P
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?
-
RE: Forbidding ICs…?
While I would agree with you, Bazse, that her example seems poor, I would not say she is contradicting herself. All she said is…1) buying 1 destroyer for every 3-5 subs is a good idea, and 2) 4 destroyers is plenty. ‘Plenty’ certainly doesn’t mean ‘necessary,’ in fact it would mean closer to ‘more than enough.’ So for US to buy 2 destroyers and say 10 subs, that’s 104 IPCs. Easily doable in 4 rounds with extra money going to carriers and transports. And if you’re going to say that by that time the game’s over because US didn’t do anything in 4 rounds, no one ever said US has to wait 4 rounds until they have 4 destroyers before they can set out from the US west coast. And in the situation she drew (though again I think it seems rather poor), 4 destroyers would be “better” than 6 subs since they would kill more IPC-worth of attacking air than the subs would kill worth of defending destroyers on average.
That said, I can’t say I agree that destroyers would be a good buy, except very rarely. Perhaps I am missing something, but the way I see it both Japan and US will have 1-2 battleships, probably 2 carriers, and at least 1 destroyer. I don’t see where the need for more anti-air naval power is coming from. Now I might be able to see a destroyer escorting some subs while they make their way to the main navy, but I don’t think that would really make a difference vs. any kind of decent air attack.
As for destroyers bombarding for territory, you’d need a tech and I really don’t like depending on the randomness of techs and don’t care to hope for a lucky roll to make the destroyers worthwhile.
-
RE: Forbidding ICs…?
In the Pearl situation you described there’s just over a 50% chance that Japan loses 2 or more units. If you lose the destroyer to save the bomber, US can counter with just over 60% odds to win. In this battle even mutual destruction would mean that the US will have more naval power in the Pacific than Japan after a US1 Pacific build. It does not seem to me to require incredible luck in all areas of the Pacific. And yes, all that other havoc in sz 59 and Borneo/New Guinea can help. I’d guess a fair amount of KJF goes with combining the UK Pac. fleet off Australia, though, right?
In that same Pearl fight 20% of the time you’ll lose 3 or more units, making that fleet indefensible vs. counter-attack regardless of what casualties you choose.
And just to note, I am not a big KJF user. In fact, I would say I am pretty poor at KJF, probably mostly due to the fact that I have had very little practice at it. I will say that the last somewhat serious game I played, Japan ignored the Pearl fleet, hoping to get a jump on the assault into Russia. He did not believe I would go KJF, and when I did it caught him a bit off guard, and he did not know how to respond having almost never defended vs. a KJF. It worked quite effectively (with Russia and UK handling Germany well enough on their own), and by the end Japan was forced into an attack on my fleet with pretty low odds. He actually won with incredible dice, but the damage had already been done, and Japan was forced off Asia with Germany fairly contained, so my opponent conceded soon after.
-
RE: Forbidding ICs…?
I think she’s basically saying that, for example, if you have 2 carriers with 4 fighters in one sea zone stationed with your navy, and you send your navy 1 sz away for an attack, you can land those 4 fighters on a nearby land zone that is up to 3 moves away. This allows you to bring in 4 extra fighters from 3-4 moves away that would normally have nowhere to land but can now land on the freed carriers. Thus, your 2 carriers allowed 8 fighters to partake in the naval attack.
It would also work with moving the carriers+fighters 2 sea zones instead of 1, but there would have to be a land zone within 2 moves for the fighters. And, while generally in that situation you’d be able to station the extra fighters from the land zone if it’s that close, there are times when you can’t and need to extend the range of your extra fighters as in the example above.
-
RE: Techs
If you’re confused by the way Krieghund’s post is structured, I believe he was simply quoting Lynxes’ guess at the Improved Shipyards tech in order to follow it with a corrected version, not saying that WotC_Mike was confirming Lynxes’ guess.
-
RE: Will Rockets be a gamebreaker?
Doesn’t everyone always argue that the point in the game is to change what ACTUALLY happened? So, someone else develops rockets in the game instead of Germany. What’s wrong with that? Think of it this way, rockets have always been more effective for Germany than any other country because of the number of enemy ICs in range, which means Germany would invest more into researching rockets than other countries. There’s your historical accuracy, I suppose.
-
RE: Techs
@Imperious:
Admiral T: you are my hero. I have been fighting for Cruisers to get the AA shot for like 5 years. I have had discussions for that long with a number of posters and finally found somebody who sees the same thing as me.
I believe Admiral T was arguing against cruisers getting AA, while Bardoly was arguing for it.
-
RE: Did Switch resign?
@Switchtemp:
As a former United States Air Force Academy Cadet
lol? It’s a board game…
-
RE: Germany: Invade and capture Britain on turn 1.
That’s about a 1-in-10 battle for you to take England, by the way. Attacking with 7 units @ 18 punch vs. 9 units @ 21 punch (plus AA). So you got really lucky, enjoy it :P.
-
RE: IC in india?
No more aid for Japan, please. A nerfed China, a India who can not be aid by soviets, Dutch East Indies being limey territories (thus you cannot put USA’s ICs at them) and merry bonus who can evolute Japan to Godzilla-Japan. I predict Kill America First with all this stuff.
No 3-IPC Kwangtung territory for an IC, no 3-IPC FIC territory for an IC, a longer distance to Moscow, a buffed China (yes buffed), a China full of 1 IPC territories (no possible Sink complex for Japan), an India that is harder to assault with Burma in the way of FIC. And by the way, I am pretty sure Russia can move whatever it wants to help defend India. Where is it you are seeing differently? The only rule I know of keeping Russians and UK/US troops out of the same territory is the Russian bonus that is void if UK/US troops are in a Russian controlled territory.