Cool! Thank you for the kind words and creating the PDF @vodot
Best posts made by AndrewAAGamer
-
RE: Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)
-
RE: G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
and why would that be bad? It gives the chance to players to outplay the other side, since the more the money, more the options to play, more options, more quality needed to win the game, and its much interesting that way.
For online games taking longer makes no difference. For Face to Face to games it does. Global 1940 is already too long and difficult to consistently get done in a single all day session. My gaming group usually goes from about 10am till 10pm when we get together. Considering a Turn usually takes between an hour and 15 minutes to an hour and 30 minutes to play that means in a 12 hour session you hope to get to Turn 8-9 before calling it quits. I would say anecdotally that 50% of the time one side concedes before the end of the day, another 25% of the time we agree one side is ahead enough to be declared the winner and 25% of the time we just have to call it a draw. Longer games would mean more draws and thus less satisfying conclusions.
-
RE: Putting it all together. Improving Allied Play
@domanmacgee Yeah, I don’t like Tech because I consider it just luck.
When I used to play at Axis and Allies Members Club (AAMC) there was one gentlemen, and I don’t remember his handle, who wanted to play me in a bunch of AA50 games; with Tech.
During the first game, he was Axis, he caught me by surprise when he rolled for mechanized infantry as Germany. He succeeded and the attack on the Russian stack in East Poland from Germany suddenly was greatly in his favor due to a bunch of infantry getting into the battle that I had not accounted for. Since he was a good Player, not as good as me but good, I was unable to overcome this disaster and he won.
In the second game I was Axis, and now that I understood his strategy; I accounted for it. I will say he was a Master at it! He would buy and set up subs to attack the IJN and if he could have rolled Super Subs he would win the battle easily. He had planes in position that if he got Long Range Aircraft my fleets would suddenly be exposed. He would buy artillery as Russia hoping to get Heavy Artillery and adjust those battles. On each Turn as the Axis I had to think - “Okay if he rolls for this Tech and it goes into effect how will that affect the board?” It was very difficult to account for all the Tech possibilities in each and every move I made. I won the second game and then the third game too by using this new tool of always accounting for possible Tech.
In the fourth game I made an error in France. I forgot to move two Japanese fighters there to protect my Italian/German stack. Even though he only had a 12% chance of taking it he still went for it with UK as he was losing and desperate. Not only did he win, which he should of been wiped out, he took it with enough to actually hold it from the Italian counter attack!
Thus, he was back in the game and slightly ahead but I was fighting back until he rolled Paratroopers as UK. Suddenly, nowhere was I safe on the Continent, and his ability to take virtually any area not heavily defended put him back ahead in the money game. The game was that close. He eventually went on to win.
That was our last game because he got mad at me. In some after action e-mails discussing the game I pointed out that he got lucky in France and also his entire Tech strategy was based on luck. While he was extremely good at it his whole strategy was based on a) getting the Tech he needed at the right moment and b) catching his opponent by surprise. Since his Opponent could, as I had shown, account for his Tech rolling he only could win against better Players than him by rolling the Tech when he needed it, which is luck in my opinion, and catching his opponent unawares. He was definitely good enough to beat most Players without his luck strategy.
He took offense to this comment even though I didn’t mean it to be an attack on his ability. I don’t mind people playing a luck game if they are lucky. If I always rolled good I know I would be very happy with that advantage. Perhaps he missed the part where I said he was a Master at it. Setting yourself up to take advantage of a Tech Roll is definitely a skill and he is the only Player I have ever seen that based his entire strategy on it.
Anyway, so much for old war stories. :)
-
RE: Should I buy this version?
AA50 is a great game. Very close to even for either side and the first rule set with defenseless transports that was later used in the Global 1940 rule set. It is a really good middle game from the perspective it has more areas and more units than Revised and less areas and less units than Global 1940. It also has the National Objectives you asked for plus two scenarios; 1941 and 1942. Though from my experience most people play the 1941 version.
Before they reprinted it that game was easily going for 200-300 on Ebay.
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:
@AndrewAAGamer I think if you want a change you need to describe a system and how it should work. It’s counterproductive to say todays system is crap and not propose a new and better system. I see you suggest ELO, but how to use that in our league is not discussed. Up to that happens todays system will stand, as it is easy to record the scores, its easy to understand and it gives a good description of how “good” a player is. Although I agree with your point, that todays system is not suitable for games between players with very different skill levels.
@oysteilo I agree with you that it is not sufficient to only complain about something without proposing some type of solution. I thought I did that when I proposed some type of ELO system. I do think that making the criteria to suggest changes requires explaining exactly how a revised system would be implemented is setting the bar too high. I am not technical enough to state how to implement an ELO solution. I do have experience playing in one and it worked well.
As a new Player I am giving my insight to my experience on this site. The top players are not interested in playing me or anyone else of lower rank; I have seen that stated many times. That does not make me, and I assume any other new players, feel welcomed. Now that my rank is getting higher I do not want to play the lower tier players either which is exactly opposite of how I want to feel. It does not make sense to me that the ranking system promotes that type of feelings and behavior.
-
RE: Mixed transport clarification
@koala Yes, you can use the US transport with one load space as if the French infantry was not even on it. Since the French unit is an infantry the loaded unit may be an infantry, artillery or armor.
-
RE: 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current)
@the-plastic-commando said in 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current):
Hello. I am The Plastic Commando located deep behind enemy lines, otherwise known as TN, and enjoy Axis and Allies in its many versions. I undertook a mission to revamp 1914 with custom miniatures and house rules to improve the quality of the game. Thanks to Tjoek and his 1914 map it has really given life to my efforts. I have a YouTube channel for those interested. 🖐
Howdy and WELCOME!
-
RE: Post League Game Results Here
@DizzKneeLand33 said in Post League Game Results Here:
What if we had some kind of team game where it was one of the big 3 versus all the rest of us. Not for league points or anything, just for fun. This would allow a lot of players to learn a lot about the game. It’s kind of like those old USSR versus the Rest Of The World chess matches, but in this case the “rest of the world” would all, well, not be in the same class as the top rate.
Well that is exactly what I am going to do. While I have not earned the title of “Big 3” here yet I can assure you I am a world class player. I will be hosting a Coach’s game with @trulpen. I will make the moves for one side and with EVERYONE’s input trulpen will make the moves for the other side. Since he is making the moves he will have final decision making power but he will be allowed to have everyone’s input before he goes. As each Turn is taken we will discuss and critique each move; mine included. Might even critique the moves before our plays; that might work out better. Not sure yet.
-
RE: 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current)
WELCOME! I love hearing about family playing together. I used to play against my older brothers. They are 15, 13 and 11 years older than me so when I was little they would never let me play with them; I just watched. Then when I got to be a teenager I finally was able to play against them and I won some and lost some. It was great. Once I got really good and beat them all the time they wouldn’t play with me anymore. Wussies…
-
RE: Find League Opponents Thread
@erinmores said in Find League Opponents Thread:
@AndrewAAGamer I"m down for a game with the rules you are requesting.
Thanks @erinmores however I am full up at the moment. I wish there was a way to edit my post here. It would be cool to have a “Full” or “Vacancy” switch. :)
-
RE: Beating J1
@Xnuecguy2000
Well let me first say if you are stopping the Axis from winning on the Europe side of the board with no Bid my hat is off to you. The OOB game with no bid dramatically favors the Axis with bids in the typical range of 30-40 though I have seen and played up to the 60s. That bid helps to stop what you are discussing as it allows the Allies to either place the bid on both sides of the board, and the US plays both sides of the board, or they place it heavily on one side or the other and the US plays the opposite more heavily.If Japan decides to take China and India there is not a lot the Allies can do to stop that except to slow them down and make it expensive. However the US and ANZAC should be able to stop Japan from getting Hawaii or Sydney. This is typically done with ANZAC playing an attrition game with Japan forcing them to retake the Money Islands while the US builds a naval fleet that prevents the Japanese from moving forward. Try being more aggressive with ANZAC instead of being defensive. That can be a game changer.
-
RE: 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current)
I am glad he didn’t let you win; I am firmly against that. For a win to be treasured it has to be earned. Nothing given freely is appreciated.
My second oldest brother started teaching me to play basketball when I was about 13 years old. He was a PE teacher and really great. He was unfortunately short, slow and couldn’t jump but I tell you honestly he had the skills of any pro basketball player and thus played way over his talent level. He taught me all the basic skills and we would play one on one sometimes while waiting for everyone to show up to play “real” games.
At first he gave me a handicap where he would only shoot outside the paint. He still beat me 21-0 most of the time. I remember getting even one point and being happy. Over time I was able to get more and more points, 3-4 then 5-6 and then 8-10. After that he started shooting inside the paint but no layups. The same scenario happened where he cleaned my clock but I started scoring more and more and making it more difficult for him.
After a few years, about when I was 17, we started playing even up - no handicaps. He would beat me handily; like 21-5. But as the months went by I got better and better and I remember with pride getting into the low teens. Eventually the games became close. I would get 15-18 points but couldn’t get over the hump. Then the epic battles where we would be 20-20 and have to go to overtime. Man did he push hard when I had a chance to win!!!
Finally, when I was 19, I finally beat him. A close game we went 24-22 me. It was one of the greatest days of my life. For years he had owned me and finally I had beaten him. I was so proud. For a few years he still won more than he lost but as he got older and I was in my prime, mid-20s, I started beating him more than he beat me. Father Time is cruel to everyone.
I can’t imagine if he had ever been easy on me and let me win. The happiness and joy and pride I experienced was only because I had worked so hard and put so much effort into it and was finally legitimately rewarded. That is what life is, the same effort and dedication, and sports are a great tool for teaching someone all the important concepts of life.
Again CONGRATULATIONS!
-
RE: Post League Game Results Here
Thank you @gamerman01. Not playing this game anymore is my way to move on from a very negative experience for me. It is not worth the points to have to deal with it or think about it. I have met some very nice people on this site and I hope to continue playing against them and others I have not played against yet. Overall my experience here has been pleasant. I appreciate your effort in helping this site be a good experience for all.
-
RE: Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions
@Saber25 said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:
Interesting. So how does that work exactly? It was my understanding that you could not use things like AA or Transports in combat since they both have attack of 0. But carriers can because of class of ship or?
Ground units on a transport, (armor, artillery, infantry or AAA guns) are considered cargo thus they may not be included in combat at sea either on offense or defense. It has nothing to do with their attack value; it is because they are cargo. Allied planes on a carrier on offense are also considered cargo and thus do not partake in combat. Allied planes on a carrier on defense do take part in combat. Transports, as I mentioned before, have no combat value thus they do not partake in the rolling of combat dice but are taken as casualties last at the end of combat. It is an important concept to understand the difference between having no attack value, i,e an attack of 0, and no combat value.
-
RE: 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current)
@jesse144 said in 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current):
@andrewaagamer
Thanks very much Andrew! Yes, the Portland group would be much closer, not even considering Tacoma traffic 🤯Yes - Tacoma traffic. I moved to Washington in January of 2012 and they were working on the Tacoma interchange and traffic was a mess. 9 years later and from what I can tell nothing has changed. The traffic is still horrible and they are still working on it.
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:
Just take our game in the tourney as an example. We got a huge bid of 56 for Allies and I’ve thought on several occasions that the Allies were crushing it (for instance getting an early firm hold of both Spain and Scandinavia), but Axis still seem to be winning. I’m amazed.
Actually you guys were winning early on. However, you made two mistakes which is going to cost you the game; barring some unlikely eventuality. 1) You let us take Moscow. And I say let because you could have stopped us and chose not to. 2) You went for the Neutrals too early. Yes, you ended up with Scandinavia and Spain but it cost so much time and effort that it allowed Japan to bounce back from some pretty impressive Allied play in the Pacific.
-
RE: Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions
@Saber25 said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:
On that note, in what situation does it even make sense to build battleships? Would seem most navies are cruiser and carrier based then if I did my math right. Subs are also a nice value if you have a bunch? Thx again for the help and patience!
Actually cruisers are not a good buy either. Once you read around the site on some of the older posts you will see many players recommending cruisers for $11 and battleships for $18.
CRUISERS: For $36 I can buy 3 cruisers. That gives me an attack of 9, a defense of 9 and a casualty loss of 3. For $36 I can buy a carrier and 2 fighters. That gives me an attack of 6, defense of 10 and a casualty loss of 4. 3 Cruisers attacking Carrier + 2 Fighters wins 12% of the time. Carrier + 2 Fighters attacking 3 Cruisers wins 56% of the time. Therefore the Carrier/Fighter combo is better on both offense and defense at sea. Cruisers can bombard, but are limited by the number of ground units landing and if there is any defending sea unit or kamikaze removing any bombard component. The two fighters can fight on land or sea making them far more useful.
BATTLESHIPS: For $180 I can buy 9 battleships. That gives me an attack of 36, a defense of 36 and a casualty loss of 18. For $180 I can buy 5 carriers and 10 fighters. That gives me an attack of 30, defense of 50 and a casualty loss of 20. 9 Battleships attacking 5 Carrier + 10 Fighters wins 3% of the time. 5 Carriers + 10 Fighters attacking 9 Battleships wins 37% of the time. Therefore the Carrier/Fighter combo is better on both offense and defense. The bombard and plane issue is the same.
Normally you will see people build carriers and planes to beef up their defense, destroyers to block and kill subs, and then once superiority is gained subs to increase offense capability or convoy disruption.
Where would you see battleships built? The only place I see it is when you are limited by factory production and you are trying to protect your fleet with as few units as possible. For example, the US takes Korea and builds a minor IC there. They can only produce 3 units so they may want to build one or more battleships as that gives them the maximum defensive and offensive firepower for just one build slot regardless of the cost/value equation.
-
RE: 👋 Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Current)
@mkgionet WELCOME!!!
Another old-timer. That age group is growing!
-
RE: League General Discussion Thread
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Here’s what’s looking like a great idea to me now. 3 separate standings, one for each of the 3 most popular versions of G40
That was how they did it at Axis and Allies Members Club (AAMC) when I played there. I think the site is closed now. Does not appear to be any new posts since 2016 however it still seems to be up and I was able to log in and pull these screenshots. Weird. As you can see we had a different ranking for each game version and then a summary page with all of the records in one spot.
What is also interesting, at least to me, is I was still on the top of the Leaderboards in each game version even though I stopped playing there in 2011. :)