Suggested Topics

S

Global 1942 Test Games (Daaras, Mikawa, Stu)

Play Boardgames
• • • Stucifer

19

1
Votes

19
Posts

108
Views

S

TripleA Turn Summary: Russians round 3
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1942 2nd Edition

Game History
Round: 3 Purchase Units - Russians Russians buy 2 artilleries and 11 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Russians 1 infantry moved from Novgorod to Karelia 1 fighter moved from Novgorod to Karelia Combat - Russians Battle in Karelia Russians attack with 1 fighter and 1 infantry Germans defend with 1 infantry Russians roll dice for 1 fighter and 1 infantry in Karelia, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Karelia, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Karelia Russians win, taking Karelia from Germans with 1 fighter and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Russians 2 aaGuns, 3 armour, 4 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Novgorod to Archangel 1 aaGun, 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Belarus to Archangel 1 fighter moved from Karelia to Archangel 6 infantry moved from Bryansk to Ukraine 2 infantry moved from Timguska to Kansu 3 infantry moved from Tsagaan Olom to Suiyuyan 1 infantry moved from Shensi to Szechwan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Timguska to Suiyuyan 2 infantry moved from Central Mongolia to Ulaanbaatar 2 infantry moved from Buryatia to Ulaanbaatar 3 infantry moved from Yakut S.S.R. to Ulaanbaatar 2 armour moved from Ukraine to Russia 3 infantry moved from Russia to Bryansk 1 aaGun moved from Ukraine to Bryansk 1 mech_infantry moved from Russia to Archangel Place Units - Russians 2 artilleries and 1 infantry placed in Ukraine 10 infantry placed in Russia Turn Complete - Russians Russians collect 32 PUs; end with 32 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Germans regular : -0.33 Russians regular : 0.33
Savegame
M

PTV 2nd Playoffs Mikeawa vs Max X+14

League
• • • max334

52

0
Votes

52
Posts

495
Views

M

@max334 The Iraqis…ouch
S

oysteilo (Allies+34) vs Simon33 (Axis) G40 with tech

League
• • • simon33

77

0
Votes

77
Posts

876
Views

O

I dont understand Bryansk. First you roll forum dice, then you roll in Triple A. Please explain!
L

L25 BM4 zarhunter (Axis) vs Lebowsky (Allies +19)

League
• • • lebowsky

88

0
Votes

88
Posts

1.4k
Views

Z

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: Italians round 9
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3

Game History
Round: 9 Purchase Units - Italians Italians buy 1 destroyer; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; Combat Move - Italians 1 infantry moved from Ukraine to Rostov 1 armour moved from Ukraine to Rostov Combat - Italians Battle in Rostov Italians attack with 1 armour and 1 infantry Russians defend with 1 infantry Italians roll dice for 1 armour and 1 infantry in Rostov, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Rostov, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Italians lost in Rostov Italians roll dice for 1 armour in Rostov, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Rostov, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Rostov Italians win, taking Rostov from Russians with 1 armour remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Italians: 1 infantry Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Italians 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Bulgaria to Romania 3 mech_infantrys moved from Northern Italy to Romania 3 infantry moved from Northern Italy to France 2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Libya to Tobruk Place Units - Italians 1 destroyer placed in 97 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Italians Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 9 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 97 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,1,3,3,6,4,2,4 Italians collect 9 PUs (9 lost to blockades); end with 10 PUs Objective Italians 1 Control The Mediterranean: Italians met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 15 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Italians regular : -0.17 Russians regular : 0.33
Savegame
M

L25 BM Martin (X) vs sunkhareb (L + 35)

League
• • • Martin

61

0
Votes

61
Posts

893
Views

S

TripleA Turn Summary: Russians round 5
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3

Game History
Round: 5 Purchase Units - Russians Russians repair damage of 9x factory_major; Remaining resources: 30 PUs; Russians buy 10 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Russians 1 mech_infantry moved from Russia to Archangel Russians take Archangel from Germans 1 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Russia to Nenetsia 3 mech_infantrys moved from Russia to Volgograd 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Russia to Volgograd Combat - Russians Battle in Volgograd Russians attack with 2 fighters, 3 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber Germans defend with 2 armour and 1 factory_minor Russians roll dice for 2 fighters, 3 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber in Volgograd, round 2 : 1/6 hits, 2.17 expected hits Germans roll dice for 2 armour in Volgograd, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 1.00 expected hits 1 mech_infantry owned by the Russians lost in Volgograd 1 armour owned by the Germans lost in Volgograd Russians roll dice for 2 fighters, 2 mech_infantrys and 1 tactical_bomber in Volgograd, round 3 : 4/5 hits, 2.00 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 armour in Volgograd, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits 1 mech_infantry owned by the Russians lost in Volgograd 1 armour owned by the Germans lost in Volgograd Russians win, taking Volgograd from Germans with 2 fighters, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for Russians: 2 mech_infantrys Casualties for Germans: 2 armour Battle in Nenetsia Russians attack with 1 armour and 2 mech_infantrys Germans defend with 1 armour Russians roll dice for 1 armour and 2 mech_infantrys in Nenetsia, round 2 : 0/3 hits, 0.83 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 armour in Nenetsia, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits 1 mech_infantry owned by the Russians lost in Nenetsia Russians roll dice for 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry in Nenetsia, round 3 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 armour in Nenetsia, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry in Nenetsia, round 4 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Germans roll dice for 1 armour in Nenetsia, round 4 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits 1 armour owned by the Germans lost in Nenetsia Russians win, taking Nenetsia from Germans with 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 2 Casualties for Russians: 1 mech_infantry Casualties for Germans: 1 armour Non Combat Move - Russians 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Volgograd to Russia 2 aaGuns and 8 infantry moved from Amur to Buryatia Place Units - Russians 10 infantry placed in Russia Turn Complete - Russians Russians collect 22 PUs; end with 22 PUs Trigger Russians 7 Great Patriotic War: Russians met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 25 PUs Trigger Russians 2 Persia Lend Lease Lane: Russians met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 27 PUs Trigger Russians 3 Siberia Lend Lease Lane: Russians met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 29 PUs Trigger Russians 6 Siberia Lend Lease Lane War With Japan: Russians met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 31 PUs Trigger Russians 5 Persia Lend Lease Lane War With Japan: Russians met a national objective for an additional 2 PUs; end with 33 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Germans regular : 0.00 Russians regular : -0.33
Savegame
R

Elche (Axis) vs Ragnell804 (Allies) - Classic Invitational Game, RR, No Neutrals, Tech Turn 4

Tournaments
• • • Ragnell804

26

0
Votes

26
Posts

153
Views

E

Game History
Round: 5 Purchase Units - Germans Germans buy 8 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Germans 2 infantry moved from East Europe to Ukraine S.S.R. 2 fighters moved from Germany to Ukraine S.S.R. Combat - Germans Battle in Ukraine S.S.R. Germans attack with 2 fighters and 2 infantry Americans defend with 1 infantry Germans roll dice for 2 fighters and 2 infantry in Ukraine S.S.R., round 2 : 4/4 hits, 1,33 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 infantry in Ukraine S.S.R., round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Ukraine S.S.R. Germans win, taking Ukraine S.S.R. from Americans with 2 fighters and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Americans: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Germans 2 fighters moved from Ukraine S.S.R. to Germany 3 infantry moved from South Europe to East Europe 1 infantry moved from Germany to West Europe 4 infantry moved from Germany to East Europe 1 infantry moved from Germany to East Europe 1 aaGun moved from West Europe to South Europe Place Units - Germans 8 infantry placed in Germany Turn Complete - Germans Germans collect 28 PUs; end with 28 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Americans regular : -0,33 Germans regular : 2,67
ger-5.tsvg
6

L25 PtV Playoff - 2024 rd1. Adam v 666 (axis +12)

League
• • • 666

26

0
Votes

26
Posts

257
Views

6

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: Japanese round 3
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: WW2 Path to Victory

Game History
Round: 3 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 4 infantry and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Politics - Japanese Japanese takes Political Action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Japanese and Americans from Neutrality to War Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Chinese and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for British and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for UK_Pacific and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for ANZAC and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Americans and French from Neutrality to Allied Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Americans and Dutch from Neutrality to Friendly Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Allies from Neutrality to Friendly_Neutral Japanese succeeds on action: Political Action Japanese To War With Americans: Changing Relationship for Americans and Neutral_Axis from Neutrality to Unfriendly_Neutral Trigger Russians Allied Americans 5: Changing Relationship for Russians and Americans from Neutrality to Allied Combat Move - Japanese Trigger Japanese Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Japanese 1 infantry moved from Yunnan to Shan State Japanese take Shan State from UK_Pacific 1 tactical_bomber moved from Caroline Islands to Kwangsi 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Hunan to Kwangsi 2 infantry moved from Fukien to Kwangtung 1 artillery moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Korea to Northern Manchuria 1 infantry moved from Soviet Far East to Siberia 1 tactical_bomber moved from Korea to Siberia 2 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 6 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 36 Sea Zone to Manilla 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Paulau to 35 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 35 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 1 battleship moved from 35 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 cruiser moved from 6 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Kiangsi to Hopei 1 fighter moved from Yunnan to Hopei 1 infantry moved from French Indo China to 37 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 37 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 38 Sea Zone to Sumatra 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 infantry, 1 marine and 1 transport moved from 132 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 marine moved from 38 Sea Zone to Malaya 1 infantry moved from Japan to 7 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 7 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 22 Sea Zone to Guam 2 infantry moved from Paulau to 35 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 35 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 37 Sea Zone to Borneo 1 tactical_bomber moved from Caroline Islands to Manilla 1 fighter moved from 35 Sea Zone to Manilla 1 tactical_bomber moved from 35 Sea Zone to Davao 1 fighter moved from Caroline Islands to Davao 2 bombers moved from Yunnan to Borneo 1 fighter moved from 37 Sea Zone to Borneo 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 132 Sea Zone to Malaya 1 fighter moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Yunnan to Kwangtung 1 tactical_bomber moved from Yunnan to Hopei 1 cruiser moved from 35 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone Combat - Japanese Battle in Sumatra Battle in Guam Battle in Malaya Japanese attack with 1 fighter, 2 infantry, 1 marine and 1 tactical_bomber ANZAC defend with 1 infantry; UK_Pacific defend with 1 harbour Japanese roll dice for 1 battleship and 1 cruiser in Malaya, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 1.17 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 fighter, 2 infantry, 1 marine and 1 tactical_bomber in Malaya, round 2 : 2/5 hits, 1.83 expected hits UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 infantry in Malaya, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Malaya 1 infantry owned by the ANZAC lost in Malaya Japanese win, taking Sumatra from UK_Pacific, taking Guam from Americans, taking Malaya from UK_Pacific with 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 1 marine and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for ANZAC: 1 infantry Battle in Davao Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 airfield, 1 harbour and 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 battleship and 1 cruiser in Davao, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 1.17 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 infantry in Davao, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Davao 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Davao Japanese win, taking Davao from Americans with 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 infantry Battle in Manilla Japanese attack with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 cruiser in Manilla, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 infantry in Manilla, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Manilla Japanese win, taking Manilla from Americans with 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Americans: 1 infantry Battle in Borneo Japanese attack with 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 2 infantry British defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 2 infantry in Borneo, round 2 : 2/5 hits, 1.83 expected hits UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 infantry in Borneo, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the British lost in Borneo Japanese win, taking Borneo from UK_Pacific with 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 2 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for British: 1 infantry Battle in Northern Manchuria Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Russians defend with 2 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Northern Manchuria, round 2 : 2/4 hits, 1.83 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 2 infantry in Northern Manchuria, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Northern Manchuria Japanese win, taking Northern Manchuria from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Russians: 2 infantry Battle in Siberia Japanese attack with 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Russians defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Siberia, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Siberia, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Siberia Japanese win, taking Siberia from Russians with 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Battle in Kwangtung Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber British defend with 1 infantry; UK_Pacific defend with 1 harbour Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Kwangtung, round 2 : 2/5 hits, 2.00 expected hits UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 infantry in Kwangtung, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Kwangtung 1 infantry owned by the British lost in Kwangtung Japanese win, taking Kwangtung from UK_Pacific with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for British: 1 infantry Battle in Kwangsi Japanese attack with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber British defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Kwangsi, round 2 : 4/4 hits, 1.83 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Kwangsi, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the British lost in Kwangsi Japanese win, taking Kwangsi from Chinese with 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for British: 1 infantry Battle in Hopei Japanese attack with 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber Chinese defend with 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber in Hopei, round 2 : 2/3 hits, 1.33 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Hopei, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Hopei Japanese win, taking Hopei from Chinese with 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Chinese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 infantry moved from Szechwan to Yunnan 1 infantry moved from Kweichow to Yunnan 1 infantry moved from French Indo China to Yunnan 1 destroyer moved from 35 Sea Zone to 43 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 7 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 7 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 37 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 37 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 1 carrier and 1 destroyer moved from 132 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Malaya to 38 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Borneo to 38 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Kwangsi to 38 Sea Zone 2 bombers moved from Borneo to Fukien 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangtung to Yunnan 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangsi to Yunnan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Hopei to Yunnan 1 infantry moved from Hunan to Szechwan 1 artillery moved from Hunan to Kweichow 1 artillery moved from Anhwe to Kiangsi 1 infantry moved from Hunan to Kweichow 1 infantry moved from Kiangsi to Hunan 2 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Northern Manchuria to Korea 1 mech_infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 tactical_bomber moved from Siberia to Korea 1 fighter moved from Caroline Islands to 6 Sea Zone 1 carrier and 1 submarine moved from 35 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Manilla to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Davao to 36 Sea Zone Place Units - Japanese 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 1 transport placed in 6 Sea Zone 4 infantry placed in Japan Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from Japan: 1 infantry EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to Kyushu: 1 infantry EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Chinese regular : -1.33 Americans regular : 0.33 Japanese regular : 2.83 UK_Pacific regular : 1.00 Russians regular : -0.33
Savegame
A

The State of Meta Discussion and New Players / Vague Vogue G1 tank buy

Axis & Allies 1942 Online
• • • aardvarkpepper

4

0
Votes

4
Posts

52
Views

A

So there I was on Discord, there was some back and forth, some claimed to find issue with some things I wrote - nothing on the logical argument side, but other things.

https://discord.com/channels/606254910438375434/1300603351636906106

I won’t get into it too much, but I will say a read-through will show I was on topic. It’s only after others persisted in dragging me that I responded.

Some say I should be above that, or that it doesn’t matter, but I reject that. When some people insist on not addressing the topic at hand and making up attacks on character, when they find no resistance, they get the idea it’s a safe and good thing to do. Then they keep doing it, if anything they even do it more.

If anything I think I neglected situations that I should have addressed years ago, and now things are what they are. Well, live and learn.

Some may remember Don Rae’s original essays included an address to, as we may say these days, “haters”. There was Stephen’s Crane’s poem “Think as I Think”, and so on. For thousands of years of history, people have tried attacking, not an argument, but the person making it.

Am I not guilty of the same thing? It should be understood, much - even all, actually - of what I see in meta discussion is absent real specific comparisons. It’s not that I can even attack an argument, because there isn’t even an argument to begin with in most discussions. What is referenced for substantiation in most meta discussions is rank, arguing the competition is world class, that rank depends solely on skill, therefore top meta player advice must be good, to which I reply I don’t consider the competition world class if top players can’t articulate coherently about lines of play they advocate, and rank is at least in part a product of factors such as control over one’s schedule, considering the 24 hour move requirement, so I say accepting arguments at face value is bad practice.

It’s not that I say every top player must be articulate. I learned bomber applications from a fellow that said, in effect, “I don’t even know what I’m doing, but it works!” However, I think it clear that advancement of play as a discipline requires some minimum level of communication. I know some players are helped by and comforted by the current prevalent style of meta discussion, but I also think there’s room for a different approach, the approach I advocate. This is roundly attacked by some that characterize what I write as “needless”. Indeed it is needless to readers that care nothing for logical progression.

To my surprise, on Discord the conversation passed beyond the point I was going for in the first few posts of this thread - that players should not play blindly into board state. I don’t think “progress” or feel particular satisfaction, but with one step made, it is at least possible to progress to the next step.

A poster on Discord brought up, in effect, that they were interested in the process, or so I read their post. Which made me think - the process of logical progression is clear to me, but what about people that haven’t had my background? Well, so it goes.

AXIS AND ALLIES ANALYSIS (more or less)
Define what is to be examined. Based on past experience, identify then test possible short-term failure states. Typically requires working through many variations of action and response even so. Note and write up all lines studied. If failure state(s) found, concludes here. If no failure state is found, progress to more complicated projections of the predictive model, particularly accounting for anticipated board states as they develop over time. If no particular point of failure identified, proceed to comparative tests of entirely different lines of play, identify key metrics that distinguish when one line should be used over another. Write and edit, including key metrics. The final writeup should ideally have the reader always knowing what to do, and why to do it, in any situation.
There’s a lot of unspoken bits there. For example, “define” must be very specific; a player reading a writeup should never think “what am I doing”, or “what do I do now”? They will know, because the writeup will tell them. This level of specificity is completely different to what is accepted in casual meta discussion; it is not acceptable that a player characterize a line G1 heavy tank build without air, or with fighter, or with bomber. Those are entirely different.

Past experience leads players to think different things. On Discord, a player said I was saying the weak point of the line was R2 strafe into G1 Ukraine. I replied it wasn’t, and I had nothing of the kind in mind. It was sufficient to my purposes to demonstrate the proposed G1 move should not be played blindly; the example I gave was specific to that purpose.

If that is not the weakness, then what is the weakness? My response to that on Discord was, players haven’t even defined what it is they’re talking about. I’m sure some may claim otherwise, they’ll point to where I wrote above about G1 pure tank vs G1 fighter vs G1 bomber. My response is, as ever, just read through almost anything I write. If I say how something can happen and describe general characteristics of units, that is not a proper writeup. There are no numbers, there are no comparison, there is no context for readers to make informed decisions as to what is “correct”.

Typically in practice failure states are not obvious to developing players. (They’re not even obvious to me a lot of the time). What needs to happen is one walks through the proposed line, as more and more details are accounted for, adding to the predictive model what must be true, what is assumed to be true, and building the basic model off of that. The failure state is typically not a clear counter, but a bundle of facts that together do not make sense.

So for example a player might say that they build nothing but R infantry, yet they use the R stack to destroy G’s stacks, yet also have enough to trade efficiently with Japan early. Yes, that could be an actual and true description from a top rated player’s game, but that does not mean that is what should happen most of the time. The expectation is if R bleeds out its counterpressure against G and J, especially early, then R should lack the hitting power to break a combined stack. We don’t know if the opponent was incompetent and repeatedly overextended, or if the opponent had a lot of bad dice rolls, or if there were several small anomalies that led to an unexpected position - we only know that the claim sounds wrong. (Here, I only cite this as an example, writing out the case takes a lot more time, so take my word on it. Or don’t.)

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE G1 LINE ANYWAYS

I don’t know. I keep asking, but it just goes around in circles.

I’ll point out where others attach negative characterizations to things I haven’t even done, what do I think is the correct rational thing to do? Shout accusations about how someone doesn’t have a point or is being evasive? Or say someone doesn’t want to say anything that could get them pinned down? Which, I know, let’s be productive, but really now. Those of you reading this that do that to me, think about what you’re really accomplishing, who you’re really trying to convince. Also, realize I have no objection to just walking through all the cases, then I can say look there again, I have to carry both sides of the argument again. It’s not just me saying this is what happens, that’s what’s happening right now.

Also note, I am not writing about a lot of what goes on, which is maybe one of those unfortunate holdovers I mentioned, about me going too easy on some. No, I don’t just throw everything out there; anyone can ask me about “the contrarian position”, and I’ll run you through it. Well, that’s a whole wall of text I’ll pass over, for now anyways.

At any rate, I think in some communities where civilized behavior is the norm, the correct thing to do is to make a positive assumption on the other person’s part. Yes, they haven’t defined the case, yes they continue to refuse to define the case, but then maybe they’re not used to doing it, maybe they don’t understand what to do, maybe English isn’t their first language which complicates things, who knows. Well, we proceed as we can.

So far on Discord, the statements I most think unlikely to play out well are the assertion that Allies can defend India against J3 attack, and that there’s a G3 attack on Moscow.

Think on it. On R3, supposedly the Allies stack Moscow, so it would stand to reason, because Moscow is in danger, against G3. Yet somehow the Allies also have enough to stack India on UK3? Doesn’t it make sense, as I wrote at the end of my previous post, that the Allies might abandon India if Moscow is threatened? I have long said that the Allies can protect India at the cost of Moscow, against a competent Axis player. So with this line, where apparently we’re talking about G3 Moscow now less, well.

By the way, I fully anticipate the argument that someone will claim I “misinterpreted” G3 Moscow. There is no mistake. Anyone that wants to claim that, can do so, and I will respond with the “contrarian” points I mentioned earlier. There’s a lot.

I also anticipate the argument some people will complain saying there are “useless” or “overly complicated” details. My response, again, is it’s not me that has repeatedly failed to define the case despite repeated requests for clarification. If it’s left to me to consider different variations, if anything I’d say I should be thanked for my time.

Guilford-007

@Guilford-007

Best posts made by Guilford-007

Latest posts made by Guilford-007