@Bean:

Bit of a tangent here, but I recall Larry Harris (the game designer) indicating that if he were to make the next version of A&A that he only wanted capitals to be able to build things; he didn’t like the idea of being able to freely move IPCs around the world to make 3 bombers in India for instance. I think the idea is that complexes increase the value of the territory instead of being able to produce there, which is interesting. But remember this is all speculation from a couple years old post.

That would be interesting….planning strats to attack the enemy supply lines, if u only could place units in
capitals, the supply lines will be both long, thin and vulnerable

As IL and many others have pointed out earlier in similar threads, Germany was not (enough) ready for a war against Russia in 41. And Germany should never have attacked Russia before finishing off UK.

And if Germany and Japan was as “alliefied” as UK+US they would have had a much better chance of winning the WW2, conducting different strategies which was not coordinated was a bad choice, but “playing together” would have made a very big difference.

@Bunnies:

@Subotai:

Not NASA, not NSA, not Google or Apple or anyone, can make an AI that is close to being as good as decent human players, not even with computers that costs billions of dollars.

Would you care to stake $10,000 US on that?

AND YOUR SOUL?

I’m far from being a “rich man” even if I live in one of the richest countries in the world, so I can only afford $1000 (atm), but I’m willing to bet that amount, yes. If I had more money I would be willing to bet all of what I actually have.

One of the participants on the numerous AI threads on the TripleA developers page said that the A&A maps is even more (mathematically) complex than the game GO. So I would take my chance on at least $1000, or the maximum of what I could afford.
The premise is a fair bid, as regarded by humans, and the A&A maps Classic, AA42, AA50, Revised, or G40 when its rules are coded for Triplea.

About my SOUL, I’m an agnostic, so why should I not bet my soul?? 

I tried changing the alliances in TripleA, tested it against the AI, it seems fine. If anyone wants to try this, send a pm to me.

@ragnarok628:

I did forget about losing canada.  but then, they can consolidate in E Canada, add 2 TRN of units + 2 fighters turn 1.  this would be a decent defense against what US can throw at that territory R1.

i don’t think the US would be able to constantly unload on UK because of the initial naval advantage.  UK and GER can consolidate fleets right on the US eastern seaboard and with only modest reinforcements could prevent the US from taking control for several rounds at least.

i think mr.biggg is right about UK in that they’ll have to worry about keeping up their income, though.  i guess the only expansion is russia.  i don’t think they stand a chance at making any progress further east, they’ll definitely lose their islands and india quickly.  japan doesn’t have as many expansion territories as in a normal game because of russia being an ally, so mostly they’ll just take islands and take the route through india to africa.  Germany will probably need to protect that route, and UK can make up for it by helping against russia.

I’m interested to try this.  i don’t think i’d switch turn order, though, because i think any switches will just make things worse for UK or Russia.

PM me if (any of) you are interested in trying this scenario, the Ger+UK scenario, or a Ger+US scenario, but then I’d take US+Ger b/c I think they would have the advantage, but I have not tried any other scenarios except in Classic, where US+Ger worked almost as good as Ger+Japan. Any games (against me) will be preferably low luck, but I can accept regular dice if the opponent demands it to try this optional scenario or the Ger+US scenario.

@ragnarok628:

i think the most balanced way to change up the teams would be GER + UK vs RUS + JAP + US.   the german/british side i think would be stronger than the normal Axis, but not so much.  UK vs. JAP in the pacific and south asia would play out pretty much the same, but the UK BB would give the ‘new axis’ a good position in the atlantic.  UK would be able to quickly help germany pressure russia, but they would hang on to most of their income and japan can be of considerable help in propping up moscow.  US would have to focus on taking the atlantic, they’d have to go either africa or europe.

ANYWAY, it would be the same starting economies, except UK is a stronger power, due to not having to fight for africa initially and stronger in the atlantic.

Sounds kinda interesting, but US+Rus+Jap will have a huge advantage over Ger+UK. Germany and UK would need a quick victory against Russia to win, and I think that they will be stopped by fighters from US and Japan. I’m sure that Ger+UK would need a bid, but if you think Ger+UK is strong enough, I’d be happy to try a game against you as US+Russia+Japan, You play Germany+UK. I can do the changes in the TripleA xml file.

In the TripleA community, bidding is usually done be bidding down, i.e. revised, since axis needs a bid, one player start bidding for axis, 11 ipc, 10 ipc or 9 ipc in preplaced units, that is, the units are place before Russia starts the first rnd, then the other player either accepts the bid, or bids 1 ipc lower, and then the other player accepts or bids even lower, and after one player has accepted the bid, then the the axis player places his bids, in TripleA it is common with an unwritten rule that says one unit pr. territory, after the bidding and placement has finished, the game starts as usual.

There is one TripleA developer who works on a new AI, but do not except that it will be any better than the easy AI or the more-n-able AI.

The time we get an A&A AI that is competitive against humans, is the same day that Skynet launches its terminators against the human race  :evil:

Not NASA, not NSA, not Google or Apple or anyone, can make an AI that is close to being as good as decent human players, not even with computers that costs billions of dollars.

@amethystguy:

Been looking for a KJF on here but can’t find any to get me started on what i should do.

First, you should find an opponent who is less than decent, then, if your opponent does not know that axis needs a bid of 8-9 ipc, a KJF would be more easy than a game that is closely balanced from the start. But even without a bid I would never try a KJF, it might just happen that my opponent is…decent…  :lol:

Not all of the series on my list is showing now, some canceled, some are finished, but you can download them or buy them on DVDs: The Sopranos, The Wire, Rome, Breaking Bad, Lost, Burn Notice, Jericho, the Tudors, Spartacus Blood and Sand, Dexter (last season not so good), Deadwood, V, Firefly, The Shield, Spooks, Generation kill, The Pacific, Band of Brothers, 24, Mad Men, Prison Break, The 4400, The Walking Dead, The West Wing, X Files, Il Capo Dei Capi.

@Bunnies:

@Subotai:

TripleA is the better one, since it is a game, and not just a map.

But the TripleA AIs are nowhere near good enough to be playable against humans, and it won’t be until someone spends a few millions of $ in AI development, and even if that happens, I doubt very much that someone will be able to make a decent A&A AI before the year 5010…

To Subotai - you really think so?  Hm.  Maybe I should try writing an AI . . .

I don’t only think so, (on the abysmal AI) I know it! But 3000 years may be an exaggeration.

The problem is that there has, afaik, not been made an AI that is a very good in “itself”, meaning, all AI’s are just calculators doing calculating, like 1234567*1234567, the answer is much quicker solved using a calculator rather pen and paper, and my brain cant figure out such numbers w/o using a calculator or pen&paper anyway.

Chess AI’s are also only calculators, although the algorithm is different than the simple calculator that comes with the linux version I’m using.
I look forward to more people trying to make a good AI, it will fun to prove that an A&A AI will not be nearly as competitive against humans as chess AIs, and that is only b/c the number of possible positions are extremely much higher than in chess. If chess had 128 or 256 “territories” and 64 pieces/units instead of 64 TTs and 32 units, the current chess programs would also be weaker compared to humans than they are now.