If you want to discuss this further PM me. This is all off topic…
If you want to discuss this further PM me. This is all off topic…
The “user” is violating the rules repeatedly with off topic posts. I am telling him how he needs to stop and after repeating this many times allows some degree of stronger language at times.
In a way i am defending Jennifer from ignorant comments that are not needed unless the person who made them can at least bother to try the idea. Jennifer posted her idea how it works and its enough to test out the idea… not some 12 hour game, but a basic playtest at home…perhaps even a few turns… but nothing and still comment is asinine.
Mantlefans rebuttal post:
Proof? Seriously, come on. Why exactly is that logical? Where are your game reports showing that Germany can’t beat russia even when USA is going full Pac for 6-8 rounds? Where are the reports showing how the USSR has denmark even when USA goes full pac?
This is just another case of you saying whatever you want out of nowhere (or out of a meaningless or distorted context), then taking those assumptions, whether true or not, doing nothing to justify them, and then make conclusions based on them. Why should USA HAVE to split? Why? Should we then force Japan to put X IPCs into china? Why not? Should we force UK to put X IPC into Africa? Why not?
You simply SAY that Germany can’t handle Russia. Maybe you “back it up”with a few vague paragraphs. People then believe you unquestioningly and then agree that since Germany “obviously” can’t handle Russia and the UK then since Japan is doomed against 6 rounds of 100% US pac commitment, the game is unbalanced. Where is the proof? General statements don’t cut it. Play reports could help. I started one of my own, but since your comments are always so vague I don’t know if I am doing the USA strat you lightly talk about. I’m a decent USSR player but I’m not sure if I can get Denmark on a barbarossa like you can rolleyes
If you’re so right why not post a play report? If you don’t have time how do you have time to play Axis & Allies anyways, much less have played enough times to actually have an adequate perspective to make these claims?
People supporting your argument tell others just to “read it” Why are those supporters not reading about your claims of the Soviets in Norway and Denmark? Why are they not reading about your claims of Germany needing at least 13 rounds to take Stalingrad?
Even if we did read every single word three times, even if your games were good tests, the reports are garbage because they don’t supply enough information.
Where are your reports (I’m not talking 3 paragraphs saying generally what happened) detailing every move?
The claims made by her are valid. She is just posting what result she discovered. He can ask you some online game result, but not having one does not mean it didn’t happen or is less credible.The apparent laziness to bother spending some time playing a game to see how it works, or to learn from it is staggering. The post in most contentious and argumentative and it was not presented in any manner to him where he should supply this form of combative subtext. As a mod, i feel the need to defend people who are attacked in this way and i choose to give him back his own medicine, since asking him to stop is of no measure.
Jen posts up a strat, with a solid - but not all encompassing - explanation. Mantlefan had doubts and expresses them. He then asks for data to ascertain whether or not his intuitions are correct.
I have employed this strat - and variations of it - a few time myself, prior to joining this forum. I am currently facing this same strat as axis. Hopefully I will have a result in by thursdayish, at which point I will post a few points. I personally would like to see a battle report, Jen’s or otherwise, to see if my movements and builds were superior or inferior. I can’t really post up details of games I played months ago. I recall the general thrust, but that wont add anything to this discussion. All that I will say is that the game did generally run as Jen suggested, except that Germany and Italy were successful at gaining the middle east. Which plays a huge part in determining the victor. A battle report would provide evidence as to why this does not happen to Jen.
Playing out a couple of turns is insufficient. From my experience the success is evident at maybe turn 6-8, around the time US turns its full attention to Europe - although this has happened a little earlier. Dice and delaying moves can play a part. Simply, it takes more then a couple of turns to determine the efficacy of this strat, and, i imagine, any strat.
To be fair. Mantlefan should just try out the strat, as I have previously stated. However, given that it appears that his aim is to develop a counter, possessing more information would be tremendously beneficial.
Your language, imho, was not appropriate for a mod. Yes, when a user is stepping out of line, strong language can, and indeed should be used. However, strong does not have to equal rude.
There is a difference.
This forum amuses me greatly
Nonsense? Nonsense is demanding a test of a game take place that requires a well-informed and experienced axis who has seen this strat enough to know the best options for the axis be done by an axis who has never seen the strat before. At least by studying some games, I can get a better idea for when I run a test whether it’s with Jen or not, even if I don’t become the best player ever out of it.
Are you claiming that by playing just one game I can FULLY grasp what her idea is? (well yes, because that’s exactly what you said). Do you not admit that is ludicrous? One game against a strategy, and a person can fully understand everything about it. Lol.
So one game involving myself allows me to fully grasp the idea (asinine), so what does looking at play reports allow me to grasp? Absolutely nothing?
So let’s say I improve my strat each game I play. Which will be better, the strat in the first game of the series where I have seen no play reports, or the strat in the first game of a series after I have seen play reports (that according to Jen already exist, mind you.) ?
Here’s the key question, it’s yes or no, if you don’t answer it I see little reason to continue to respond to your posts as long as they continue in this line you have started.
Will seeing the game reports of this “broken” USA strat in action give a person who has never seen the strat in action before a better idea of the strat?
If I have a better idea of the strat, I think we can both agree that I will need to play less games to figure out the best way I can try to defend against it.
The less information axis goes in with the more games are wasted. I really don’t feel like spending dozens of hours playing the first few games when the number of games could have been cut down with only several hours of studying game reports. Call that an excuse, but if I do this, it won’t be with an idiotic methodology just because glorious IL says so.
It would also be nice to see that Jen would be more interested in seeing IF the game is imbalanced instead of setting out to prove the game is imbalanced.
dude, i think these sections of your rant are fair…
so, if jen provides you with bat reps you will battle her???
Since I am new to this forum it is entirely possible that there is an online history between you guys to which I am not privy.
However, in my country we have a saying. Man up. Just battle her dude. You have decided to go on a pseudo-philosophical rant. Have you read David Hume? One of the great analytic geniuses of the Enlightenment. He placed great emphasis on the role of experience in providing understanding.
So man up and dig in.
And post results as I am curious
Can you explain how you obtained this figure of 70%. From what I can tell, for a G2 sea lion Germany will have at most 5 tactical bombers, 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 inf, 1 art, 4 tanks. That’s with a G1 build of 4 transports. Ave. rolling for hits is around 8 - assuming 1 fighter and 1 tac bomber are killed through anti air. Any return fire from uk troops can be allocated to the planes. So, when pressing, Germany will have 1 inf, 1 art, and 4 tanks compared to 5 inf and 5 fighters. I fail to see how Germany has a 70% chance of winning that battle. Or am I missing something?
I’m a fan. I’ve done it twice before. The first time was late in the game, a last ditch effort. The second time was very early, turn 4. It worked a treat. By landing in Spain with 14 units, plus planes, I forced Germany to retreat from Operation Barbarossa. Obviously a minor ic is built. The beauty of the Spain invasion is that it is one stop from America and the UK via transports, and it’s three territories away from Western Germany, and so cannot be reached in one turn. The opening of the neutrals isn’t that important. Yes, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden all go to the axis, but in return the allies take Spain, of course, Portugal, and the rest of South America. Plus a foothold in Europe. The German forces may rush back, allowing Russia to put pressure on Germany. Get the squeeze on