Are you a little girl or something?
I’ve been busy and frankly I had to talk with my partner about this to, that took time.
The main reason for our witdrawal is that we don’t want to spend that much time playing a game waiting for scramble decisions, its silly.
Posts made by wrath3
-
RE: XDAP-01 jim010/Stirling (Allies) vs. Wrath3 (Axis)
-
RE: XDAP-01 jim010/Stirling (Allies) vs. Wrath3 (Axis)
I’ll withdraw from the tournament, I got the impression we would play by triple A and the lobby feature. I’m not going to send 200 spammails to get to round 2 in the game. Scrambling maps makes for horrible PBEM games.
-
RE: XDAP-01 jim010/Stirling (Allies) vs. Wrath3 (Axis)
retarded way to play.
So do you scramble -
RE: XDAP-01 jim010/Stirling (Allies) vs. Wrath3 (Axis)
Test summary from TripleA 09:51:43
-
RE: GARGANTUA'S $200 TOURNAMENT OF EXTRA DEATH AND PAIN (TripleA Only) 2xELIMINATION
We play by forum Wrath.
Jim010 is your opponent.
Now I’m getting confused, we play by forum and by tripple A?
I thought it was just trhrough tripple A client the play was done? -
RE: GARGANTUA'S $200 TOURNAMENT OF EXTRA DEATH AND PAIN (TripleA Only) 2xELIMINATION
So I got a teammate and I got him on to tripple A. My nick there is wrath and his nick is royal red….
-
RE: GARGANTUA'S $200 TOURNAMENT OF EXTRA DEATH AND PAIN (TripleA Only) 2xELIMINATION
Hi Gargantua,
I posted a reply on swedens anonymous forum flashback, got one reply of who knows who and I got a team.
Its me and bernad_law.
I assume we get a teamname and work from there. So spot 24 Wrath of the law -
RE: Axis too strong??
0,95^10 = 0,6 so its only 40 % chance you fail one.
-
RE: Alpha 4?
well I still dont think its the best strat to go sea lion, russia is much softer. The only way I’d go sealion is if I can hold east poland and forece sea lion. Just becuase you can hit london r 4 doesnt say that you win the game.
I’ve not found a scenario where germany can do that.
I dont like the new setup in europe since russia gets smashed to easily. -
RE: Bids
Well Zhukov last time we played you bungled up the battleship outside hawaii and it ended up by stealing 1 hour of my life trying to explain statistics to a guy constatly saying I should study statistics. One game doesnt prove much, nor do I intend to show my best strat.
The britt 2 factory strat isnt optimal but its jolly fun to play. -
RE: Bids
wrath the problem with your statement here is that you are basically saying these players who play thousands of axis and allies games against thousands of opponets wouldn’t revise their strategy to all sorts of different forms. Say in revised if Japan lost a couple planes and some sea units on turn 1 and built 2 factories US could go pacific. Otherwise US goes all out germany. People that play thousands of games realize this and can instantly counter every move their opponet makes. A game with two experts is like a giant chess board, with both players Looking to counter on a possible minor mistake or capitalize on their 4 turn ahead thinking that chess grandmasters use. Great axis and allies players play the same way. They don’t do they exact same thing everytime, except for russia. The best way to play is play off of what your opponet does, and I know Zhukov knows this as well as many other posters on this thread. Bids are needed to balance games. Otherwise the game wouldn’t be fun at the expert level as whoever got allies in 1941 version would loose most games. Yes, low luck is a different game than dice since you can assure most outcomes and not get hosed in big important battles, but great players always start on dice for a hundred or more games before playing LL. Dice gets you started in the game and can give you the since of “what if I get unlucky here what do I do”, while LL gives you the idea as to what attacks are better and what units are more cost effective and why at a deeper level than dice. Lastly would you want to play as the allies in 1941 if you know you are going to loose most of the time? and if your answer is yes, why would you want to be on the loosing side?
1. If you play thousands of times vs opponents that play the same strategys you, can play a million games and it still does not prove its the best strategy. If you don’t agree with my statement well I recooment to read a couple of pages from one of my favorite books called the black swan (author X. Taleb yes he’s an arab intellectual).
2. We don’t talk revised here, its like comparing how you play doom compared to counter strike. We dont talk about chess here since its not even remotely the same. Instant counters aint the best counters, and your comparison to grandmasters are redundant they make mistakes all the time. And for sure there wouldnt be players like Kasparov and Carlsen that destroys grand masters.
3. The difference isn’t just you can assess losses, the losses are much higher in low luck. This is an huge factor since axis have to push the game and make a lot of battles from the start of the game.
Also you don’t have to adapt to volatility and have backup plans that is an huge skill factor and those players that go the same opening in low luck compared to dice don’t play good enough in my opinion.
True the hose factor is important whats more important is to chose your battles and maybe not taking all battles you can go with rather take the battles you can afford to lose unless you been playing badly and got to gamble. Its all down to something called equity in poker terms its a profitable lesson if you don’t understand what I’m talknig about.
I strongly disagree with that LL is deeper then dice, thats for me an absurd statement since in a game where the best option is murky (dice) is much harder to master then one where its mathematically guaranteed (LL).
As I look at it a game with more correct strategically options are harder to master and you got more options in dice since the best strategy is losses dependent depending on the opening rounds. Since allies are the reacting side with position they benefit a lot from this. This is in my opinion a much more important factor then the oh I migth get hosed, because losses are higher in dice compared to LL the allied side get more options availible depending on how the initial battles go. Also the strategic reserv in the game is air units and air is the one you balance battles with, axis got way more air units and thus get a bigger bonus from low luck. That destroys the balance in the game in my opinion. It also takes out a lot of skill factors and replaces it with I got a good memory/opening book. Sure there are lots of people that prefer that since they just play to win and lose every game, since they miss out on developing themselves.
4. I state the game is balanced. For me your statement is totally absurd saying that I’m on the losing side most of the time since I claim that both sides win about equal OOB, dice, if you play the proper strategys. I’m actually saying you only win 40 ish % of the time as allies if you go all in europe without a bid, go figure.5. I’ve had great fun playing tripple A where I’ve spent all games except one on suboptimal strategys where I’ve been theoretically on the losing side but hey I still won like 80 % of my games since people can’t adapt or in my opinion play well enough. My main goal has been to build two factorys as britts and whomp japan, let germany take Moscow and then still win the game. Playing the optimal strategy again after I’ve been playing it for years vs better opponents then most on tripple A is boring and probably someone will start to copy it. The latter I find very repulsive since I think you guys should look beyond your linear clown play, and base it on “ooh I need a bid to balance the game” and actually try to research other avenues, avenues I’m claiming is there THAT BALANCES the game.
6. My next project is to play on tripple A and see how far down I can go with negative bids and still win the game, I bet I can fid some joe blow from idaho where I can get the bid down to 10 for axis and still win the game.
7. And no I’m not even going to comment on your name dropping, and if you where going to name drop pick the best players to name drop.
-
RE: Alpha +3 Observations
@Cmdr:
Spend 6 IPC to take out the Russian NO, Wrath. A submarine in SZ 125 takes away the objective as well as a destroyer does. It also requires the allies to send a destroyer to go kill it, instead of using only planes.
A submarine isnt a war ship according to our definition of the rules but I wont argue about that. The price of 8 ipc is still worth it.
Russia was buffed in Alpha 2 because many Axis players blew their strength on England, dedicating all of their power to taking it out and thus, not having enough to hit Russia with. Now that England is no longer a prized posession, but more of a “well, I need one more VC to win, and it is underdefended” move, Russia is getting really easy to take out.
Dont care if russia is buffed, Germany is so much more buffed with their extra planes and units, thats why I find that theather a bit balanced.
Looking ONLY at the game board for the first 3 rounds (bringing you to Germany Round 4, Purchase New Units) one can see that the Axis are more than double Russia’s strength with more than double their income. That means England and India need to be focused on sending reinforcements to Russia to prevent them from falling (and thus, negating the need to block SZ 125). With the NonAggression arrangement being virtually nullified, there is no reason not to invade early and heavy with Japan and more reason TOO do it, to remove even more IPC from the Russians.
So yes, Wrath, I agree, Barbarossa is probably the better avenue and makes Victory more assured, not assured, but more than attempting Sea Lion. I don’t see Russia ever getting their Objectives (any of them).If you go after russia on round 4 as germany you are to late imho, you are better off attacking round 2 (with a fake attack on yugoslavia) or on r3.
-
RE: Alpha +3 = UK1 Factory in EGY breaks the game?
@mantlefan:
A German Minor IC and Airbase in Greece is very, very nice… I’ve done it in my last two Alpha 2 games. Once the Allies get powerful around the Eastern Med, Italy and Germany can tuck into SZ97, with the cover of six Axis aircraft of your choice. A German Sub or Destroyer per round (or as needed) in the Med becomes a real thorn for the good guys.
It also becomes a huge money pit for the Germans. A med IC drains a ton of what you need in russia. If you really feel the need to build a German IC for the med, do it in Yugo. It’s easier to protect once the Axis starts losing pace with allied Naval upkeep. If UK already took out 96 and 97, it won’t take much for the Allies to eliminate the rest, unless Germany is spending so much in the med that Russia isn’t being threatened fast enough.
Greece is incredibly vulnerable and takes a bit longer to get. Yugo still allows a 97 drop while allowing the axis a much easier chance to retake than Greece if it were captured.
Also the main point for when I place a german factory in yugoslavia, it threathens to drop units into the med and taking egypt if UK places a factory there.
By placing a factory in yugoslavia I dont think its a good idea for UK to build a factory in egypt. Hence I by the yugofactory and then buy mech inf in it for the russian front paying 1 ipc more per inf (compared to a poland/romania factory) but preventing a egypt factory on UK r2. -
RE: Axis too strong??
3 is enough for balance and I’d play out of box and still have fun and think its balanced.
Also a side note on allies have to be lucky in order to smash japan in the pacific.
The key is that allies choses if they go after japan in the pacific or not dependning on how round 1 rolls goes.
The allies go position in that regard and thats worth more then many people understad when it comes to balance. -
RE: Bids
The map is balanced in the 1941 scenario, if you play dice or out of box rules. I totally agree with the original poster.
It’s just strategy dependent.
Also for the tripple a fans, most of you play the same linear strategys and the same openings regardless if its LL or dice.
The first is the let japan go crazy and push into europe with allies, I’d give it 40 % winning for allies without a bid.
I don’t give much for your so called experience playing the same strategy 1000 times, it does not prove that its the best one. Maybe there is a different approach that you haven’t figured out lol.
As for the latter not adapting your openings between low luck and dice is a sure sign of abysmal understandning of statistics. -
RE: Any tips about the balance?
The game is in balance if you use dice, its just strategy dependent. Most people (99 % or so) do not know the best allied strategies and henche they require a bid to balance the game.
An extra inf for britts in egypt is an easy balancing act.
If you use low luck rules wich is a horrible horrible rule that inferior players that cant coupe with unlucky dices then the game is tilted for axis favour. Also a lot of the options are inferior in the game and the game becomes very linear for most players.The standard bid is 13 ipc for allies in low luck 1941 scenario on tripple A, people buy 2 tanks for russiaand a inf into egypt.
I’m of a different opinion but I dont like the allies go all in europe and let japan go nuts and try to place my bids differently.
For dice the bid varies from 3-15 but most stop around 10 for allies and noone had bid under my 6. I will probably go down to 3 for allies, and one day I ll try to see how far down i get the bid with a win, I bet I can go down to negative bids. -
RE: In which version is Russia stronger against the Axis, A2 or A3?
How is russia ever strong?
They where strong out of box but now you should be able to push em down easliy. -
RE: Alpha +3 Observations
With the new extra units for germany in AA + setups it must be really easy to pull down russia, its a easy job to do in out of box scenarios if the allies dont interfere with germany util r4+ but with that huge start bonus I cant see why one would ever want to do sea lion…
I’d used to go the ultra push for mechs +30 with raising berlin and pumping mechs and a few tanks but with the new upping of the berlin factory one doesnt even have to do that one. So I guess putting up one or two small factories in R1 and 2 romania/poland and then pull in mechs to the front and art with the small factories until russia has to chose which factory he will defend. Also build a destroyer to place in zone 125 every round when oyu are at war, so what if britts sink it, you buy a new one block the bonus and smile. spending 8 ipc in order to kill russias 5 ipc bonus is way worth it.
I dont like the setup that much its very oh we got to make sea lion a stalemate and preventable so alpha 4+ will be oh lets make russia strong… -
RE: Black Sea Fleet Strategy
I’ve used a different strategy to achieve this and that is to build a factory in finlad, buy art, place a bunch of mobile in bulgaria. Attack greece with germany, and get a yugoslavia factory. Drop a Carrier on R3 in the mediterrean and 2 transports looks like you want to get egypt. Then you hit turkey and Sweden on G4. Italy swoops in on caucasus, with their carrier and transports. Germany follows and then you got a nice solid amount of hp and a really nice trade situation around the blacksea. You also combine this with a factory in greece and 10+ mobile going through turkey.
-
RE: Our game groups world domination Global, simple balancing.
VC is for viet congs. And even them played to win the war and not the cities.
Limiting the game to VC takes away a lot of different strategies and we don’t like linearity, we prefer organized chaos/creativity.