DAAK tourney starts

[Panther]

Registration time is over and the announced ( http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=3154 ) AAR tourney at DAAK will start soon.

Drawing will be today. Its possible to make a live (video) submission of the drawing.
If there is interest please post here:

http://www.daak.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23147#23147

[axis_roll]

Gutes Glück zu allen Teilnehmern!

[AxisRoll]

nice work. a_r thank god for free translators. lol

You should be in this tourney 2...

When does enhanced 2.0 tourney begin?

[Panther]

nice work. a_r thank god for free translators. lol



LOL : In this case the translator produced a sentence wich is at least understandable (wrong grammar and expression though).
If I translate it back to English I get "Good luck to all participants" wich makes sense.
Correct sentence in German: Viel Glück für alle Teilnehmer. :)

But anyway thanks to you, a_r for your good wishes.
Why didnt you participate?

[axis_roll]

But anyway thanks to you, a_r for your good wishes.
Why didnt you participate?
1). Lack of time
2). LHTR is imbalanced, IMHO. There's an optimal Allied game plan that boils down to KGF, unless the Axis runs an IPM type game. I find that boring.... running the same old game plan (especially the Infantry purchases). I've played this game since 1984, so 20 years of trying to Kill Germany First and defending AGAINST KGF as the Axis is boring.

I REALLY like Enhanced, so I will spend my game playing time with that rule set. Being rated or winning tourneyments is of less importance than playing a good strategic game with many strategic options. You see, in a tourny, you are playing to win, so you are less apt to experiment/be risky.

[cousin_joe]

1). Lack of time
2). LHTR is imbalanced, IMHO. There's an optimal Allied game plan that boils down to KGF, unless the Axis runs an IPM type game. I find that boring.... running the same old game plan (especially the Infantry purchases). I've played this game since 1984, so 20 years of trying to Kill Germany First and defending AGAINST KGF as the Axis is boring.

I REALLY like Enhanced, so I will spend my game playing time with that rule set. Being rated or winning tourneyments is of less importance than playing a good strategic game with many strategic options. You see, in a tourny, you are playing to win, so you are less apt to experiment/be risky.Exactly!!! I couldn't have said it better myself! :D Enhanced was designed specifically for the purpose of introducing some TRUE strategic choices into the game, and severely weakening the pure KGF (essentially ignore Japan, no India IC, send everything towards Germany). It is by far a much more fun and strategic game to play than LHTR rules.

Even though I find the LHTR rules incredibly boring and broken :rolleyes: , I, unfortunately, am not as principled as my colleague axis_roll here and will still participate in the tournaments :D . All I have seen so far though, continues to prove my assertions. Against weak players, an optimal KGF for the Allies, or an IPM push to Moscow for the Axis, will almost always win. Against strong players, who will also be playing the corresponding optimal strategy for their side, the game is a dice game (either small early battles, or late big battles).

I have to say, as much as the PBEM clubs do for A&A, I am quite disappointed at the LHTR ruleset :( . There is very little strategy involved. I would certainly hope that this is not the final ruleset the clubs are planning on going by.

[AxisRoll]

Well CJ, I get you in the first round of the DAAK Tourney.

I agree with a_r and CJ. I like enhanced as well and would hope that or a variant can be all agreed upon in the clubs so we would all be playing the same rules.

But what if LHTR changed 1 slight thing would help greatly. Moving the W USA VC to Hawaii. It would force USA to deal with the Pacific and not be able to go KGF everytime.

[Panther]

Well, I played some games with LHTR now and I dont agree that every game is the same and for me its not boring at all.
But anyway there is a possibility to change things at the clubs. Its perhaps not easy and will surely take some time and a lot of effort to convince enough people.... :)

Regarding the luck involved in early or late battles:
C_J, I suggest we use LowLuck in our upcoming tourney game.
So you dont have to be concerned, Im winning this one with the help of the dice. ;)

[axis_roll]

Well, I played some games with LHTR now and I dont agree that every game is the same and for me its not boring at all.
If the allies dictate a different game than the optimal KGF, then sure the game can be more fun. I particularly like to run KJF as the allies. Is it optimal? No. Can it work? Sure. Would I run it in a tourney? Perhaps, but not if I was all out to JUST WIN, which is the usual goal when one enters a tournyment. So we get back into the same trap.

No disrespect Panther, but how long have you been playing A&A (any variant)?

I would say (due mainly to the cd rom and online play) I have played 750+ games in my A&A career, many variant rules set, but mainly 2nd and 3rd edition A&A (although I've dabbled a bit in A&A Pacific)

The optimal Allied game plan is STILL KGF. When that plan is run, then the optimal Axis game plan is infantry for Germany and Japan pushes as hard and fast as possible on Moscow.

[Panther]

No disrespect Panther, but how long have you been playing A&A (any variant)?



Hmm, 10 years? no should be more like 15 years or so...
And still having fun. :D
My only concern is: My opponnents were getting better and better over the years and Im getting old. ;)


I would say (due mainly to the cd rom and online play) I have played 750+ games in my A&A career, many variant rules set, but mainly 2nd and 3rd edition A&A


You played several hundreds of games when it was so boring?? ;)


The optimal Allied game plan is STILL KGF.

Maybe. But still there are so many different ways how to achieve this in detail, and Im sure I did not see them all.

[axis_roll]

Hmm, 10 years? no should be more like 15 years or so...
And still having fun. :D
My only concern is: My opponnents were getting better and better over the years and Im getting old. ;)
:)

20 years for me

You played several hundreds of games when it was so boring?? ;)
I didn't say that, and I know you were joking. I actually was revived when a rule set called Kremlin came out (spring1942 online club introduced it). It was/is a great ruleset that offers different game opening scenarios... made the game fun again, not the same old/same old.

Maybe. But still there are so many different ways how to achieve this in detail, and Im sure I did not see them all.
I will grant you that regarding A&A Revised.... it takes a while for all to find the optimal since the game is still relatively new. But fear not, in a few short months with many tournys being played out now, that THE optimal Allied game plan will be played but many soon (especially in LHTR, which is a rule set that only helps the allies, IMHO).

I have about 30+ Revised games under my belt now... I've seen a lot of games and moves and ideas.

[Panther]

Ok, I admit you did not say you´re bored, it was only C_J who did. ;)

[aibrahim]

Hi,

To pipe in my two cents here. I do not agree with CJ (a very good player by the way whom I respect) on how simple AAR is. He makes it seem like you could tell someone to go all out with allies against germany and for axis to go straight for Moscow and that would be enough for that person to be a good player. I don't think that is true at all. I do not disagree that is the general framework for doing well, but there are a lot of little of details which can vary from game to game. What differentiates great players from good players is the ability to take advantage of different situations (usually due to good/bad dice) and not take the same approach every time. Off the top of my head here are some choices that you can think of.

I really shouldn't talk about this stuff since I am in the AAMC tourney, but I will concede my opponent some scouting :).

1. KJF feint: This is one of my favorites. Without going into specifics, setup with Russian and UK to go about 80% KJF. You sacrifice some early positioning in your KGF, but you force Japan to make hard decisions. If dice go badly for Japan you can then switch to KJF and barring that you have usually delayed Japan for a turn or 2. You might also be able to take advantage of a quick strike against Japan's transports.

In general, people often complain about bad dice, but they forget that part of good play is making it so bad dice matter! A good player should try to setup situations where if the other player is unlucky, something really good will happen, but when they are lucky it is not that helpful. This goes to the general idea that the expected win/loss percentage is not as important as the expected strategic gain/strategic loss.

2. Pacific Harass: Another thing to think about with Japan is that if she doesn't Pearl, you might want to harass with carrier, sub, transport, and some fighters. You don't lose much, because these guys can't participate in KGF until turn 4 when you probably already have a naval advantage in the Atlantic. This will keep the Japan's fleet stuck in the Pacific and keep them out of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, or Africa. Just play cat and mouse, until late in the game when you can sacrifice them for a some strategic goal. You can also defend Australia with this.

3. German Navy decisions: I personally believe in the german carrier and whether you go with this makes a large decision in the game. The carrier tends to slow down the game because it takes longer for Germany to pressure Russia and it takes longer for UK to pressure Germany. I am also partial to sometimes buying a transport as well with Germany to threaten UK (later it can become casualty when you sack your navy against the UK's navy at the suitable time.)

4. German stack location: Another decision is where to stack with Germany? You can't usually stack Ukraine until G3 and usually not until G4, but you could stack Karelia especially if you keep your navy in the baltic. By doing this , you can trade Archangel, Belorussia, and Ukraine every turn which is difficult for Russia to handle. You can also keep taking back Norway as you see fit. Unfortunately, you have to deal with Russia being able to lurch and take Ukraine? Very dicey as you could move to Archangel and threaten Moscow, so it is an interesting dynamic.

5. Japan's route to Moscow: In my opinion, the two best routes are the northern route and through China. The Chinese route is one longer but you threaten Kazakh as well as Novo. The northern route is probably better in most situations, but depends on circumstances.

6. US/UK capital ships: You need enough capital ships to defend against Germany's navy or airforce, but not too many that you squander your economic advanatge. Sometimes I think it is okay to sacrifice your smaller navy to germany and just build another instead of trying to make it impossible for them to attack you. This is because you will want to destroy the german navy eventually anyway so you can threaten all of germany's shores.

7. US shuck location: Usually most people will shuck through Norway/Karelia but this can have some problems. Namely that if Germany is strong they can relentlessly strafe you until you have enough troops to prevent that. Another option is to shuck to Algeria. This has the advantage of controlling Africa, threatening the German Med fleet, threatening Southern Europe at the cost of some extra transports.

8. US Brazil factory: Can be useful in some situations, but I don't have a lot of experience with it.

These are only some of the things I can think of. Now, it is entirely possible the Axis and Allies Enhanced is better and has more options (haven't tried it yet), but at the same time revised isn't SOO bad/easy :)

Regards,

[axis_roll]

I agree with alot of what you've said.

Under certain circumstances, a KJF can be very effective. But you have to set that up with USSR on R1. A good German/Axis player can recognize the warning signs G1 and make the proper moves to thwart/counter the allied plan to KJF.

You best point is in #7. The US schuck to Algeria is by far the best and most effective allied game plan. Japan can not even really stop it either since your chain of units can start from western USA to western canada to eastern canada. Once established, a Japanese incursion to break the chain barely slows the US troop movement since they're going that way anyways... and it hurts Japans efforts to pressure USSR more than it really slows USA's troops to European theatre.

[aibrahim]

Hi,

You are right the axis player can always thwart a KJF given even dice, but what I am trying to say is go 80% (i.e. no factory in India in UK1) and see how Germany and Japan react. Depending on the outcome of the battles you can always abort and go pure KGF with US and back off russian troops. Dictating the action is always good. Of course there are some interesting counters, and you will have sacrificed some of your KGF positioning, for example, not taking egypt back and not having as many russian troops facing Germany R2.

Oh, and about the algeria shuck, the main issue is will you be able to defend both the UK and US fleets if the germany navy has not been sunk yet? You also will not be able to threaten Karelia, Germany, or Eastern Europe directly. And Japan can come around the cape and threaten you as well.

Anyway, I don't dispute that some KGF is optimal in most situations. But you have to adapt to the dice, and it can be fun to set up situations where bad dice for your opponent can open interesting opportunities. I will reiterate that I have nothing against enhanced which seems to have some great ideas and may be better than AAR, but people on this forum are too quick to dismiss the strategies involved in AAR.

There a lot of other ideas that I am sure people here can post about including the viability of teching with LHTR rules (blah in my opinion except for rockets which may be too powerful for germany) and bidding strategies or even if you think no bid is necessary.

Regards,

[cousin_joe]

Hi,

To pipe in my two cents here. I do not agree with CJ (a very good player by the way whom I respect) on how simple AAR is. He makes it seem like you could tell someone to go all out with allies against germany and for axis to go straight for Moscow and that would be enough for that person to be a good player. I don't think that is true at all. I do not disagree that is the general framework for doing well, but there are a lot of little of details which can vary from game to game. What differentiates great players from good players is the ability to take advantage of different situations (usually due to good/bad dice) and not take the same approach every time. Off the top of my head here are some choices that you can think of.Here's my main problem with AAR:
For the Axis, the only way to victory in a 9VC game is to take Moscow
For the Allies, the safest and most effective way to victory by far is via KGF. To run KJF requires some lucky dice.

I concede there are some finer details involved, but these are tactics, not strategy. The grand strategy for both sides is the same. For Allies, lock Germany in and limit their African income, totally ignore Japan. For Axis, push INF to Moscow from both sides.

Where are the strategic choices here?!?!? What about an Atlantic campaign for Germany? What about a Pacific campaign for Japan? What about a SE Asian campaign for the Allies? Nope!!! The rest of these are not viable under the current rules.

True, bad dice/good dice can totally change the complexion of a game, but it seems in AAR that's the ONLY thing that will change a game. Barring dramatic dice, the stackfests in EEur/Kar and Rus/Novo seem the norm. There shouldn't be ONE super-optimal strategy played by both sides and then having the dice dictate playout... it should be what the player's CHOOSE among MANY different strategies, that dictates how the games playout.


I really shouldn't talk about this stuff since I am in the AAMC tourney, but I will concede my opponent some scouting :).

1. KJF feint: This is one of my favorites. Without going into specifics, setup with Russian and UK to go about 80% KJF. You sacrifice some early positioning in your KGF, but you force Japan to make hard decisions. If dice go badly for Japan you can then switch to KJF and barring that you have usually delayed Japan for a turn or 2. You might also be able to take advantage of a quick strike against Japan's transports.

In general, people often complain about bad dice, but they forget that part of good play is making it so bad dice matter! A good player should try to setup situations where if the other player is unlucky, something really good will happen, but when they are lucky it is not that helpful. This goes to the general idea that the expected win/loss percentage is not as important as the expected strategic gain/strategic loss
.

Again Aibrahim, much respect, but AAR is too dependant on dice. Strategy is what should dictate how a game plays out and the end result. In AAR, if both sides are running the optimal strategies (as expected in tourney games), and one side gets terrible dice in a battle, well, there's not a whole lot he can do to come back. He's still going to run the optimal strategy (KGF or Push to Moscow), as nothing else is really viable, but due to his bad dice, he is behind in material/position and will likely lose in the battle of the optimal strategies.


2. Pacific Harass: Another thing to think about with Japan is that if she doesn't Pearl, you might want to harass with carrier, sub, transport, and some fighters. You don't lose much, because these guys can't participate in KGF until turn 4 when you probably already have a naval advantage in the Atlantic. This will keep the Japan's fleet stuck in the Pacific and keep them out of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, or Africa. Just play cat and mouse, until late in the game when you can sacrifice them for a some strategic goal. You can also defend Australia with this.
Japan would be silly to leave the Pearl fleet alone. This pretty much has to be done and isn't really a choice.


3. German Navy decisions: I personally believe in the german carrier and whether you go with this makes a large decision in the game. The carrier tends to slow down the game because it takes longer for Germany to pressure Russia and it takes longer for UK to pressure Germany. I am also partial to sometimes buying a transport as well with Germany to threaten UK (later it can become casualty when you sack your navy against the UK's navy at the suitable time.)
This one is one of the few strategic choices to make in Revised. AC or no AC.


4. German stack location: Another decision is where to stack with Germany? You can't usually stack Ukraine until G3 and usually not until G4, but you could stack Karelia especially if you keep your navy in the baltic. By doing this , you can trade Archangel, Belorussia, and Ukraine every turn which is difficult for Russia to handle. You can also keep taking back Norway as you see fit. Unfortunately, you have to deal with Russia being able to lurch and take Ukraine? Very dicey as you could move to Archangel and threaten Moscow, so it is an interesting dynamic.
I'd call this more tactical decision making. Strategic goal is still to push your troops to Moscow.


5. Japan's route to Moscow: In my opinion, the two best routes are the northern route and through China. The Chinese route is one longer but you threaten Kazakh as well as Novo. The northern route is probably better in most situations, but depends on circumstances.
Again, more tactical. Still a push towards Moscow.


6. US/UK capital ships: You need enough capital ships to defend against Germany's navy or airforce, but not too many that you squander your economic advanatge. Sometimes I think it is okay to sacrifice your smaller navy to germany and just build another instead of trying to make it impossible for them to attack you. This is because you will want to destroy the german navy eventually anyway so you can threaten all of germany's shores.
Not really much choice here. you're going to defend your capital ships at the bare minimum of what they need.


7. US shuck location: Usually most people will shuck through Norway/Karelia but this can have some problems. Namely that if Germany is strong they can relentlessly strafe you until you have enough troops to prevent that. Another option is to shuck to Algeria. This has the advantage of controlling Africa, threatening the German Med fleet, threatening Southern Europe at the cost of some extra transports.

8. US Brazil factory: Can be useful in some situations, but I don't have a lot of experience with it.
Still part of a KGF. Locks Germany in Europe.

These are only some of the things I can think of. Now, it is entirely possible the Axis and Allies Enhanced is better and has more options (haven't tried it yet), but at the same time revised isn't SOO bad/easy :)

Regards,Even if one considers some of the tactical decision making I've mentioned here as strategy, the actual choices one makes in the Revised game are VERY limited. Here's all the choices I see in the game:

Rus: How many troops to slow Japan?
Ger: AC or no AC to slow Allies?
-Which route towards Moscow?
UK: Troops to Algeria or Karelia?
-IC in India or not?
***: Which route towards Moscow?
US: Troops to Algeria or Karelia?

Several things are given, like Rus sending troops to Eastern Front, Ger taking as much of Afr as possible, UK/US defending their trannies as much as minimally required. Overall though, true strategic choices are VERY limited. Both sides essentially are locked in to what they have to do, it's all a matter of execution. BOOORRRIIINNNGGG :rolleyes: zzzzzzzzz

[Panther]

Aibrahim, thanks for your post. You wrote a lot I only thought because I didnt have the time (or was too lazy ;) ) to formulate and type.
This what CJ is calling "a matter of execution" are enough tough decisions (no matter if you call them strategic or tactical) to make, at least for me. :)

BTW: The perseverative repetition of the word "boring" wont bring us greater enlightenment, even if spelled with many letters.

[axis_roll]

This what CJ is calling "a matter of execution" are enough tough decisions (no matter if you call them strategic or tactical) to make, at least for me. :)
I think we ned to discuss what is considered strategy in this game.

Is it the "WHAT" you are trying to do your side? I.E. Kill Germany First

~or~

Is it the "HOW" you do it? I.E. Buy lots of US transports and Inf and move them to Algeria.

I guess it can also be both of the above definitions: "WHAT" & "HOW".

When it comes down to optimal strategies, the "WHAT" has been choosen for you, the only decisions left are the "HOW"s. If you like to think this game is fun because you have to decide between buying those 2 US ftrs now instead of 4 inf and a transport, then good for you!

I think long time veterans of Axis & Allies and those who want more variety in the game wish we had more "WHAT" decisions to be made....

Please note I am not saying one is better than the other, as it really depends on your point of view. Becoming the best at running a set strategy (and handling all the little nuances that odd dice can create) can be rewarding, especially if you are playing for rating like in a ladder club or playing to win in a tourney.

[cousin_joe]

I think we ned to discuss what is considered strategy in this game.

Is it the "WHAT" you are trying to do your side? I.E. Kill Germany First

~or~

Is it the "HOW" you do it? I.E. Buy lots of US transports and Inf and move them to Algeria.

I guess it can also be both of the above definitions: "WHAT" & "HOW".

When it comes down to optimal strategies, the "WHAT" has been choosen for you, the only decisions left are the "HOW"s. If you like to think this game is fun because you have to decide between buying those 2 US ftrs now instead of 4 inf and a transport, then good for you!

I think long time veterans of Axis & Allies and those who want more variety in the game wish we had more "WHAT" decisions to be made....

Please note I am not saying one is better than the other, as it really depends on your point of view. Becoming the best at running a set strategy (and handling all the little nuances that odd dice can create) can be rewarding, especially if you are playing for rating like in a ladder club or playing to win in a tourney.
Excllent way to put it axis_roll!:)

My definition:
The "WHAT" = strategy
The "HOW" = tactics

They should change the tagline from "a game of GRAND strategy", to "a game of ONE strategy." ONE typical strategy = ONE typical playout (stacks in EEur/Kar, Novo/Rus). BOOORRRIIINNNGGG :rolleyes: zzzzzzzzzzz (that one's for you, Panther, I know you like :D ).

Actually, I'm not surprised that Panther doesn't mind playing the same strategy over and over again, he is after all the Low Luck Guru. If you wanted to kill ALL variation in the game, Low Luck would be the way I would do it :D

[aibrahim]

Hi,

There is no question that the strategic goal is pre determined in revised. It is a natural consequence of the world domination style which leads to wanting to eliminate powers as soon as possible which leads to wanting to eliminate the weakest power Russia. The VC type style game such as AA Pacific do help a little to make things more interesting.

I disagree with you, cousin_joe, that you always Pearl. If you have lost your sub and the UK fleet is in Japanese waters then you have to spread yourself pretty thin to defend your transports, take pearl, deal with UK, and take China. You should always consider not Pearling in that case. Of course it depends on the specific circumstances.

I think part of the problem is that the techs and N/A are supposed to provide variety, but they are either too weak or uninteresting.

Regards,

[Panther]

Actually, I'm not surprised that Panther doesn't mind playing the same strategy over and over again, he is after all the Low Luck Guru. If you wanted to kill ALL variation in the game, Low Luck would be the way I would do it :D


Well I dont know if you really believe this nonsense or not, but for me there is no point in continuing this discussion. I know that you are eager to promote your variant but attacking others isnt the right way.

[cousin_joe]

Well I dont know if you really believe this nonsense or not, but for me there is no point in continuing this discussion. I know that you are eager to promote your variant but attacking others isnt the right way.
Panther, my apologies :o . It was in jest, and not meant to be an attack. Low Luck certainly has it's appeal, and I myself have thought of switching over to it from time to time, especially when it seems the dice are out to get me.

The problem is, is that it's lowering the luck in LHTR, which is lacking a lot of variation and strategy already anyway. I've stated this before, but I think the combination of the luck-lowering factor of Low Luck, and the increased strategies of Enhanced, would be the Ultimate Strategic Variant. In out-of-the-box, Luck is greater then Strategy, but in a Combined Low Luck/Enhanced variant, Strategy would be greater than Luck. Such a combination would be the ultimate test of skill and strategy :)

[Panther]

Panther, my apologies :o . It was in jest, and not meant to be an attack.



Its ok. I know how it is if you have an idea and putting a lot of work into. And if it is a good idea and some people are convinced, then you obviously want to convince them all or at least the biggest part of them.
With LL it took some weeks to create the rules, but months to years to convince people of it. Now it is played in 3 of the 4 international PBEM clubs, but it "cost" me 100s of posts, emails, PMs, ftf games.

What I meant with "attack" in my post is not (only) LL and myself, but many other players who play OOB or LHTR rules. Perhaps they are happy with this rule sets, perhaps not so. But if you are telling them that they are playing a boring onedimensional game, you are impliying they are ondimensional too or even stupid. If someone gets that impression he wont be open to your arguments for enhanced anymore.
Im telling all of this not to critizise you, but its meant as an advice, because I believe that your ideas/ruleset has some potential indeed! :)