Axis and Allies Online: Cobra versus Paul (ranked).

[@tim5510les]

Interesting game, thanks

[@dzmcgaming4769]

GG ok, finished the game, I disagree that you might still have lost if you managed to keep berlin. It was a weak KGF frankly, you would have easily been able to help Japan, India's days would have been numbered, he took the 36% on Berlin and just happened to win, it was his YOLO, and it paid off. One thing I did notice is that his hit backs were way above average in this game, so that didn't help you much, but overall fun game to watch look forward to the next one. :)

[@Cobra-2177]

@@dzmcgaming4769 thanks, you'reproudly right. This is the game where I took France back when I didn't have to. I should have been more patient. I appreciate the feedback.

[@Cobra-2177]

Probably not proudly. Stupid auto correct.

[@sranmilosevic1472]

After this game I think it's time for allies😊

[@Cobra-2177]

Soon

[@thecatlady2392]

Interesting game, really like you commenting. Thanks!

[@ryanmuirhead7832]

if you would buy some artillery for germany you wouldn’t have to send so many guys trying to take france back

[@Cobra-2177]

@@ryanmuirhead7832 true

[@ryanmuirhead7832]

if the goal was to take cau on round 3, why not take it on round 2 when it was available? :)

[@DoubIeO]

My Advice for Japan Round 1 and Germany Round 1 is to set up a defense Profile for JUST Round 1 where you submerge Japanese Submarines and for Germany in order to cause more casualties in Ukraine for Russia to have the Bomber die before the tank and the Fighter. And for Japan Round 1 I was curious when the opponent doesnt kill the Destroyer & transport I make sure that with saving 3 IPCs to be able to buy 3 Bombers if needed Japan Round 2 to threaten India take. I also was wondering why you didnt use any troops from the Islands to attack Yunnan, nor why you didnt take a free Burma because UK Round 1 was kind of bad on the losses there and it would further take away the defenders for India (even in a KJF you can sometimes take it and that makes sure you have enough to secure income from the mainland for Japan to keep up with US Naval production. In your case since he is doing the 7 Inf&Fighter stack in Buryatia you dont go for India and clear that stack. In Germany Round 2, I would have taken 3 Infantry and the Bomber to take Caucasus, 2 Infantry and 1 Fighter from Poland to clear West Russia. and just 2 Inf and 4 Fighters to kill Karelia and accept the 11% chance of him stopping you from taking it. The Fighter in Formosa after attacking Buryatia you could land in Manchuria and still reach Caucasus the next turn if you'd wanted to.

[@classified5790]

When I see only 4 Inf in the Caucasus a fun round one move I do, sometimes, as Germany is take 1 Inf 1 Arty (or tank) from the Med w/Battleship, 2 Fighters and take Caucasus. It's a ~78% battle, and yes you will loss a plane or two. Then Inf stack Karelia w/6. Also Go hard into Ukraine with everything that can reach. For Non-Com, I move everything I can into Poland. Taking all 3 will really make it hard for Russia to pick what to kill. If all goes well, you Battleship is also safe, and the UK bomber cannot hit it (no place to land), only the Des and 1 plane, if they move the UK fleet into the Med, SZ 17.

[@dzmcgaming4769]

You got away with those Japanese transports surviving USA Round 3. All he needed to do was send one sub at the stack of ships you had in 60, and then a single US fighter to kill those transports. You got away with that, maybe he, or you do not know about that game dynamic? Still watching though at the beginning of round 4, but thought I'd chimer in on the Japanese saving those transports, that is a big deal and might have won him the game.

[@bonkcc_]

I'm glad I caught onto that dynamic. I've never truely found out for myself, since I've always avoided that specific situiation whether I am aware of it or not. I've never trusted exposed transports when the USA is going for Japan. Doesn't he have to sack a carrier aswell, and send it to SZ 60 In the combat or non-combat phase?

[@dzmcgaming4769]

@@bonkcc_ no he only has to attack it with the sub and a single fighter, he will lose both but still a great move for the Allies.

[@bonkcc_]

@@dzmcgaming4769 Thanks. Damn, what a move. Just tested it, nasty!

[@Cobra-2177]

@@dzmcgaming4769 I certainly missed it. I'll have to look at that again thanks for the heads up

[@dzmcgaming4769]

@@bonkcc_ The theory is that the plane can still theoretically land if the sub wins the sz, but of course, that never happens, but the game because of sequence doesn't know, so combat first noncom last.

[@tim2024-df5fu]

I was wondering why you don't build AA guns for Germany or Japan? They're not effective on the attack but they do give you a first shot at enemy aircraft. PTSD might be coloring my thinking though. I had my German Air force wiped in round 2 by Kurellia's AA guns. I still have nightmares of all the dice rolling to 1's.

[@Cobra-2177]

@@tim2024-df5fu I'm not opposed to buying AA guns, but a couple things usually factor in. However many enemy fighters are available to attack, divide that by 3 and never buy more than that. Germany starts with AA guns so you can already defend against 9 fighters. Japan doesn't see attacks usually for several turns and the 5 bucks the AA gun costs can be better spent elsewhere. Finally, the AA gun costs roughly the same as 2 infantry, and the 2 infantry get to fire back every turn they're alive as opposed to the 1 shot of the AA. A well timed AA buy can tilt the odds in favor of the defense, but usually I opt for units that can defend multiple rounds.

[@tim2024-df5fu]

@@Cobra-2177 I guess I didn't explain it very well. You're missing the psychological impact of AA guns and your enemy's fear of loosing his planes. It's impact is real and can't be calculated.

[@Cobra-2177]

@tim2024-df5fu you might get someone to think twice about using fighters in the early game, but later on I think most people just trust the calculator

[@eddenton6595]

Why not cauc g2?

[@BuceGar]

Do you ever play on TripleA? What version of the game is this? From Hasbro?

[@Cobra-2177]

@@BuceGar I've never played triple A. This version of A&A is from Beamdog, and is adapted from the original Milton Bradley board game

[@DoubIeO]

Its 2nd Edition A&A adaptation for the boardgame also there is from Larry Harris (I believe he is the game designer) a different setup for tournaments to balance the forces. Because I think in the original setup the Axis have a 75% winrate and with the new setup its only around 54% winrate.

[@BuceGar]

@@DoubIeO Yeah ,this seems correct. The best version of AnA I've played is a version called Pact Of Steel on TripleA. It adds Italy as a power and all the players have more starting materiel so there are a wider variety of opens for each country. I think the newest Renegade board game version is similar to it.