in a KGF I always, and I mean always buy all inf the first 4 rounds for Germany, buying tanks in only very specific circumstances where Russia got a ridiculous bad 1st round, but otherwise inf 1 through 4 rounds and then combination of tanks etc..
I get that, then after round 4-5 get some tanks or bombers for the finishing blow on Moscow, assuming it has gone well for Germany haha. I'm actually starting to like the 11 inf 2 art buy on G1 more and more.
I would argue it's the heavy tank buys that lost you the game. It might not be intuitive but infantry is always better than tanks. Always. 2 infantry (on attack) vs 1 tank is 54.7:37.9 odds. That's not even considering the main function of infantry - to act as meatshield for the heavy hitters. The only advantage a tank has is its mobility (and in rare cases, you have too much IPC but not enough building cap), and if you're not utilizing that, you don't need to buy a single tank.
Thanks for the comment! I understand. A reason why I was getting tanks in the first place was because of their movement. Since I went for the Ukraine stack, I was unable to utilise Karelia as a deployment zone for Infantry. I was on the clock because of Japan being on a timer, so I might of been slightly more impatient with my German progression towards Moscow. So instead of the slower play with infantry I opted for tanks. I probably should of done full infanty buys for the first 4-5 rounds then invested in tanks for the finishing blow. They do say Infantry are the best unit in the game. However, if I had achieved an average result for the West Russia battle, I think I can confidently say Moscow would of fallen.
This trend (It seems from the various content creators I've watched) of giving up on the money islands in a KJF is bewildering to me. Japan needs to match the US fleet and take advantage of the distance the US has to travel to resupply its fleet in the Pacific? Can someone explain the logic to this strategy> Genuinely curious.
The G6 West Russia Battle was a 44% result. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the amount of consternation afterwards *might* not have been totally warranted.
What calculator are you using? I've calculated the battle again and got the exact same result as I did in the video. Maybe I need to switch calculators, had a simular incident on another video.
@@bonkcc_ Its called aa1942calc. My comments keep getting removed or I would post the link to your battle. Switch it to Advanced Mode. Your result is -174.
@@aepryus I'm not sure what is happening, some of my comments are being removed too. Some other people comments under my videos aren't showing up either. I'll see how aa1942calc performs, I might swap since the one I'm using might be causing some problems in my games.
@@aepryus I see it, damn. It is still a below average result. But, I guess I overexaggerated a little bit haha. This calc is a lot more in-depth than the one I use. Alright, I think I'll start using this one. Much appreciated aepryus 🙂
@@bonkcc_ np bonk. One way to think about it is using 2 ten sided dice (100 sided die). If you roll them 25 times about 11 will be 44 or below. So, not a particularly crazy result.
Posting this not to rag on you or troll or anything, but for improving your game play going forward. G3, did you really need to kill the UK AC? You clearly got extremely unlucky, that is not in dispute, but did you need to risk anything at all?. That entire G3 turn seemed insanely risky. 3 different attacks that you said all needed a hit in round 1. What are the chances of getting three first round hits? 2. you made it very clear that the 2 fighters were vital to killing Russia is it worth risking them at all, especially when you could have added them to those other two attacks on Russia that 'need' round 1 hits? 3. What is the value of that AC to UK if you keep laser focused on killing Russia, is UK having that AC going to give Russia a greater boost to their Defense then having your 2 fighter contributes to their offense? 4. You got tilted right? After you lost the first fighter, what did your odds become then? And considering those odds, did it make sense to hail Mary a single fighter against the AC? This isn't rhetorical, I am in no way and A&A expert, I play a similar tabletop game where stacking odds is the point and bad luck is super swingy. A big portion of that game is knowing when taking the 98% to 2% is furthering your objectives or just a 2% to lose the game for no gain. From the way you talked in game it sounded to me like you took a 2% to lose attack power for no gain. But I think only you in hindsight can review if this was the right move or not. Cheers and may the odds ever be in your favor!!
Thanks for the insight. Not sure if this is a simple conversation even with hindsight, since the topic is on luck. Completely chaotic. 1. Not something I ever consider, since as far as I'm concerned all battles are seperate entities. There are no parameter as far as I'm aware, that if I let's say miss 2 first rounds hits in a row, I will then have an increased chance to hit the next one. 2. Probably not worth risking at all, however I accounted for loss just in case by buying a bomber. 3. The value is that if I can take out the AC, then the UK is forced to invest in even more resources into an Atlantic navy if they want to trade with Germany. Which both the UK down, and affects his ability to perform more cost effective buys across the UK and India. Like increasing his airforce as an example, which is something a UK loves to do. 4. Odds went from a 94.9% to a 49.8% to win, his odds went from a 2.3% to a 24.9% to win. Personally I like those odds, in this example it's not even a big gamble, so I don't know. It's personal preference. It was just my playstyle at the time. Last season I was very conservative, I'm trying to open up to more riskier options to see if that can give me more of an edge in games against more experienced players. But, what I'm saying here is irrelevent since it's on the topic of luck, and for this example I just didn't get a good hand. It can be argued that it cost me the game. To answer your first question: No I really didn't need to kill the AC. It was competely optional. 🙂
I know, I keep uploading Axis games. Don't worry Allies will get some action very soon!
in a KGF I always, and I mean always buy all inf the first 4 rounds for Germany, buying tanks in only very specific circumstances where Russia got a ridiculous bad 1st round, but otherwise inf 1 through 4 rounds and then combination of tanks etc..
I get that, then after round 4-5 get some tanks or bombers for the finishing blow on Moscow, assuming it has gone well for Germany haha. I'm actually starting to like the 11 inf 2 art buy on G1 more and more.
I would argue it's the heavy tank buys that lost you the game. It might not be intuitive but infantry is always better than tanks. Always. 2 infantry (on attack) vs 1 tank is 54.7:37.9 odds. That's not even considering the main function of infantry - to act as meatshield for the heavy hitters. The only advantage a tank has is its mobility (and in rare cases, you have too much IPC but not enough building cap), and if you're not utilizing that, you don't need to buy a single tank.
Thanks for the comment! I understand. A reason why I was getting tanks in the first place was because of their movement. Since I went for the Ukraine stack, I was unable to utilise Karelia as a deployment zone for Infantry. I was on the clock because of Japan being on a timer, so I might of been slightly more impatient with my German progression towards Moscow. So instead of the slower play with infantry I opted for tanks. I probably should of done full infanty buys for the first 4-5 rounds then invested in tanks for the finishing blow. They do say Infantry are the best unit in the game.
However, if I had achieved an average result for the West Russia battle, I think I can confidently say Moscow would of fallen.
This trend (It seems from the various content creators I've watched) of giving up on the money islands in a KJF is bewildering to me. Japan needs to match the US fleet and take advantage of the distance the US has to travel to resupply its fleet in the Pacific? Can someone explain the logic to this strategy> Genuinely curious.
Wow, really? That is bizarre. Giving up the money Islands cripples Japan. I would love to know aswell.
The G6 West Russia Battle was a 44% result. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the amount of consternation afterwards *might* not have been totally warranted.
What calculator are you using? I've calculated the battle again and got the exact same result as I did in the video. Maybe I need to switch calculators, had a simular incident on another video.
@@bonkcc_ Its called aa1942calc. My comments keep getting removed or I would post the link to your battle. Switch it to Advanced Mode. Your result is -174.
@@aepryus I'm not sure what is happening, some of my comments are being removed too. Some other people comments under my videos aren't showing up either. I'll see how aa1942calc performs, I might swap since the one I'm using might be causing some problems in my games.
@@aepryus I see it, damn. It is still a below average result. But, I guess I overexaggerated a little bit haha. This calc is a lot more in-depth than the one I use. Alright, I think I'll start using this one. Much appreciated aepryus 🙂
@@bonkcc_ np bonk. One way to think about it is using 2 ten sided dice (100 sided die). If you roll them 25 times about 11 will be 44 or below. So, not a particularly crazy result.
Posting this not to rag on you or troll or anything, but for improving your game play going forward. G3, did you really need to kill the UK AC? You clearly got extremely unlucky, that is not in dispute, but did you need to risk anything at all?. That entire G3 turn seemed insanely risky. 3 different attacks that you said all needed a hit in round 1. What are the chances of getting three first round hits? 2. you made it very clear that the 2 fighters were vital to killing Russia is it worth risking them at all, especially when you could have added them to those other two attacks on Russia that 'need' round 1 hits? 3. What is the value of that AC to UK if you keep laser focused on killing Russia, is UK having that AC going to give Russia a greater boost to their Defense then having your 2 fighter contributes to their offense? 4. You got tilted right? After you lost the first fighter, what did your odds become then? And considering those odds, did it make sense to hail Mary a single fighter against the AC?
This isn't rhetorical, I am in no way and A&A expert, I play a similar tabletop game where stacking odds is the point and bad luck is super swingy. A big portion of that game is knowing when taking the 98% to 2% is furthering your objectives or just a 2% to lose the game for no gain. From the way you talked in game it sounded to me like you took a 2% to lose attack power for no gain. But I think only you in hindsight can review if this was the right move or not. Cheers and may the odds ever be in your favor!!
Thanks for the insight. Not sure if this is a simple conversation even with hindsight, since the topic is on luck. Completely chaotic.
1. Not something I ever consider, since as far as I'm concerned all battles are seperate entities. There are no parameter as far as I'm aware, that if I let's say miss 2 first rounds hits in a row, I will then have an increased chance to hit the next one.
2. Probably not worth risking at all, however I accounted for loss just in case by buying a bomber.
3. The value is that if I can take out the AC, then the UK is forced to invest in even more resources into an Atlantic navy if they want to trade with Germany. Which both the UK down, and affects his ability to perform more cost effective buys across the UK and India. Like increasing his airforce as an example, which is something a UK loves to do.
4. Odds went from a 94.9% to a 49.8% to win, his odds went from a 2.3% to a 24.9% to win. Personally I like those odds, in this example it's not even a big gamble, so I don't know. It's personal preference.
It was just my playstyle at the time. Last season I was very conservative, I'm trying to open up to more riskier options to see if that can give me more of an edge in games against more experienced players. But, what I'm saying here is irrelevent since it's on the topic of luck, and for this example I just didn't get a good hand. It can be argued that it cost me the game.
To answer your first question: No I really didn't need to kill the AC. It was competely optional. 🙂