Пікірлер

• 
  @nathanlovik175323 сағат бұрын

  There is actually more like a 45% chance you lose a ftr in the LabSz. The odds that you don't lose a ship the EMedSz and the the trn doesn't live in the LabSz is only around 58%. So my recommendation would be to expect to either lose the bb in the Emed or to have to face the LabSz trn on Uk1. All strategies work when you assume the best case scenario. Good strategies work when you plan for the worse and hope for the best.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121722 сағат бұрын

  You're 16% off - which is significant. There is a 29% chance the German fighter is destroyed in the LabSz. I hate to have to say this but the more you make comments like this, the more I feel I'm reading a resume of your inexperience or inactivity. TripleA and other tools have moved things forward since whenever you last played. The offer is still on the table. Players welcome. my email: [email protected] ...I don't know maybe watch this video if you want to get exactly right with the stats: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hntpl9tuptzfobQ.html

• 
  @nathanlovik175322 сағат бұрын

  ​@@thegoodcaptain1217 Okay so there is a 71% chance of ftr wins and lives. That doesn't materially affect my observation that the odds that the transport lives in Lab and the EMedSz bb doesn't get sunk is quite low. With Adjustments its actually only 47%. So I was more correct. You are still wrong however. The problem with your assumptions is like all people who don't understand probabilities, you assume because Battle A is 71%, and Battle B is 80%, and Battle C is 66% that your odds of winning all of them is at least 66% when in fact its 37%. Now its debatable as to how catastrophic not killing the LabSz trn would be, but some of the other battles are significant, and I would estimate that you'd have some trouble about 50% of the time i.e. you'd get bad dice. This is the problem with a lot of aggressive Axis strategies, they look really good only when you assume fantastic dice, in real life not so much. People that resort to ad hominems only do so because they've lost the argument. I can tell by how you look at the game that there would be an almost 100% chance of you blaming the dice if I beat you. A month ago when I had some time to play I did send you an email and never heard back. Now you will have to wait.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121722 сағат бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 I'm really not as dumb as this comment makes me out to be. You don't have to respect the now 200+ games I've played against human opponents since 2019. But you have to at least respect that the presence of TripleA and battle calculators that you and your friends did not have 25 years ago. And again, you make comments that I myself am worried about with you. You don't describe any strategy, you merely criticize mine. You don't resume yourself but you criticize mine. You are dead wrong about certain stats and when I point it out to you, you make some vague reference about how I would be the type of person to lose and blame the dice? I don't need to prove anything to you personally because I'm proving it to myself daily at this point. Even as I type this I have three classic games going against three different people. So again, sir - who are you? I'm on the forums...I've given you my email (months ago? If that is true, I never saw it and why not now? lets get this off a public platform). Still waiting...

• 
  @nathanlovik175322 сағат бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Actually, yes we had odds calculators back then and there were people that played 100s of games then as well. It's not the quantity that makes players better, its the quality. I will play when I am able to commit the time to it. I haven't just criticized your strategies I have also indicated things where I think you are right. For example, I'm 50/50 on ignoring Pearl. I do it, but when I play really good players I don't. You very well could be correct that it's better to ignore Pearl. When I ignore Pearl I go after Australia, 2inf ftr bb. You are also correct about the Lurch aka the Waltz. It is a good strategy, and while it can be minimized playing as if you will do it is the best idea for Germany. The overall problem is I don't believe no bid RR can be consistently won by the Axis so no matter how good your strategies it won't work. Yes, you have moves that in the context of an unwinnable game make sense as the best possible option, but its still not going to lead to a win. Ultimately, the reason why I don't iterate a "strategy" to win win is because there isn't one. There is no set of magic moves that will enable a 100% win rate as the Axis, the game is entirely reacting to what has happened, understanding what it means, and then responding appropriately. In my experience players who are still looking for the "magic sauce" are intermediate players because they haven't learned yet it doesn't exist.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121722 сағат бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 cool beans

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Күн бұрын

  Something I am curious about is there seems to be some inconsistency between your strategies. In your video for "Ideal Uk play" you suggest building a factory in both SAfr and India on Uk1. How would this help you against this move? In my mind it doesn't. This leads to one of several conclusions.....1)This is not an ideal turn 1 for the UK, 2)The waltz is unbeatable which would suggest the game is not balanced in favor of the Axis, 3)there is another strategy that is the Dominant Strategy and your thesis' are incorrect. I suggest it is two of these, 1 and 3. From your videos you make a lot of assumptions about what the Allies will do that assume poor play which makes the Waltz look more unbeatable than it is. For example, in the game you used for demonstrated you said you would attack 3trns in the EUSSz on Germany 2. I've already said this is a bad US1 purchase and that I don't use it. My experience tells me there are no unbeatable moves in Classic or any edition only tradeoffs because if there were then that move would simply be "the way" and everyone would do it every time, and the game would be unbalanced.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121722 сағат бұрын

  A few videos back in an upload titled, "Where I changed my mind", I concede the game is imbalanced in favor of the Allies if no optional rules are being used. The game is not imbalanced in favor of the Axis. Did I make that claim? I feel confident I can dispense with the rest of this comment by simply offering to play as many games as you like until one or both of us is satisfied. Once again...my email is [email protected]....

• 
  @nathanlovik175322 сағат бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 It seems to me that if you can't explain/defend your strategies they probably aren't very good. Maybe you've won in the past because you played weak competition, maybe you got good dice. Here's a clue for you about me...I assume about 1/6 games will be decided by dice against me, 1/6 will be decided by dice for me, and its the other 2/3s where skill comes into play. However, the elite players can turn chicken s**t into chicken salad and win half of the 1/6 games they should lose. This is why they win 90%+ of their Allied games, which I did back in the day. When you understand this you understand why you can win even against insane Axis bids. I could give the Axis 27-30ipcs in 2nd Edition no RR and still win over half the time. It's not skill other than the skill of understanding how to play lady luck. Conversely, no matter how good your Waltz move is, which isn't that great because you don't maximize its efficiency, you can still lose. You can do everything right, and still lose. Conversely, you can do a lot wrong/get bad dice and still win.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121722 сағат бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 play by email games take less time than watching these videos and posting these comments. Why aren't we playing instead? Why aren't you emailing me? How can I get you to move past this stuff?

• 
  @nathanlovik175322 сағат бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 I'm listening to this while I work on other things. I also haven't been able to get Triple A to work and I don't have the time to figure it out right now. Just because I disagree with parts of your videos doesn't mean they're bad. It takes guts to post your strategies turn by turn.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121721 сағат бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 these are my oldest videos. I still stand by them because they're still the same strategies I perform. If they weren’t, I would have taken them down. There are more recent classic videos that are much cleaner and better on this channel however. Anyway, if you’re making a good faith argument, please send me an email that just says hi. I really do have active games of no bid classic that I’m going to go tend to now.

• 
  @hoodrekt5887Күн бұрын

  The game is clearly in favour of the axis powers. I believe a bid of 26-34 is very reasonable for the allies. In your rules for bidding were you allowed to place a minor factory as a part of your placement? For example if I wanted to use 12 of my allies bid ipcs on a minor factory in Egypt would that be allowed by typical tournament rules?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Күн бұрын

  @@hoodrekt5887 just units, not infrastructure. The online community uses a bid north of 50.

• 
  @hoodrekt5887Күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 north of 50? What’s your opinion on the matter?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Күн бұрын

  @@hoodrekt5887 sounds right - at least for online play. Anyway, I would defer to the players in "The League" on axisandallies.org They play constantly and their best guy claims it should be +60 for the Allies.

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothing3 күн бұрын

  Note on the sea zone 17 and 18 change: This change makes the Austro-Hungarian-Ottoman naval moves into sea zone 17 sightly less effective, as the Italian transport in sea zone 17 can move into sea zone 18 and take an infantry from Tuscany or Venice and activate Albania (assuming it risks the mine, of course).

• 
  @georgem5894 күн бұрын

  Great video

• 
  @bobho-un7be4 күн бұрын

  make a revised series next!

• 
  @GaveMeGrace14 күн бұрын

  Thank you.

• 
  @bobho-un7be5 күн бұрын

  the full essays are no longer available online.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12174 күн бұрын

  from a basic google search: donsessays.freeservers.com/

• 
  @GaveMeGrace15 күн бұрын

  Thank you.

• 
  @GaveMeGrace16 күн бұрын

  Thank you.

• 
  @vinsklortho20086 күн бұрын

  I just got my pbp A&A 1914 game off the ground. Sadly handing out countries to players didn't work out as I hoped and instead of playing A+H alongside my son as Germany, I am instead playing France AGAINST my son as Germany. XD

• 
  @dokkuh45227 күн бұрын

  If you just move in sea 17 , won't the naval mines activate?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12176 күн бұрын

  @@dokkuh4522 yes, this is stated in in the video immediately after the move is recommended.

• 
  @jdz729 күн бұрын

  Questions....1 fortune of war card results in allies allowed only 2 attacks , does Germany get to defend in every other combat situation for that turn ? 2 tactic card allows any number of ftrs to move to a German point of entry, does that mean only 1 point of entry? Or can they split up to cover multiple points of entry?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12179 күн бұрын

  1) No, Germany only defends in the zones where combat occurs. 2) Only 1 point of entry - they cannot split up. This is covered in the FAQ which I highly recommend you download.

• 
  @jdz728 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12178 күн бұрын

  @@jdz72 I had to edit the answer to the first question as my initial response was wrong. The answer should be "no".

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothing9 күн бұрын

  To clarify on the Dardanelles balance rule: A sea combat unit (say, a battleship) in sea zone 17 or 19 can engage an opponent's ships in sea zone 20, even if the opponent controls Constantinople? So on Turn 1 the British cruiser can attack the Ottoman starting ships? Thank you!

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12179 күн бұрын

  Correct.

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothing9 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Thank you! On a related note, I assume the Dardanelles work the other way? So the Russian cruisers in sea zone 21 can't move into the Mediterrean even if there aren't any Central Powers naval units blocking them?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain12179 күн бұрын

  @@AChannelThatDoesNothing right, it’s blocked to the entente both ways until Constantinople changes ownership

• 
  @drabweiser504010 күн бұрын

  Sir, I just have to say that your videos are so well done. Thank you for all of your hard work and time put into your knowledge and the video itself. I love this game, but rarely find the time to play due to the constraints of real life. I just recently got back into it and had the Anniversary Edition sitting on my shelf for years, untouched. These strategy videos were so fun and exciting to watch, and I found myself walking along with my board so that I could learn everything about this edition of the game. Thank you again, I'm forever subscribed to your channel.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121710 күн бұрын

  This comment made my weekend. Thank you. I am really glad you find something enjoyable in them.

• 
  @ethanstewart884112 күн бұрын

  Is there a version for this on triple a?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121711 күн бұрын

  yes, its called World War II v3 1941

• 
  @ethanstewart884111 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothing12 күн бұрын

  Note on the Ruhr: It is not necessarily dangerous for the Allies to invade the Ruhr. Several times I found that, due to Germany's laser focus on the Eastern Front, the Allies sometimes moved into the Ruhr, overextending themselves and allowing a painful counterattack by German forces. Keep an eye out for when a full scale (that means no 1-2 infantry walk-ins, I mean most of the stack) Allied invasion of the Ruhr would devastate Germany's economy and when it would be a brilliant opportunity for the German war effort. This applies to both the Central Powers and the Allies.

• 
  @victoryfirst0613 күн бұрын

  My thoughts on tanks are a bit more negative. I thought at first it was the best unit in the game, but I wanted to find out for sure so I did a bunch of tests with the battle calculator. I set a number of 105 IPCs and bought several different types of armies from it, ranging from 35 infantry, 14 inf + 14 art + fighter, 17 tanks and one infantry, a balanced army, and so on, up to a number of six armies in total. I then put all six armies against each other and used the TripleA battle calculator to calculate the TUV swing, both for an attack as well as a potential counter-attack by the defending army, to find out which combination of units was the best. It turns out, that the army of 17 tanks is the only one that has a positive TUV swing when attacking 35 infantry. That sounds good, but when the remainder of the infantry counter-attacks the tank force, the TUV swing starts swinging heavily in favor of the infantry. This is because defending tanks are so extremely bad, and are quite expensive compared to the other units. In the end, the tank army performed worse than most other armies. The army that performed the best was the 14 inf + 14 art + fighter army. That one was almost on par with attacking the 35 infantry and only pulled off victories against the other armies. So what I think is the best army composition, is an army containing a more or less equal amount of infantry and artillery (preferably a bit more infantry than artillery to soak up hits so that the artillery won't get killed in battle), and as many air units possible because the air supremacy is very important. I think tanks are only better if you attack someone with an inferior army. That way, the tanks will be able to absorb all the hits when attacking and the enemy won't be able to inflict as much damage when defending. However, if you are attacking an army that is almost as strong as yours, the tanks will fight like paper during the counter-attack, and in the long run you will become at a disadvantage just because the numbers aren't in your favor.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121711 күн бұрын

  I 100% agree with your stats but feel they might not be capturing the complete picture. I think the tanks true power pays out and is more visible after multiple battles, not ever a single battle. I've played enough to see opponents over invest in "core" units and yes I've seen the bizarre tank spam where the ratio is not ideal (which I still believe is 1 tank for every 8 -10 infantry). These armies are 'anemic' and are VERY vulnerable to counterattack as you identify. What I feel might be missing from your valuations is projections turn over turn and battle after battle. I think that tanks are an economic weapon more than anything else - they pay the owner back in IPC not lost - while your opponent on the defense just bleeds. With that as a foundation, imo an ideal German army on the hunt against france would looks something like 70 infantry 20 artillery and 6-8 tanks as the head of snake of units that traces all the way back to Berlin. This is what I call the "supply train" and should consist of 95% infantry at least (to replace losses at the front after battles). Anyway, I think multiple rounds of offensive combat far away from the production center are when the tanks show their value and as of this writing, I feel they are a necessity in this case. I would also make the same argument for the UK smashing through the Ottomans. Or the Austrians on the Italian front....

• 
  @cosimosbaffi222613 күн бұрын

  Hi captain, me and my Brother have a questione about the rules : when you make an amphibious assault and you (attacker) have air units, if there is a sea battle before, are they (air units ) automatically involved in the sea battle or the attacker can choose to use them in the land assault instead? In the rulebook Is not very clear since It seems tò contraddict itself (Page 17) . We thought that this can be really game changing expecially for the italian situation, on regards of the american fleet and its air force. Thank you in advance and many hugs from Italy

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121713 күн бұрын

  @@cosimosbaffi2226 air units fight in either the sea zone or the territory being attacked, not both. For example if there were five fighters in range of the sea zone and the land zone being attacked, the attacker could decide to place three in the sea zone and two in the land zone to help support the amphibious attack. In any case, the naval battle must be fought first. Only after the sea zone is cleared can the amphibious assault be resolved.

• 
  @declanrussell129125 күн бұрын

  As usual in axis and allies(and real life for that matter) Germany has to put the team on their back.

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  My purchase on US1 is usually 7-12 infantry.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 goodness, why?

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Why indeed? Maybe you should play me and find out.

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 But to quasi answer your question. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a game of Classic isn't won or lost on a turn. I play for the long haul.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 I just don't see what all those infantry are doing for the USA on the turn after purchase. Otherwise, yeah I feel strongly that eventually you'll want to build lots of infantry, but the capability to move them somewhere seems to me to go first. And sure, we can play anytime. ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com

• 
  @ragnell804625 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 Hello, Ragnell jumping in from the viewer ship line. I would like to play you to put it to the test. I think it would be fun to play some other opponents. Let me know if you are down for it.

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  What would you do if at the end of Japan 1 there were 2bb in Hawaii, and Cv ftr 4trn in JapSz?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 destroy the BB. Although this is addressed in my video titled “the stats for J1 in classic”

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 That is risky and inefficient. You almost certainly have to use bb trn 2ftrs bmb. The defense has a very good chance of two defense hits. Because the EUS ftr has to land in Hawaii it is very easy for the US to lose the bb trn and a ftr in this sequence. And all for two bbs that really aren't worth very much. Africa is overrated. Maybe you should play me and put your ideas to the test.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 they’re tested. I play constantly online even as I type this. And sure, my email is ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 Yes, there's a 44.4% chance the BB gets two hits. I really think you' should watch the classic J1 video. And of course I'll play anytime. I'm always playing. ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com

• 
  @nathanlovik175325 күн бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 I have watched the video I disagree with you about the value of Africa to Japan. IMO Japan should not waste IPCS there. Therefore, if you rule out Africa for Japan there isn't as much need for the bbs. The US on the other hand really needs a capital ship in the Atlantic and losing the bb means it must transmute 6infantry into a Carrier. To me that is a good trade as the Axis. Especially, when you consider that for the carrier to really be effective it must have a ftr on it which means a ftr on the continent will now be at sea. I'm generally against "overbuilding" unnecessary units i.e. transports, carriers. These represent resources that could be used elsewhere, and thus should be.

• 
  @declanrussell129126 күн бұрын

  One thing I wish was different about this game, is Paratroopers. I wish you could choose where to drop your paras, as opposed to them landing in the same spot every game. Probably picking from a select group of territories, just the first two territories inland from the sea. I think this would just add a little spice and some cool strategies.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121725 күн бұрын

  the airborne boxes are aligned with their historical positioning, same as the beaches. But I hear ya.

• 
  @declanrussell129127 күн бұрын

  Hey I know this comment is late but, I was under the impression that once you moved ships into a sea zone containing enemy surface warships you had to stop and fight? Is this not true in 1914? You can just stop in the Seazone and sit there?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain121726 күн бұрын

  Page 20, first sentence: "When you have warships (not transports) in a sea zone containing enemy ships, you can elect to attack them or not attack them." So yes, you can just stop in the sea zone and sit there. It's not your fault this rule was not extrapolated by example. There are many players who do not / did not know this was possible. This rule has very critical implications on the game when players know it exists and know how to use it. And don't worry about any comment being "late" - I'm always here, I'm always playing. Ask away...

• 
  @kasperk.651Ай бұрын

  Thanks for the shout-out! Fun Easter Egg in the video: A cute black cat on the bottom left from 13:12 - 13:26! I thought it was your shadow at first until I took a closer look. Then it suddenly disappears. Wow! Black Magic!

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  You earned it... as for the cat - yes, imagine my surprise when I was doing the editing. I still don't know what he was looking at or doing down there.

• 
  @TheHilltopPillboxАй бұрын

  Interesting thoughts! For my part, I remove the rule that states that the Allies must hold all three cities for a complete turn. That seems to help balance out the wins for me and my group.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  It's funny you mention this. This was my initial "knee jerk" reaction as well. I went with the 11th because it essentially allows the Allies full access to the 10th turn (which is in line with your house rule) but also stays more in line with the out of box rules by still allowing for a potential German counterattack with whatever might be left on the last turn. I also felt it was an easier sell in terms of clarity "just add an 11th turn - everything else stays the same". At the end of the day I think they both fill the same purposes though. I guess great minds think alike, hah!

• 
  @TheHilltopPillboxАй бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Funny enough, we rarely have any German units left on the board after Turn 10, in the event of an Allied win. If the Germans win, they usually are disputing St. Lo. Interesting how different experiences drive game variants!

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  @@TheHilltopPillbox no, no - that’s my/our experience as well. There are rarely, if any, pieces left on the map at that stage. I just felt better about not removing the possibility of an end turn G counterattack …etc, etc

• 
  @Frayed175Ай бұрын

  Will you do a global 40 series like you have done for 1914 and D-day?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  As much as I appreciate this comment, I likely will not - at least not in the near future. I feel that game has an oversized amount of attention and although I do enjoy it and feel experienced with it, I feel strongly that all these other versions stand in its shadow undeservedly. I would like to throw some daylight at non-G40 versions. That being said, I do intend at some point to release a companion video to the J1 and cover the Germany/Italy side of the board. This would be limited to the Axis side however.

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothingАй бұрын

  Thank you so much for mentioning me! I was pleasantly surprised, given that we haven't even finished one game of D-Day together yet. At 5:58 you accidentally said "fortune cards" instead of "tactics cards". Glad we got to hear your thoughts on those first 2 questions. Those definitely were quite "pressing". I'm really happy you showed us the plow in more detail. When looking through the German strategic video to remind myself of actually executing the strategy, (while I did only skim it, I think my assessment is mostly accurate) I realized that there wasn't much talk between the early turn 2 moves (which I still greatly appreciate due to how they cover multiple scenarios in resposne to enemy action, always welcome in a strategy video) and the end goal of being able to attack with 8 units at Caen and St. Lo. I figured it out myself, but it definitely was a bit puzzling and I was a bit worried early on that I wouldn't be able to properly do it. Not sure why the game is compared to Snickers specifically (like, is there hate around that bar? What is Snickers being compared to? I'm quite confused on that metaphor). The dirt bike reference worked quite well. I wasn't aware these videos take that long to make. Glad you gave the heads up though, so I could set my expectations accordingly. I find it very impressive you went to Normandy. I'll definitely go check those videos out. Thanks for providing the 11 turn map! I'm surprised you were able to edit it yourself. How hard was it? Do you have any other TripleA coding experience? Thank you! Thank you to Ragnell804 for helping The Good Captain with this series!

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Just an awesome comment from top to bottom. Thank you my friend. For anyone who reads this comment, this is SuperBattleship Yamato, a seasoned player of several different versions of Axis and Allies.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Also, regarding my map editing skills. I just downloaded the free program GIMP and then watched a five minute KZread video, lol. The wonders of modern technology...

• 
  @OznerpaGMusiCАй бұрын

  Just curious, you plan on eventually covering the new A&A GI Joe: Battle For The Arctic Circle game? If you'r going in order I know you'd be doing Guadalcanal next anyways. Board Game Nation does a good overview of the game, and a while back they did a great replay of the last A&A World Championship finals if you'v never seen it

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  To properly represent a game takes at least one year of consistent playing - and multiple opponents are needed. Aside from that, I will say that I would love to do GI Joe (or any version in the canon) - but the thing that makes this particularly difficult is that there is currently no online platform to play that version. I playtest for Renegade (although I was not apart of GI Joe) and I have made my opinion known on making an online platform available. It really is the only way to analyze the dice stats and find enough opponents. I hope to stack games of GI Joe sometime in the future, I just don't know when that would be.

• 
  @victoryfirst06Ай бұрын

  Awesome you have been to Normandy! Where can I find your "Captain at war" channel?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  @@victoryfirst06 the video description has the direct links :)

• 
  @Einheit091Ай бұрын

  Regarding 1:27. Would you say the balncing problem changes in scope, if thre were two equal but worse players, like 5vs.5? And how much better must the allied player be to win? Thank yu for the series.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Great question - thanks for posting this. I feel that if two "5"s sat down to play, the imbalance would not be readily apparent. I say this out of my own experience. It took me about 20-25 games to figure out the optimal plays for both sides but until then, it was not intuitive or apparent that the allies had it so rough. We did notice they lost more than they won but not at the 10:1 ratio it later became.

• 
  @Einheit091Ай бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 So you would say a allied 8 could win against a germann 5? Of course in the long run the skill gap will narrow

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  @@Einheit091I think an Allied 8 vs and Axis 5 would be a tight game and likely (hopefully) come down to the dice.

• 
  @Einheit091Ай бұрын

  Thank you

• 
  @Lets_Keep_it_CivilАй бұрын

  A couple times I have sent a transport with 2 men and the third fighter you were mentioning to the Hawaiian islands to take it over on J1. USA cannot attack back as the transport is another soak and their fighter cannot land. This threatens USA motherland J2 and even a March on Brazil/Panama or Alaska if you would like. It takes away from the March into Asia by 2 men but if you buy 3 transports J1 I believe that loss is mitigated in the following rounds. What’re your thoughts on this? My brothers are not the best players so I usually win regardless but I would like some info from a pro.

• 
  @mikedearing6352Ай бұрын

  Nice presentation, I like seeing the detailed stats I believe Egypt is sometimes won with just the 1 infantry and 1 tank blitz/attack, I add 1 fighter to help, one fighter over the English sub, no battleship combat while the transport attacks either caucus or turkey ( no retreating here for English sub) If Egypt is won, no dice roll is required to sink the English sub because it has no available retreat space (auto kill). Bomber & sub hit battleship with 3 fighters, sub & transport on the main English fleet. It's almost a waste not attacking with the German battleship, amphibious into Gibraltar with a submarine build allows ignoring the English submarine, only the English bomber can threaten the German battleship and transport in Gibraltar

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  That would more than likely spell the end of German involvement in Africa before the end of round 1 though. The Allies could both retake Egypt and sink the unprotected German transport relatively easily.

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothingАй бұрын

  Nitpick, but you misepelled the word "principle" on 3:30. In the context of the title, "principle" would be the correct noun, not "principal".

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Welp, we will just have to live with that one.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  Overbuilding transports has its merits.

• 
  @perryhastings590Ай бұрын

  I have a question for AaA 1914 but i wasnt able to post it on those videos. If you capture a territory(for example, if germany captures a russian territory) would germany have to leave an inf on the captured russia territory to keep it or would it still be germany's if he took all his people and moved them off and russia didnt have any people there?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  It remains German until recaptured by Russia or another Entente power. You do not need to leave a piece on the territory in order to retain control.

• 
  @perryhastings590Ай бұрын

  @thegoodcaptain1217 thank you very much! The rulebook isn't super clear on that since I think there's a line that says you have to leave a person in territories but I think it's referring to contested territories if the RR happens

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  @@perryhastings590 right. That’s true and a non-intuitive rule. Contested territories after the revolution require the presence of at least one CP infantry at all times. A bit strange.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  Counter attacking the Japanese fleet in Hawaii consisting of 2bb Cv 2ftrs with bb sub trn 2ftrs bmb by the US is VERY VERY risky. Yes on average it may look good, the US clears with 1-2 units. However, because the Japanese have 4 defending at 4 plus 1 defending at the 3 the outlier dice rolls are brutal. If on the first round of combat Japan gets just 1 extra hit, and the US rolls low(-1hit) you are toast, and it could cripple the US for a while, if not the entire game.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  I feel strongly that the USA just doesn’t need the boats for the rest of the game in the same way the Japanese need theirs - outliers notwithstanding.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 I agree and disagree. My primary objection is based on risk aversion. As the US player I'd be afraid of getting two hits while losing four, and thus a fighter. If I knew beforehand it would go straight down the middle, i.e. lowluck then I would agree with you, but the real world is not lowluck. The biggest argument I'd have with this is that it is possible for the Japanese to attack Hawaii and mitigate their risks considerably, especially if they do not use the ftr from the Philippines or the Carrier from the Caroline Sea. With all of that said I agree with your premise that Pearl Harbor is a good counter attack for the US on US1, and I have used the sub retreat move for 20+ years for that reason. I just look for a little better pitch to hit. If Japan has any less than 2bb 2ftrs Cv I will seriously consider the attack.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  @@nathanlovik1753 there is a very active playership of this game in 2024 on axisandallies(dot)org. Much of what you’re saying in comments on this channel is not in line with playing experience against skilled opponents. However, we absolutely could have missed something in which case I again think you should throw your had in the ring.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 I'm considering it. Watching your videos has made me interested in playing again. Right now I'm trying to find the time. I will definitely let you know. I'm pleasantly surprised people are still playing classic in 2024. A while back I played in the PBEM clubs where there were some extremely good players so I am definitely not a rookie by any means. When I get some time I'll let you know and we can play. Just FYI I was always an unorthodox kind of player. Also, I agree with about 75% of what you said. What I don't agree with is that the Japanese should ignore Pearl Harbor, and the US should counter attack 2bb Cv 2ftrs. Pretty much everything else is correct, and like I said if the Japanese had less than 5 units in Hawaii I'd hit it like a ton of bricks.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  Really avoid sacking the bomber. Don Rae is wrong about this. The bomber is a VERY important piece for later in the game. Reasons for this include its use in a technology race as a potential heavy bomber, and the bomber's ability to fly longer range and thereby prevent full naval movement freedom. Without it transports can sail around with much more freedom and threaten you in places you'd prefer they not be able to reach.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  Don Rae's essays are very flawed. If you followed the advice in them I'd beat you fairly easily. Case in point, response purchasing. It is far better to purchase/move based upon what is best for you, not based on what your opponent has done. If your opponent makes a bad purchase then great, but don't let yourself make a similar mistake.

• 
  @nathanlovik1753Ай бұрын

  Never build factories period. Factories cost 25% more than transports to do the same job. For example, if you build 2 factories and place them on square worth 3ipcs you will be able to produce 6infantry a turn, but you can ship 6infantry with 3transports. 3transports cost 24ipcs whereas 2 factories cost 30ipcs.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  I would caution against "never" building factories. Otherwise, in principal, I agree with the spirit of your argument at the time of this writing.

• 
  @herrmatash3116Ай бұрын

  Hey again Captain, Which would you prefer Anniversary or Europe 1940 2nd?

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Europe 1940, 2nd Edition for me. I feel E40 is more balanced and has more variations and is more entertaining. Or maybe I've just played far too many games of Anniversary, haha.

• 
  @herrmatash3116Ай бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Which one takes longer time to play?

• 
  @petermenkveld4162Ай бұрын

  The german Strat i came up with is St Lo Turtle. Just crowd out and around St. Lo Do not even bother with Caen

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  After trying that multiple times, we found the Germans appear to have enough time and units to crowd out the enter center of the board and paste both cities on turn 9 making the Allies job even more disjointed and unlikely to succeed. I feel that focusing only on St Lo simplifies the game for the Allies - though you can still probably pull it off due to how imbalanced the game is.

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothingАй бұрын

  To anyone wondering about the Axis moves in Europe, The Good Captain explained it in a comment on another video: "Yep. I know the comment well. I haven't forgotten and I appreciate your compliment here. I likely won't be making that video for some time but until that day, here is what I do in every game without fail: On G1, I buy three fighters as this keeps sea lion open as an option but will be extremely useful anyway going forward. I hit both UK fleets with air navy, hit France and do a single round of combat in Yugoslavia using the inf/art in Greater Southern Germany and one piece in Romania and retreat to Romania after a single round of combat. I land at least one fighter in Rome and ALWAYS scramble three fighters if the Brits perform Toronto against Italy. On Italy 1, I buy one fighter and remove as many allied boats in the Med as possible. I also like to hit Southern France and/or Greece if Greece is possible. I will also usually sacrifice one transport and take Cyprus with a single infantry and deny the British their National Objective. Then on G2, so long as the UK player pays some mild form of of the "Sealion Tax" on the first turn (i.e. spends at least half or 2/3 of its initial budget on home defense), I hit Russia. I also usually like to take Yugoslavia now as Germany (I really like to have one territory under German control bordering the Med SZ, especially the Adriatic. From then on, here are the purchase plans for both powers: Germany builds mostly all mechs and maybe an armor or infantry here or there. Most of that will go into Russia but I hold a small force in Paris to counterattack any western powers attempt to land in Normandy I also help Rome out only IF it needs units for defense to get through the next turn. Germany charges into Russia and moves adjacent to the Russian capital and NEVER attacks it. This is what I call the "rope a dope". We maintain a force large enough to threaten but will never attack. Instead, we continue to reinforce this army adjacent to the capital and move behind Moscow territory by territory until we are on the opposite side. All the while we are sending small forces south and east and eating Russia alive for its IPC while its army remains pinned in the capital. The Italians should get their IPC up to about 20, buy a carrier asap and only ever buy naval units and maybe some air and pump SZ 97 full of ships and planes enough to load the carrier and airbase. If the allies threaten with navy and look like they will overwhelm this growing fleet, have Germany put an airbase in yugoslavia and put three planes on it. If it still looks like the allies might win out, have Germany build and IC on Yugo and drop a carrier in there and put planes on it. The allies will concede at some point."

• 
  @petermenkveld4162Ай бұрын

  Excellent Video! We found many of these to be true. Looking forward to testing the ones I missed

• 
  @AChannelThatDoesNothingАй бұрын

  Great video! I hope we can okay a D-Day game in the near future together. Out of curiosity, particularly compared to 1914, how much does experience make up for the imbalance in this game? Thank you! You forgot to put the Low Luck Lies video in the description box.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  D-Day is good anytime my friend - just let me know when you want to roll and what side you'd prefer. When it comes to 1914 and D-Day, I think 1914 is worse in terms of balance with out of box rules. I think if the Entente make 'perfect' moves, the CP basically can't win - I put at less than 3%. With D-Day, I put it a bit higher. I usually ask my opponent to rate their experience level and confidence with these games before we begin so if, for example, someone is playing their first game of D-Day, I'll recommend they take the Germans and I play the Allies as is. If they say they've played 10 or so games and feel confident in their play, I might recommend some balance. And thanks for the LL video reminder again, fixed. =)

• 
  @darkguy555Ай бұрын

  Very interesting video. I personally never was that interested in low luck as it seems to make the game more like chess and having randomness makes the game interesting and unique. I do think low luck can be helpful for theoretical attacks and strategies but seeing a video dissing on low luck, i'm all for it! Well made video

• 
  @2orLessАй бұрын

  Good stuff. 👍 We always have fun with this version, especially when adding one or both of the optional decks. Totally agree that an aggressive Germany is the Allies' best hope.

• 
  @chrisneff5383Ай бұрын

  Hello the good captain about 2 years you made a video on the j1 attack for global 40. I was wondering what your g1 attack would be in that game and the overall German strategy. I know in that video you didn’t really want to cover global 40 since it is cover a lot but I would interested in your take. I find your analysis and strategizing well thought out and simple to follow. However, please make the content you enjoy and don’t need to take on my request.

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Yep. I know the comment well. I haven't forgotten and I appreciate your compliment here. I likely won't be making that video for some time but until that day, here is what I do in every game without fail: On G1, I buy three fighters as this keeps sea lion open as an option but will be extremely useful anyway going forward. I hit both UK fleets with air navy, hit France and do a single round of combat in Yugoslavia using the inf/art in Greater Southern Germany and one piece in Romania and retreat to Romania after a single round of combat. I land at least one fighter in Rome and ALWAYS scramble three fighters if the Brits perform Toronto against Italy. On Italy 1, I buy one fighter and remove as many allied boats in the Med as possible. I also like to hit Southern France and/or Greece if Greece is possible. I will also usually sacrifice one transport and take Cyprus with a single infantry and deny the British their National Objective. Then on G2, so long as the UK player pays some mild form of of the "Sealion Tax" on the first turn (i.e. spends at least half or 2/3 of its initial budget on home defense), I hit Russia. I also usually like to take Yugoslavia now as Germany (I really like to have one territory under German control bordering the Med SZ, especially the Adriatic. From then on, here are the purchase plans for both powers: Germany builds mostly all mechs and maybe an armor or infantry here or there. Most of that will go into Russia but I hold a small force in Paris to counterattack any western powers attempt to land in Normandy I also help Rome out only IF it needs units for defense to get through the next turn. Germany charges into Russia and moves adjacent to the Russian capital and NEVER attacks it. This is what I call the "rope a dope". We maintain a force large enough to threaten but will never attack. Instead, we continue to reinforce this army adjacent to the capital and move behind Moscow territory by territory until we are on the opposite side. All the while we are sending small forces south and east and eating Russia alive for its IPC while its army remains pinned in the capital. The Italians should get their IPC up to about 20, buy a carrier asap and only ever buy naval units and maybe some air and pump SZ 97 full of ships and planes enough to load the carrier and airbase. If the allies threaten with navy and look like they will overwhelm this growing fleet, have Germany put an airbase in yugoslavia and put three planes on it. If it still looks like the allies might win out, have Germany build and IC on Yugo and drop a carrier in there and put planes on it. The allies will concede at some point.

• 
  @christophneuschaeffer7489Ай бұрын

  A friend and I, both experienced Axis & Allies players, have played D-Day in recent weeks several times. Great game, but none of us has won as the Allies yet. Today one of the two games was at least very close, but still a German win. We are planning to play another game tonight. We would really like to know your two rule changes as we were just searching the usual Axis & Allies forums for a solution. There are rule changes by Larry Harris, and there are tournament rules by General Smorey, who is organizing A&A tournaments. The rule changes by Larry Harris are not very intuitive, and Gen. Smorey favors a bidding for the Allies, using prices from the Revised Edition for infantry, artillery and tanks. As a rule of thumb, two more infantry for the Allies seems to be a standard bid. Just forgot to mention: Pushing to St. Lô is something we always do, the Cherbourg strategy is a very good idea. Getting a maximum of strafing with the fighters is mandatory. But making use of the bombers around Cherbourg is something we need to try for sure. Great video, as always!

• 
  @thegoodcaptain1217Ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comment. I'll detail this out in the final video but I don't like to play hide the ball or make anyone wait. I think the game is nearly balanced or is balanced by adding an 11th turn and by adding a +1 to every American reinforcement roll (i.e. if USA rolled a 7, the pieces entering would be 8). Great read - thanks for posting.

• 
  @christophneuschaeffer7489Ай бұрын

  @@thegoodcaptain1217 Thanks for sharing right away and not playing hide and seek. We will try this out. Our impression is that the Fortune Cards prefer the Axis more than the Allies, so while using them, your two suggestions might give the Allies a chance. In tournaments, Fortune Cards are not used, but that's more because of playing time. We actually like them as well as the Tactic Cards.

• 
  @pietrosmusi6001Ай бұрын

  I always place 1 fighter in each reinfoircement zone and 1 in caen and St lo, and i always spam bombers on cherbourg so i always need just 4 or 5 gound troops to take it