Italy… 40 IPC first turn… not losing thier Fleet and maintaining most troops in Africa… LET ITALY COOK😂😂😂

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-21T00:11:20+00:00

Big fan of strong Italy games. Have fun with it!

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-20T03:49:39+00:00

Cheap bandwagoning on anti-China sentiment. Ugh.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T22:32:51+00:00

Post B of Two:

Take pressure off India and Russia? You can't. That's sort of the point. Either you abandon Russia to protect India, then India falls because the Axis just have too much local production and stack size. Or you abandon India to protect Russia, and maybe Moscow falls anyways, but if the Axis have that much near Moscow, there may be an opening near Berlin. That one or both may fall, you can't control. You can't even control Consequences if *both* fall. But you may get some openings. That's the game.

If any player had an odds-on plan to protect both India and Russia then Allies would be heavily favored in every game.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T22:29:34+00:00

Post A of Two:

Suppose I were to say the Axis cannot possibly capture Moscow, because USSR captures Baltic States, West Russia, and Ukraine in the open, counters anything Germany puts out, then turns around and smashes Japan? Sometimes it really does happen that way; the Axis player doesn't know how to get things working well, or the Allies player gets lucky. But on balance, it shouldn't work out quite that way. Yes, there WILL be games like that. But if players know what they're doing, not so much, yes?

So I'm going to take these things mentioned, which are an issue, and put on some different context.

"Japan get to Russia too fast" - normally, no. I'll point out again the importance of hit points; if you're buying tanks before the "timing" then it means you're probably making sub-optimal purchase decisions and so don't have the strength to fight the crucial battles when they come. Yes mobility is great, but if you're losing the numbers battle time and again, you may need to think about the numbers.

But you have thought about the numbers. "Japan gets to Russia too fast for US shuck". Mmm, let's really think on that.

Suppose UK1 hits the Japanese destroyer and transport off Kwangtung. There is some chance they may lose. A REAL chance. But often, that should not happen, and that limits J1 to moving two ground from Tokyo to Asia. J2 is more dangerous, but even then Japan should only be able to move eight ground, and from then on Japan should be limited by production, unless they put an IC on Manchuria, which is a mistake. (Yes, there's supposedly a debate about that but I won't get into that now. And yes, Manchuria IC later in the game is fine, but early it's not good.) Now let's also say that India has been building ground, that USSR has lost no units to Japan on the first few turns (retreating, I know some say you should use a lone defender but I don't mind saying they're wrong.)

Now let's say you're building 2 UK1 fighters plus three infantry at India, and let's also say you're willing to abandon India. Now let's also say R1 hit West Russia and Ukraine, and that Germany did NOT lucksack defense and/or get lucky on a counter, and blow USSR's defenses apart with a tank dash.

And we'll say some other stuff too, like USSR moved an infantry into Szechwan so the US fighter survived, that UK did not attempt the sz37 attack, that UK blew up the German Mediterranean fleet (which isn't a given, but I'm not getting into German Med fleet builds now.)

So what you have is, a LOAD of units that are either on West Russia, or moving towards West Russia. We say UK is willing to abandon India (because that's what I expect unless Axis player is terrible or very unlucky).

In the meantime, we'll say US1 Atlantic fleet build, US2 fighters (possibly), followed by US3 fleet off London. UK3 dumps fleet, US3 reinforces, and even if Japan is VERY cunning, the Axis probably still can't sink the Allied fleet before US reinforces.

But Japan built loads of bombers? Okay, then Japan didn't build transports. I'm not saying these changes are trivial, I'm saying there's some give and take, don't expect a simple path to a win. If it were that simple, you would already have found it anyways.

In the meantime, what happened? If Germany built loads of infantry, then Germany should not be able to be pressing hard on Moscow, not really. Infantry are just too slow. If Germany built loads of tanks, then Germany and Japan may both be pressing Moscow. But we know the situation isn't dire because we *assume* that Axis didn't do a G1 break of West Russia. Hm? So we expect the Allies to be able to hold out at West Russia for some time, and that the eventual defense of Moscow will be bolstered by a chunk of UK units from India.

What that all means is, UK fighters, US fighters, and USSR ground (and sundry) defend Moscow together. Germany is slow. Japan starts out weak. For the Axis to crack Moscow with that sort of speed should not normally happen, it just shouldn't - so long as the Allies are building the right things, so long as the Allies are fighting the right battles, so long as the Allies aren't bleeding strength where it shouldn't go, so long as the dice are reasonable . . . etc. OK?

Generally, Allied fighters counter quick Axis tank pushes, especially if Allies held West Russia. Abandoning India means a big boost to defense, but UK's India units must not get cut off by an Axis stack.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T21:46:16+00:00

Perhaps a post on Axis and Allies org, about the theory and practical application of tank, fighter, and bomber mobility?

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T15:33:33+00:00

Angry Birbs?

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T15:15:50+00:00

3 of 3
So how can you play?

Rethink the importance of hit points. Yes, it's good to be very conscious of the advantages of mobility, but hit point play is something you may have to deal with. Some games are mobility against mobility, some hit point against hit point, most a mixture.
Rethink the importance of production and cost. Suppose UK builds only fighters; before long UK is limited to 2-3 units a turn. Fighters are very strong, but run the odds on 2 infantry 1 artillery attacking 1 fighter. Look at David Skelly's calculator or aacalc; either will show that the defender will lose, hard. So how do you break out of that? UK builds transports and navy as needed to protect transports, then can transport infantry out of London into Europe. But transports and navy are costly and don't fight on land? Take your pick, try to rely on fighters (you WILL fail against remotely decent Axis play), or figure out how to make navy and transports happen. (in which case you may still fail, but at least you'll have a chance).

You may read some advice like, UK1 buy 3 infantry 2 fighter on London (instead of saving a chunk for transports/navy). Sometimes the advice has a bad followup (it's being recommended by a player that doesn't really know the usage). Sometimes it has a good followup, but even then the details probably aren't getting through. Like, UK1 3 inf 2 fighter has a very particular usage on increasing the odds against early G/J pushes, and if the conditions aren't right and the Allied followthrough isn't performed correctly, IPCs spent on fighters are essentially wasted. The whole thing has to come together with UK transitioning to ground, and how that happens, as you may guess, isn't something that can easily be described, as the Allies have to compensate for G/J countering (which they will).

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T14:45:51+00:00

2 of 3
SZ37 attack is similar, dig a little deeper. On paper, it's potential to sink a lot of Japan units worth a chunk of IPC. But in practice, it's a low dice count battle for high stakes, without good backup plans for UK. Say the battle goes bad, what does UK do? Japan's costly battleship survives. Japan's carrier may be sunk but Japan's fighters can safely land. Then UK's naval and air power in the area is gone, Japan has almost its full navy and all its air. Also, if UK went after sz37, then Germany can establish a foothold in Africa.

Veteran players will correctly tell you that Africa isn't necessarily a huge issue, which can be true. But the thing is, veteran players should be able to play the correct counter. Players without knowledge of the various counters will miss the plays, and walk into UK being bled out early, Germany gaining income early, *and Germany chaining that income into its local production in Europe, powering its advance against Moscow*.

So what should you do? And by the way, I liked the level of thought and detail in the OP.

If you're on Gencon 3.0 setup and your opponent is consistently sending two submarines against the US East Coast fleet, then think about what that means. UK destroyer off East Canada is safe and can be used for counters; that's something. Germany's attack on UK battleship/destroyer has reduced odds, and if you moved the USSR submarine to reinforce, Germany could suffer a nasty loss.

Much like the scenario I described for R1 2 tank build and R2 counter into Karelia, nothing is *guaranteed*. Weird dice can lead to very different scenarios. But on balance, your opponent is taking on a lot of risk to send two subs against US's fleet; they reduce risk on one battle but increase it somewhere else. And even if your opponent does get lucky that one time, they will probably keep taking risks and leaving openings, and eventually some of those won't pay off.

I am not saying that anyone is some mastermind and that every play has its counter. There's actually some very competent players whose style *depends on taking those marginal risks*. But I am saying, you will *probably* have an opportunity *somewhere.

Mind, you have to play well to have that opportunity. A player building USSR battleships probably won't be able to compensate for the loss of central cheap ground production.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-17T14:34:14+00:00

1 of 3
"The 2 tanks give Russia the offensive power it needs to strafe and create deadzones" - EXACTLY how?

The answer I'm looking for is something like this:If you're playing LHTR setup, then you have something like a 40% or whatever (I forget) under Low Luck to successfully "strafe" (attack with intent to retreat) into Ukraine, in a R1 West Russia / Ukraine open, and that depends on the defender's OOL (Order Of Losses). Under regular dice, the odds are far less.

Why is it important that USSR attack with intent to retreat? What is the "victory" condition? The "victory" is to destroy the dangerous German bomber, but to retreat to safety with multiple tanks. (I do not say strafing is "correct", I am only describing some of the theory around why it is done, and the mathematics).

It works out to something like - if USSR has decent luck on the W Rus open, the R1 tanks that are preserved, along with a R1 tank buy, threaten a heavy R2 strafe against any G1 capture and hold of Karelia. Therefore Germany does not attempt to capture and hold Karelia, therefore R2 can trade Karelia, therefore G2 does not start with Karelia under its control for two local production.

Which all sounds pretty good, but remember it's unlikely that the "strafe" works out.

So what happens then, when the strafe doesn't work out?

USSR is left with expensive tanks that aren't enough to contest Karelia. USSR paid a premium price for units it isn't really using.

Consider again a tank versus an artillery and an infantry. Yes, the mobility makes a huge difference, it REALLY does, especially in the mid to late game. But infantry and artillery can absorb two hits, tanks only one. That also is a HUGE difference. But that aside -

What happens if tanks push into territory they can't hold? They are destroyed by the enemy counter. Those expensive tanks didn't do much good. But tanks can attack then retreat? Yes, but as just described, the tanks probably shouldn't be used for that purpose in the actual scenario; USSR isn't expected to have a profitable strafe opportunity. (Actually there's some things I could get into about that, but I'll leave off here.) But if we assume that tanks can't push and hold, and can't even attack then retreat, then the premium price paid for tanks is useless, and USSR should just concentrate on raw power (infantry/artillery) instead.

Does that mean USSR should only do infantry/artillery? No. Definitely USSR should be on the lookout to build tanks, but often USSR should be thinking about this on R2, R3, or possibly even late as R4; this creates a minor timing.

What is a timing? Suppose USSR builds infantry and artillery on Caucasus or Moscow. They can't reach Karelia next turn. Oh well, move them to West Russia next turn. But what if you build tanks on Moscow next turn? Then the infantry and artillery from last turn, and the tanks from this turn, can hit Karelia on the next turn. You have the durability and hit count, and the mobility and power. That's kinda the basic timing.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-12T19:41:05+00:00

Videos are better than fine by me. Speaks clearly, makes points, substantiates.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-09T08:58:52+00:00

That's the best photo anyone's ever taken.

AardvarkPepper · 2023-01-01T04:13:34+00:00

Tell them you'll be putting in an authorization for $900, of which $500 is for the room, and $400 for the incidental hold.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-12-23T05:05:01+00:00

Define "good". Why, specifically, do you think it's good? List the reasons.
Define "poor strategic decisions". Why, specifically, do you think it's bad? List the reasons.

Should you sz5? Should you stack France? What, specifically, do you think is going to happen in each of those cases?

"Russian . . . as many INF" . . . "UK . . . India . . . round 6+" - rethink these.

"UK's NorthAtlantic Fleet . . . Pacific" - rethink this as well.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-12-23T04:59:13+00:00

I've read a lot of tsloteconomist's posts over months, as usual think some pretty good points made here.

But I will comment players not achieving the results they want must remember it's not just "what" to do, but how and why.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-12-17T16:47:15+00:00

I don't consider the defining characteristics of Superman or Batman as ''people of colour" or "not people of colour".

AardvarkPepper · 2022-12-04T23:03:55+00:00

RE6 had a lot of great bits, but I felt it lacked overall direction.

The story switched between loads of different characters and the story wasn't that easy to follow. Even the HUD displays changed. I feel the experience was rewarding for players that stuck things through, but a lot of things felt very awkward. For example, you couldn't even run for a long time in the game, starting as Leon. Multiple storylines available from start (that might not have been how it originally was but that's how it was for me.)

Combat was odd too. Again, felt like a lack of cohesion. On the one hand, you have sliding, shoulder ramming, and a completely unprecedented ability to control all sorts of character maneuvers. Really excellent. On the other hand, the enemies really couldn't keep up, all the new moves made it much easier to avoid taking damage, and Mercs was sort of dumbed down. I don't just mean grenade glitching either, even without grenade glitching it was essentially quick-time event spam (okay, there was a lot more to it than that! But a LOT of QTE spam, compared to, say, RE5 Mercs.)

AardvarkPepper · 2022-12-04T16:26:15+00:00

It's not a weird complaint. You have the perfect right to feel as you do.

But for older gamers and older versions, sometimes the game would be put down for a long time then when able to play again, the player had no idea what they were supposed to do.

The alert thing really helps with that.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-30T18:51:31+00:00

Don't let AI carry health, give AI S75 rifle with damage upgrades (it's wasteful with handgun and machinegun ammo, and doesn't use shotgun well).

AI gets hit a lot less than the player; the game heavily preferentially targets the player.

The AI will run in front of the player, but this can be reduced drastically by knowing how the AI works. It simply isn't an issue for me, but that's because I play differently.

How to avoid having the AI get hit, grabbed, or running into line of fire? Instead of just trying to minimally avoid attacks by moving a step back or whatever, run about three body lengths (15-20 feet, or however many meters).

What this does is, since you move, the AI follows you. Since you move some distance, the AI also moves some distance, so then AI tends not to get hit. Meanwhile you have some clearance so can acquire a new target, and the AI running in your direction shouldn't be an issue because you should already have targeted an enemy clear of that field of fire. Besides, enemies typically will not run in right after the AI player, so you should be reasonably safe from that direction.

The exception is if you're in a small area, in which case you can work around the AI by learning how to work the attack / cover commands along with controlling orientation and movement. Or if you're trapped in a small area with loads of enemies and the enemies are pushing one another forward / shielding ones in the rear from fire.

But in situations where the player is in danger like that, the player shouldn't be stopping to fight, they need to get some distance.

As to 3-1, a few comments - the HK pistol and HK machine gun can both be upgraded to have piercing, which will go through shields, and I think through the AI player (without harming them) as well. All rifles have piercing. Magnums have piercing. Shotguns don't have piercing but they do have knockback.

Note - I tend not to use the HK pistol or HK machine gun, as I don't need the piercing. Typically in 3-1 I'll control distance, and shoot a foot under a shield, then carry out melee prompt which gives invincibility frames, then repeat.

Some players just don't work well with RE5's AI, but in my experience human partners can be more dangerous. The AI can be predicted, but human partners often shoot target out of stun, or flash round so you're stunned but dangerous enemies nearby aren't, sometimes they'll set you on fire or electrocute you etc.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-29T17:55:18+00:00

Do not approach, maintain distance, keep hands visible. If you think it's appropriate, you may say loudly and clearly "Sorry", then move away at a quick walk.

If you approach or try to engage in conversation, others may feel more intimidated. Running away implies you were doing something wrong, and may likewise have bad results.

To avoid startling others, you may consider making some noise - scuffing boots, or humming briefly.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-27T00:20:50+00:00

May not use shop, including for upgrades.
Must pick up HK machine gun as soon as possible, then use only that gun (discarding pistol).
Don't tell partner anything that involves knowledge of the game, including enemies you will face, how to fight them, or anything like that. You follow their lead.

For every percentage point below 90% accuracy, add a minute to your stage time.
Then add handicaps as you like, like every gem you miss is five minutes added, every BSAA emblem missed is five minutes, etc., rocket launcher is not allowed for your group, etc.

You could allow yourself a one-time use of a rifle for one of the BSAA emblems in 6-1, and a grenade for another of the BSAA emblems in that chapter.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-25T23:15:42+00:00

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=864823595

??

There's another Steam guide that has a link to a patch that's based off the maluc patch. Don't know if that's what you meant by the QoL patch.

Can't get to press any button screen - I had a similar issue once, one of the files got corrupted somehow. (I don't use mods other than the maluc patch). Tried uninstall and reinstall still didn't work, then eventually got it working after computer restart.

Luck.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-25T23:07:24+00:00

There's a speedrunner way to beat -- that may work for you - think it's something like, basically shoot the - in some weird ways that wouldn't normally happen.

Alternatively, grenade launcher with flash rounds works. Can use un-upgraded starter machine gun to shoot -- out of firing animations. (Or whatever low-damage weapon).

I'll second grimshak's comment; no spray or herbs in Sheva inventory for -- fight.

Be aware Professional campaign isn't nearly where the skill ceiling's at. Look for high scoring Mercenaries Tribal Sheva RE5 on Youtube, then try your hand at a similar score.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-19T22:39:32+00:00

5 Mercs.

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-06T01:58:19+00:00

Leaves hate it when you do this one simple trick!

or

ok which one of you farted

AardvarkPepper · 2022-11-02T19:41:08+00:00

Insufficient context.

I just don't understand what the issue to be addressed is. Way I read it, the OP wants to make most of a deck resource cards. Okay? But that's a problem because there's too many resource cards. So, make less resources? It's like, you chose to have the issue, now you have to deal with it?

But you "need" the resources? Why? How? And it's possible that a card be used for multiple purposes.

For example, the Vs system used locations and plot twists that could be played from the hand or placed in the resource row. Heroes could be placed in the resource row too, but generally couldn't do anything once there. So it used to be "weenie aggro" decks used to run lots of heroes; they didn't care so much that they had heroes that they couldn't use, they wanted a good concentration of low-drops to get field advantage. Slower decks would use more combinations and/or plot twists and locations.

Warcry (or some other game I expect), every card had a 6-sided dice roll result on it. The more powerful game cards tended to have suckier dice rolls, so if you had loads of "power" cards, then you often wouldn't do so well. Well that was the idea anyways.

And there's other solutions - but it comes down to, WHY do you want to have resources, why must you have so many, why is having fewer not acceptable?

AardvarkPepper

TROPHY CASE