UK loses most of its income early on. Canada is toast, Japan usually takes Aus/Nze/Ind fairly quickly, and eventually someone takes Africa. It sounds great, but that’s it.

:-)
If the second part of your question was, " If my AA gun defended in the combat phase can I move it on my (next) turn", then the answer is, of course you can.
Personally, I’d like to see AA guns be able to move in the combat phase, and attack defending aircraft. It would be very realistic to actual combat, and I don’t think that it would change the game that much, they rarely hit anything anyway. Well mine don’t that’s for sure  :roll:
  Remember, the more you play/practice something, the better yu will get at it.  :lol:
So, play often, and play well.
  See you around the game room. :wink:

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

Parings are going to be rolled shortly, but there will be 3 open slots for late registrants…

Paint, you have nothing to lose in trying…

BTW, that submarine does not become useless once the Germans lose the ability to win against the Allied navy/navies.

I like to send it to Southern Africa to ‘persuade’ Japan not to make a Brazil run, at least, force Japan to commit more to a Brazil run then what is normal and optimal.  It also keeps Japan honest by not leaving transports out there undefended.

And, finally, I’ve had a situation where Japan FORGOT the Russian submarine was down there by Madagascar and been able to attack his battleship and 3 transports with 3 fighters and a submarine. Odds are, he only gets one hit, you get 2, that’s a good trade!  Japanese transport which is useful for Russian submarine which is not so useful. (I actually got 3 hits to his 1 that time, but I was lucky.)

they say its $237.00 USD for a set of pieces painted up ( KR 1200.00)

Thats 366 pieces so about .64 cents each piece. Thats not including shipping, but still a great deal.

I always have the cg in India, put about 3 inf every turn just to hold off the Japanese from back dooring and gettin an VC

The plexiglass idea works very well.

I used to have a large sheet of plexiglass that I had attached hex grid to the underside of for use when playing AD&D.  A sheet for a “sliding glass door” replacement panel is a standard size that you can get at a home improvement store and measures about 33" by 75".  I think I had paid about $25 for the last one I bought (circa 1997)

With the plexiglass, you are going to want to also get some small felt “feet” (the little self adhesive felt disks) while you are at Lowe’s and put those on the corners, and a few along the edges.  That will help preent sliding, and will protect your table top.

Solomons are good if you pursue Dutch East Indies. They are in the way anyway, and you kill a Japanese inf.

With software? Are you sofware? Wait a moment, you are Smith agent from Matrix  :mrgreen:

@cyan:

if you have excess money to buy navy with russia i’d rather spend it on fighters and then use the one sub as sort of a fodder pieace. that way once your navy objective has been covered you can switch to land easily and i think fighters are great.

Actually, if you needed fodder pieces for Russia, I’d go with Transports.  Then you can shoot down planes. :P

longest was i think 24 hours, of course we stopped but my shortest agaisnt my dad was 3 hours over this past weekend.

Yes, allied units can occupy the same territory.

Want to add that axis can also be in same territory for defense etc.

You would still have the BOM available for naval combat, that would remain unchanged.  You just get rid of the 600 pound gorilla of how to make Heavy Bombers not unbalance the naval campaigns while still allowing the Allies to use a CBO offensive against Germany.

There are numerous errors in the rule book that comes with the game.  You may want to check out Larry Harris Tournament Rules (which are available from a link on the main page of this website).

The only “opening fire” that repeats after the first round of combat is Submarine Sneak Attack.

BB Shore Bombardment and AA fire are limited to only opening fire of the first round of combat.

@Cmdr:

But this is AARe not LHTR.

Enhanced doesn’t alter the ability to move out of a contested sea zone as part of a combat movement.  Bean is correct.

Look at the Sequence of play as well.

Buy units
Combat movement
Resolve combat  <==  detection occurs here, AFTER combat movement.
non combat movement
etc

Hopefully you get the point.

I said it wasn’t going great, but it’s not a done deal because you don’t have it to take Berlin, not before Russia goes.

Well if the play with three people is a  must D-Day and BOTB and Guadalcanal are out. D-Day as US and Brits and Axis but the Brits and US each move as the Allies. BOTB and Guadalcanal are straight up two player games.

I really like BOTB.

I have not played Guadalcanal yet but it seems like fun. D-day and BOTB have reinforcement charts but G’canal allows you to determine your own reinforcements more like the global or entire theatre games.

Frankly it is really apples and oranges s to me but I don’t think I could go back to Classic after Revised.

If you look to the articles or strategies sections from the main page you will find Saburo Sakai’s Pacific essays. Read those and if you are still leaning to Pacific or it seems like it might be boring quickly you will no whether to go with it or research one of the other games.

D-Day is fast. BOTB is a little longer but has combat and movement like none of the other games and the aspect of supply management is great. Too soon to be informative on G’Canal but it seems like logistics will be important if not more so than picking the right fights. These games are best as two player though.

Europe is, I think, closest to Revised and probably best for a three player game. Pacific is cool because of the Victory points and spending 70 or so IPCs every turn with the US and is also three player.

I don’t think you can go wrong with either Europe or Pacific if three player is important to you. Just my $0.02.  :-)

Australian IC is a great idea
and personally i favor it
i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

so Australia IC can be put in round 1

even in round 2 if its a surprise

but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

i would say anyone go for it

and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

thats my view upon this…

@Cmdr:

Some interesting, but not personally attempted, strategies include a US IC on Brazil on Round 1 pumping out at least 2 units a round for America to send into Africa.

its my standard USA play :)