Come on Jen no coment on my ADS roll? I am still loling a little bit. :-D
Me too. :-D
If we had a Hall of Fame for posts, that post belongs there.
@Cmdr:
B) DM, the problem is that with 6 infantry, 24 armor I know I will ALWAYS get 13 hits in Round 1 in LL. That means if the defender has 14 ground units there, I will always be able to retreat after the first round.
However, let’s pretend the defender has 14 infantry defending, you attack with 6 infantry, 24 armor. (And the defender has 30 armor, 6 fighters, bomber and another 18 infantry close by, you just have 14 infantry there in an ADS game in hopes of driving down the defender’s forces and/or splitting their armies.)
In LL you have a 100% chance to have 1 defender surviving round 1
In ADS you have a 44% chance to eliminate all defenders in round 1, getting stuck where you did not want to be.Sure, you might strafe anyway, but I think you’d strafe with far less units and maybe more infantry then before just to make sure you can retreat, which in turn would leave the enemy with more units as well, since you have to adjust to get the Confidence Interval you want. (How many extra or fewer casualties are you willing to inflict at what risk of not being able to retreat?)
In that situation the attack just needs to come out with a 2 to 1 adv to make it worth it. That is the difference between an attacking inf compared to defending inf. While the 13 to 4 trade is obviously best case and a great deal, 10 to 5 would make the attack effective. So again with 14 units sitting there you only need enough inf to cover your opponents potential hits and 6 inf do fine there, now out of your 24 arm you can bring in 18-20 and see if you get a 10 to 4/5 trade. Your just looking for 2 to 1 or better.
Unless you already have an IPC unit lead where as long as you kill more than you lose you’ll be fine, in that case you could play really safe and go 6 inf, 16 arm.
Now you’re right there definitely could be a situation where you want to wear your opponent down, but in this case you might want to consider moving in only 3-5 inf instead of 14. Strafing 3-5 is pretty difficult and probably not worth it and here if they take, you’re probably only trading 5 inf for the 5 inf they move in and now you move your giant hordes in to take an hold when you are ready.
So even with the extra trade you probably trade 1 to 1 instead of leaving the stack of 14 where the attack has a great shot at a 2 to 1 trade.
@Bunnies:
Under LowLuck, G1 responds with 6 LRA tech dice and a transport buy.
If you are playing with LL, you are trying to minimize randomness, so why would you even have tech in the game?
Tech is a game rule, it’s “standard”, as opposed to the OPTIONAL National Advantages.
@Bunnies:
This is why I think Low Luck players require less skill than regular dice players. Low Luck players can predict battle results with higher accuracy BECAUSE they are playing Low Luck, and so do NOT have to worry about the other results that could happen.
This is a faulty argument because it ignores the additional responsibilities LL places on the player. Because you can predict battles with higher accuracy, you know that each unit you buy, possibly 3 turns before it even gets to the front, will be crucial in a close game. . .
Etc. etc. OK, you’re right . . . but I’m not going to admit it. HAHAHA. Oh wait . . .
You can say it’s a form of skill to recover from such a bad roll of the dice, but even if that point is conceded, the entire reason you’re in such a predicament isn’t your fault. Your dice were just bad. In LL games, when you get in a tough position, it’s generally because you made a mistake and not because your dice were bad. In LL games, the skill is in not getting in such a position in the first place.
Maaaaybe
So, yes LL does change the game in significant ways, and probably screws up traditional bids, but if you prefer a more chess-like approach to the game with greater certainty, it is not necessarily a change for the worse. Try telling a chess grandmaster that making him roll dice to determine whether his queen can capture his opponent’s pawn will add skill to the game. He’d obviously laugh. I doubt he would be consoled if you told him he could demonstrate superior skill by making a comeback after he lost his queen trying to take a pawn.
Except for the bad analogy at the end (chess doesn’t use dice in the first place, while Axis and Allies Revised does use dice), which I can pardon as I suppose you are trying to illustrate the point, I agree you have a POINT. But I am certainly not going to say that LL players are generally more skilled than ADS players, because I sure as **** don’t think that’s the case, and I’m not going to say LL strategies will work in ADS or vice versa, because I sure as **** don’t think that’s the case either.
note - "***" refers to star-shaped butter cookies.
I can only talk from my personal experience and I play 90% ADS games yet I base all of my game strats on LL. Whether I move, defend, or attack, I ALWAYS use the LL count to determine if it is a good move or not and then will ADJUST to fit ADS, which might mean (like Jens example) bringing in a few less troops or a few more or slightly shifting a few things to account for potential variance in dice, but the same core moves and positioning hold.
Look, DM, let me break it down for you.
Suppose you are playing Low-Luck with tech going into effect at the beginning of the turn, where Russia doesn’t fly fighters to London on attack Ukraine on R1. Just suppose this is the case. Don’t get bogged down too much in the game details, because what it really comes down to is that under such conditions, the Axis have a 55%+ chance of locking the game right there under Low Luck. 45% chance of shooting themselves in the ass right away, 55% of a win, understand what I’m saying?
Whereas under ADS, the Axis have an aggregate 15% or so chance of locking the game but a 85% chance of shooting themselves in the ass. Percentages here or there, whatever.
So now you’re going to say you don’t play Low-Luck or you don’t use tech. Whatever. I don’t care about that, and neither should you. My original point, and the point I’m still trying to make is that when you have a number of independent-outcome events, the results of which will affect your strategy, it is not a simple matter of reallocating units and “fudging” a LL strategy into an ADS strategy or vice versa. Because the percentage of acceptable-outcomes is far more controlled in LL, you get a picture that looks ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
If you want to be abstract, then let’s say under Low Luck you have a 99% chance of victory and under ADS you have a 80%. Doesn’t seem like a big difference? But say now that you have four independent outcome battles each of which you must succeed at to make your unit purchase (say eight tanks) effective. Under Low Luck, 99% ^ 4 = 96%, you will probably succeed at each of those four locations. Under ADS, 80%^4 = 41%, you will probably FAIL at at LEAST one of those four locations. Considering that under ADS, you will PROBABLY fail, your purchase has to change, and between the change in the purchase, the change in the possible allocation of your forces between four as opposed to three territories (say, to make certain attacks more certain), and the actual outcome of the dice, your glorious LL strat with a 96% probability of success is a ****-stained rag floating in the wind with 41% probability success under ADS.
The differences in probability COMPOUND over time. This is my point. LL is not ADS, and vice versa.
I’m not going to break down the number of times when such a case happens - there’s plenty of times, like Germany using air to open a territory for Japan tank blitz to Moscow, or early territory trade/claiming, or multiple air/naval/combats to control the Suez - but it does happen. When you’re talking about “shifting a few things”, you might think you’re not making a big change, but think about the aggregate effect of such change over four or five turns, and the changes in unit purchases you make to minimize your risk; the upshot is that your ADS and LL games end up playing radically different; isn’t that the case?! And if that IS the case, then how is it that you can claim that ADS and LL strategies are nearly the same?
At best, you could say that you use LL to calculate the baseline probability of a single combat, then approximate the deviance and add units to minimize risk - but such calculation and approximation of single combats do not singly comprise your STRATEGY; your LL STRATEGY and your ADS STRATEGY are still TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
The strategy is the same, the dice are irrelevant, LL/ADS it doesn’t matter.
You move your Germany Stack to Ukr the same time you move the remnants of your Afr corp to Per just as Japan can take Novo or Kaz heavy. Ideally this happens between rds 4-8. LL/ADS it doesn’t matter. The Allies can have a million units in London or Canada prepared to land but it won’t help if Russia has to deal with a Ger-Jap 1-2.
Lose an extra inf here or there to dice doesn’t matter and doesn’t alter your game strat (or it shouldn’t). Losing 10 inf to 3 inf might but that’s ADS and if that happens you chalk it up to one of those games you weren’t ment to win. It happens.
This might be off topic, but you should never being buying a one time purchase based on your need of winning some battles whereas if you lose your purchase is deemed poor. That is just bad strategic planning and I doubt that player would win the game in LL or ADS.
Unless you are already trailing and make maybe a last ditch effort buy or something.
LL DOES tend to speed games up b/c they are less forgiving. If you make a mistake in moves you are likely in deep deep trouble.
Whereas in ADS the trailing player can potentially drag things out in hopes of good dice later. In LL that player probably just surrenders and saves a bunch of time.
We should probably move away from the hypothetical battles or army numbers b/c we can probably trade scenerios all day long.
I’ll go right to a Germany strategy I use, “The German Lurch”, it works in both ADS and LL, it doesn’t matter if I’m lurching with 10 inf, 10 arm (in a LL game) in rd 4 or if I’m lurching with 20 inf, 8 arm (in ADS) in rd 6, it is still the same move and same strat.
No two ADS games are the same just like no two LL games are the same, so I’m not saying a LL game will be exactly like an ADS game, but the underlying strategy of a LL game will work in ADS but the opposite isn’t true b/c an early good/bad roll in ADS can skew it enough where you are forced to think “did I win because taking Novo was a good idea, or did I win cause he got no hits when I attacked?”
With all this said I still prefer to play ADS b/c there are a couple of elements of LL I don’t like (SBRs to name one), but if I’m thinking of doing something new I’ll try it in LL and if I can’t convice myself it’ll work there then there is no point in trying in ADS unless I want to put the fate of my game into the dice gods hands.
Yea, LL really speeds up games. By turn 5 I have Russians in Berlin.
Anyway, the point is that LL and ADS are not the same game anymore. One’s a game of formulas, the other is a game probabilities and chance.
Owkey, since I think most of you guys live on the other end of the world making it difficult to have a real discussion responding to each other, I’ve made a little list of what I read so far in this topic, and I’ll comment on each a bit:
arguments con:
LL is a formula, ADS a strategy
LL makes strategies feasible that aren’t going to make it in AdS
LL makes strategies that are 50% in ADS 100% in LL
=> comment: Let’s make a difference between tactical TRICKS and strategical PLANNINGS. The 3 sentences above are talking about tactics: if I attack his 14 inf or go Sea Lion… I admit that tactics are different (not a lot, but enough to matter) in LL than in ADS. That’s just thinking a bit more radical in LL games than ADS games. But if we’re talking about strategies, both ADS and LL are the same: G’s strategy is to build up stacks of arm+inf on the eastern borders to eventually try to attack Mos, J is pushing inland to raise pressure on R, UK and US are both trying to land units in Asia/Europe to relief pressure on R. Strategies are long-term plans and don’t differ between LL/ADS. Tactics are tricks of the moment that have to be avoided or executed in order to get an edge. Tactics do differ from LL to ADS. If that’s good or bad, I don’t know.
LL SBR’s are always good
=> Since one cann’t loose it’s bomber, it’s always a good idea to go SBR in LL. True. As, theoretically, it’s always a good idea to go SBR in ADS. However, the difference between throwing a 1 and not throwing a 1 is 18,5 Ipc’s, just for one die. I think this is ridiculous and can ruin a game. SBR is broken in ADS: imagine an oppo who goes heavy on SBR, and succeeds a lot because of good dice, so you get IPC crippled and loose the game. There’s nothing one can do against this strat, except hoping for good dice. This is not the kind of game I like to play, because it’s nothing else than roullette if played this way. That’s the flaw in ADS: mediocre or bad strategies are possible when backed up by good dice. This happens not a lot, but enough to either think you won undeserved (=not good), or you lost undeserved (=not good). If half of the games one plays are not good, I don’t like the game. LL fixes this.
LL is easier and requires less skill
LL is ‘calculable’
=> True, LL is calculable (in the sense of more predictable), and requires less ADS-skill (calculating chances). But it requires more LL-skill (planning, looking ahead). I don’t think Chess players will agree chess (=LL) requires less skill than warhammer 40K (=ADS). It just requires a different skill.
Axis cann’t realistically win in a LL game without vastly inflating the bid.
I don’t know, I only played one LL game (with allies), and I enjoyed it a lot (and won).
pro:
LL is an easy way to get insight in battle mechanics
LL speeds up games
LL vastly reduces the bad dice syndrome
=> no comments on pro, since I’m on the pro side :-D
@Cmdr:
A) 10 IPC to the Axis is too high in any game, IMHO. 7-9 is the limit and I only bid 9 when I want to be the allies.
Anyway, the offer still stands. Battlemap, in house dicey, LL rules (LL for SBR too) and you get 7, maybe 8 IPC. (I’ll entertain 8 IPC if you want a transport in the Med, otherwise you get 7 IPC for ground units or just plain old cash for round 1.)
If 10 is too high, why don’t you wanna play axis then? (this is the whole point of having a bidding system :| ) But I’m willing to adapt: 9 IPC to axis, from which 7 for ground units, owkey?
Off topic: where do I find more information on that in house dicey thing, and on the LL-rules used in this board?
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
SBRs are broken in EVERY game, IMHO. If Germany and Japan get 6 bombers running, Russia is lost, I don’t care what round Germany was kicked out of Africa. I’ve found that 6 bombers going after Russia tend to do almost as much damage as Russia earns. And in tech games, rockets are even better.
However, they are less broke in LL where you take 3 or 4 IPC in damage and do 2 or 3 IPC in damage to the industrial complex per bomber.
Off topic: where do I find more information on that in house dicey thing, and on the LL-rules used in this board?
In the Play games forum, but here’s a quick lesson:
Type this in to any message box:
(colon)AAA (number of Dice)@(hit Value)(colon)
this is 3 dice hitting on a three:
Rolls: 3@3; Total Hits: 13@3: (4, 2, 6)
I think there’s a test thread some where in the play games forum, btw you can’t edit the results that the first thing most people wonder…
@Cmdr:
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
If Germany and Japan get 6 bombers running, Russia is lost, I don’t care what round Germany was kicked out of Africa.
You start with 2 bombers for axis. If you buy another 4 bombers, it’s 60 ipcs you paid, and you’ll need about 4 turns of SBR for recovering your inversion even if bombers still live. 4 turns more for Russia survive until Western Allies come to the rescue. Even if Japan build all the additional bombers and allies go for KGF. Good news for uncle Joe.
Rockets, however, are another issue. If Germany gets lucky and gets them with only 5 or 10 ipcs… ouch! Soviets are in trouble. This is a reason why games with techs not need so high bids, I think.
Talking no tech games, usually. And in ADS it’s really not too hard to get 6 bombers running for the axis. I generally do get that many when I don’t have ridiculously bad dice in Round 1. :P
Yes, it’s 60 IPC. However, we have people on these boards seriously advocating Germany spend at least 60 IPC on fleet for SZ 5. I fail to see how 60 IPC in bombers is going to hurt. :P Especially over a couple of rounds.
For arguments sake, Bomber, Fighter, 5 Infantry for Germany round 1, japan no new bombers. Bomber for Germany in round 3, japan no new bombers until, wild number here, say 5 rounds. Gotta have enough time to get the complexes running first.
Owkay, let’s give this a try:
Rolls: 4@3; Total Hits: 24@3: (4, 1, 3, 6)
Great, it works!
But how does one prevent editing?
@Cmdr:
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
Owkey, I’m gonna try one last time, cuz there’s no way I’m only taking 7 as the axis. I’ll take up the challenge with an 8 IPC bid, of which minimum 1 will go to Japan. If this is too much to prove your point, then so be it :)
Owkay, let’s give this a try:
Great, it works!
But how does one prevent editing?@Cmdr:
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
Owkey, I’m gonna try one last time, cuz there’s no way I’m only taking 7 as the axis. I’ll take up the challenge with an 8 IPC bid, of which minimum 1 will go to Japan. If this is too much to prove your point, then so be it :)
On the game forums, you can’t delete or edit your post. Once you post, THATS IT NO CHANGES, so don’t say lots of funny things you might regret later.
Owkay, let’s give this a try:
Great, it works!
But how does one prevent editing?@Cmdr:
I guess we could do 9 IPC, but then I’d request 50/50 for Germany/Japan break as you want it.
Owkey, I’m gonna try one last time, cuz there’s no way I’m only taking 7 as the axis. I’ll take up the challenge with an 8 IPC bid, of which minimum 1 will go to Japan. If this is too much to prove your point, then so be it :)
7 IPC to Germany or Japan and the last IPC to the other nation is fine with me. I believe you’d want that as 1 IPC Japan, 7 IPC to Germany.
If you let me know what you want to buy with that cash, I’ll start a new thread in the play games area and roll out Russia’s first turn.
All@Cmdr:
If you let me know what you want to buy with that cash, I’ll start a new thread in the play games area and roll out Russia’s first turn.
All right, m gonna go 1 inf 1 rtl in Lib, 1 ipc to Jap. Where can I find the reference rules? Are these (http://www.daak.de/lowluck/lowluckregel.php?sprache=e) allright? Anyways, good luck! (though we won’t need that 8-) )
Bunnies P Wrath to say that LL players have less skill than dice players, is just a stupid comment. Im a LL player so if u want to prove your skill play against me. We play ads ttl no tech 9 bid for axis (placement of 1 unit per area). U can pick side.
Not that it have any meaning in what skill level diffrent dice player have. I will just like to shut u up becasue of that stupid comment.
The game is the same the stragies are the same. The tactic are a bit diffrent. Eksampel if germany have a stack in kar and russia one in west russia and there is 1 german inf in arc. Russian needs to take back arc ore else it must abondon west russia. In LL u can make sure u take arc if u send 1 inf 1 art and a fighter. But usal players will send 2 inf and a fighter which make i almost sure to take it back. In ads u still have to take it but u cant be sure to take it, so the solution can be to send 1 more inf to take it.
The diffrent in ads is u can be sqrew by 1 litle battle. U can make sure u dont in LL. But when that is said u cant afford to be sure to win all battle in LL. Then u use to many icp trading.
another diffrents is the sure strafe. In LL when germany stack kar the allies cant land in norway because it just gonner get strafet so they usal just trade it. In ads the allies can make stronger landings, and germany cant afford to take norway back many times in a row becasue it woud thin out the kar stack, and make it aviable for a russian attack from west russia. And is to risky to starfe becasue u wont like to have all your troops in norway as germany.
This is the 2 biggest diffrents as i see it. Personal i like the LL setup better. I dont think that it take alot of skill to go from the one to the other. So il say that the skill level of players isent diffrent. But in diffrent gaming sites there will be a tendens to favor the one dice over the other. So one site the best players play LL and on another the best play ads. So if u are in a site that mainly play ads, i can understand that u might think that it take more skill to play ads. But it realy isent because the dice dosent matter that much.
When it comes down to it, it just a game play what u like to play. And stop the hate for what u dont like.
on a side note. The thing that i dont like about ads it the russian turn 1, it dosen matter if im axis ore allies. If u cout make russian turn one LL and the rest of the game ads i woud play more ads games. ;)
Bunnies P Wrath to say that LL players have less skill than dice players, is just a stupid comment.
**You know, Enskive, I say a lotta outrageous stuff, but I don’t actually recall saying that about LL players - I think I said something about REAL men using REAL dice instead.
But particulars aside. I’m sure I implied LL players have less skill than dice players at SOME point in my rantings, and yeah, that is pretty stupid. Hey, I do stupid stuff sometimes.
HolKann wrote a pretty good response to the skill in ADS vs skill in LL question - I’d have to agree it’s really a relative thing.**
Im a LL player so if u want to prove your skill play against me. We play ads ttl no tech 9 bid for axis (placement of 1 unit per area). U can pick side.
I don’t know what “ttl” means, and I don’t play games without tech.
Not that it have any meaning in what skill level diffrent dice player have. I will just like to shut u up becasue of that stupid comment.
I bet. But if you think that playing me, win or lose, is going to make me “shut up” you’d better think again. Lol.
The game is the same the stragies are the same. The tactic are a bit diffrent. Eksampel if germany have a stack in kar and russia one in west russia and there is 1 german inf in arc. Russian needs to take back arc ore else it must abondon west russia. In LL u can make sure u take arc if u send 1 inf 1 art and a fighter. But usal players will send 2 inf and a fighter which make i almost sure to take it back. In ads u still have to take it but u cant be sure to take it, so the solution can be to send 1 more inf to take it.
The diffrent in ads is u can be sqrew by 1 litle battle. U can make sure u dont in LL. But when that is said u cant afford to be sure to win all battle in LL. Then u use to many icp trading.I’m just going to disagree with both you and DarthMaximus. You SAY the strategies are the same, I SAY they are not the same. I have already laid out the reasons why I think this.
another diffrents is the sure strafe. In LL when germany stack kar the allies cant land in norway because it just gonner get strafet so they usal just trade it. In ads the allies can make stronger landings, and germany cant afford to take norway back many times in a row becasue it woud thin out the kar stack, and make it aviable for a russian attack from west russia. And is to risky to starfe becasue u wont like to have all your troops in norway as germany.
At least one thing you left out with this mention of LL is how high-IPC naval/air battles are more predictable.
This is the 2 biggest diffrents as i see it. Personal i like the LL setup better. I dont think that it take alot of skill to go from the one to the other. So il say that the skill level of players isent diffrent. But in diffrent gaming sites there will be a tendens to favor the one dice over the other. So one site the best players play LL and on another the best play ads. So if u are in a site that mainly play ads, i can understand that u might think that it take more skill to play ads. But it realy isent because the dice dosent matter that much.
That’s great, you can go on thinking it doesn’t take a lot of skill to go from one to the other, you can go on saying that the skill level of players isn’t different. I think you’re wrong in saying that the skills translate from one game to another, again, for reasons I already explained.
When it comes down to it, it just a game play what u like to play. And stop the hate for what u dont like.
Stop hating what I don’t like? I think that’s a bit much! I’m going to go ahead and hate things I don’t like, thank you very much. As for you, I’m going to guess that YOU also are going to go ahead and hate things you don’t like too. Like maybe me. Lol.
on a side note. The thing that i dont like about ads it the russian turn 1, it dosen matter if im axis ore allies. If u cout make russian turn one LL and the rest of the game ads i woud play more ads games. ;)
You should know, Enskive, that I don’t care about proving anything to anyone, and I’m not going to shut up. :-P If you really think your post was going to draw me out for a challenge or make me stop posting, how’s this:
You shut up your stupid comments.
See, doesn’t work at all, does it, lol. :lol:
Oh yeah, and about the game - if I won, would it make YOUR points any less valid? If I lost, would it make MY points any less valid? No to both, I’m sure you’ll agree.
All@Cmdr:
If you let me know what you want to buy with that cash, I’ll start a new thread in the play games area and roll out Russia’s first turn.
All right, m gonna go 1 inf 1 rtl in Lib, 1 ipc to Jap. Where can I find the reference rules? Are these (http://www.daak.de/lowluck/lowluckregel.php?sprache=e) allright? Anyways, good luck! (though we won’t need that 8-) )
Looks okay, however just to clarify a couple of things, here’s how I see some of the optionals as listed:
1) You can roll for a tech with success (attempts purchased)/6 That means if you buy 6 attempts (36 IPC) you are guaranteed the technology you want. However, you can purchase two attempts if you want too and have a 33% chance of getting the technology. You may not purchase the technology in parts. If you buy 5 rolls and roll a 6, you would still need to buy 6 rolls to get a 100% chance of success.
2) SBR: Attacker does 3 to 4 IPC in damage per attack. Defender does 2 to 3 IPC in damage to the bomber. (On a roll of 1, 2 or 3 take the lesser number, on a roll of 4, 5 or 6 take the larger number.)
@Cmdr:
Yes, it’s 60 IPC. However, we have people on these boards seriously advocating Germany spend at least 60 IPC on fleet for SZ 5. I fail to see how 60 IPC in bombers is going to hurt. :P Especially over a couple of rounds.
Too much IPCs on fleet. 16 is enough most times (the AC). Of course, 60 ipcs in bombers is usually better than 60 in z5 fleet, but still means good times for Western Allies, because Germans cannot defend from them, attack the soviets AND build bombers.
Anyway, more than 2 bombers each axis power is overkill against soviets (they have 2 IC). I don’t like so many bombers for Germany.
@Cmdr:
For arguments sake, Bomber, Fighter, 5 Infantry for Germany round 1, japan no new bombers. Bomber for Germany in round 3, japan no new bombers until, wild number here, say 5 rounds. Gotta have enough time to get the complexes running first.
I think only 5 inf is too few for G1. Even with a bid with 3 inf to Ukr. It leaves too choices for soviets.
8 isn’t much better then 5, not when those 5 are matched with a German Air Force of 7 Fighters, 2 Bombers where the 8 is matched with just 6 fighters and a bomber.
And 16 IPC for fleet is too little. You are throwing away 16 ipc on round 1 for nothing. The allies are not scared of a defensive only carrier in SZ 5 and it doesn’t get in my way at all. So I can go sink it when I’m ready to start invading Germany directly, until then, I can ignore it without repercussions.
