Worth pointing out that the Turn 1 UK invasion is feasible (using the Long Range research) only with the box rules. If you’re using LHTR (where weapon techs don’t become active until following turn), that strategy is out.
That said, before our group starting using LHTR, the Turn 1 UK invasion was tried once. It worked, but UK was able to come back in on UK1 with the Canada tank (only 1 Ger ground unit had survived the assault). They still got their income for Turn 1, and had lost only their initial money. So, it wound up being a good IPC hit for the Axis (Germany got UK’s 30 initial IPC + income for UK on G1, while UK lost their UK1 buy), but lost their air force and their G1 ground unit buy in the bargain. Germany used their stack of 80ish IPCs on G2 to replenish Luftwaffe (2 or 3 fighters) and a horde of ground units to send vs Russia. Axis DID wind up winning the game by crushing Russia, but it wasn’t quite the inevitable victory as earlier suggested in this thread.
Since adopting LHTR, no one in our group has tried a G2 UK invasion…but I probably will next time I draw the Huns, just to see how it works out.
If you really want to find out,just do it!! This isnt reality.If you lose,you just pack the game up or play again…You dont have to shoot yourself in your “bunker”…I cant stand when people say not to take incredibly risky chances because you may lose.Like I said,you can always play again.Thats part of the fun of this game…Who cares what peole say about the odds :roll:…Just play and see what happens…Stranger things have happened if you play this game long enough…
@Real:
If you really want to find out,just do it!! This isnt reality.If you lose,you just pack the game up or play again…You dont have to shoot yourself in your “bunker”…I cant stand when people say not to take incredibly risky chances because you may lose.Like I said,you can always play again.Thats part of the fun of this game…Who cares what peole say about the odds :roll:…Just play and see what happens…Stranger things have happened if you play this game long enough…
Yeah, but why bother playing at all? If you are planning a very risky move on round 1 and are going to give up if you lose, then you are basically saying that you are willing to spend 15 minutes setting up a game, letting russia move, and then gamble on your 30% chance (or whatever it is). I have another game for you, it’s called roulette.
Wow … a whole fifteen minutes wasted!! How wiil I ever recover! Its not like you have to do it every time… What happens if you try and pull it off? That was a dumb reply dude…
So effectively you reduce all the rules of the game to a poor gamble, and when the gamble fails you quit? I acknowledge I make absolutely dumb replies that make no sense, but I think that somewhat better is that I do not start games by counting on a faroff gamble, and then quitting when it fails. I again ask, what is the point of playing the game this way?
Everyone should adopt the LHTR rules which makes this argument moot. I saw a link somewhere else on this site for these tournament rules and our group has adopted them.
It is not moot because you can still try it without long range aircraft. It is also valid if bids are placed which involve transports (or planes).
Even in a game where Germany doesn’t benefit from any bid, I see this as worth a try. I’ll pay 5 IPC for the chance to try. If I ever hit that number for long range aircraft, I am going to invade. It is a game, after all. The one thing that the German player must remember to do is never think it’s actually going to succeed. Germany must make a first turn purchase assuming the invasion is never attmepted.
I stand corrected. It isn’t moot, when playing LHTR this strategy may be worth the try on G1 if you want to experience losing (to any player of quality). I haven’t had the pleasure of playing w/bids and can only speak to a game w/out them.
So can we just all agree that, baring a person playing without LHTR and without a bid for Germany, this is an incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed and will most likely (though, since dice are involved, nothing is final) result in a speedy defeat for Germany?
Hey, far be it from me to tell anyone how to play the game. I do some things that are aggressive and I do like mixing the game up so it doesn’t take the usual format we’ve all grown to love (if you’re the Allies since, usually, you win) but it seems all of the pertinent arguments for this one have been made. I DO hope my opponent in my next game tries this as Germany…
So can we just all agree that, baring a person playing without LHTR and without a bid for Germany, this is an incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed and will most likely (though, since dice are involved, nothing is final) result in a speedy defeat for Germany?
Who here has done the math?
With 8 dice tech rolls, you have a 76% of getting the tech.
With 1 inf 1 tank 6 fighters + 1 bomber, you have a 72% of winning against 2 inf 1 art 1 arm 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 aa gun.
Thus, you have a composite chance of 54% to take the UK. That’s not 30% like the guy a few posts up was saying, nor is it an “incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed.” In fact, if I could win 54% of the games with the Axis without a bid I’d be really happy.
It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It’s dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it’s also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.
Thus, you have a composite chance of 54% to take the UK. That’s not 30% like the guy a few posts up was saying, nor is it an “incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed.” In fact, if I could win 54% of the games with the Axis without a bid I’d be really happy.
I dunno, Tri, I guess my take on what’s risky and not is different… I’ll give you that with the tech it’s a bit easier but I’m looking at things overall. If it fails, it’s a catastrophic defeat for Germany. If it succeeds, it’s a tremendous blow to the UK but not the end of the world. Maybe I was being too harsh with the “almost a nil chance to succeed” part (baring the tech it is, I believe, somewhere in the 5.7 % range). But I will agree with you 100% that it’s dumb for a game to be diecided in less time than it takes to set it up, and also the England should at least get to go before losing their capital.
It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It’s dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it’s also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.
Actually, this was the move that inspired Caspian Sub, and you’ve pretty much quoted their rules paper without crediting it.Â
Great shame upon you!!!
