@Cmdr:
Thoughts in general.
Things that were discussed when we called for Alpha 3 were:
1) England is far too easy to take out. It is ahistorical and very weird to have London fall almost every time on Germany 3.
***My god. In about a month I will have unrestricted access to my board. We should set it up and play a game of Alpha2 and see how many times you are able to invade London by G3. Barring insane dice I believe it will be 20-30% of the time. G3 invasion was never easy and UK had the resources to make Germany pay for invading. I wish some people on this site would get together and run through the options of a G3 Sealion…oh wait we did!
2) There is no historical basis for Russia seeing little German opposition and NOT attacking the Germans ahead of schedule. If London falls, Russia should be allowed to attack as well.
**I agree, this was a good move and should be kept. Stalin would have jumped at the option of reduced Wehrmacht forces in Poland.3) America has no incentive to participate in the Atlantic.
***they still don’t really. Paris is not an NO that the allies want to take lightly, they want to take and hold it. US will be making less money because of this, but I still think a mostly Pacific strategy might work for US along the same lines as Alpha2.4) France is never liberated by the allies because it would strip two industrial complexes from them on the mainland.
***right, see point 3. Paris won’t be liberated until the game is near over, again I see this as a net loss for US and a boon for axis.5) There are not enough strategic bombing runs.
***Thank god! You of all people rail against the American Exceptionalism aspect, and yet somehow got wrapped up in this propaganda tale that strategic bombing netting anything really positive in WW2. Please read up on the subject if you think it was so awesome, and avoid US authors. SBR should be a once and a while thing, with lots of risk involved for little reward.6) Axis need some minor boost to make them compatible with America.
***not sure about this point, and its pretty open ended. I think Larry wants America to be the heavy hand, the Axis are on the clock.He seemed to address all of the above concerns. Others he did not address:
*** :roll:A) Japan needs more troops in China.
***? Not sure where this discussion was. Is this your personal feeling or what was being discussed on his board because I never saw it. I did see lots of issues with China. Those are easily addressed with letting China invade Korea. Now if Japan ignores China they can defend the whole money coast.B) Russia should be prohibited from attacking Japan first, EVER.
***? Again this must be your personal view. The actual problem is the DOW system needs to be revamped. DOW’s between Japan and Russia need to be set in stone, not completely ambiguous. I see this part of the rulebook as the area the developers fell asleep on. The reason we want to keep the option of war open between the 2 powers is to promote varied play. Give Japan and Russia the option, but you can assign baggage one way or the other to promote a decision.C) Japan could use a couple more destroyers in the Pacific.
***perhaps, not sure it would be needed with some of the obvious changes that could make the game simpler while providing varied play styles.D) Australia should have a second complex in Queensland.
***I don’t see this as necessary, why? Australia can barely afford 3 units for the first few rounds and then has the money to buy another complex if needed. By having their production to the south it both saves their ships from the Queenslandsz, and means they have to stage to that awesome naval base located in queensland. I suppose if you wanted to change the IC for the NB that might work.All in all, I think he did a pretty good job so far.
Why is life better for the axis?
1) Germany needs to invest FAR LESS in the Atlantic Ocean.
2) Germany is rewarded for riskier attacks into Russia (use your imagination. I am not going to give you a script so you can try and find one tiny little flaw where if I do this on round 7 but you did that on round 1 it all falls apart. Obviously all strategies have to be flexible to take into consideration minor changes in the overall game board.)
3) The axis have a far easier time killing the NOs of the Allies. (Owning France is 2 Allied NOs for instance.)
4) The game is far more historical.
5) The Italian fleet will survive better by being split up more. (Either the Allies dedicate every IPC they have to get 2 transports perhaps losing it all due to a set of bad dice, or they only grab one.) It also forces them to attack the Italians in order to escape the med.Why is the game better for the allies?
1) England wont fall on round 3 anymore. That by far is the best change for game balance. It can still be neutralized, but it wont automatically fall.
2) The Italian fleet is split more, making it weaker in any one place.5 pro Axis changes, 2 pro Allies changes.
Thanks for taking the time to put your views down for us Jenn. Wish you had addressed a few of the issues I brought up earlier, perhaps you can go back and check them? My responses are marked with ***.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast.
That seems extremely risky. The naval battles take pretty much all the airpower you can get. How can you take both France and Normandy?
Don’t forget France has a AA that can serve as a casualty…
I think it would look something like this:
Normandy: 2 mec, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig (holland), 1 tac (wg), over 90 % attack
Paris: 7 inf, 2 art, 2 mec, 4 tnk, 1 tac (poland), over 80 % attack
112: bb, ca, 1 fig (hungary), almost 100 % to win
111: 2 subs, 1 fig (norway), 1 bmb (germany), 90 % to win
110: 2 subs, 2 fig (w ger), 3 tac (2 from w ger and 1 from germany), 100 % to win
France will not be a walkover but normandy and 112 should be np. 110 and 111 are 90-100 % if there is no scramble, if there is a scramble both attacks become rsiky but still wi bigge changes for the germans to win and bigger average loss for the UK, im happy to exchange german planes for RAF planes in the early game. If France does not fall the Italians can most likely clear it up and then its an entire different game but it does not mean the game is lost.
The zone 111 has a 15 IPC spread in favor of the Germans, and UK loses 27 IPCs.
By scrambling a fighter, the spread changes to 2, the UK still loses 27 IPCs on average. So in this case, I would scramble. As the UK, I might not lose the fighter and I would bring an extra German fighter out of it.
The zone 110 is more risky for the UK to scramble, it commits a lot more. As you mentioned, this scramble results in trading planes one for one.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast.
That seems extremely risky. The naval battles take pretty much all the airpower you can get. How can you take both France and Normandy?
Don’t forget France has a AA that can serve as a casualty…
I think it would look something like this:
Normandy: 2 mec, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig (holland), 1 tac (wg), over 90 % attack
Paris: 7 inf, 2 art, 2 mec, 4 tnk, 1 tac (poland), over 80 % attack
112: bb, ca, 1 fig (hungary), almost 100 % to win
111: 2 subs, 1 fig (norway), 1 bmb (germany), 90 % to win
110: 2 subs, 2 fig (w ger), 3 tac (2 from w ger and 1 from germany), 100 % to winFrance will not be a walkover but normandy and 112 should be np. 110 and 111 are 90-100 % if there is no scramble, if there is a scramble both attacks become rsiky but still wi bigge changes for the germans to win and bigger average loss for the UK, im happy to exchange german planes for RAF planes in the early game. If France does not fall the Italians can most likely clear it up and then its an entire different game but it does not mean the game is lost.
as you point out 111 is a weaker attack, the bb does not have a naval base tho so i think thats the way to go. UK will have at most 3 hits in the first round of combat so i even if it all goes to hell my bomber can retreat.
but one more sub or plane in 111 would be very nice, taking a plane from one of the other attacks does not feel that great tho and i cant really skip any of the attacks, letting the fleet in 110 live might be an option as it frees upp alot of planes and subs to make other attacks such as the ca out of gib or the canadian fleet and prop up other attacks to minimize losses. the problem is that the uk can then combine this fleet with the med fleet and there the german fleet is then at risk. normandy can also be skipped but its nice to kill the extra fighter. depends on how risky one wants to be.
but one more sub or plane in 111 would be very nice, taking a plane from one of the other attacks does not feel that great tho and i cant really skip any of the attacks, letting the fleet in 110 live might be an option as it frees upp alot of planes and subs to make other attacks such as the ca out of gib or the canadian fleet and prop up other attacks to minimize losses. the problem is that the uk can then combine this fleet with the med fleet and there the german fleet is then at risk. normandy can also be skipped but its nice to kill the extra fighter. depends on how risky one wants to be.
The way I’m reducing this uncertainty, and ground losses, is to put ALL ground units against France. Why is Normandy so important to you?
Jimmy,
Many of the comments I brought up or agreed too when other brought them up were on Larry’s own webpage. I will attempt to recap them, but to be honest, it’s been at least a month since we discussed it on his pages.
Granted Germany only starts with 56 ground units in range (I did not count Bulgaria or Romania) and will lose some taking France. You can determine how many they have left after France (include Finland!) and adjust the transport purchase down from there.
…
Agreed, but if the United States does not help in the Atlantic, then the Paris NOs (3 of them) wont be attained and the allies will have significantly less income.
A few things I noted:
1) America does not have to scatter about worrying about islands. Not sure if I like that. But whatever. No reason to cry over spillt milk now, right?
2) The English NO for no German submarines is gone, which means Germany does not have to worry about having a submarine anymore. I probably would have submarines, as I advocate an attack on British shipping, but it’s nice to have the freedom not to if I dont want too.
3) Getting France will stab the Americans and British in the foot, they lose W. France/S. France Industrial Complexes and any liberated French territories. So essentially, Larry stripped 10 IPC from the Allies semi-permanently.
…
I am not so much wrapped up in historical context of SBRs, but rather, their feasibility and addition to the game. Granted, in classic, I think they were overpowered.
I agree, Larry wants America to be ridiculously powerful. Evidence: You cannot set up KAF anymore. Evidence: America earns two to three times what other nations earn and in some cases, ten times what nations earn.
A) The issue discussed was on Larry’s boards. The general consensus was that we’d like to see somewhere between 2 and 4 Japanese infantry added to China to make it worth the effort.
I went further and said that I’d like to see America be able to send a replacement fighter to China. At the end of China’s turn it can start converting it to Chinese and at the build units phase “place” the fighter (it never left the board and could be killed at any time, this was to give the axis time to kill it) and use it next round, IF AND ONLY IF their starting fighter was lost.
My concept was that I didn’t want to see Japan throw a dozen planes at a battle to snipe the fighter. It just feels wrong, since you would not do that in any other fight, but you do with China because they cannot replace the aircraft ever.
I guess it is non-relevant, as those suggestions were not taken by Larry - and co.
B) Yes, it is my personal view, but a valid one I think (or it would not be a personal view, eh?). THe idea behind it is to allow Japan to strip Manchuria/Korea and thus get the extra infantry to fight China. Generally, I leave 2 or 3 infantry in each Korea and Manchuria to dissuade the RUssians.
C) …
D) My Australia usually has Java, Sumatra and Celebes so that is 11 IPC + 10 IPC Territories + 10 IPC NOs for 31 IPC a round. (End of the game, of course)
as you point out 111 is a weaker attack, the bb does not have a naval base tho so i think thats the way to go. UK will have at most 3 hits in the first round of combat so i even if it all goes to hell my bomber can retreat.
I would not adjust the standard German opening except to give up the attack on W. France and move those units to France to assit there.
Possibly, send a tank and some mech to S. France instead.
Viracocha I’m not going to get into an off topic discussion on the boards.
I am not singling you out, here, but since your post was the last one I saw, I am mentioning it (so you know what happened to your post) and bringing it to everyone’s attention.
@Cmdr:
Viracocha I’m not going to get into an off topic discussion on the boards.
I am not singling you out, here, but since your post was the last one I saw, I am mentioning it (so you know what happened to your post) and bringing it to everyone’s attention.
Well that’s good… because there’s nothing to “single” me out for. I and another just pointed out how you were being hypocritical in regard to Mantlefan’s approach to posting. And then you deleted our commentary. At least you had the common courtesy to not be snide and antagonistic to us as well I guess. Fine, bring it to “everyone’s attention”. *shrug
Later edit: And now you’ve went and edited & deleted all the snide and derogatory remarks you made? eh eh eh… you may know a bit about A&A, but certainly don’t have much experience as a moderator. This is a bad reflection of moderation, no matter what you said, it should be left so you can 'fess up to it if you have to. Would have been better off to say that you overreacted or that you had a bad day. Instead you’ve chosen the insidious approach. Not good… not good.
I don’t think I’m gonna make any major changes to my Germany opening. 1 AA is not going to shatter my campaign. Damn I have had France hit 7 of 9 twos on the first roll, and unfortunately if someone gets lucky with France the first round it hurts bad. 1 AA is not going to make a lot of difference there.
@mantlefan:
I don’t think I’m gonna make any major changes to my Germany opening. 1 AA is not going to shatter my campaign. Damn I have had France hit 7 of 9 twos on the first roll, and unfortunately if someone gets lucky with France the first round it hurts bad. 1 AA is not going to make a lot of difference there.
The issue for me is that BS similar to the 7 of 9 scenario you described is more likely. Germany is now righteously scared of sending in planes to France, meaning they need more land units, meaning Normandy is out for a player who wants to be remotely careful.
I’m not sure why certain people never sent planes to france in the first place, but it might have had something to do with a certain person thinking it legal to be sending ftrs 2 spaces from west germany to SZ 110 then 4 more (for a total of 6) to S Italy.
Probably has something to do with it! I have seen other “mistakes” like this when looking at games from various players, sometimes even extra units pop up.
My Alpha 2 Moves were this:
Build Aircraft Carrier + 1 transport + 1 sub in zone 112
Take 112 (1 cruiser, 1 sub and 1 battleship)
Take 106 with 2 subs (117 / 118)
Take 110 (against BB and Cruiser + 3 scramble) with 2 subs (103/ 108) + 1 Bomber + 3 tactical + 2 fighters (none of these to south Italy)
Take France Turn 1 (5 infantry, 4 mec, 2 artillery, 4 tanks, 1 tatical, 3 fighters)
Take Normandy Turn 1 (Destroy fighter to help Italian Fleet) - 1 Infantry, 1 tank and 1 fighter, Attack with 2 infantry, 1 artillery 1 tactical, 1 tank
So now, need to decide what to do with Alpha 3…
@mantlefan:
Interesing, you skip 111.
That’s not bad becasue they can’t make it to the med.
I like to hit 110 with the subs because the sneak attack is more effective (have a 1/9th chance to kill that cruiser)…
Similarly, the sub allocated to 112 helps, frees up planes.
All this allow two sub to go in 106.
The fleet in 111 will be in range of rebuilt subs / german navy. If Normandy is taken, then zone 109 is not a refuge…
All planes can bear on 109, plus the remaining 110 subs, the 112 fleet (including carrier + fresh sub). Thought is that the fleet in 111 can’t go anywhere. (123 and 118 are also bad because 1 or 2 subs should survive off Canada).
Now though the AA gun in France makes this strategy more difficult.
@Cmdr:
Jimmy,
Many of the comments I brought up or agreed too when other brought them up were on Larry’s own webpage. I will attempt to recap them, but to be honest, it’s been at least a month since we discussed it on his pages.
- Comment about England falling: If England pulled everything back and yielded the entire board, I think there was a way to limit Germany’s chance of success to 60% give or take. I am assuming + 2 transports on Germany 1 (and a carrier) and 10 transports on Germany 2 giving Germany 13 Transports to use. Equivalent of 52 ground units (26 invade Scotland, 26 from Scotland + 26 from the mainland attack England.)
Granted Germany only starts with 56 ground units in range (I did not count Bulgaria or Romania) and will lose some taking France. You can determine how many they have left after France (include Finland!) and adjust the transport purchase down from there.
***sigh…I know its about 14 pages, but we did the math too when we ran the sealion experiment. Your math should be the same as the rest of the worlds, its not 60%…
…
Agreed, but if the United States does not help in the Atlantic, then the Paris NOs (3 of them) wont be attained and the allies will have significantly less income.
A few things I noted:
1) America does not have to scatter about worrying about islands. Not sure if I like that. But whatever. No reason to cry over spillt milk now, right?
2) The English NO for no German submarines is gone, which means Germany does not have to worry about having a submarine anymore. I probably would have submarines, as I advocate an attack on British shipping, but it’s nice to have the freedom not to if I dont want too.
3) Getting France will stab the Americans and British in the foot, they lose W. France/S. France Industrial Complexes and any liberated French territories. So essentially, Larry stripped 10 IPC from the Allies semi-permanently.
***this is why I am warming to the idea of this NO. I would have preferred Normandy in order to drive action, but ‘banking’ 10 allied ipcs in a territory that will never be taken is another way to balance the game.
…
I am not so much wrapped up in historical context of SBRs, but rather, their feasibility and addition to the game. Granted, in classic, I think they were overpowered.
***okay. So you are willing to believe that strategic bombing was near worthless in WW2, but would like to have it as an option in this game? That is my position too! That’s why I think the new interceptor rules are so grand, and that Strategic bombing should be something A&A pro’s shy away from because of the high risk low reward aspect. Let those new to warfare try and fail with the bombing campaign. They can be out Hap Arnold.I agree, Larry wants America to be ridiculously powerful. Evidence: You cannot set up KAF anymore. Evidence: America earns two to three times what other nations earn and in some cases, ten times what nations earn.
A) The issue discussed was on Larry’s boards. The general consensus was that we’d like to see somewhere between 2 and 4 Japanese infantry added to China to make it worth the effort.
I went further and said that I’d like to see America be able to send a replacement fighter to China. At the end of China’s turn it can start converting it to Chinese and at the build units phase “place” the fighter (it never left the board and could be killed at any time, this was to give the axis time to kill it) and use it next round, IF AND ONLY IF their starting fighter was lost.
My concept was that I didn’t want to see Japan throw a dozen planes at a battle to snipe the fighter. It just feels wrong, since you would not do that in any other fight, but you do with China because they cannot replace the aircraft ever.
***meh. It’d be nice to get a replacement there, but I snipe with aircraft all the time.:) I once used my German airforce in Anniversary to smack the red airforce behind the lines. This is a valid tactic, pro’s know when to air raid!:)I guess it is non-relevant, as those suggestions were not taken by Larry - and co.
B) Yes, it is my personal view, but a valid one I think (or it would not be a personal view, eh?). THe idea behind it is to allow Japan to strip Manchuria/Korea and thus get the extra infantry to fight China. Generally, I leave 2 or 3 infantry in each Korea and Manchuria to dissuade the RUssians.
***i see. We are all entitled to our opinions. Myself I want an dynamic game where most anything can happen, up to the players discretion.C) …
D) My Australia usually has Java, Sumatra and Celebes so that is 11 IPC + 10 IPC Territories + 10 IPC NOs for 31 IPC a round. (End of the game, of course)
***right, that was my point. Early they don’t need the extra production, later they got the fundages to build their own IC. I don’t see the need for another IC at setup.
Changing font color is sick easy! Thanks for the suggestion. The more I read up the more I think perhaps ‘house ruling’ my game is the way to go. Alpha2 is the template, with a few adjustments for balance and to streamline the disgusting areas of the rulebook(DOW system). That way you all can go about playing your historical unhistorical boardgame where bombers are awesome and can lay waste to vast industry, Japan has only 1 or 2 options, and Germany only 1. I can then continue to enjoy a beer and pretzel game that is balanced and simple with lots of options for all powers.
P.S. has anyone on this site ever played Fortress America? Do you like to play America or the Invaders. The answers to those questions should prove that diversity in gaming style leads to replayability…which leads to more fun over the years.
Honestly, Mantlefan/Community, I never sent planes into France to begin with. I need them all to hit British ships and I dont have any left for France. The AA Gun is more likely to cause the British fighter in W. France to survive since I am now bringing a couple more ground units to France. (However, my attack in W. France will shift to S. France. which will give me a complex in the Med.)
Jimmy, rerun the numbers for Round 4, not Round 3. The discussion was about could England survive a G3 sea lion attempt, no discussion (to my knowledge) was held about G4 sea lion.
I agree. I would have put the NO in Normandy myself, due to D-Day, but the more I think about it, the more France makes sense. The thrust was to liberate France then drive into Germany. IF they didnt want to liberate France, then they could have avoided a lot of Germans by going around it and running along the coast, I would think. Also, banking 22 IPC in NOs (first time liberated) in France makes the allies at least consider liberating it, even if it means losing their complexes in Normandy/Vichy France. Though, to be honest, I’d bet many players will just count those as lost NOs until Germany is down.
Glad we are in agreement about strategic bombing runs. To be honest, though, if I engage in it, I WANT interceptors launched. By the time I am doing it religiously, my opponent is probably earning in the low teens and each lost fighter is akin to a 10 IPC bomb hitting their economy. Until I hit 50 IPC a round, I probably wouldnt engage in SBR (However Germany starts at 50 IPC a round at the end of Round 1.) I like that it is more involved too, makes the Battle of London more realistic. (Not saying it IS realistic, just MORE than it was in, say, classic or revised.)
Yes, I play fortress america and at one time I found a module for Abattlemap to play it on. It might still be out there in cyberspace (or I guess we are supposed to call it The Cloud now.)
For the record, I never really liked the static “to win you have to do A, B and C” of some previous versions of the game. “You have to do Sea Lion G3 or G4 to win” seemed like bull-honky to me. “You have to invade Russia with Japan and Germany and squeeze them” in classic annoyed me too.
That’s why I’ll try any wild, hair brained idea in fun game (ie non-league/tournament) and try to find alternatives. That way, when Sea Lion gets hit by the nerf bat, gently, my entire world does not crumble around my feet, I have backup plans and alternatives. You’d be amazed what 3 German transports can do, and you hit Round 1 with 2 German transports in your build, England goes insane scrambling to defend London. (Why bother? Drop 2 submarines there and watch em starve!)
Drop your fleet down to SZ 91 and you can hit E. USA, W. Indies, Central America, Brazil, and most of the African Gold Coast. America has to at least defend against it, meaning less against Japan and every blasted IPC you can take away from the Pacific War means the world to Japan!
I always sent a few planes to Paris, tacs were great, and spared the sz111 fleet for G2. I don’t think I’ll be sending any to Paris now, instead hitting with all ground and Normandy/fleet with air. Getting to playtest Alpha3 for the first time tomorrow. If I draw Axis I think I will abandon a G4 sealion for a G2 barbarossa, similar to what my opponent has been trying lately which is a G1 barbarossa with CV 2 trn build. We are already going to amend the Mongolia rule to–Mongolia joins Russia if Japan attacks a neighboring territory. Italy will support in Europe and harass in the Med and Japan will still try and blow through Siberia to present a second front to Stalin.
So now we are talking about G4 sealion? Good to know, I think the only chance England has is to strafe Scotland which is going to vary wildly the results of the G4 invasion. I could be wrong and a continued turtle or retreat might be valid options.
We use lvl bmbs in the same way then, as nails in the coffin. I like to use them to show my opponent that indeed the game is over in just a few rounds. I don’t see why you want their bombing ability increased. Why is that?
“That’s why I’ll try any wild, hair brained idea in fun game (ie non-league/tournament) and try to find alternatives…”
That’s why I am willing to try the aa gun change. It might end up being awesome, it might end up being game breaking and need a rewrite of the entire starting board units. I’m down for the challenge. I also don’t see Sealion taking a punch to the nuts with these changes, but I also do not believe it was a slam dunk every game move in Alpha2. G2 Barbarossa was scary too!
***there’s a great Fortress America java game out there called WebFA. Created by a computer programmer, most of the players are heavy math nerds, but the program does not involve downloading(last I knew), is streamlined for online play and has lots of extremely tough competition. If that doesn’t work try Taulbee WebFA as a search.
Interesting, we came to the same conclusions. My new plan does involve sending 1 tactical to paris.
3 infantry, 3 fighters and 1 tac to Normandy!
I always sent a few planes to Paris, tacs were great, and spared the sz111 fleet for G2. I don’t think I’ll be sending any to Paris now, instead hitting with all ground and Normandy/fleet with air. Getting to playtest Alpha3 for the first time tomorrow. If I draw Axis I think I will abandon a G4 sealion for a G2 barbarossa, similar to what my opponent has been trying lately which is a G1 barbarossa with CV 2 trn build. We are already going to amend the Mongolia rule to–Mongolia joins Russia if Japan attacks a neighboring territory. Italy will support in Europe and harass in the Med and Japan will still try and blow through Siberia to present a second front to Stalin.
So now we are talking about G4 sealion? Good to know, I think the only chance England has is to strafe Scotland which is going to vary wildly the results of the G4 invasion. I could be wrong and a continued turtle or retreat might be valid options.
We use lvl bmbs in the same way then, as nails in the coffin. I like to use them to show my opponent that indeed the game is over in just a few rounds. I don’t see why you want their bombing ability increased. Why is that?
“That’s why I’ll try any wild, hair brained idea in fun game (ie non-league/tournament) and try to find alternatives…”
That’s why I am willing to try the aa gun change. It might end up being awesome, it might end up being game breaking and need a rewrite of the entire starting board units. I’m down for the challenge. I also don’t see Sealion taking a punch to the nuts with these changes, but I also do not believe it was a slam dunk every game move in Alpha2. G2 Barbarossa was scary too!
Actually, we did run the counter to a G4.
I think sea lion is possible I’ve been able to pull it off on every board that says Axis & Allies except the Pacific from 2000. On the older boards certain conditions had to exist for sea lion to take place and you had to buy into that strat. and hope they didnt counter your move or hit to well
It should be interesting to see
