Opening w/japan…

@MarineIguana:

KJF with us naval pressure and no ICs is different and actually competitive vs experienced players.

If you want something nasty, try accumulating battleships. 18 battleships landing with 1 infantry…

Lol, or researching destroyer bombardment and have 36 destroyers instead.

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

Well, for our current game Jen Japan’s success J1 (no losses in China, which is American ineptness not Russian) made the Armor unnecessary, so my Complex did nothing for me. Using transports and adding the complex later would have no difference in result. As I recall J2 Russians shot average in Sink, and wiped me in Yakut: The success had nothing to do with poor shooting by Russians, and everything to do with so few Russians being there; The rest ran away to the Germans. Even when I moved past where the trenches should have been drawn, the Russians still refused to turn around and fight. An extra 2 Inf in China is all the +luck I’ve had for Japan, Russia needs to defend her own borders!

@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.

Nice, I’ll go check the game out right away!

Just do your best to last as long as you can until Germany kills UK or Russia, or both.

Indeed, I’ve found the possible ways of ‘luck’…

I found it on a battlesim that trihero suggested in another thread:
http://frood.net/aacalc/readme/

the funny thing is:
I myself use the concept of ‘low luck’ very frequently when I think about my attacking and defending strategies.
Anyway, my friends and I still throw dice for resolving the battle :-)
So, I didn’t know it was labelled this way…

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink: