Opening w/japan…

Thanks!  :-D

Ukraine is usually a good bet because it limits what can attack Caucasus and takes out a Gerry Fighter.

However, keep in mind, i also advocate hitting W. Russia, Ukraine AND Norway to get TWO German fighters. (And sometimes I go nuts and hit FIC as well to get a Japanese one!)

@U-505:

@newpaintbrush:

@U-505:

Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.

All I’m saying is that you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to justify your dislike for LL to me.

My bad.  :wink:

AC UK1 is standard for me, maybe UK2 but even if Germany don’t buy ftrs the UK fleet can be easily sunk.

You’d still want an IC in W. Europe for England so that you can move the British fleet into the Med to pincer the Japanese fleet then.

Anyway, most players will just surrender after Moscow or Berlin falls. (Assuming a normal situation, which is to say, massive Axis armies, pitiful Allied armies or badly positioned Allied armies.  (switch if axis falls not allies.))

@newpaintbrush:

@ncscswitch:

There are so many problems with OOB rules that basically no one uses them anymore.

He’s callin me basically no one.

Wah.

my second ˝karmation˝ goes to you

@ShadowHAwk:

Australia and NZ can be good locations if you can get there without expending to much troops.
It is easy IPCs and they wont take it back. Also it cuts away 1 of the allied powers concentrated.

If you focus on 1 power it helps more efficient then on all powers.

Especialy the turn you build an Ic you might not be able to build enough troops to use all 4 trannies if you move 2 south then ( to enforce FIC ) you can take Australia next turn without losing much transport power but cutting in 3 more ipcs from the UK who at that point has verry little IPCs and is losing afrika making it completely dependant on the US to do anything at all.

Sure they’ll take it back . . . but only if it’s a KJF.  I assume this whole thread is pretty much based off a KGF assumption, because otherwise Japan should go inf/fighter turtle.

My typical Aus/NZ/Hawaii plan uses ONE transport, BB support shot(s) and a carrier.  I use the infantry from the southeastern islands to replenish.

Sometimes I can’t afford to go Aus/NZ/Hawaii depending on the India/Ssinkiang situation.

if you are playing with optionional rules it might work out( cos briton is probably going to put his free IC on INDIA and Amer get’s one infantry for free every turn in sinkiang or china), but if you are playing without them it would be unfair (cos U.K. and U.S. will lose their teritories and won’t be able to get them back. Trust me. I prefer playing with optional rules(all of them) because lots of things gests balanced