Opening w/japan…

Yes.

Under item #2 allied fighters cannot be allocated as a hit allocation because they are not rolling on the attack so they are ignored.

Also,  Under item #1 if your carrier is defending and has fighters from allied players they can be allocated as hits on defence and roll out as well.

of course some of this is totally bogus and is totally unrealistic.but oh well.

@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.

@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:

@tenth8sphere:

Trying to make the switch to revised. My fist game as Russia I lost Russia on G2. First game as UK, lost UK on G3. Believe it or not, I was moderately competent at Classic.

Now I’m being set to play as japan in an upcoming game. I desperately need a crash course in some of the important opening moves. Is it better to kill the UK fleet, or the AMerican one at pearl? Is my goal still to shunt infantry and planes to the mainland? What if the UK fleet unifies? What should I absolutely 100 percent do, and what should I absolutely NOT do as Japan?

Any help is most welcome. Hopefully I’ll keep Japan until at least turn 4.

"Is it better to kill the UK fleet, or the AMerican one at pearl? " - depends on the board position.

"Is my goal still to shunt infantry and planes to the mainland? " - Mostly.  Depends on what they do, but mostly.

“What if the UK fleet unifies?” - depends on the board position

“What should I absolutely 100 percent do, and what should I absolutely NOT do as Japan?” - Always build as many transports as you can on J1 (Japan 1, or Japan’s first turn = J1).  You need at least 4 transports to shuttle infantry between Japan and Asia, plus probably minimum 2 more to take infantry off the Pacific islands (where they aren’t going to do you much good) into Asia.  That means you will also need to build more transports on J2.

If the Allies go KGF (Kill Germany First), you will want an industrial complex at India as soon as you can.  If the Allies go KJF (Kill Japan first), instead of producing industrial complexes, you should think about fighter production along with your infantry.  (Even if you only produce 6 infantry at Japan on a turn, you will still need 5-6 transports; you have a LOT of infantry on those Pacific islands).

Don’t build infantry on J1, build a tank.  An additional early tank helps a lot because of the early mobility in Asia.  You don’t NEED any more infantry.

–

I like to build transports first because they can get free units off the islands and also help capture Hawaii, Aus / NZ, India and Madagascar.

good way to delay japan is to play tradeoff with them in Ind (Uk), Yak (Rus), Sin (Us) with whatever inf is available. In the end he will beat you at tradeoffs, but its better than going to an arms race between Russia (getting somewhat pressure by Ger) and Japan. That will definately delay him/her.

Hello,

Flames-of-Europe.de (FoE) is holding its annual Revised tournament.

Please join under http://www.flames-of-europe.de/modules.php?name=Dicey&file=dtournament&tid=16>Dicey/Tournaments. (i.e. only a “blank” link by now, a more detailled tournament description can be found on the FoE homepage).

If you´re not a member yet, no probem! Membership is free and you can join any time!

Bye,

Andreas

Start: April, 1, 2006
End of Sign-Up: March, 30, 2006
Dice-Server: ADS is standard, if both players agree any other can be used (LL, AdvLL)