Opening w/japan…

You know, I have yet to win a game where I put bid units in Ukraine.

I guess if someone lets me bid 2 infantry, artillery to Ukraine I might survive, but I rarely win a 10 IPC+ bid in this game.

@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.

@rjclayton:

@ncscswitch:

So it a 1/0 or 0/1 is $2, what do you charge for a 1/1?

Driver2: Hey, hey Willy how’s it goin?
Toll Booth Willy: Hey can’t complain pup. How’s by you?
Driver2: Oh great great. How much?
Toll Booth Willy: The state charge is a dawla twenty five pup.
Driver2: That’s fine. Now should I give you the money or should I just shove the quarters directly up your fat a** Hee Heeeee (throws quarters, drives off)
Toll Booth Willy: WHY YOU FCKIN HAAAD ON! I’LL FCKING COTTONFISH YOU’RE FCKING HEAD WITH A LOUISVILLE FCKIN SLUGGAH! WHADDYA THINKA THAT SS FCK?!

I think that’s a pretty sweet post right there, is what I think.

Like the comment about $2 instead of $1 too.

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.

@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.

I and 4 of my friends are pretty hardcore players who are looking for new opponents. Are there any torunaments in the Virginia/Maryland/DC area over the summer?

Actually, this was teh thread that started teh whole thing that led to LHTR 1.3.  It was about using friendly ships that were already in an enemy occupied sea zone as fodder for your attack on those enemy ships.

Under the new LHTR that came out of this, the Allies can NOT use those US ships that are already in SZ59 as fodder for a UK attack on the Japan ships in SZ59.

This became the “Multinational Forces on Attack” thread.

And the danger is even grater if germany launches a rapid all out attack on Russia, while Japan musters up for the kill.