Opening w/japan…

what Hobbes is saying is 100% true.  But, where tanks become a real problem for the allies is on Persia.  Stack 8+ there and use German force to open Kazhak.  Even if the Allies know to look for it, the mere threat of it is often enough for them to give up the Caucausus complex.

poke through the games from the last 2 vs 2 tournament. That is where switch got all riled up at.

@Bunnies:

(And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)

Because it’s so unrelevant? Or maybe your horse is to slow? ;)

So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded.  Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy.  Of course it’s not.

Not? ;)
Don’t get me wrong, I know that my game will only some dilettantish moving of plastic figures as long I have no planning above the next three moves. Know yourself, know your enemy … all that stuff from all that books.
But I also must take a look on the little decisions I have to make, like that example above. If I make such little things wrong, no strategy can help me. And I think, an strategy must pay attention to the overall board situation (as you said; not a dead horse in my eyes), my own weakenings in gameplay and the player that sits on the other side of the table. To judge that situation right and create the adequate strategy is a thing that I have to do by myself, and all the postings on this board can only help a little. But for that little tactical decisions and tiny precious moves which the game have in store these boards are an eye opener for me. And that’s why I’m looking for such little, delimited solutions for a special problem and hope, I’ ll remember that solution in my next game.

Conclusion:  Germany has superior trading ability.  Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel).  However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.

I’ll try to remember that.

Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.

Known, but noted again. :)

And: thank you for your post.

But you have a good three rounds before you need to really keep up with America, maybe 4 if you play your cards right.

And the raiding would help out.  5 Submarines = 10 IPC a round if you can ever knock out the American fleet, which, honestly, is doable, but difficult.

7 IPC is plenty for a revised bid, IMHO.  Just need some punch to close Egypt on Germany 1.

Though, lately I’ve been getting sneaky and bidding 30 IPC to be Axis so I can work on KJF in “normal” games where my opponent is unaware I am going to hit him with it.  A lot of fun!  Had a few games given to me when my opponent sees a massive fleet emerge off the coast of S. America into the Pacific and his fleet is far away. :P

@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.

Nor does it count as a move to “take off” from a carrier to the occupied sea zone.  If the ftr is on a carrier, it can move 3 spaces maximum from the carrier, if it intends to land on the same carrier.  The carrier must then move 2 spaces toward the ftr in the non-combat move, while the ftr returns 1 space to land.  (It’s a lot easier to understand looking at the board.)

Posted by: ShadowHAwk

I still think that 8VC with the current board and setup is doable for the allies if the rules are slightly bend.

8 VC but you have to keep all 8 for 1 full turn ( lose 1 during the turn even if you take it back resets the score )

i said this at the beginning of the thread, maybe you will get more love  :cry:

we play this way , especially if the allies have an experience advantage.  we also don’t use a bid in this format