How do you respond as UK to this german first turn?

That’s why under Caspian Sub and tripleA ladder rules you can’t attack an enemy capital with ground troops in your first turn.

Like you mentioned, it turns a wonderful game into a coin flip and spoils the fun.

@gnasape:

Instead of doing too much, it might be advisable to hit W Rus hard with 10 inf, 2 art, 3 arm, 2 ftr, and create deadzones all around and trade territories with Germany until the reinforcements arrive.

This is usually what I do, and with a 3 inf, 3 arm buy you immediately have 7 armor which should be close to matching Germany and should prevent a German move to either Kar or Ukr for several rds.  You can follow up in rd 2 with 4 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm and your overall offensive units start to look pretty impressive:  3 rt, 9 arm, 2 ftrs.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

@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:

I see no reason to use the bomber for SBR’s except when you are losing badly and you need to gamble. It is much more useful as a long range 4 based out of Southern Europe so it can threaten just about anything worth killing.

YES! the BOM is extremely versatile. I use it mainly in North Africa to support operations there and to give naval operations a boost. It never hurts to use it as ground support for a while and then when Germany starts to get a little fatter or thinner in the IPC realm then think about using it as an SBR. I’ve also found that using it in conjunction with submarines, depending on the game, is a great deterent to the US player wanting to use TRNs to invade N. Africa.

@Dr.:

@ncscswitch:

The thing is, you can pretty much take out the US with a lesser landing than that…
Japan lands in Alaska and WCan from SZ63
Japan lands in Mexico from Hawaii
Germany lands in Panama, Cuba, and ECan.
USA (the 48 states) has not been TOUCHED , but they are effectiely out of it, at least for many, many turns (unless the UK can get the German ships, or Russia can kick Japan out of Asia in the same turn)

How are you going to pull of a landing like that? Germany shouldn’t have a chance of landing t three different territories

It’s assumed that Japan has 5 inf 5 tank in W. Canada, while Germany lands 4 inf 4 tank or so with a Baltic transport buy on G1 followed by move to W. Europe followed by transport to E. Canada.  Following turn allows landing in Panama and Cuba as US is on defense.

HOW COULD U MISS DAT?  LOLZ!

(I’m kidding . . . anyone could miss that.  Hell, I still don’t get it, really.)

@Thorak:

Assume I have loaded 2 UK inf on a US transport and then in the US turn I moved the transport to the seazone next to Ukraine. Can the inf on the transport participate on an attack on Ukraine in the following UK turn together with other UK units? Does it make any difference if Ukraine is empty and the units can take it alone?

The infantry can participate in an attack on Ukraine.

You do not have to unload both infantry during combat, although you may if you wish.

It makes no difference as to whether or not you unload infantry if Ukraine is empty or not.

@Axel:

but the day after: we played axis&allies for 2 hours!
and remember this: after 1 hour, i asked her: “do you want to do something else?”
but she said: “no no, i want to see where this is going”
:-P
BINGO!!!

Ha ha, good work mate!

One suggestion I would have for the original poster is have a decent grasp on the rules.  If you can explain the basics to your friends before the game starts, then explain the more intricate details as you come to them during the game, the game will be more fluent.  There’s nothing like checking the rule book every two minute to detract from the fun.