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

@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.

Great stuff.  Sure makes the game a heck of a lot more interesting!  I am in the midst of trying this, and interestingly, Russia broke it’s back on my stack trying to be the first one to strike.  Should have been a fairly even fight, but they got diced a bit and their front lines are smashed but left me with 8 tanks and a few guys in EE.

Still though, Allies have 6 transports in immediate play in europe and you have to keep a heck of a lot back to protect WE, Germany, an EE.

They’re all like that.  This is just a typo that was corrected in the FAQ.

BTW, I missed it before in your last uber post, Bunnies, thanks for the props on the excitement on KJF, and recognizing I have some experience to draw on when I talk.

If Germany forsakes taking Africa because of the complex in S. Africa,then the complex has paid for itself.  If Germany bleeds out trying to keep a foothold on Africa then the complex pays for itself in reduced German presence.

However, the interesting thing really isn’t Germany, it’s what that complex can do to Japan. wink

@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.

@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.

Without reinforcement, WEU falls to the Allies on Turn 2, and barring a re-direction of those massed ARM that HAD been going to Moscow being turned around and heading for Paris instead, the Allis will KEEP WEU for the remainder of the game.

Scenario: As  germany I may throw in 2 subs and the tran (Not the Des- it´s needed for SZ 7)

I would definitely use the Destroyer! Why not? Wiping out that UK navy is a huge victory for the Germans! That’s a faulty assumption you’re running under if you’re not using the destroyer to calculate your battles.