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

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

@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.

Jap player could sometimes not do pearl, in tempting US to come to pacific.
All Jap units could be used on mainland J1.
If UK goes all in, those units should be killed, though.
Problem with not doing pearl, is that US may send the pac fleet against Japan, and still build everyhing in EUS.
Pressure on Germany would be the same, the US pac fleet uses 3-4 rnds before it’s in European waters.
If US catches the bait, pressure on Germany will be much weaker.

Yeah, I would add the capture of India, reinforcing German-held Caucasus, and recapture of Africa from the Allies, also capturing Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, other things like that. Those are pretty standard goals for KGF.

There’s three things I usually do with the American fleet at Pearl.

1.  Attack with sub, destroyer, fighters, bomber.  Sub and destroyer are fodder.  Fighters land on Jap carriers at the Solomons.  Bomber goes back to Japan.

2.  Ignore it, if I can destroy the entire UK navy in the Indian Ocean and ALSO kill off 6 Russian infantry at Burytia.

3.  Send everything.  I really don’t like this, because using the transport off Japan slows Japanese progress in Asia.

UK assets at India can be used for a few different purposes.  One is to recapture Anglo-Egypt.  Another is to reinforce the Pearl Harbor fleet while weakening the Jap fleet (UK sub and fighter vs Jap Solomon sub; UK fighter lands on US carrier).  Yet another is to poke at the Jap fleet and threaten more (UK fleet attacks Jap Kwangtung transport, UK fighter lands on Burytia with the 6 Russian infantry, UK bomber flies west, threatening UK attack on Jap navy next turn.

@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.

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

There are a few threads already posted on bidding and how to do it…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1146.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5580.0

Those should get you started.

You can also read the essays on the subject at DAAK
http://www.daak.de/indexe.php?sprache=e
(click DAAK-club rules along the left side, bidding is the second topic that will come up in the main window)

That should get you up and running.

If you still have questions after reviewing those, please feel free to ask :-)

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.