German buys turn one

Island hopping is great, but its not critical.  Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great.  This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers.  They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults.  I will have no less than 2.  I then will support my fleet with destroyers.  I try to build 2 for every carrier.  If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment.  This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically.  Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower.  Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines.  If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics.  Your maximizing your money and strength.  Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry.  You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault.  the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition.  But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up.  Battle should be over without losing anything.  Your fighters land for fleet defense.  Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea.  Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.

Another way to look at it is that the bomber CAN defend land, Carriers cannot.  Bombers do not tie up fighters defending at sea.  Bombers are cheaper then carriers.

Not saying I am discrediting or advocating the plan.  Just wanted to put some thoughts out there.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

I usually build on J1 and J2. Quicker you get tanks on the mainland the better!

I’ll leave that for others who may have some possibilities.

For me, I have a near triplicate set of AAR figures (only double INF), as well as my original Classic A&A set that I can raid at need.

The cheapest option may actually be to just buy a second game, especially if you can find a used one…

Granted.  But at least it isn’t BMB, FIG, 2 SS vs SS, Trn, BB. :)

PBEM=Play By E-Mail

And, yes, it is legal for partners to talk to one another.  There is no limit to the number of times, so you probably need to set a number of times or a time limit, if it bothers you.

G1 Sea Lion is one of the major reasons why Larry Harris Tournament Rules are used rather than the box rules.