German strategy for building AC

@Slip:

WBC Rules

These are the rules my group plays with too.  It gives a much better playing experience than playing normally IMO.

It prevents the typical “stack heavy” style that dominates OOB Revised at the highest levels, although obviously you still need to stack heavily to win.

@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.

I have bid units to Japan before. An armor in Kwangtung is particularly effective and with a 9 bid like at tripleA, I’d even be inclined to place 1 inf in each of the 3 Asian territories.

I would like to thank everbody for their input on this topic. I think I am gonna give a try in my next game.

That is what tanks are for.

and if SZ6 is not working, move to 7.

The point is, if you cede control of the Atlantic by just sitting in the baltic, then you probably ARE wating your money on a Baltic AC.

Build your fleet, then eitehr use it to take out a few units, prevent early landings in Norway and Africa.

But if you are just using it to be just a guardian of Germany and Eastern coasts (which is an acceptible use of that fleet), then don;t complain about the Allies building their fleets up outside your range.  If you go purely defensive with the Baltic Fleet, that is what the allies are going to do.  And when they are done, your fleet is sunk.  That is jsut th way it works.

So…
Either use teh fleet to protect Germany and Eastern while you drive hard on Russia with all you’ve got and deal with the Allied landing swhen they start, or use that fleet and challenge the Atlantic with naval and air.

But don’t complain because the Allies see which way you are going and adjust their strat accordingly.

Ive done some calulations for DAAKs low luck rules for this tech to Germany…
My basic idea was to research the tech fairly quick, but more dice gets expensive with the DAAK Rules so Ive puzzled a bit with buying two dice per turn which will be an avarage cost while you get the tech fairly quick. This will cost 33 IPC over the course of the first three turns and then the tech will come in with a 100% chance in GER#3 and you can start using them by GER#4
Now you can take 3-4 IPC away from both moscow and London and 2-4 away from caucasus (the damage is based on DAAKs rules regarding SBR damage compared to IPC value of countries)
This is an average damage of 10 IPC per turn (3,5 + 3,5 + 3)… Profit for germany on turn 8, but at the cost of 11 infantry who could be used to on the eastern front to trade territorries with the russians. Im affraid that putting this kind of money in this tech would also mean that it will take much longer to conquer Caucasuses.

I don’t think its worht it.
-Daniel

88 knows that I agree with him;

“#1 The most fun you’ll have is by trial and error. There is no perfect strategy.”

The one tidbit that I will add in any thread or discussion in any of the posts,

“What are the victory conditions you have set for the game?”

If you are after a minor victory (8 cities) then Germany can focus on a land war, navy be damned.
However, a major victory (10 cities) or total victory (12 cities) is going to require an Axis navy to reach the 10th/12th city.

IMO, I have a German Navy at the start of the game that is easier to add to and maintain in order to play a role in the 10/12 city VC (Victory Condition).

It was… and he lost :-D