German strategy for building AC

Ok if i was you i would get at least 5 transports and you can have at the least 2 men or 1 tank or 1 man and 1 tank or 1 man and 1 artillary in a single transport. Anyway you need Russia to pressure Germany in the following places: Belorussia, West Russia, Norway. Also make the UK pressure with only bombing raids the following place: Western Europe. Then while Germany is being attacked in the east and west, you will use your transports and send them to Algeria and Libya. After you take those 2 places and build up those 2 places, BE SURE TO DO THIS, as fast as you can push every single thing (from Algeria and Libya)  to Southern Europe. Then tell UK player to stop bombing raids and buy rockets and steal money from German factorys. Then in at the max of 3 turns there will be no more Germans. Ihave done this strategy 7 or 8 times and every time it was succsesful except once. So try that strategy um… hope if works for you. Thanks and also you can go to morrisongames.com and he will give you strategys that really WORK!! :-D

@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.

Oh dear - a little off-topic…

To my mind, a major key to the game (and thus a good player) is unit count and IPC value. The player with the most land units at the end of the game wins. Units give you options, and the ability to limit your opponents’ options, the ability to control territory, and thus build more units.

Units at the front are more important than other units. Don’t lose these unless you are making the other side lose more of them.

So to my mind the keys are:

Not letting your front-line units get killed without taking more down in return Get more units to the front more quickly Build more units - this means infantry Enable your units to exert their influence in the maximum number of places. This means Transports, tanks, and don’t lose your air units, maybe even build a few, but that will interfere with #3

#1 is tactics
#2 is logistics
#3 is economics
#4 is force multiplication, and allows you to do more of #1 and #2 with your existing units. You can evacuate, attack, create kill zones, shift fronts, etc.

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

In my two recent games however Russia has kept nothing in the East anyway. I guess you would still have to build more TRN anyway. Maybe the EI IC is a better build later on.

Russia is not in smolders after 3 turns, thats for sure.

Japan takes forever to get to Moscow and Germany cannot afford to Hit Russia to hard to early or risk loosing there initial offensive units.

Swtich our match will happen one day. I might bring out the real board for that match, unless you decide to install the battlemap in the time being

Actually, no one had superfortresses.  The only real NA ever used was Russian Winter and Fortress Europe…the rest were forgotten since no one ever played with them.

Meanwhile, if you can scare Japan into SZ 61 or destroy him, you have effectively contained the Jap fleet.  IF you can tkae SZ 60 even if Japan isn’t there, and hold it, you have contained Japan.  (At least you’ve removed their largest production facility.)

Japan is very flimsy.  Ask anyone who’s worked on a KJF strat.  One or two bad moves with Japan and Japan is neutrallized.  One or 20 bad moves with America and at worst Russia has fallen.