Solution to the LL vs ADS Debate

It’s a good strategy.  The main benefit is it prevents the Allies from landing Algeria on Turn 1-2.  Another thing to like about it is you’re credibly harassing the Allies without losing any IPCs on naval units.

I’d probably attack the fleet with the RAF and probably also with the BS and trannies (which I’ll retreat to 8).  If Germany submerges, I take a shot with the American bomber.  So odds are there’s only 1-3 subs left over to go to the Med.  Meanwhile the combined fleet is in 8 (UK buys an AC and a fighter), and I put my Russian sub in 12.

At that point, if Germany moves to the Med I can go to Norway with the combined fleet, while the United States builds up air power to knock out the Med fleet.  If the Med fleet moves to Egypt or the Black sea I can land Algeria, which signals the beginning of the end for the Med fleet unless Germany invests in an AC.

Possibly the better move for Germany if 2-3 subs survive in SZ7 is to attack the combined fleet in sz 8 with 5 figs, 2 bombs, and 2-3 subs.  However, this is a good battle for the Allies unless Germany has 3 subs.  Nonetheless if Germany has 2 subs it might still be Germany’s best option to attack and hope for good dice.

I think this opening has enormous chances of success against non-experts.  Against experts I’d prefer to go to Egypt strong and get 5 infantry instead of a bomber.

@HolKann:

Hmm, oh well, allright. It’s not LL, but it’s no big deal either.

Yea, but you said you don’t normally use tech and I said I don’t normally use tech, so odds are, neither of us will need it and if we do, it’s for the coups de’gras and ending the game.

If you wanna play at DAAK instead, set up a game.  It’s been like 7 years since I played (okay, that’s an exaggeration, but it’s been a long time; I’ve enlisted, gone through training, gone to Iraq, been blown up, gone through a medical discharge, and completed half a second degree and half a master’s degree since) at DAAK so just give me a run down on how it works.

Otherwise, set up a thread in the “Play Games” section here.

BTW, my User ID at DAAK is Jennifer. (Same as Flames of Europe and AAMC, btw.)

@axis_roll:

@newpaintbrush:

Axis_Roll, I think the question isn’t Japan Vs. The World, but a game in which Japan has captured Moscow and the Allies have captured Berlin.

Then the thread is mis-titled.

Perhaps it should read Japan versus the remaining allies…
or
What we call a “J.A.B.”

Japan vs. America & Britain

Well, after Germany and Russia fall, it IS Japan vs. the rest of the world.

I never heard of that jibber JABber, fool!

Tanks are strong!

@nuno:

@ncscswitch:

In LL, you end up with Agent Smith’s who have years of work with sims to lock down specific strats that always work.

Once again ncscswitch couldn’t pass an opportunity to bait me…

Not-so-welcome back Agent Smith.  Glad you finally publicly admitted who you are, now we do not have to pussy foot around with you any longer.

I see you have not changed in the slightest… still all talk and bluster, with absolutely NO substance.  One of those unfortunate souls who refuses to put up or shut up.

@nuno:

Now go entertain yourself censoring/banning me, like you love so much to do.

Actually, you are the only one who is working at getting you banned.  You already expounded on how you were banned from another gaming site.  And you were previously banned in several of your other incarnations from this site.  Eventually you may grow up enough to figure out that it is not the entire A&A gaming world that is out to get you, but that you are just an asshole and that no one wants to have to put up with your shit.

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

@Craig:

c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a power’s land

This would create some interesting bids… in games where the bid was high enough
(but with the auction bid system, I doubt there are many bids of + or - 8 or more to allow naval units)

Bah, I’ve seen 1 inf destroy 9 inf and a tank.  (Guy kept saying “he’ll eventually die!”)

Responses to other posters’ posts -

Octopus, it’s in my siggy.  Ha.  :-D

Ezto, all the best players from flames-of-europe can play low luck.  When they’re ready to play with the big kids, they can come on down and play a REAL man.  Woman.  Small fuzzy creature from Alpha Centauri.  :-P.  I can understand the appeal of lowering the luck factor, but to me, luck is a vital part of the game.  You have to have, um, cojones, for lack of a better word.  Even when the odds are in your favor, there’s always an element of risk.

Response to original post -

I prefer Revised to Classic, but I can see that classic has its points.  First, old dogs don’t like change.  Second, some people just prefer classic’s play style.  (Three dice for heavy bombers, that was the stuff . . .)