KJF Round 1

India IC can work if:

Soviets didn’t attack Ukranie and stack in wru to threaten Karelia UK builds saf IC to defend Africa without need of a fleet UK must kill z59 trannie USA builds Sinkiang IC and Pacific fleet Soviets send siberian forces to Sinkiang Soviets support suffling tanks back and forth from Caucasus

In this strat, I would not sacrifice valuable UK fleets against Japan 1st round. Indian and Australian navies can join with USA’s Pacific fleet mid game

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

I was victorious. The UK’s navy was destroyed very early in the game, and my Japanese counterpart did very well. Moscow was taken!!!

@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.

sure, I’d play ya IRL.  But I’m in NYC and you’re around Chicago, I think, yes?

OH wellz, what can ya do?

Except that you are forgetting that Japan will have around $40 IPC aimed at Russia also while the UK and US safely bomb Germany and rely on Russia to fight the ground war.  Which would work… except for those 14 divisions per turn coming at Moscow from the east…

This poll and post is even more difficult to answer than the combat poll.  This one not only depends on prior combat, but also on the outcome of those combats.  Your planned NCM can be obsolete and/or foolhardy by the time it’s time to make it.

Like Switch says, the best laid plans last only until contact with the enemy. (paraphrased) :-D

The rule for holding VC’s is that at teh end of the US’s move (the complete turn of play) X number of VC’s are controlled by one side or the other.

8 VC’s is basically an Axis win (except in very special cases like a 2 turn limit test game where Russia goes suicidal in defense of the Allied VC’s)

Instead of 8, play for 9 for victory.

When one side or the other controls 9 VC’s at the end of a turn, then there is basically no doubt as to what side won.