Most Surprising First Round purchases you have seen?

@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.

@ezto:

@ncscswitch:

Aggressive Russia means you still take Africa, still clear the Med, AND take out the Russian advance forces.  Then re-group in G2 for further advances against a Russia depleted of offensive units.

This comes from the guy who uses a game board :lol:

And who has a nearly 70% win rate, including a perfect win record against Ezto in Revised  :wink:

@Jennifer:

Leaving the second BB alone is bad for two reasons:

You gave England a capital warship that can bombard you at will.  That means two bombardments for the price of 1 infantry.  (6 IPC for 3?  That’s a good trade!) England is not out 16 IPC for a carrier to defender herself.

Don’t forget that the Allies don’t have to worry about keeping 1-2 Figs on the carrier giving them even more versatility

In response to the KJF Bluff…

NEVER change strats during a game.  If you are going KJF, STAY KJF.  Otherwise, just go KGF, and STICK WITH IT.

Trying to bluff in the Pacific as the US leaves the Axis with economic dominance, and with USA and UK in NO position to assist a dying Russia.

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

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

I have to disagree with abandoning India so Quickly.  In order for japan to be sucessful it needs focus on attacking and holding the mainland. (which includes taking control of  China, the Russian controlled  part of Asia, and India,  as fast as it can.) If Japan buys 1 or 2  IC’s  on its first turn, The main land is going to be extremely bare when its Uk’s 2nd turn. So my advice is not build an IC on India but take the transport from india, and pick up the guy from South Africa, and move the persian guy into India. ( If the Japan decides to attack your Fleet so  be it,  You will leave the Jap fleet very weak and it will be easier for the U.S fleet to handle. )

Don’t worry about Africa, the U.S. should always be ones who control Africa. The U.S can land 5 peices on Africa the first turn.( 2 men 1 artillary, 1 tank, and a plane.) Eventually you will have to pull out of  India and thats when  the small uk force can A. move into the Caucus’s or B. Help the U.S control Africa.

I’d advise that you give Karelia up in R1. If you build 3 Inf, 3 Arm and are a bit lucky with your rolls (attacking at least WRU, maybe UKR), it’s even possible to drive German forces out of Karelia in R2 (although not likely).