Most Surprising First Round purchases you have seen?

I do understand what it does look like and I have just one suggestion play it out.  :-D  I also bought 6 tanks and 1 Fighter and that won me a lot of games.  I have also bought 1 Carrier and 3 Transports G1 and placed in SZ 5 and that won a lot as well.

To add to the fighters prowess each time you use them it is like using 4 tanks that if used right will seldom die.  Count that up over 2-5 turns.  I am not a fan of playing by IPC worth I thought I would just throw that out there.  I am a fan of position.  I think IPC’s are only a tool to fight with and not the fight  :wink:

Thanks for the input and I will play some more land games to see where that idea is coming from.  :-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.

Yeah, I would add the capture of India, reinforcing German-held Caucasus, and recapture of Africa from the Allies, also capturing Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, other things like that. Those are pretty standard goals for KGF.

There’s three things I usually do with the American fleet at Pearl.

1.  Attack with sub, destroyer, fighters, bomber.  Sub and destroyer are fodder.  Fighters land on Jap carriers at the Solomons.  Bomber goes back to Japan.

2.  Ignore it, if I can destroy the entire UK navy in the Indian Ocean and ALSO kill off 6 Russian infantry at Burytia.

3.  Send everything.  I really don’t like this, because using the transport off Japan slows Japanese progress in Asia.

UK assets at India can be used for a few different purposes.  One is to recapture Anglo-Egypt.  Another is to reinforce the Pearl Harbor fleet while weakening the Jap fleet (UK sub and fighter vs Jap Solomon sub; UK fighter lands on US carrier).  Yet another is to poke at the Jap fleet and threaten more (UK fleet attacks Jap Kwangtung transport, UK fighter lands on Burytia with the 6 Russian infantry, UK bomber flies west, threatening UK attack on Jap navy next turn.

@rjclayton:

As always, it depends what the board looks like after Moscow falls.  Typical board would probably have Japan holding all of UK’s territories except Canada and Great Britain.  With an income that low how long could UK really hope to last against a combined GER/JAP with income over 100 IPC?

It depends on how persuasive British ladies are.

Rawr.

Anyways - I already posted regarding what I think Axis should do after Russia falls.

@U-505:

I would have to say that you should be careful about advancing heavy Russian forces too far into Europe. Drawing Russian ground units away from Russia is a trap I frequently like to set with Germany. It gets really had to resist trading a bunch of advanced territories with Germany because the prospect of Russia making 30+ IPC’s a turn puts dollar signs in the Russian player’s eyes. With the Axis outnumbering Russia by 5 to 1 with air units, trading a lot of territories and ground units with Russia almost always favors the Axis, even if the unit trade is 1 for 1. No matter how much Russia makes, Japan always outproduces them by up to twice as many units and that point will get hammered home when a large number of Russian forces are aimed at Germany and their reinforcements going west dry up instantly because they are desperately trying to hold back the flood of Japanese units coming at them. Japan has a tendence to look benign one turn and the next turn be all over the map, in force, and Russia can quickly get into trouble by being too aggressive toward Germany. Especially if the eastern defensive structure is poorly maintained.

I completely agree.  I’ve used this “rope-a-dope” tactic a few times.  retreat with germany, attack with japan, and then usually around round 3-4 i counter attack with germany and squeeze russia out and hope that germany conquers russia so i can get the IPC’s.  I say thi cause usually the Allies have taken western Europe with this strategy at some point and I have to retake it.

And the other side of the coin is…

Threaten strafe and TAKE instead.  It just worked in my current game.  Jen was afraid of a German Strafe from Caucuses (I am guessing) making her Moscow force too weak to hold against the Japan.  So she evac’d instead killing the German force and surrendering Moscow.

Strafe Threats CAN be very fun :-D

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.

I hate it, theres too many rules hurting the attacker, the attacker has the initiative, and theoretically wins.