Most Surprising First Round purchases you have seen?

Well, I would recommend taking some time to browse through some of the posts in this section of the forum, because it is no longer very active but most of the advice is still prudent.  There are also a few articles about A&A revised strategy for each nation.

In general, though, I would recommend that you immediately try to pressure Germany with all three allied players, while not forgetting about important pieces that are already on the board (such as British Fighters and Navy scattered in the Indian Ocean / Pacific area, or the American transports in the Atlantic).  Try to minimize the amount of money that you spend on expensive naval units, focusing on ground units and transports as much as possible.

Also, depending on exactly what rule set you are using (box rules, Larry Harris Tournament Rules, house rules, etc.), you should strongly consider some strategic bombing raids on Germany with your existing bombers.

As Russia, I usually struggle to contain Germany on the Eastern Front, so be careful and try not to expose too much armor to German counter-attacks.  If you can keep Germany from pressuring Caucasus that is good.

As Britain, I tend to purchase some big boats on the first turn, play a little bit defensively until I am certain that a German invasion is impossible (I often try to sink their Baltic Transport ASAP to accomplish this), and then I work on pressuring Germany.  Make sure that you purchase the right amount of transports and keep your navy alive, otherwise you can end up out of time and feel like you are wasting your turns.  A turn that you are not landing troops in Africa / Europe / Russia or trying to invade Western Europe, is in my opinion, a bad turn for the UK.

As the US, I used to hold the orthodox position that the only correct move was to transport units into Africa or Europe every turn, although I have lost to US players who are aggressive in the Pacific.  Try to look for opportunities, and don’t be afraid to be a little bit “cost- ineffective” in your battles if it means forcing Germany to engage several players at once.  I maintain that Africa is best left to the US, and if the US idles with its Atlantic transports it can mean losing the game for the Allies or at least a hard game for the UK.  Even if you are doing a “Pressure Japan First” strategy, I highly recommend landing your Washington Forces in Algeria right away, and trying to add targets in the atlantic for the strong (but finite) german air force.  Reinforcing UK’s moves is generally a good idea, too, if you can.  Remember that the UK and US get to move (in that order) between Germany’s turns, so look to strengthen the UK position every turn with this pattern.

@gnasape:

Instead of doing too much, it might be advisable to hit W Rus hard with 10 inf, 2 art, 3 arm, 2 ftr, and create deadzones all around and trade territories with Germany until the reinforcements arrive.

This is usually what I do, and with a 3 inf, 3 arm buy you immediately have 7 armor which should be close to matching Germany and should prevent a German move to either Kar or Ukr for several rds.  You can follow up in rd 2 with 4 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm and your overall offensive units start to look pretty impressive:  3 rt, 9 arm, 2 ftrs.

@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.

@ncscswitch:

Paint, I think you misunderstood Romulus.

He was not posting subsequent combat, but subsequent NCM’s.

oic

Alas I have not played since about 1999.

@Axel:

but the day after: we played axis&allies for 2 hours!
and remember this: after 1 hour, i asked her: “do you want to do something else?”
but she said: “no no, i want to see where this is going”
:-P
BINGO!!!

Ha ha, good work mate!

One suggestion I would have for the original poster is have a decent grasp on the rules.  If you can explain the basics to your friends before the game starts, then explain the more intricate details as you come to them during the game, the game will be more fluent.  There’s nothing like checking the rule book every two minute to detract from the fun.

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).