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.

@Nix:

But im all for the hit Japan first thing (not neccesarily killing him), but he can´t be let free to roam Asia/Africa/Australia-new zeeland…   it´s devestating for the allies, and more importantly the Russians.

If russia stacks Buryatia, puts 2 arm in yakut, UK kills the kwang trn (witch i failed to do twice in a row…), UK attacks FIC with 3 inf, 1 fig, lands fig in Sinkiang), Assembles UK Pacific fleet in SZ30.

USA can then choose how to do things, same for Russia and UK on turn 2.

Germany and Japan have allready shown their hand, and with 1 Trn Buryatia attack is risky, even if Pearl is ignored, if Fic was wiped, China will be harder, Sinkiang IC would look tempting.

If japan ignores pearl US have got a free carrier/sub/fig that can be nasty in the long run…

But my bottom line is Japan can´t be set loose unrestrained.

If anyone wants to monitor this in action see the league game between Nix and myself. ;)

Alas I have not played since about 1999.

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

I’m in this game agasinst this guy.

I’m allies hes axis. Germany was holdin out against Sovs and U.K. America and Japan stalemate.
He builds a v. gd fleet in Japan-transporters x 4 Battleships x 2 Destoyer x 3 Aicraft Carrier x 1.
america have gd fleet 1 Transporter, 3 Destoyers, 2 Sumbarines.
Japan attack and destroy all american ships with ease and dump cargo. after a few battles involving around 5-10 tanks and fighters-each, Japan break in and slowly take over all American mainland.
Meanwhile, Germany have been forced out of Europe and after earlier invading Africa it is now being taken over so what is left of Germany has been forced onto boats in a fleet of 5 ships. russia doing all work. Japan onlky has their bits left apart from small islands near Australia.
At the point of the game Japan have put to much energy in attacking US. They are being pushed back into Japan but are raking in money from rewards so hard to stop. Could probably raid the capital of America but 6 tanks are waiting in Central America.
In conclusion, it is indeed rare to get into America as the guy i am playing is a veteran and has never seen it done. If you do, expect awards, but you will be unstable from then on. :|

I’m looking forward to getting this IPC shot in my veins…

:-P

Correction to my previous post:  I should’ve said the entire high value (IPC-wise) German empire.  That should make more sense now…  :lol:

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).