Most Surprising First Round purchases you have seen?

I thought the best strategy to counter KJF was to KRF with Germany, since the Allies are ignoring you.

@Pherman1215:

There are no early victories in A&A revised.  Plan on winning the long game.  Buy lots of infantry and find a way to equalize the IPC production.  The best way to do this is take Africa, but Northern Russia and Caucasus are another way to do this.

I do disagree.

Rare it may be, but there’s at least one way for Germany to try to finish Russia as quickly as possible on Revised - with a 8/9 bid place 1 inf/art on Belorussia and 1 armor in E. Europe and pray that the Russians have at least average losses while attacking West Russia and any other territories. On G1 buy 8 armor and hit the Russian stack on West Russia with everything that can hit it and send everything towards Russia (including the inf and armor on Libya to Ukraine). Afterwards pray for decent dice and that the UK/US doesn’t land too soon in Europe.

Island hopping is great, but its not critical.  Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great.  This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers.  They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults.  I will have no less than 2.  I then will support my fleet with destroyers.  I try to build 2 for every carrier.  If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment.  This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically.  Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower.  Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines.  If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics.  Your maximizing your money and strength.  Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry.  You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault.  the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition.  But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up.  Battle should be over without losing anything.  Your fighters land for fleet defense.  Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea.  Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.

The attacker retreats before the defender submerges, in both OOB and LHTR.

This is clearly spelled out in the LHTR rules.  However, since the sequence is never specifically stated in the OOB rules, the general principle that the attacker acts first must be applied.

@ncscswitch:

Paint, I think you misunderstood Romulus.

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

oic

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@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. ;)

@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.