Posts made by trihero

Speak for yourself Ike, you have like what how many days logged in? Over 100 over just the last 2 years??!

You’re not going to send me back to Battle School, are you?  :-o

(btw if you didn’t know this is wes/wsc150)

Excluding stacks of say 3-4 inf where trading may become more favorable, I honestly can’t think (off the top of my head) of a situation or stack where in LL you have favorable odds to strafe, but in ADS somehow your odds are bad such that it makes the strafe not doable.

That’s exactly it. There’s no need to get overly fearful of taking the territory - just treat it appropriately. Bring enough forces such that the chance of taking the territory in 1-2 rounds is 5% or so, and the other 95% on average should favor you if it’s really a bait force and not a huge pile of infantry. Just because one is scared of taking the territory doesn’t mean you should always avoid it because there’s the slight chance of taking it.

@Mazer:

@ncscswitch:

Welcome back

I’m back with the nerds, where I belong.

:-D

Isn’t it kind of contradictory to label your own group? Shouldn’t you say something more like, I’m back with the cool people where I belong? =)

Good stuff. Let’s see here responding to each point…

1. Objective: Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective.

In other words, do not get bogged down in inconsequential theaters of operations.  If England builds an Industrial Complex in Madagascar, do not get into a war to capture it if your over reaching goal is to conquer Russia.  I have seen too many games where some out of the way territory becomes the focus of the war and the players seem to have forgotten that the goal is to take the other team’s capitol territories.

Yes. This goes with the saying that fight hardest where you will win the most. Do not fight where you will not win something.

2. Offensive: Seize, retain and exploit the initiative.

Easier said then done, I know.  But true none-the-less.  Basically, the concept is to put your opponent on the defensive and keep him there.  This allows you to dictate what pieces will be sacrificed, what territories will be traded, and what avenues will be open to attack.

Yes, the most obvious example is what you do with your German fleet. You can either let it sit in the Baltic or dictate the pace of the game by attempting a link or running it away immediately, forcing a counter which the UK might not like.

3. Mass: Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time.

Almost everyone knows this already.  You bring your forces together so they can attack at one time (even if coming from different territories) to disable your enemy’s armies as fast and decisively as possible.

Honestly, I am going to say that it’s better to let certain territories go without being attacked if it means you can bring more firepower to critical battles.  There’s mass of force both on the offensive and defensive and if you can win with more survivors by avoiding other battles, depending on the board position, it may well be within your best interests to leave them prosecuted.

Just for example, if you can attack Ukraine, Belorussia and Karelia but the results would most likely leave a counter attack with a 40% chance of success or you just attack Ukraine and leave any counter attack with only a 10% chance of success, it may be better to hit only Ukraine and leave the other two territories unconquered.

Yes.

4. Economy of Force: Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

How often have you played a game where Germany and/or England/America have dedicated literally hundreds of IPCs worth of Navy, Air Force and Armies to the conquest of Africa?  How often was it necessary?  Africa is a secondary effort.  It’s great income if you can get it relatively uncontested, it’s not so important if it drains you of the resources you need to win the war (Berlin or Moscow depending on which side you are on; generally speaking.)

Same with Operation Sea Lion (the German Amphibious Assault on England).  Great if you can pull it off, but keep your eyes on the objective {see number 1}.

Yes, you need to figure out precisely how much effort to counter the enemy’s in secondary operations. If you spend too little then they will win too much for their effort spent, but if you overspend, then you lose in the primary operations as well.

Generally your points make sense, but I think you need to address deadzoning/trading territories. Don Rae’s essays were really awesome because they not only addressed the metagame as you do, but he also addressed how to deadzone specifically, which you do not even mention generally. If you do not deadzone well, you will get nickle and dimed to death.

You also don’t mention something obvious which is don’t let the enemy make a good trade with you. It’s a mistake I see you make very frequently such as leaving 4 inf 1 arm in Sinkiang to get hammered by 3 inf + 6 figs + 1 bom, or leaving 3 inf in Yakut to get hammered by 2 inf + 4 fig + 1 bom. You may have to retreat from land earlier, but it’s better than losing both the land and the units; you need to retreat to a better place where you can fight.

And also how am I not speaking in generalities? My first statement in this whole direction was “even though you cannot strafe precisely, does not mean you shouldn’t.” That’s about as general as it gets.

I would never leave a stack of 8 inf and 8 tank as bait if there was 40 inf, 8 arm, 5 ftr and a bomber next to me!

See, that’s the whole point. In either ADS or LL you would not do that.

C’mon!  If you are going to use examples, use realistic, practical ones.  Now I just might leave stacks of 5 inf around that German monster EEU stack in kar, belo and ukraine.  In MY (more realistic strategic example), Germany would be hard pressed to straffe my 3 stacks of 5 inf in ADS.

How’s that a better example? I already told you, Germany has enough figs + 3 inf to crush one stack, then they can move hard into another stack. Then you’re 10 inf down at the cost of 3-4 inf. Losing all that kind of inf makes no sense, it means you can’t counter Germany’s stack or defend as well in any location.

And you also speak of reinforcing IF you take it.  Well hell, then we’re talking about something DIFFERENT than hit and runs now, aren’t we?

No, we’re talking about hit and runs, we’re just saying if you hit that ugly 4% that you didn’t want to, this is how you would mitigate the damage.

@TimTheEnchanter:

I’m trying to understand what people use to attack pearl on J1 and how do you decide when to take each approach.

The way I understand it Pearl Heavy would be sz60 BB; sz45 sub (if alive); sz50 DD, CV, & Fig; Japan bomber and another fig.

What exactly do people mean when they say “pearl light”?

And the real reason I’m asking is how do you decide which approach to take (or when to go somewhere in between)?  What circumstances would lead you one way vs. the other and what are you trying to achieve?  Are you still trying to clear sz52 with light or is it meant to be more of a strafe?  How much does it depend on what was done in the pacific on UK1? And finally, when do you pass up pearl altogether?  Does passing it up really make KJF more viable for the allies or does it usually just mean one more US fig and a couple more boats in the atlantic around turn 4?

I know it’s a lot of questions, but this is an area that people seem to have some “standard” options in mind but as a new player they’re difficult to find because they’re scattered in a lot of other discussions.  I just thought it would be helpful for people like me to see a discussion of it in one place.

(Oh, and by the way, please assume ADS only, and ADS v. LL is not relevant to this conversation ;) )

Great question. Let me first say although it may seem there are standard options, you will find that even many of the good players do not agree on them.

Second, the way I decide whether to hit Pearl heavy, light, or not at all, is what’s going on with the UK fleet and what they did to me. If they left me alone in all areas, I will hit Pearl heavy, because it has the nice bonus of not only using a bb to absorb a hit, but also conserves fighters for the land battles. You only need 2 figs + 1 bom with heavy pearl, but if you go light pearl that sucks up between 3-4 fighters. You ideally want to use the other fighters to clear kwang, or even if kwang is clear, then you want to blast China to smithereens instead of losing 3-4 inf there.

Generally Pearl Heavy is the most flexible and solid opening, great for both KGF and KJF, but you only take it when you believe that you can actually hold Pearl Heavy. Remember, the US counterattack is 1 btl 1 tran 2 fig 1 bom, and that is enough to kill 1 btl 1 car 2 fig with a decent chance of the bb surviving. So you need to do some quick calculations to give you a majority chance of surviving with 1 btl 1 car 2 fig and a sub or destroyer.

Also to consider is what kind of airforce/navy the Allies have to bring against SZ60 and SZ61 if you send your btl off. If they’ve staged Bury hard and have lots of air ready to hit you (remember hawaii fig + e. us bomb can hit SZ60 and land in Bury….and in case of the bomber he can land yakut as well, and look out for uk bombers in moscow or sinkiang), then you have to think hard about how to protect your transports. You might decide that it’s better to keep your btl at home so you can build your tps safely in SZ60 and either ignore Pearl altogether, or do light pearl.

Basically to sum up, heavy pearl is the ideal option due to fig conservation and use of the bb, but sometimes heavy pearl is too risky due to uk reinforcement of pearl + kwang attack. Sometimes it’s better instead to smack Bury if it’s stacked and keep the bb at home, and either do light pearl or just avoid pearl. Avoiding pearl isn’t the end of the world; it only gives the US one extra fig to use against Germany, and they still have to work very hard to KJF; hopefully though you did something useful with the forces you conserved.

And remember when considering Pearl attacks, that the Caroline fighter can go to Pearl without the assistance of a carrier because it can land in Wake. So simply bringing one carrier within range of pearl can bring 2 more for 3 figs. Light Pearl involves not sending the carrier actually in to Pearl, but rather in range to pick things up. The dest/sub are simply fodder and you don’t care if they survive or not.

If you are really scared of KJF, you can always hit Pearl Heavy regardless if the UK reinforced or not because you can bring the 2 figs from E. Indies for a total of 4 figs + everything else. Don’t be afraid to sac a fighter or 2 or even your bomber if you need to kill Pearl to stave off imminent KJF; it’s worth it.

I know I’m rambling now but feel free to keep asking for clarifications.

And with a mix of inf/arm buys by Ger, Russia can’t push Ger out of Ukr (which is the key thing), now I just have to wait for Japan.  And that really isn’t an issue with Germany on the boarder of Cauc.

I guess it also comes down to the Russian purchases and if stacking 3 inf to Ukraine versus 1-2 inf makes the difference between a successful German push or not. I can easily imagine if I overstack Ukraine that the Germans could do it, but is there enough difference between a stack of 1 versus 3 inf that suddenly gives Germany the green flag to go there?

On a random tangent I have to say if you fight Jen it’s really easy to push into Ukraine with Germany solo lol.

However, many times in ADS, you CAN and WILL get stuck when you thought you should never have gotten stuck (computing at your 75% hits), or even worse, you do poorly on your straffing roll (because you targetted only 75%) and actually LOSE units in the exchange.  Whoops.

That’s why you should practice using a calculator. For instance, if there is a force of 8 inf 8 arm (bait) in Karelia, and I have say…40 inf 8 arm 5 fig 1 bom available to strike, I would probably go in with 25 inf 8 arm 5 fig 1 bom. There’s only a 4% chance of taking that territory, and most of the time the trade will be favorable; i.e. I will lose inf and will burn off their inf and some arm. Of course as with all dice it can turn out unfavorable, but just chalk it up as one of those bad battles. The more you’re scared of taking the territory the less inf you send in, and yes at some point it’s clearly not favorable, but you should not be scared simply because it can and will happen - you have to think how often it will happen in the long run. For every time you get stuck (that 4%) you could just as easily have done a perfect strafe or nearly perfect strafe. If you get reverse diced like you don’t do a lot and the enemy does a lot, oh well, that happens in any battle you participate in.

Also if you took the territory, that’s not the end of the world. If the forces remaining in Karelia are vulnerable, then reinforce them. If they aren’t, which is likely since probably the bait is simply to get you going in the wrong direction, then you’ll just have to retreat out of E. Europe and deadzone that, and next turn strafe from Karelia + Germany + retreat to Germany.

And I agree we’re disagreeing in a very subtle manner.

But would you disagree that we’re agreeing about the degree of disagreement that we are not agreeing about? Wait, did that make any sense?  :lol:

I agree strafing is less of a strategy in ADS, but I think just as LL newbies may not understand it, so also ADS newbies don’t understand that they can’t just bait left and right, or they will get eaten up with less forces.

The one thing I disagree with you is that you think you shouldn’t even try to strafe if there is any doubt whatsoever. I have been saying consistently and with reason that you should not be scared of strafing.

I take this from  your statement:

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.

I’m simply saying, and I do not think we are even disagreeing, that you should keep strafing in mind always.

nd when you think of stacks of 5 inf or so, it’s hard to straffe so precisely.

Oh, but is it? If there’s no AA gun, then 3-4 inf + mass airforce…and even if there is one, maybe it’s time to move in. The Allies may not have enough forces to counter a big move in if they threw their inf into the bait - and it’s going to be harder to counter with that AA gun staring at you. It’s possible they’re using a trojan horse but forgot to put the trapdoor in. Like I said, baiting is more of a strategy in ADS, but it’s hardly easy to pull off.

You were the one to start drawing a line of who was on the ‘right’ side, lining up A&A gurus behind you.

You’re simply exaggerating. I consistently said we may not even be disagreeing prior to this post, yet you seem to think that I’m attacking you or something. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not.

How do I sign up for the guru newsletter??

You need to join teh jenforces!

So silly of us to argue with the end-all be-all of A&A knowledge: Darth Maximus.

Is there an alter so that I too may worship his omnipotence?

No need to exaggerate, also U-505 agrees, one of the best players on this site. At least I have some high profile members so it’s not a cult =p

Well, no that’s the point.  You SHOULD not straffe unless you do not fear getting stuck.  That’s the problem with the hit and run… you can get stuck and those Russian 6 inf and tank were merely bait for the trap.  Again, a strategy that can not be utilized in LL.

And again, I am not saying that it’s better or worse… just that it DOES change the game.  Is the change ground breaking?  No.

But an LL newbie may not be as aware of these key kind of differences that exist between ADS and LL.

2 things, first I don’t think we really disagree then. LL does not make a groundbreaking difference.

Second, baiting like that invites not just a strafe, but a full move-in. Obviously there are many considerations in play here, but if I can bust up that many units by sending my stack en masse and still have my capital defended and still deadzone the territory I left and still have enough defense in the territory I took, then I’m in great shape.

For instance I have a big stack in E. Europe. You bait with 4 inf 4 arm Karelia. I send the big stack in, and make sure my capital is guarded. You’re down 8 units costing me 3 units, and if I did it right you should not have enough to counter Karelia, and also should still be scared to move into E. Europe because I can hit from both Germany and Karelia. There could be a lot of variations and we could discuss this endlessly, but baiting is very difficult and costly. Just because you cannot strafe perfectly does not make automatically make baiting a great move in ADS, which I think we both agree on. You have to be very careful of how you bait - too much and I’m moving in, too little and I don’t care or use fighters.

And yes when you fear getting stuck, you should think twice - but you should still consider strafing. Just strafe with say enough to take out 75% of the units in one go. If you go with much more then you are very likely to take the territory,if you go less it’s not worth it, but there is still a way to strafe. It will not be as rewarding, but you should still think about it.

I would except we have too many games scheduled as it is. We could make some of our upcoming test games LL just to see how the strategy goes in the long run…?

For example, I might want to throw said Russian inf and tanks to bleed Germany dry while building my UK forces (since they attack Germany first).  Now would I put 4 Russian tanks at risk… probably not.  But your example is a poor one.  I may throw 6 inf and a tank in Ukraine for the purposes described above.  Consider Germany having to trade Ukaine, Balkans, and Belorussia with stacks described above.  In ADS, these stacks can be rather problematic.

Not a strategy for every round, but this is a strategy this is non-existant/poor in LL.

It’s enough that Darth Maximus agrees with me. Just because you cannot strafe precisely does not mean you should not try.  Do not be so naive as to think that your opponent thinks the same you do and will not attempt to take all the stacks down or one very hard and the other one strafing.

I am saying you are right about one thing, but wrong about another. That is not split personality. You can be right about 1+1  = 2, but fail when you say 2+2 = 3. You are right about versus one unit, but you are wrong versus more than that. You were saying that 1@1 + 1@3 is not the same as 2@2, but they are exactly the same if there are 2 or more targets available.

You are right in the case of one round of battle. Good job gold star, you rediscovered the wheel. Again, so what? Did your fighters mysteriously disappear so that every battle you are using only artillery/inf? Are you always fighting one inf? The answer is a resounding no. You’re only talking about a minority of battles - and in ADS, you would still make the same attack because it is favorable, just with slightly lower results.

Well, if fortress Moscow is so tough, then the easiest and most logical way about thinking about it is that Russian inf aren’t the only inf that count on defense there, so it doesn’t make any difference which inf you kill - since both can defend Moscow. The difference is the Russian inf don’t have enough support to crack Berlin, but the UK’s buildup can. You can kill all the Russian inf you want but have a zillion Americans/British there, which still means Fortress Moscow.

If you want to discount that with flowery logic, that’s your prerogative.  But let’s not try to pretend that LL is the same as ADS only without the extremes.  It’s not.  It forces battles that would be in doubt into absolute certainty by skewing the bell curve so that the center encompasses more of the extreme results and shrinking the extremes.

I do not want to repeat myself for a third time. LL has a LOT of uncertainty. 1 inf 1 art is not guaranteed to win against 1 inf. Not at all. Where’s this absolute certainty you speak of? Since when did 1 inf + 1 art have a 100% hit rate?

Do I have to point out again that attacking the baltic has the exact same range of results, from 0 planes living to all 3 living? Or that attacking a lone tran with a lone bom has the same results? Or that many standard attacks have the same range of variation minus the extremes?

In a ten round game, that’s 30 attacks.  Or, roughly, 30 Infantry + 30 Artillery or 30 Infantry + 30 Armor.  That’s a difference of 30 IPC in cost (+6 Infantry + 4 Artillery!) and you can get away with that in LL because the massive increase in hitting ability already granted to you from the very nature of LL is the same regardless of if you are using artillery or armor to accompany your forces. (Not to mention you take a 50/50 battle and make it a 67/33 battle meaning you have much better odds of taking the land in one round then you normally would.)

But what the heck, I guess the German fighters disappeared and every single battle you are using arm/art. No.

Japanese fighters to Ukraine is annoying, but they are not likely to be used in trading any territories right after that due to having to fly over the Caucasus AA gun. Plus, Ukraine immediately borders any build in Caucasus, and Russia should have plenty of units. And it’s very unlikely to be able to go to Ukraine until round 3, because round 1 sees the fighters in Kwang to counterattack Yakut, China, and India for maximum flexibility. And only 4 fighters, since 2 are being used in Hawaii.

Also if you go to Ukraine hard early, and you would have to go very hard, that means ignoring Karelia/Belorussia. If you send even 1 inf to each of those that could very well mean the difference between keeping Ukraine since Russia builds immediately on Caucasus and can have arm builds in Russia reach it.

And no, Bean, 1@1 + 1@3 is NOT the same as 2@2.  Check the math.  In LL they are identical, but in ADS they are not.  You have 3% better chance with 1@1 + 1@3 to score hits then 2@2 in ADS.  Multiply that out across 30-40 individual baby battles and you can see a major shift.

I already showed you the math. Let’s make it easy, 1@4 compared to 2@2.

1@4 is 66% chance to hit once, 33% to miss. (one round of battle) (low luck)

2@2 is 44% chance to miss (2/3 x 2/3), 11% to hit twice (1/3 x 1/3), and 44% to hit once. (ADS)

So in ADS, you have an 11% chance more to miss, but you have an 11% chance to hit twice. Those average out to one hit over many battles. I already showed you this once. I hope this isn’t a repeat of our previous arguments where I have already shown you the answer, yet you come back with erroneous information.

You need to check your facts once again, Jen. I agree that if you’re fighting a single unit that LL makes the inf/artillery combo more likely to hit one unit, but that does not fundamentally alter anything. You should still use planes if you have them, and in ADS you should still take the odds since it’s over 50% to take the opposing unit in one strike.

3 wasn’t that bad, I think it went to the heart of swashbuckling with the major clash at the end. Lots of fun plot points like when Elizabeth becomes……well I don’t want to spoil it for those who haven’t seen. Lots of nice closure on a lot of things, and the ending is more realistic than it is mushy.

Number 2 had a really funny opening with him shooting the crow XD