Posts made by trihero

Who’s discounting them? I correctly said they are inefficient in the early game.

I agree with Lucifer, it’s not a very different game. Even though you can strafe precisely, I do not really see how this helps Germany that much. Even in ADS you shouldn’t be putting units in a vulnerable position to be strafed. You do not throw 4 inf 4 arm in Karelia when there’s a huge stack of 30 inf 7 arm in E. Europe. Just because the Germans can’t precisely strafe it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or that you should be advancing units into a deadzone like that.

The islands cost 13 ipcs (from japanese ones) plus 3 ipcs (from Australia and N Zel) plus 1 ipc (from Hawai). 16 ipcs is hardly too little, and Japan will get all of these in a KGF  tongue Japan can be at 25 ipcs if they ignore the islands …

You can’t fight a 2 front war. Spending on navy to counter US naval purchases just means you lose Asia - in addition to the islands. If you get Asia you more than make up for those 13 IPCs.

It’s not better than KGF, but they know how to KJF.

@Cmdr:

And I’m saying it’s easier to kill X number of units for Y cost and have the results pre-determined in LL then in ADS and thus, it fails to be a valid testing tool for strategies that will be used in ADS.

If you want to test LL strategies in LL mode, then that’s perfectly valid.  But when you change 55% hit ratios with 67% hit ratios, you cannot call it the same game.  12% is very significant in this game.  If you don’t believe that, just collect 88% of your income for the entire game, let’s see who wins.

You wish it were predetermined. Like I pointed out correctly earlier and which you conveniently ignored, there is a huge variation in battles still. 2 figs 1 bom vs Baltic fleet ranges from all UK airforce dying to all UK airforce surviving - and this is LL. Ukraine varies from 2 arm surviving to 3 arm 1 art. Belorussia ranges from clearing to taking with 2 inf. China ranges from 1 loss to 3 losses. Pearl ranges from no damage to losing 2 pieces besides the battleship. Sending a bomb vs a transport still varies as widely as ADS. There are still 20% capital fights. So what’s the big hullabaloo about LL being a completely different game? It isn’t. It has a few differences, but by and large it simply attenuates all the stupid dice so you can take a look at your strategy. It may not be a fun way of playing, it may not be a superior way of playing, but you can say that every LL game shows how good of a strategist you are in the long run, since no battles go ridiculously awry.

The only time in which you are correct is 1 inf 1 art vs 1 inf. In LL, yes the hit rate is higher compared to ADS. But how does that fundamentally change the game? Does that make that attack bad in ADS? No. Does it mean the best way to trade territories is to throw 1inf 1art against 1 inf? No. You still use fighters when you can which is by and large sufficient. You make a very very bad analogy when you say collecting 88% of your income; you enlarge those couple battles into something that doesn’t make any sense.

Artillery are still as cost efficient in ADS compared to LL - they’re just not quite as good at taking out lone infantry, but they are the same worth in bigger battles.

And even if you think artillery is the flagship of LL - then you should beat me in our LL game, since I’m not building any artillery or any subs. If you complain that I’m abusing the certainty of trading territories with planes - then I simply reply you can do the same with all those Allied figs, and that I have had bad luck so far in trading anyways.

LL is not the same as ADS, but it is only to your detriment to think that they are apples and oranges, and to hide behind good and bad dice by saying the former is good strategy and the latter as fate against you.

And, if Russia insists on trading Ukraine that hard, I’d put in tanks just to kill off his attacking infantry faster.  Sure, I lose tanks, so does Russia then.  (4 Infantry + 2 Armor almost necessitates you ignore it or attack with 4 infantry, armor, 2 fighters of your own, at the least, in ADS.  At least in MY opinion.)

Like I said, I’m not overstacking it. I’ll leave 1-3 inf + aa gun in Ukraine, and then it’s up to Germany to toss arm into there when I have immediate reinforcements from Caucasus. It’s not a war Germany wants to get engaged in because the other Allies will have a much easier time. I’ll be using cheaper artillery to trade out the arm.

And any time you throw in very significant forces like 4 inf 2 arm, I would seriously consider tossing everything at it. I would lose maybe 2 units but you wouldn’t be able to counterattack due to your loss of inf and arm.

Assuming you buy 4 rolls, there’s a 48% chance you will not achieve the tech. (5/6 is the chance you will miss the tech, raised to the power 4 for 4 rolls give you the chance every single one will miss, 48%). It’s basically a coin toss; heads you maybe gain a little, tails you strategically bombed yourself for 20 IPCs. For every time that you pat yourself on the back for getting it for 4 rolls, you’ll be crying that those 20 IPCs could have been put into infantry or fighters.

It’s not something you do on Round 1.  It’s something you do when you have time, resources, and position to do it.  Or, when you have nothing to lose.  For instance, if America just lost it’s transports, stranding men in England and North America, why not roll for Jets?  At least those fighters in Russia will defend better this time out.

I agree…a couple instances where I really want to roll techs is in the uber late game when both Moscow and Japan have fallen and you’re staring at AA guns all over Europe; then you really want Jet Fighters so you can trade territories. The other  is if you need to beat up England after it’s reduced to its capital + canada; then it’s time for combined arms. Also it’s nice to have the option to roll rockets as you abandon your capital so your AA guns can become a huge annoyance.

The counter is really easy - build 1 carrier and land 6 fighters when the Americans are becoming threatening (sets them back another few rounds to build up) and just offload into Asia as much as you can. When the Americans become too threatening, just run the fleet away and complex up in Sinkiang/China. You will have about 4 complexes on the mainland with the Americans now having to create a shuck system after creating a massive anti-navy navy. Just make sure the Americans can’t take your capital or land anywhere in Asia. If your combined massive forces from Germany and Japan can’t take Moscow, then you’re doomed anyways.

The worst thing to do is try to fight the Americans for islands, it’s spending too much effort for too little. It’s also a very bad idea to start building subs to stall the Americans; that’s exactly what they want you to do and doesn’t advance your effort anywhere. Eventually you’ll have about 350-400 IPCs of land units in Asia while the Americans maybe have like 18-30 IPCs in their little shuckports….

I’d also go so far as to say that one should ignore British units when Russian units are available to be attacked.  The idea is to bleed the Russians as much as possible while conserving your own forces.

Well…I think the exact opposite because you want to maximize Germany’s defense. Germany’s biggest threat is from a massive UK buildup, and the more you crop their forces, the more prominent the split attacker’s disadvantage becomes. I pretty much want you to attack the Russian units I send to the front lines with the British; they are simply a big vanguard for the real threat, since I cannot build up the Russian forces necessary to attack the German capital in full scale anyways.

We’re trying to see which has the best chance to get ONE hit.

Yet again….so what? If you’re in a big offensive war, you’re not trying to get one hit. In which case ADS averages out the same because it can hit twice. If you are sending 1 inf + 1 art against 1 inf, the odds are indeed higher in LL, but so what? It’s still an attack you would consider in ADS, and it’s still a battle you can easily lose in LL. It does not drastically change the game, and even if you think it does, either side can purchase artillery, and generally both Russia and Germany both do.

And in one round of battle, it is clearly advantageous for the attacker to use Inf + Art vs Inf + Arm because the cost is less.  (Not to mention the results are hopelessly skewed anyway given the extra 12-15% chance to hit [depends on if Arm or Art is used.])

I hope you realize this is true in ADS as well as LL….

I don’t know why you’re making such a big fuss about artillery - did you just realize they are cheaper and offer the same punch as arm does? The first time I introduced my friend to this game he immediately understood that 2 rolls at 2 is the same as 1 at 1 + 1 at 3. That holds equally true in ADS as LL, except when you’re fighting 1 unit.

@Cmdr:

It’s not contradictory.  No defense in the world will save you from losing.  That’s because you cannot conquer if you never attack.

And, btw, if a44 insists on stacking up SZ 12, I may not get around to building the carrier, 3 submarines in SZ 14. :P

Link to game? What’s he doing by stacking SZ12? =p

In fact, is Japan who must attack at the begining, or UK/USA’s fleet will conquer those tasty IPCs islands at Indonesia/Philippines.

Well so far Jen delays her fleet build up, so it is not I who have to attack, but she. Liberation of Hawaii on Round 5 at which point I’m already contesting Novo and have a near 50 IPC income.

I would like to fight an early KJF in which case Japan would have to significantly alter strategy, but that is not the case - as of yet.

In ADS Inf+Art would be two rolls at 2 or less.  In LL Inf+Art is one roll at 4 or less.  Much better chance of a hit.

If you’re fighting one unit, yes there is a better chance in LL. But that still doesn’t mean the you wouldn’t make the attack in ADS.

But if you’re fighting 2 units, the average results is precisely the same. 2 rolls at 2 can hit twice in one round (cannot in LL), which happens 11% of the time (1/3 times 1 /3). They both miss 44% of the time (2/3 x 2/3), which is more than the 33% in LL - but do you see, the extra 11% of the time where they both miss is exactly balanced out by the 11% of the time where they both hit. 11% of the time with 2 hits balanaced out with 11% of the time at 0 hits to 1 hit.

But what is the cost to Russia of over stacking Ukraine and losing the AA Gun.  Now YOU have to deal with the gun, and Germany gets the benefit.

I didn’t say overstack it.

Hell, I’ll trade a tank to take back Ukraine with a small stack of infantry to force Russia to either let me keep it or risk fighters or their own armor taking it.

How about neither - use artillery.

Germany earns 40 IPC
Russia earns 24 IPC

Which one do you think is going to bleed dry first?

It’s too bad there are 2 other nations to consider against Germany…

Techs are very inefficient. You’re not even guaranteed to get them after 6 rolls. Those times when you get them at a good cost work fine, but in the other cases you are just asking for a quicker defeat. I’m sure we’ve all seen many situations where 6 figs escape any aa fire, which would be the same as the tech eluding you after spending 30 IPCs on it. You have to consider that happens a lot of the time - so while you may be threatening the Allies for instance as Jen says to build 2-3 dest to protect their rear transports, you at the same time spent 30 IPCs to do it.

If you plan on linking fleets or suiciding against the allied fleet both the carrier costs more and does less. I suppose two transports would be the other consideration but the destroyer costs less.

You’re sort of right. It costs more and does less - for suicide purposes. But for linking purposes, a carrier + 2 fig is vastly more powerful defensively than 2 tran. If you build 2 tran + link, the UK could easily start with a 3 fig buy and sink you by themselves. Or even if they didn’t sink you by themselves, they would do a mighty strafe and the US could easily follow up. But with a car + 2 fig, it becomes very uneasy for the Allies to spend so little effort to sink you.

Csub/TripleA is kinda ridiculous, one unit per TT.  Doable, but too easy to forget that’s the rule and get yelled at by your opponent.

You only say it’s ridiculous because you’re not used to it. Triple A represents a much bigger and I think more talented playing pool than this org site (I think the Csub authors are the most talented players I’ve seen as well). And the mindset behind it is so as not to drastically change the board so you can’t do things like triple stack Ukraine or Libya. Unrestricted allows for ridiculous things like double/triple stacking.

2 Artillery attacking 10 units to reflect ADS: 44% chance to hit once, 12% chance to hit twice, 40% to hit once. (3 and up is 8%)

1 Battleship attacking 10 transports to reflect ADS:  53% chance to hit once, 20% to hit twice, 22% to hit thrice.

So two units at 2 or less has a 44% chance to hit once and one roll at 4 or less has a 53% chance to hit once.

Significantly higher chance to hit with a punch of 4 in LL with two units then in ADS.

I don’t think you’re running the test right. Just run it for one round of combat. Rolling 2 dice at 2 averages out to the same as rolling 1 at four if you’re looking at one round of combat and average out the results.

Oh, I agree the IC in UoSA delays the Axis in Africa, but the Axis’s goal shouldn’t be Africa anyways - it’s just to divert the Allies’ attention there with minimal true investment (and run the hell away when the Allies come knocking!). The Allies have Africa if they want it; there’s just nothing to stop the US from dumping 4 inf 4 arm a round into there and suddenly Germany is scrambling either to try to match that defensively or trying to pull out all of its men. If Japan also tries to reinforce Africa that early on to match 4 inf 4 arm coming in, they will be woefully short on troops pushing against Russia.

Something that CSub was right about all along is what stops the Allies from dumping 16 troops into Algeria on round 2/3 and marching them down?

I kind of feel the opposite way so far in our games, Jen. I watch you dump an IC + 2 inf 2 arm + more in Africa, then I just run away. Way I see it is by committing to an IC so early like that you have less defenses/offense in the Atlantic, which makes me happy - more time against Russia! I’m more of a cheetah that looks for easier targets; it makes no sense to fight a big war diverting 2 units + airforce every round just to contest Africa, not even take it. Just let the UK dump their gear into S. Africa in response to a threat that hasn’t even surfaced yet, then out we go to Persia to meet the Japanese or divert westwards.