How to Counter Kill Japan First?

@Bunnies:

(And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)

Because it’s so unrelevant? Or maybe your horse is to slow? ;)

So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded.  Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy.  Of course it’s not.

Not? ;)
Don’t get me wrong, I know that my game will only some dilettantish moving of plastic figures as long I have no planning above the next three moves. Know yourself, know your enemy … all that stuff from all that books.
But I also must take a look on the little decisions I have to make, like that example above. If I make such little things wrong, no strategy can help me. And I think, an strategy must pay attention to the overall board situation (as you said; not a dead horse in my eyes), my own weakenings in gameplay and the player that sits on the other side of the table. To judge that situation right and create the adequate strategy is a thing that I have to do by myself, and all the postings on this board can only help a little. But for that little tactical decisions and tiny precious moves which the game have in store these boards are an eye opener for me. And that’s why I’m looking for such little, delimited solutions for a special problem and hope, I’ ll remember that solution in my next game.

Conclusion:  Germany has superior trading ability.  Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel).  However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.

I’ll try to remember that.

Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.

Known, but noted again. :)

And: thank you for your post.

But you have a good three rounds before you need to really keep up with America, maybe 4 if you play your cards right.

And the raiding would help out.  5 Submarines = 10 IPC a round if you can ever knock out the American fleet, which, honestly, is doable, but difficult.

There are numerous errors in the rule book that comes with the game.  You may want to check out Larry Harris Tournament Rules (which are available from a link on the main page of this website).

The only “opening fire” that repeats after the first round of combat is Submarine Sneak Attack.

BB Shore Bombardment and AA fire are limited to only opening fire of the first round of combat.

@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.

Thank you kindly

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

i have thought about a us atlantic presence of 4 divisions per round to assist and the uk being european focused with russia, the problem always becomes how to tangle with japan as the usa without getting stuffed

@ncscswitch:

@Zooey72:

The key is to keep your fleet(s) (because of reinforcements) 3 sqares away from the main Jap fleet.  They can’t move out in force to destroy you because they need their air power in Asia.  Than just gobble away at Japan until you have the force to destroy the Jap fleet when you consolidate.

Staying 3 squares from Japan’s main fleet leaves you these options…
Turn 1… move to SZ44
Turn 2… move to SZ48
Turn 3:  Attack either New Guinea (1 IPC) or East Indies (4 IPC)
Turn 4:  Attack the other one.

For everything else, you WILL be in range of both the Japan Fleet, and their bomber.  And to move THAT far in the alotted time, you will have at most… 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 BB, 1 SUB, 1 TRN 2/ 2 INF on board.

Not much for if Japan sends ANYTHING your way…

I agree with you for the most part, but the explanation would take too long and not really the question of this thread.  So I will take it up at a later time.

The quick explanation is that the first turn for the US is gone, they don’t move.  You can’t, the Japs have the Hawian sea space.  But you build defensively, ACs and fighters.  The Jap navy will pull back as it normaly does because they need their AF in Asia (don’t forget it takes a while for the Japs to overcome existing forces in Asia).

For the japs to fully equip their carriers against the US would take the Jap AF out of the Asian campaign.  They can’t afford that.  Early in the game a small allied push in Asia would wield great results if the Japs commited thier AF to the Pacific.

I think you’re right, the US going against Japan whole hog is not a good idea.  I am a “traditional” player as far as that goes.  But if played the right way it can win you the game.  It is risky, I won’t argue that.  But isn’t that what makes the game fun?  Doesn’t it get boring as hell to have the traditional game of “does Russia fall to the japs before Germany falls to the allies”?  I have seen the strategy work, it just takes more skill to pull it off.