So, do you ignore Japan completely?

[Funcioneta]

I don’t like a lone India IC. You lose focus on Germany with UK (the purpose of KGF) and that IC will fall round 3 unless you give massive reinforcements. And if you do, it will fall anyway round 4 or 5. If you add that a sin IC, India will resist a bit more, but anyway is 2 ICs Japan have not to build. For this work, you need both ICs and a big Pacific USA navy, then, both ICs can survive all the game and still Moscow can resist.

Still, I don’t think you should ignore Japan. Each game I play, I get more convinced it’s a very bad idea. Axis will reach economic parity easier if allies ignore Japan than if allies don’t ignore Japan, and there are some tricks here and there than can give axis even economic advantage.

And I hate monster multi-color stacks in Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad. They give me headache. But, of course, that is a personal matter  :-D

[Jennifer]

@Woodstock:

Blitz is hitting Norway, W. Russia, Ukraine,

My god Jenniffer….how in a heaven’s name do you pull that off?
Even though I like the sound of it, I already have a hard time keeping Russia alive with just going for WRUS and UKR…
What’s your buy in a scenario like that? Offense, or defense?

As KGB and Mollari and a few other players who follow my games can tell you, I routinely pull off this attack (failed against DarthMaximus once, and he’s definitely not someone you want to fail against!)

3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter to Norway
6 Infantry, Artillery, Armor to W. Russia
3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter to Ukraine

Assumes no bid units in any of those territories.  33% chance to win in all 3.

[Perry]

Ok, I’ve been around for some 15-20 years of AA or so, but …. 38 Battleships ?  :? :-o
Say no more…!

[Nix]

lol…

Jen i love if you do such a stupid thing in a game vs me ;)

[Woodstock]

@Cmdr:

@Woodstock:

Blitz is hitting Norway, W. Russia, Ukraine,

My god Jenniffer….how in a heaven’s name do you pull that off?
Even though I like the sound of it, I already have a hard time keeping Russia alive with just going for WRUS and UKR…
What’s your buy in a scenario like that? Offense, or defense?

As KGB and Mollari and a few other players who follow my games can tell you, I routinely pull off this attack (failed against DarthMaximus once, and he’s definitely not someone you want to fail against!)

3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter to Norway
6 Infantry, Artillery, Armor to W. Russia
3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter to Ukraine

Assumes no bid units in any of those territories.  33% chance to win in all 3.

Okay, that I can follow…but I have tried both Norway and Ukraine like that in R1, and either I have bad luck, or you are in fierce problems in R2…

WRUS is a safe bet, with that amount of infantry, you have enough cannon fodder before you feel it in your firepower, but especially Norway and Ukr tend to go very nasty for me, practically each and everytime I try it…

[Woodstock]

Ow…and for the record…I finally managed to win with the Allies!  Twice! :roll:

I wish I could’ve seen the look of my opponent’s face, when he opened the TripleA file, ready to take Moscow, only to see I caught Tokyo by surprise  :-P

[eumaies]

unless you think you’re likely to lose the game, i don’t know why (other than fun :) )one would take such risks on turn 1 as russia.  Losing any one of those battles (as is likely) will cost you more in resources and positioning than you stand to gain.  And the overall expected losses are very expensive for russia relative to attacking just 2 locations with real strength of numbers.  I’m always open to sacrifice troops for positioning as russia, but if you’re not guranteeing positioning (by taking ukraine and securing caucausus and other regions) then you’ve started the game off with an unnecessary gamble likely to leave you worse off.

[Jennifer]

The trick is knowing when to cut your losses.  Odds are, you’ll do significant damage even if you don’t manage to take all three territories. (And as I said, there’s a 2 out of 3 chance you won’t take all three.)

You have to be risk tolerant.  You can recover if Russia goes bad on Russia 1, but it means being more aggressive with England and America.  If you do well with Russia, you can be less aggressive with England and America and focus on massing strength.

You don’t really have a huge risk, btw.  One would think if you looked at the numbers that you might lose 3 infantry, armor and fighter in Norway if the battle does not go well, but that’s not true.  If it goes badly, you may only lose one or two infantry and retreat the rest to safety.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

The trick is knowing when to cut your losses.  Odds are, you’ll do significant damage even if you don’t manage to take all three territories. (And as I said, there’s a 2 out of 3 chance you won’t take all three.)

You have to be risk tolerant.  You can recover if Russia goes bad on Russia 1, but it means being more aggressive with England and America.  If you do well with Russia, you can be less aggressive with England and America and focus on massing strength.

You don’t really have a huge risk, btw.  One would think if you looked at the numbers that you might lose 3 infantry, armor and fighter in Norway if the battle does not go well, but that’s not true.  If it goes badly, you may only lose one or two infantry and retreat the rest to safety.

Do you have a specific sequence of your attacks to help mitigate your risks?

[Jennifer]

I tend to view Norway as the most risky since any retreat won’t be reinforcable, so I roll that battle first.

Ukraine is the next risky and would determine if I need to be more cautious in W. Russia or not, so I roll that one second.

Last, obviously, is W. Russia which in LL is 100% guaranteed to work and in ADS is next to as close as you can get to a safe bet on Russia 1.

[eumaies]

jen, good mitigating points on the control you have over retreats, though I still don’t like the approach myself.  anything that has the potential of leaving caucausus vulnerable and germany with 6 fighters is a bigger swing than I can countenance on turn one.

Functionetta, a couple points on the India IC issue:

1. you don’t need profound amounts of support to keep it alive in round 3 even with japan’s focus on it to the exclusion of all else.  11 UK ground forces (mostly cheap inf) are a given, as is the one fighter.  throw in the 2 initial US fighters that landed in buryatia and you can cause serious damage to japanese attackers.  (there’s also real possibility of 2 cautiously played reinforcements from australia).

2. Japan’s maximum counter is 4 units + ~3 infantry moved back from china (leaving sinkiang untaken), 3 tanks built in kwangtung and 4 additional infantry from phillipines and east asia = 14 guys + fighter support, but only if you leave the russians completely alone to take manchuria, and then re-take china, while the US can build it’s IC in sinkiang on turn 2 after you abandon sinkiang to mass all troops in indo china.

so yeah, russia may have to divert some troops (e.g. land fighters there for a turn) either on turn 3 to fortify or move tanks on turn 4 to take it back, but at least this way all the allied asian units are being used.  Those 8 infantry on the east side of russia don’t accomplish much by themselves, but as part of multi-pronged pressure they can actually have an appreciable impact (and earn russia $3 for a few turns).  And russia’s got a much longer survival horizon if japan is basically having to rebuild it’s troops again starting on turn 4.  I’m not a big fan of spending money to contest the massive japanese navy, but they can definitely be slowed down on land to allow the slow accumulation of us  atlantic power time to squeeze germany.

[Funcioneta]

First (and most important  :-D ): It’s Funcioneta. Only one “t”, man, two “t” sounds me Italian, and I’m Spanish. Keep it simple  :wink:

About your plan: you are buying time, sure, but you are also giving a IC to Japan (maybe even 2) and losing the focus on Germany (the meaning of KGF). I prefer a long term strat that can fight in all places (Pacific fleet) than a short term strat that concedes two theatres of war before even playing (Pacific first, soon or after Asia). After taking the ICs, you have a very powerful Japan and probably you have lost Africa or the pressure on Germany.

Oh, and a trannie bid for Japan simply kills that strat from Japan 1 (India undefendable), and also open some interesting options for Japan. A mere artillery in FIC can still stop that strat (giving less options to Japan, but giving more breath to germans).

[eumaies]

yeah, i don’t play with bids.  i do sometimes feel it may be too easy for the allies without them :)

[Funcioneta]

@eumaies:

yeah, i don’t play with bids.  i do sometimes feel it may be too easy for the allies without them :)

If you’re playing 4 or 5 players face to face, a bid is not needed. Less than 4 players, you may need a bid, specially if playing by e-mail.

[Jennifer]

I completely and utterly disagree with a British Industrial Complex in India on ROUND 1!  Notice the constraint there.  Round 2 is a completely different animal.

Let us pretend Russia set up a strike on Manchuria on Russia 1.  Japan got it’s buttocks handed too it in China and took a pounding in SZ 52.  America crushed the remnants of the Japanese fleet in SZ 52 (Japan now has 4 fighters, bomber, battleship, carrier grand total not including transports).

NOW, India is not in direct threat since Japan has to move to FIC before it can attack.  India is relatively secure because America’s pressing on Japan itself with a superior navy.  India can be a thorn in Japan’s side allowing Japan to be mitigated with minimal effort taken away from containing Germany.

---

Eumaies:

Almost no one likes my Russia opening because it is very high risk.  I try to mitigate the risk as much as possible, but I freely admit it is very high risk.

On the flip side, the benefit is that Russia has 32 IPC to spend on Russia 2 (that easily replaces the tanks lost and you have infantry coming up from your Eastern flank to replace infantry lost so there is no reason you couldnt buy 3 artillery, 4 armor on Russia two and be much stronger than you might otherwise be) and Germany is down to 4 fighters and a bomber, meaning they cannot use fighters on every counter attack AND Egypt AND SZ 13 AND SZ 15, you just don’t have that many!  That means Russia and England have good chances at hitting German armor on their counter attacks.

It’s a hole that Germany does not want to be in.  But again, it IS high risk, you can easily lose everything and see a Swastika over the Kremlin in Round 3 if the dice turn against you.

[eumaies]

yeah, killing a 2nd german fighter is huge when it works.  i don’t begrudge the approach.  My personal philosophy to opening moves (particularlly russian) is that they should accomplish their main objectives (killing both german fighters without loss of russian fighters or uncompensated loss of the archangel tank) most of the time.  I only do anything close to a high stakes gamble when I’m behind.

late round IC’s in asia can have their value.  but in defense of the round 1 build and russian offensive placement, keep in mind the key gain is that american air power can continue to fly directly into asia via buryatia.  This is usually a better use of american air than to assault a smartly placed carrier-2fighter-battleship-or-more japanese fleet in hawai.  Once the fighters/bomber are in asia, they also represent the power to make india worth fighting a defensive fight over if it comes to that, in addition to threatening japanese shipping and supporting surviving US infantry attacks in asia.

[Jennifer]

Bear in mind, this is the end of my year of really weird off the wall strategies.

Of all the crazy ideas I’ve used this year, the strongest has been the Russian Blitz because it has the most potential to do serious damage to the German war effort.  Conservative Russian play is nice, but you will never keep up with Germany, especially if they start earning 50+ like they can easily do.

Of course, crippling Russia is never overly helpful, but if England and American can capitalize on the damage done to Germany and prevent them from growing fast either because Russia gets shit dice in Round 2 or because Germany explodes through Africa and it is not taken back, then Germany can be quickly neutralized - and that is a goal of most of us.  After all, it takes Japan like 5 rounds to even threaten Russia, if you can rip Germany’s testicles off in the first three rounds with Russia, England and America, that’s a full 2 rounds before Japan looms over Russia, plenty of time for England and America to get units into Russia to help defend.

So in that regard, you would completely ignore Japan, at least for the first few rounds.

Now, I should note, any strategy can be killed in subsequent rounds.  For instance in my game with KGB his defenders started scoring ungodly hits in rounds 2 and 3 saving Germany from utter destruction even though Russia managed to get all three territories with moderate losses. (Didn’t help my defenders didn’t score a single hit on the counter attacks.)  So the dice still come into play even after the first round - just like in any game.

Therefore, there are no “magic” strategies.  Even in Low Luck you have to deal with luck.

[eumaies]

Yeah I’ve never used Low Luck rolling, so for all I know I might agree with your approach if I did.  Without it, strategies are necessarily more conservative as you have to really mitigate against the worst case scenarios that might occur in any close battle.  Given uncertainty, I prefer a rock-solid attack on Ukraine and as cost effective and reliable an attack on w. russia as possible.  All things being equal, i find the allied setup following those moves to be perfectly tenable.

[Jennifer]

I have found that a rock solid attack on Ukraine is more costly to Russia than my blitz is.  That’s because you focus too many units in one place allowing Germany to maximize her fighter superiority.

As for LL, the blitz goes from 33% to win all three up to (and this is from memory, didn’t rerun the numbers)

• Norway: 80%
• Ukraine: 86%
• W. Russia: 100%

Combined: 70%

That’s a significant increase in potential to win in all three territories.  (Win is defined as wiping out the enemy, btw.

This is why many, like myself, argue against LL as any meaningful way to test strategies.  After all, an increase from 30% to 70% is a very large swing, I am sure anyone would agree to that!

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, but you also gotta figure that the percentage “to Win”, and the percentage “to Win with enough units leftover to make a difference”, are two rather different things. I would be worried about a dud in Ukraine or W. Russia, or a failed battle in Norway causing a major set back. Not that its a bad play necessarily, just a lot of risk to take on the first turn. A Europe/Russia bid by Germany might also complicate the situation somewhat, making counter attacks by the Wehrmacht a little more promising.

Low Luck is just a different game as far as I’m concerned. While there is some overlap in general strategies, overall the dynamics of the gameplay are quite different, such that its hard to draw meaningful parallels. The way infantry stacks and AA guns work, just allows for much greater variation in a dice game.