Kill America First?

Russia’s abilities in AAR seem to have been a mistake (IMHO) by the creator.  Back in the day, I had some pretty neat games where the United States mostly ignored Europe while Russia beat the ever livvin snot out of the Germans virtually single handedly. (You did need the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to generate threat and reinforce of course.)

Talk to me about the Russian triple one day.  I am not on that computer or I would repost it…won more games with that then any other version of Axis and Allies ever!

@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.

@Commander:

@ncscswitch:

How about this option…

Germany has no forces on the board, but we’ll give you $200 to spend on G1.

How fair is that?  How much fun would that be?

A German sack of UK on G1 would be about as fun as a USSR sack of Germany on R1.

I’ve done this game!

It was classic, but it’d probably go just as bad for the Axis in revised.  Everyone get’s their unit’s worth in IPCs and can spend and place them however they want. (Inclides AA Guns and Industrial Complexes.)

We also did it with mobile capitals. (-6 from original capital territory + 6 to new capital territory.)

Want to see the mayhem of an American capital in Sinkiang; British capital in India; Russian Capital in Yakut?

That is an awesome idea!  I’m gonna have to try that!

Actually, I’m not so much worried about the sub living through pearl as I am the thought of loosing my precious fighters to defender shots.  That’s why I bring the Sub/Destroyer…I don’t actually count on them for the battle as much as I count on them to soak up 100% of return fire.

It also means I don’t need my capital ships which keeps them safe from American retalliation.

@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.

Correction to my previous post:  I should’ve said the entire high value (IPC-wise) German empire.  That should make more sense now…  :lol:

Just do your best to last as long as you can until Germany kills UK or Russia, or both.

I hate it, theres too many rules hurting the attacker, the attacker has the initiative, and theoretically wins.