the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.
No, I expect them to play well.
uh, no you don’t. see what you said earlier was:
Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.
As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3? Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze. On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice. You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.
I abandoned Africa, Norway, Western Europe, and Southern Europe. I threw everything I got at Russia.
you really gotta read the other people’s posts, man, I said it was not unimaginable to take Moscow by turn 3. I never asked how, because sure it can be done, against unexperienced players…
and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…
And this proves my point quite nicely. Why didn’t those players see the possible permutation of an attack on UK, and sufficient ground troops to counter? Because it was unexpected, and because the attack appears to be foolish.
again, gotta read the posts… here’s the whole statement.:
and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players… you roll dice, chance comes into it, but you have been talking about poor players as the norm. when you change your starting point we can discuss tactics.
there’s dice involved. My Sea Lion was 1 transport with 1 art/1 inf and all my airforce. Not because UK hadn’t prepared, they had built extra inf and they build ships, just on the other side of England. So I sacrificed almost every plane and the INF and took it. why? amazing lucky dice. it wasn’t a strategy though.
and see, that’s been my point, that you had a plan-not a strategy. Like a hypothesis before it becomes a scientific law. Your plan was to focus on Japan. that’s great, but it wasn’t a strategy, because your plan was only going to work once against an experienced player and only more than once against an inexperienced one…. ie the point.
Already you have changed your initial post with what you described as major changes. That screams “not a strategy” -it’s a plan. So great, you had a plan and you tossed it out for people to discuss, that’s a big part of the whole forum. and you got feedback and now you’ve sharpened your plan and are heading it towards a strategy. It may not be a ‘ignore germany’ strat, but it can become a strat.
You went from 2 IC’s pumping out ground units, one to focus on Japan and one to focus on Italy in Africa to one IC to focus on Japan and the homeland to amass bomber groups, apparently for Germany. You went from throwing everything from Russia at Japan and losing Moscow on round 3 or 4 to being more moderate and thinking it could hold until round 6.
You have to understand that when we discuss things here it is about making play better, so you get a bunch of people discussing your idea and actually helping you. So don’t go taking it all personal and biting people’s head’s off when they take the time to read your idea and comment or discuss it with you. Your plan has gone through major overhaul since you first posted it not too long ago because of all the people thinking and writing about it with you.
Residual thoughts: you originally mentioned that the Axis player gave up around the time Japan fell. It might help to play on a bit, as the other 2 Axis nations could have struck back. I have seen the game ebb and flow quite a bit even when captials fall and the possibility of liberation is not out of hand. More play-testing will help solidify stuff.
instead of revising the original post completely, you could also place the revised stuff in a new post and link it or simply add it to the other so the thought process can be seen. Now you have a completely revised starting point and 3 pages of discussion that no one new understands…