Being unable to strafe precisely may in fact mean that you should not strafe. Do to the reasons I mentions a profitable LL strafe may not be a profitable ADS strafe. A dead zone in LL may not be a dead zone in ADS.

A difference in tactical situation leads to a difference in resource requirements, which can quickly snowball to the point where grand strategies have different effectiveness depending on ADS or LL.
The triple is more likely to succeed in LL.
Allocating just enough to strafe but not sink Pearl becomes possible.
Likewise these differences shut down many options in LL that depend on skewed outcomes being sufficient deterrants.

I chose a fight to the death scenarion because it is easiest to demonstrate. If this battle can be favorable in LL but not ADS then so can others.

Strafing certainly is a choice and here you can’t lose the fighter, at least in round 1. Consider then 3 inf 2 ftr vs 4inf. The chance of fighter loss here makes strafing less of a gain in ADS than in LL. Taking into consideration opportunity cost than mean the risk neutral player might strafe in LL but not ADS.

Having most of a big loss be in the fighter is an example of skew I refer to but not the only case. Another important case comes up when units that retreat are subject to a devastating counterattack. If failure to take out the defenders in my example leaves the fighter exposed then strafing is not an option and so attacking in ADS is bad.

Here I’m talking about a small IPC difference but it need not be and even small differences add up. In ADS games the use of greater force compared to LL can be justified not just on risk aversion but on the fact that ignoring the possibility of bad results in a skewed outcome distribution will lead to a worse result ON AVERAGE.

A lot of people seem to be suggesting that the only difference between LL and ADS is just risk tolerance. It’s not. By cutting off unlikely possibilities in a skewed distribution you change the average outcome of the battle.
Consider 3 inf 1 ftr attacking 3 inf.
In ADS the expected value of the battle is a 1.31 IPC loss for the attacker.
In LL the expected value of the battle is a 1.09 IPC gain for the attacker.

An risk neutral attacker whose sole concern is material advantage would choose the second battle but not the first.

Bean, a unified fleet w/des buy is capable of being attacked by UK 1 bom 4 ftr 1 BB 2 tran and trading with the attacking forces. Not as well as an AC plus 2 ftrs, which wins the battle but still a job well done. No reasonable naval buy will result in a fleet that can withstand a dedicated American fleet sinker. Is preventing a UK attack worth the extra 4 IPC when it is a favorable trade for Germany. (German fleet whose job is to buy time for all of UK’s early resources in the region)

:-P
Jennifer, if you don’t protect the Baltic fleet then there won’t be fleet to go with those 6 ftr 1 bomber, in which case UK might trade their fleet for every single German plane if Germany. Ergo UK can land in Eastern on turn 2 without worry of retaliation. That is why I want to buy the bare minimum needed to insure the fleet survives until Germany 2.

What prevents the UK from parking a BB a fully loaded AC and 3 tran in the Baltic on turn 2?

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.

As for being bottled up in the Baltic and then sunk, isn’t that better than Uk landing in eastern on turn 2?

What is everyone’s opinion on a destroyer in the Baltic. The reasoning is thus:
If you build nothing the UK can sink your fleet with minimal resources. This allows them to start landing troops in Russia with disturbing speed, possibly as early as turn 2 if they want.
If the fleet lives though the UK can’t really build in the Channel unless they go heavy navy or Germany gets good value for its fleet. They’ll have to build a to build elswhere and move with the Americans to approach the Baltic with an invincible fleet and sink it the Baltic fleet on the next turn.
Once they do this though the Baltic fleet is doomed. If Germany has an AC they can stick fighters on it and kill another ship or two but then the fighters are dead. If your not going to store fighters on your AC why not just get a destroyer instead? You get the same result and save 4 IPC. That’s a free artillery or art/arm swap for an inf/ftr. The destroyer even has more attack than the AC if UK declares bring it on.

Rolls: 1@2 2@3; Total Hits: 11@2: (3)2@3: (5, 3)