CSub strategies: still applicable to A&AR?

My purchase and exact unit allocation will depend on Russia’s move and how it went. I prefer to build only land units on G1. If I’m able to stack Karelia or Ukraine, I’ll build 2-3 tanks. No matter what, here’s what I attack in no particular order:

1. Gibraltar Battleship: sub, 3-4 fighters
2. Karelia: minimal force or full stack, depending on counterattack
3. Egypt: 2 inf, 2 tanks, maybe a fighter, bomber
4. East Med Destroyer: battleship, loaded transport, fighter

If Russia attacked Ukraine or Belorussia, I will always counterattack. An attack on Ukraine changes where I play my fighters. Attacking West Russia on G1 is a risky play that I’ll only consider if Russia had really lousy dice.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

@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.

@SSG:

No, Schlag, to the best of my knowledge noone has come out with the revised A&A format for computers or game systems.  If someone does, I will happily stand in line to buy one. :-D

Too bad that recent PC version sucked so completely…

Thanks guys.

I think that without allied support it is hard for Russia to be offensive.  If the Japan and Germany players are on the same page then they are gunning for you.  I agree with switch that the West Russia stack is Russia’s primary offensive weapon but without aid from the other allies they can’t defeat Germany or Japan.  I suggest defending on the Japanese flank and picking your fights wisely on the German front until the UK and US fortify Karelia or attack Western Europe.  No matter how offensive you want to be your primary focus has to be holding Moscow because 99% of the time the Axis will be coming from both sides.

It was… and he lost :-D

@3d6:

In reguards to the Russian Winter N/A, I was thinking if the winter is so restricting why not limit the movement all ground units to one.  It might make the N/A a little more potenet but I do not think out of the relm of plausable.

I think the 3 in defense for infantry is better than your idea. Why do you think the opposite?