Opening w/japan…

i guess it’s also acceptable to have one of the players conceed and let their team mate roll for them (i have some lazy, lazy friends)  :wink:

@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.)

Well, for our current game Jen Japan’s success J1 (no losses in China, which is American ineptness not Russian) made the Armor unnecessary, so my Complex did nothing for me. Using transports and adding the complex later would have no difference in result. As I recall J2 Russians shot average in Sink, and wiped me in Yakut: The success had nothing to do with poor shooting by Russians, and everything to do with so few Russians being there; The rest ran away to the Germans. Even when I moved past where the trenches should have been drawn, the Russians still refused to turn around and fight. An extra 2 Inf in China is all the +luck I’ve had for Japan, Russia needs to defend her own borders!

@U-505:

@newpaintbrush:

@U-505:

Well, Switch, the reason the Commander wants to play Low Luck is that she wants a narrower baseline with which to judge the viability of the strategy. Low Luck gives her that. If the majority of the results fall within the limits LL provides or the Allies win decisively, then it becomes a viable strategy. If the Axis can win most of the games decisively in LL, then it requires favorable dice in ADS and should be abandoned. What’s the point of playing 10 games of ADS when you can play 5 games of LL and get the same general idea about the strategy?

You can hate LL for whatever reasons, but all you’re doing is limiting yourself. All LL does is eliminate wild dice swings. This game is primarily about outmanouvering your opponent and it is required just as much in LL as in ADS. ADS just provides more variability which is why I prefer it to LL, but I still enjoy my LL games just as much and if I lose, I will have a harder time complaining that I was screwed by the dice.

If you have the MOST COMMON RESULT happening 5% of the time, and ninety-five variants happening 1% of the time, then it logically follows that you should expect to see the MOST COMMON RESULT every time.

Never mind that something else happens 95% of the time.

All I’m saying is that you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to justify your dislike for LL to me.

My bad.  :wink:

@newpaintbrush:

@ncscswitch:

There are so many problems with OOB rules that basically no one uses them anymore.

He’s callin me basically no one.

Wah.

my second ˝karmation˝ goes to you

@Cobert:

That owl has a serious substance abuse problem.

The “problem” is that I don’t have enough beer and smokes.

–

For the rest - each of the control markers uses simple geometric shapes.  If you want to get a large picture with good resolution, I would recommend copying the avatar pictures to use as templates, then enlarging then editing the pictures to prevent pixellation.

There used to be some strategy sites I’d frequent, but their pictures weren’t all that much larger than the avvie, if at all.

@ShadowHAwk:

Australia and NZ can be good locations if you can get there without expending to much troops.
It is easy IPCs and they wont take it back. Also it cuts away 1 of the allied powers concentrated.

If you focus on 1 power it helps more efficient then on all powers.

Especialy the turn you build an Ic you might not be able to build enough troops to use all 4 trannies if you move 2 south then ( to enforce FIC ) you can take Australia next turn without losing much transport power but cutting in 3 more ipcs from the UK who at that point has verry little IPCs and is losing afrika making it completely dependant on the US to do anything at all.

Sure they’ll take it back . . . but only if it’s a KJF.  I assume this whole thread is pretty much based off a KGF assumption, because otherwise Japan should go inf/fighter turtle.

My typical Aus/NZ/Hawaii plan uses ONE transport, BB support shot(s) and a carrier.  I use the infantry from the southeastern islands to replenish.

Sometimes I can’t afford to go Aus/NZ/Hawaii depending on the India/Ssinkiang situation.

Bah, I’ve seen 1 inf destroy 9 inf and a tank.  (Guy kept saying “he’ll eventually die!”)