Russian strategy qustions….

@wittmann:

Hi Xan. Check your Rulebook(I do not own this one),but you will probably find you can attack over the Canal. (In  all the A&A games I have,  you can do.)
It is Naval movement that is stopped if you do not own both sides.

Oh my. THAT changes things. I just checked the PDF version of the manual, and you are right.

That drastically changes several (previously) working strategies. Oh man, my buddies are going to hate my guts when I pull this out on them. I’m tempted to give them a heads up, just so the game isn’t won by that rule change alone… but the looks on their faces will be so priceless, I just can’t warn them. :evil:

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

@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.

Yea, the reason for that is America can offset any advances by Japan through exploitation of her islands.  Couple that with the massive fleet Japan has to build up just to keep America from owning everything and killing her Asian units from the rear and you have a mess for Japan.

There are a few threads already posted on bidding and how to do it…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1146.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5580.0

Those should get you started.

You can also read the essays on the subject at DAAK
http://www.daak.de/indexe.php?sprache=e
(click DAAK-club rules along the left side, bidding is the second topic that will come up in the main window)

That should get you up and running.

If you still have questions after reviewing those, please feel free to ask :-)

Thanks a bunch.  Ill give that a shot. :wink:

Nice, I’ll go check the game out right away!

I’d advise that you give Karelia up in R1. If you build 3 Inf, 3 Arm and are a bit lucky with your rolls (attacking at least WRU, maybe UKR), it’s even possible to drive German forces out of Karelia in R2 (although not likely).