@rockrobinoff:

A UK bomber+fighter+cruiser+destroyer versus an Italian battleship+2 cruisers is about a 55% UK win  (netting a transport as well) and 65% to kill just the warships…

Our group noticed this too.

@rockrobinoff:

…The only problem with option a is that it fails 25% of the time. Not a brilliant prospect, especially if you are better than your opponent, and hope to grind out a long and sure win.

But we concluded the probability of actually losing the fleet in this case is only 15.125 per cent (65% x 25%).  Although I am new to A&A:50, my experience with A&A games is that playing too cautiously can be folly.  Sometimes you have to give your opponent a fifteen per cent chance for a lucky break - often a much better chance than that.  If you wait only for plays with more than an 85 per cant success rate, you’re probably never going to grind anything out.  It would be like playing Texas Hold 'em and waiting for pocket aces.

Furthermore, if you are so much better than your opponent that you don’t even want to give them a 15 per cent shot, you can probably win even if they do sink the Mediterranean fleet (should they even make that play).

That said, although I think 84.875 per cent is enough to make option a sound, a higher probability would of course be better.  Italian fleet aside, I’m not sure how much worse attacking sea zone twelve is versus your next best option.  Basically, I recommend you attack Egypt no matter what, but that you don’t sacrifice much for sea zone twelve.  If you think sea zone twelve is almost as good a target as sea zones two or nine anyway, go for it!

@Woodstock:

In Revised, the Indian IC pretty much always was a bad idea, as Japan could simply react on it on J1.

Unless playing minor victory (which is better balanced than major victory), wherein an Indian factory is essential.

@Woodstock:

And to get back on topic: I think the key difference here opposed to Revised is that in AA50, UK moves after Japan.
If Japan moves away from India, going for the China or Russian route, it might be very liable to buy an Indian IC at UK1.

In some ways, Japan going first hinders the Indian factory.  If UK went first, they might actually get to build in the IC before Japan can capture it.

@Woodstock:

Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…

Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?

Some Sea Lion potential would be nice, for sure.  The Axis can go for the UK, but not for it’s capitol.  Rather the Axis can focus on crippling the British economy - take India, Australia, and Africa ASAP.  This is a different approach from bee lining it to Moscow, though Russia will be the first to fall either way (should the Axis prevail).

Well, if the game is indeed historically accurate, the 1941 scenario should be longer than the 1942 scenario!

@Gallo:

Mech infantry would be great… Paratroopers, yuk! I can see your frustration!
it would like Bands of Brothers meets Enemy At The Gates (we can call that “Bandovich of Brotheruskis”)

Mechanised Infantry was alright, but Germany also had mechanised infantry,and U.S.A. was farting around in the Pacific.  I couldn’t mount much of an offense.

@Gallo:

Russian Officer: “We don’t have enough parachutes and guns, so you’ll go on pairs: one of you gets the Parachute, and the other gets the riffle… ah! and we don’t have cargo planes either, so we’ll catapult you behind the enemy lines”

That’s very funny!

Germany is rich, but can only place Ten units a turn.  Spending over fifty IPCs, that can be rough.  So how should Germany manage that surplus?

Obviously some money is spent on R&D (unless you’re playing with uptight prudes), and the results may influence your purchase strategy.  But in the mean time, unless you plan to bet the whole farm on tech, there is a lot of money to invest.

I’m playing my third game tonight, and probably will be playing the Axis for the first time.  I like the idea of the French IC.  This would allow me to go all out against Russia with ground forces, whilst building six tanks a turn to help defend France.  I can’t wait to try it!

@Flying:

I don’t want a KGF strategy though…

You missed the most important part:
@Lynxes:

2. Italy is the first way to go, since it has very nice effects if they can be destroyed…

KIF!

Yeah, Pacific warfare would be nice.  Maybe if the Japanese can get to India/Africa/Mediterranean so quickly while only seeding a couple transports at Hawaii, Australia, Mexico, Panama, Alaska, Western USA, we will find USA needs a small force - maybe mostly subs and planes - to slow Japan down.  That would be nice.  Who knows yet?  I suspect there’s a lot of play in this game.  I’m playing my third game tonight!!! :D :D :D

Not me - I think this is a KIF game all the way!  :D

If the Allies play KIF/KGF (which I think they should), I think Jpan should try to cripple the  Allied economies rather than bulldozing towards Moscow.  This means rushing full force to India, Africa, and the Mediterranean while Taking Australia, Hawaii, etc cheaply and slowly (but right away).

If Japan does this, U.K will not be in full production.  All the more reason the Allies should be in Italy so as to meet Japan in Africa.

I’m not sure about China.  Letting the Chinese into Manchuria means five National Objective IPCs fo England, and Hong Kong makes six.  But it’s such a drain on Japan to fight China.  They could be getting into India and Africa sooner instead, or even pestering Panama, Alaska and Western US.

KIF!