I think it R1 purchase also depends on R1 combats. If you tend to attack WR+Belo, you won’t lose too much infs so that some arms buying sounds good to maintain the ability to threaten multipul front line. If you tend to attack WR+Ukr or even WR+Ukr+Belo, you might lose a considerable inf base so that probably you need to buy more inf to solidify your front line. Or, if you want to do the Norwegian Gambit, in case of a failure, you could not afford to be aggressive. In case of a success, some degree of conservativeness doesn’t matter. In either case, all inf buy is not a bad idea.

My aggressive buy is 3inf+3arm and conservative buy is 6inf+1arm and save 1ipc. I do not prefer art, my understanding is that the initial 2 art is enough. From R2 onwards, all USSR could do is trade territories to gain ipc and slow down G’s stepping forward. inf+intial 2 ftrs are effective to trade. inf is cost effective to defend crutial territories like WR. arm is effective to generate threats. art is inferior than inf to defend and in most cases, art is no more effecient to attack than arm. The only reason I would like to buy art is that I’m considering a light attack to trade units with G to disturb his plan and probably to snip some net ipcs both from and after the combat. Sure G will counter attack, but I would only lose some art instead of expensive and important arms.

Hobbes, I’m quite clear know after you explain the global interaction and dynamics from the allied players’ perspective. Thanks!

@Zhukov44:

@Bunnies:

The validity of a strategy in low luck is completely irrelevant to its validity in dice, and vice versa.

Saying the strategy “works” if it works in low luck means nothing for its validity in dice.

Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls.

First of all, thanks Zhukov for clarifying the SZ2 odds to me. To me, the outcome of every single combat is almost known in low luck. So I guess the key to win a low luck combat is to get familiar with the outcome of all possible combat. Based on these outcomes, making a plan as long and detail as possible and make sure to stick to it. Finally, the one who make less mistakes and more complete plans wins. But in standard games, high degree of uncertainty makes it harder to come up with a complete plan. So, in order to win, one must know how to adapt to unfamiliar situations. As Hobbes suggests, dice cannot beat a guy unless his opponent knows how to utilize possible lucky rolls. So no matter whether Norwegian gambit itself is reasonable or not, an experienced play should come up with plans to deal with it. Perhaps we shoud discuss more on how Germany and Japan should response to a successful or unsuccessful Norwegian Gambit.

@Hobbes:

2. The rest of the strategy really depends on the Allied player’s choice, either KGF or with a US Pacific.

Hi, I have learned a lot from reading your replies. Could you explain to me why allies could go US pacific. Is it because UK could help USSR much earlier due to a successful Norwegian Gamit? Would it be better to stick to KGF because it has higher probability to win now. I remembered you listed several pre-requesition to US Pacific in another thread. Could you elaborate it more? I really hope you could explain to me the goal of US pacific and its relationship with KJF/KGF?

@ragnarok628:

i also would like to hear some experienced voices about sz2.

Although I’m a newbie, I learned from this forum a lot of things. The odds to win SZ2 combat is high and the IPC gain is also intriguing, but this is not key. The key is if you do not conduct SZ2 combat, UK could build a safe fleet in UK1 and start to harassing the north or west coast from UK2 with a BB bombardment. In this case, usually, UK could take control of Norway from UK3 onwards, it’s +3ipc for UK and -3ipc for G forever. I don’t think G has resource to counter it because of USSR’s threat in the front line. Besides, USSR could follow UK to take Karelia and cut German troops away from Norway. If UK could successfully build an IC in Norway, taking Berlin is just a matter of time. So sinking the SZ BB delays UK’s impact on Germany and helps G win precious time to deal with the east front. If Japan could knock out Moscow before Allies make a successful landing in Germany, that’s a typical success to the Axis. So, even you would usually lose a ftr in the SZ2 combat, it’s a must attack since it’s urgent in strategical sense.

I’m a newbie to A&A. I think it’s ABC for beginers. Besides, as for 10arm v.s. 10arm. I think it’s a must attack. The first round rolling is really important and the attacker could take advantage of the possible lucky rolls (say 6 hits vs 4 hits) and continue to clear all the defenders units with favorable odds. If the first round mess up (say 4 hits vs 6 hits), the attacker could retreat to prevent further loss and reinfore those units in non-combat move so that the defender could not take a counter attack. All in all, in a close combat, the attacker could enlarge luckiness or minimize losses due to the option to retreat after the crutial first round rolling.

I hope someone could teach me how to push troops to the front line quickly and safely and the art of allocating troops in the front line in a way such that the opponent finds it costly to smash. I think this is the key tactic to all land combats especially the battle between Germany and USSR.

@Zhukov44:

That’s odd my calc has it in the 90% range.  I’m not certain that’s a correct estimation….but it would surprise me if the odds are less than 85%.

Thanks for clarifying this to me. I was using this site w ww.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html (The forum doesn’t allow me to post links so I put a blank in middle) Under 1942rules, I find that existence of transport on the attacker side can change the results, so something must be wrong with the algorithm or the rule. I also remembered someone said the odds is around 90%, so I was confused. But I now I’m pretty sure and comfortable with the odds.

R1 usually moves its SZ4 Sub to SZ2. If G1 wants to sink the UK BB, the best it can make is to bring SZ8 sub, Norway ftr and Germany bom (R1 did not take the Norway Gambit). The combat would be bom+ftr+sub v.s. BB+sub+trn. The odds to win is less than 75% if the R sub do not submerge. So the trn will survive 1/4 of the time and UK1 begins with 2 trns which means either Alg or Nor will suffer more. Even G wins the combat, it usually will loss the sub and the ftr. Besides, losing the bom could be a disaster since G could not efficiently threat the Allies navy built unless G1 begins with 2 bom buy. But aggresive R player could simply take advantage of the G1 2 bom openning. I really think SZ2 is a must attack if Norway is not conqured in R1, but I’m very unconfortable with the odds and the possible disastrous outcome. Given SZ2 combat could go to mess easily for G, will Norway Gambit still worth a shot?

Besides, I think the winning probability itself does tell the whole story because you’ll redo the math after very cycle of the combat and probably you could change your strategy according to the new situation. For example. 2 infs v.s. 1 inf. Numbers tell you that 2 infs have more change to win. But you should think about it carefully. Roughly speaking, there is 1/4 chance that the attacking 2 infs fire 0 and the defender fires 1. So the combat becomes 1inf vs 1inf. What would you do? Probably retreat if you are not in an amphibous assault. Theoretically, you’ll still have 25% chance to win a 1inf vs 1inf battle, but you just throw this 25% away because you retreat.

@Hobbes:

@Mr.Biggg:

So we’ve gotten to the point in our house games where Japan has 1 unstoppable strategy. Two IC’s in Asia on J1. Assuming the Japanese player isn’t retarded he starts with more than enough navy to keep the Americans at bay for 4 or 5 turns.

Japan now has 2 territories on Asia that need to defend at all costs

Hi, I’m new to the game and the forum. Your relpies really help me understand the game quickly. Although I prefer the flexible trannie buying for J1, I wonder how can allies put presure on 2 ICs (probably in Man and FIC)? I know that G1 could gather 6 inf in Bury, but its not a big deal especially J1 goes Light Pearl. Uk only has 3 inf in Ind and 1 in Persia. China would be conqured in J1. Rusia cannot afford to go for Asia significantly. If US go for Pacific, I don’t think Rusia could make a life between G and J. So, I tend to believe with 2 IC, Japan can make money more quickly in Asia with the cost of losing opportunity to make a significant present in Pacific and trading Africa. Besides, in your opinion, with J1 trannie opening how can Japan utilize troops in Pacific islands without giving US easy way to capture those money islands?