@barnee Just so you know we are doing it the email way. I used the similar instructions and it basically works the same.
Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB
-
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0
Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - British British buy 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 7 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to India 1 fighter moved from 76 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 92 Sea ZoneCombat Hit Differential Summary :
-
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0
Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - British British buy 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 7 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to India 1 fighter moved from 76 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 92 Sea Zone 2 submarines moved from 97 Sea Zone to 98 Sea ZoneCombat Hit Differential Summary :
-
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0
Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - British British buy 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 7 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to India 1 fighter moved from 76 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 92 Sea Zone 2 submarines moved from 97 Sea Zone to 98 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Vologda to UkraineCombat Hit Differential Summary :
-
Sorry for the extra posts, but saw two things, the 2 subs in z97 should scurry away to z98 and the sb in Vologda might as well SBR the mIC in Ukraine with nothing better to do.
-
Now I will wait for atleast 5 h before committing.
-
Oh, I see something now. The fleet in Marianas is exposed to 5 fig, 3 tac, 2 sb. Needs to be beefed up.
-
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0
Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - British British buy 1 artillery, 1 fighter and 7 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Americans takes 22 Sea Zone from Japanese EDIT: Americans takes 22 Sea Zone from Japanese EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Americans takes 22 Sea Zone from Japanese EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to India 1 fighter moved from 76 Sea Zone to 99 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from United Kingdom to 92 Sea Zone 2 submarines moved from 97 Sea Zone to 98 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Vologda to Ukraine EDIT: British undo move 6. EDIT: 1 cruiser moved from 33 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 battleship moved from 33 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone EDIT: 1 destroyer moved from 33 Sea Zone to 22 Sea ZoneCombat Hit Differential Summary :
-
The UK bs and aussie des and cr will also reinfoce z22. Should make everything very safe, unless I’ve missed something.
What I can see J may attack z22 with 5 fig, 3 tac, 2 sb and z33 with 3 fig, 3 tac.
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
An overlook then. Makes sense. Would you have used only air or chip in a sub?
Yes. I would have added a sub. I am happy to trade a $6 sub for an $8 destroyer instead of risking a $10 plane to get the destroyer for free.
-
@trulpen The counter requires the Italian AF to attack. If they get 3 hits 1 BB + 2 DD it would be favorable for the Axis. But I forgot that you could take 1 ftr hit and replace with french. Thus the 3 hits are 1 BB + 1 ftr (replaced) + 1DD. In which case it becomes 50-50 (very variable 50-50! Even the battle calc is all over the map.) I don’t think anyone would want to risk that unless they felt they were losing.
-
I don’t understand. Where do the 2 italian des come from? Or do you mean 2 figs? He can actually attack with 3 fig, 1 sb, but it’s suicide. A desperado. We can safely assume he won’t go there.
The fleet in z112 should be rather safe even with 3 hits on it from Italy.
-
Ah, sorry, noe I understand. You were talking about the causalties for the fleet.
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
An overlook then. Makes sense. Would you have used only air or chip in a sub?
Yes. I would have added a sub. I am happy to trade a $6 sub for an $8 destroyer instead of risking a $10 plane to get the destroyer for free.
That’s interesting. I’d say mathematically, concerning risk and effect, it’s more favourable to keep the sub and risk the air. It’s not completely evident though. Also depends on the situation if air or fleet is more valuable regarding position.
-
I think it looks good. On the US turn, I wouldn’t have attacked Tunisia because you are not set up to take it back. But that is pretty minor.
Also, I presume you are building a couple of extra land units for London. Are you actually going to need them in London on the next turn? I presume your ncm will grab units from London to drop in Norway, but that two of those units will be AA? I don’t think this is too big a deal either, but I’m wondering if you might want to think of another fighter in Persia instead, or another mech in South Africa. Or even another transport in Egypt to raise the pressure on Italy.
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
The UK bs and aussie des and cr will also reinfoce z22. Should make everything very safe, unless I’ve missed something.
What I can see J may attack z22 with 5 fig, 3 tac, 2 sb and z33 with 3 fig, 3 tac.
I believe this is correct too.
-
@farmboy said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
I think it looks good. On the US turn, I wouldn’t have attacked Tunisia because you are not set up to take it back. But that is pretty minor.
Also, I presume you are building a couple of extra land units for London. Are you actually going to need them in London on the next turn? I presume your ncm will grab units from London to drop in Norway, but that two of those units will be AA? I don’t think this is too big a deal either, but I’m wondering if you might want to think of another fighter in Persia instead, or another mech in South Africa. Or even another transport in Egypt to raise the pressure on Italy.
The land is for ME and Africa. Nothing in London.
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
@AndrewAAGamer said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
An overlook then. Makes sense. Would you have used only air or chip in a sub?
Yes. I would have added a sub. I am happy to trade a $6 sub for an $8 destroyer instead of risking a $10 plane to get the destroyer for free.
That’s interesting. I’d say mathematically, concerning risk and effect, it’s more favourable to keep the sub and risk the air. It’s not completely evident though. Also depends on the situation if air or fleet is more valuable regarding position.
I guess do not play exclusively based on mathematics. 😊 Throwing in the sub gives me a more consistent advantage. Worse case I am losing a $6 sub and killing an $8 destroyer. Yes, the overall TUV is better without the sub but the variable is greater. I prefer consistency versus randomness. What I am saying is I will happily trade a sub for a destroyer all day long even if I could get the destroyer for free by risking losing a plane. As you can see by the below in the using the sub scenario the TUV is worse off but ONLY if the Opponent continues to attack the sub which continues the cycle of sub for destroyer trading.
Let us look at the two scenarios assuming a one round kill.
• Use sub scenario
• 66.6666% of the time sub survives and the destroyer dies = + 5.33 TUV
• 33.3333% of the time the sub and destroyer both die = + 0.66 TUV
• 11.1111% of the time the sub is counter attacked and kills a new destroyer = + 0.22
• 55.5555% of the time the sub is counter attacked and dies alone = - 3.33
• Total combined TUV = + 2.88• Plane only scenario
• 66.6666% of the time the destroyer dies = + 5.33 TUV
• 33.3333% of the time a fighter and destroyer die = - 0.66 TUV
• Total combined TUV = + 4.67The above does not take into consideration those times when the counterattacking destroyer dies while the sub does not. I have seen that happen plenty of times. I have also seen a bunch of destroyer hits killing a lot of planes. Again, my proposed style of play is to remove the dice randomness as much as possible. A sure small win is better than a possible larger win attached with a small possible loss too.
So, it really comes down to what is more important at the time. The fighter or the sub? Are you able to continue the trading or not by using the sub? Is it good to force your Opponent to keep using his destroyers to kill your subs?
-
@AndrewAAGamer Sure sounds like you play by mathematics – or statistics, at least! :) And from what I’m seeing it appears to be close to the truth.
-
It’s a good analysis, and I agree upon it.
But it’s very sweet when you kill off those 3 blockers for free. Of course, the heart races a little before such battles and is accompanied by extensive cursing those times 2-3 air are lost. :laughing:
-
@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:
But it’s very sweet when you kill off those 3 blockers for free. Of course, the heart races a little before such battles and is accompanied by extensive cursing those times 2-3 air are lost.
Totally correct. And I would call that randomness.
Suggested Topics
