Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB

trulpenplay · Jun 28, 2020, 1:56 PM

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

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

trulpenplay · Jun 28, 2020, 1:56 PM

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

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

trulpenplay · Jun 28, 2020, 1:57 PM

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 Ukraine

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 1:58 PM

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.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 1:59 PM

Now I will wait for atleast 5 h before committing.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 2:04 PM

Oh, I see something now. The fleet in Marianas is exposed to 5 fig, 3 tac, 2 sb. Needs to be beefed up.

trulpenplay · Jun 28, 2020, 2:10 PM

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 Zone

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 2:13 PM

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.

AndrewAAGamer · Jun 28, 2020, 3:16 PM

@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.

surfer · Jun 28, 2020, 3:21 PM

@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.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 3:24 PM

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.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 3:25 PM

Ah, sorry, noe I understand. You were talking about the causalties for the fleet.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 3:29 PM

@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.

farmboy · Jun 28, 2020, 3:32 PM

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.

farmboy · Jun 28, 2020, 3:36 PM

@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.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 3:54 PM

@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.

AndrewAAGamer · Jun 28, 2020, 4:05 PM

@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 = + 4.67

The 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?

surfer · Jun 28, 2020, 4:08 PM

@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.

trulpen · Jun 28, 2020, 4:11 PM

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:

AndrewAAGamer · Jun 28, 2020, 4:28 PM

@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.

Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4

TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 4

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

PTV Daaras-Stu Test Thread

France Goes First beta mod

mike v entek (axis) G40

G40 OOB captain walker (axis) vs Mike64 (allies +40)

LionelR v Mike G40

PTV Mikawa-Stu Test Thread

1942 2nd edition Tournament Practice - Stucifer & Culann

World at War Captain Walker (axis) vs Entek

34

17.7k

40.4k

1.8m