How is it that AA guns hit so frequently on a 1 and Battleships miss nearly all the time on a 4??

Some time ago, I wrote a thread addressing a situation where another player was upselling their G1 6 tank line, arguing G1 Ukr was this great cool thing. Which, let’s face it, on some level I agree that 1942 Online meta Axis players are way too timid and uncoordinated. I think advocacy of aggression is good for the meta.

But I stated that playing G1 Ukr hold blind, ignoring dice outcomes and R1 action, was questionable, and further that I thought the proponent of the line had ignored R2 Ukr strafe (attack with intent to retreat).

One thing I remember from Discord is, after I said G1 6 tank buy does not necessarily require G1 Ukr hold, that I was ridiculed.

So I thought, you know, though I’ve spoken to various timings before, I’ve never really chained together what I’ve written into addressing the G3 W Rus line.

So here we go, it’s popcorn time!

THE BACKGROUND

Some months later, I was having a civil discussion with some other players on Discord about US1 bomber use; there were a few different participants, some points were made that I disagreed with, but nevertheless.

I wrote that I thought US1 bombers were not “correct” in any circumstance I would expect, that US1 transports reach Finland/France on US3, those transports threatening Karelia/Berlin/France on US4, and that US2 bombers (at the earliest) made for a pseudotiming - which is not to say, a specific line of play, but a confluence of factors that can be combined with other conditions to possibly arrive at something useful.

This was civilly questioned by another Discord poster. I thought they were civil and brought up coherent points, so I proposed a game - not as any sort of competitive match, or to prove or disprove any points with finality, but to possibly serve as illustrative context which, over repeated games, might form the basis for further analysis and discussion. Which maybe I didn’t say so much at the time, but at any rate we agreed to play.

I decided to take the G3 W Rus line, as I hadn’t used it in a while, and I thought fast pressure would highlight what I saw as questionable in the US1 bomber x 1 purchase line. My purpose, not to say that a US1 bomber is useless (it is not), but to more sharply define the terms; to show that a claim an entirely other player made that the US1 bombers should not be expected to bomb might not apply in practice - you get the idea.

THE POINT INTENDED TO BE ILLUSTRATED

US1 purchased bomber threatens France, Berlin, Karelia on US3. If the US1 East US fleet is left alone, it can drop to those territories on US3. But in practice, I think the Axis can counterpressure, discouraging the Allies from advancing their fleet.

HOW THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE DONE

Again, the framework was G3 W Rus line, specifically off G1 tank purchase, G2 air purchase, combining to pressure W Rus on G3.

Shifting G’s main stack to W Rus leaves Karelia vulnerable. However, G’s air force combined with J’s airforce moved to Ukraine on J2, counterpressure any fast Allied landings on Karelia. It is not desired that G bleed its stack, as G is the major Axis stack controller that is best suited to hitting a combined Allied defensive stack on Moscow. However, with both G and J in position, with the Allies still building their Atlantic fleet up, with G having some G2 air purchase to effectively take fewer casualties against possible attack against Atlantic fleet, the position is considered to work out all right.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

What’s big, gray, weighs forty thousand pounds, and sits in the middle of a room where nobody’s talking about it? That’s right, a Panzer IV tank, or maybe three African bush elephants, take your pick.

Let’s talk about the Panzer first.

WHEN GERMANY ATTACKS

The fastest way for G to advance against USSR is typically the Ukr / W Rus / Cauc line. If the Allies cannot get a good attack against an Axis Ukraine stack, then the Allies are pressured at both West Russia and Caucasus. Whichever the Allies don’t defend, the Axis can hit and very possibly hold; then the Allies retreat to Moscow.

Exactly when and how this plays out is more complicated than I lay out here, with various strategic variations.

But what it comes to is, whatever pressure the Allies exert against Japan is pressure not exerted against Germany.

If a player thinks that UK1 to sz37 defines the game, then the simple fact is they haven’t played against competent Axis that press appropriately, nor have they likely played against Axis that even counterpressure appropriately.

Yes, lucksacking UK1 to sz37 off a blind buy can be very tough and fast, and set the tone for an Allied win on strength of the position. But that’s where we get back to the elephants.

OPPORTUNITY COST

Characteristic of meta discussion “explanations” is explanations that are, well, bad!

A fighter can be used to attack sea or land, therefore it is good.

Yes, thank you, we are familiar with the basic properties of units, the real question is why is a fighter purchased and not, say, two infantry and an artillery?

I understand a desire to simplify discussion, but current meta discussion goes so far in that direction that it’s typically not discussion at all.

I think it’s something like, UK1 to sz37 wins a bit more than 60% of the time, about half of that expecting to lose 1-2 fighters. Where defender “wins”, I think they get wiped like 69% or something, but an additional 10% to retain only a fighter or battleship. Something like that.

At any rate, aggregate that’s risky, it should be seen.

Consider alternatives like UK1 to sz61 (J destroyer/transport) with 3 sub buy at India. (I’m not saying to do this, just giving an example). If the J destroyer is destroyed (94.8% at least, with fighter/cruiser is it?), then J has no counter to the US1 build. As to UK development, parking the UK carrier south of Persia, if G air is not in range, leaves J with risking fighters, committing J btl and/or carrier to where UK has a big counter, and if J doesn’t hit then the UK carrier gives UK fighters on India range to hit sz61 (Yunnan sea zone) along with the subs.

The real question is not whether UK1 sz37 has any good points or is worth the risk, because “good” and “risk” are relative terms that really require comparison. Instead, it’s a question of what the risks really are, how the development plays out, compared to other lines.

Personally I think UK1 to sz37 in 1942 Online, currently with no bid, currently without ability to use allied carriers or transports, is needlessly risky compared to other lines. I think it’s a potentially useful line to play against players that aren’t familiar with fighting it, I think when it gets lucky it can be quite strong, but on balance I think it not worth pursuing against competent opponents, considering what I consider to be lines with less risk.

I think even UK1 3 subs at India is not great; currently I’m trying to figure out a way to defend Moscow as long as possible while not giving up too much in Pacific pseudotimings. No surprise there I’m sure, nor will be my comment that I don’t want the Moscow stack to be cut off from reinforcing India.

At any rate, I think this thread sums up some thoughts I have on UK1 to sz37, cheers.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog Hello, I would like to merge the following A&A online profiles: Janet Reno #6246 and Sydneyplatypus #4837. I would like the Sydneyplatypus account to be the one that survives. Would you be able to help with this? Thanks!

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog

Thank you for that info. I moved your posting from “Account Merge” and reopened this topic (that was accidentally locked).

Does that cover the “Unhandled Rejection Error”, discussed in the very first stickied topic, too?

You roll separately whenever units that can’t hit other units are involved. Rolling together and assigning the rolls to the units of your choice violates the principle that the owner of the hit units chooses casualties.

@salocinx The factory’s air defense is not affected by damage.