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

japaneseLebron.jpeg

I don’t know if memes are allowed but I’ve done this by accident a few times and it is devastating. Had to make this meme to mitigate my sorrow.

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.

@ManuC23
Maybe hop on the Discord (not officially supported but eh)

https://discord.gg/UYUpgeQW

ask around, find players you like to play with.

@DeathByDice Yeah, in ranked matches I still tend to play it out and see how well I can counter the situation but in other games I suggest just resetting the board so we can have a good game. The only thing that’s worked at all for me so far is having Russia pump out infantry and the other allies send as many fighters and tanks there as humanly possible along with a med or northern shuck.

I made a post for a house rule to eliminate this in live games. I’m sure this problem accounts for much of the 10% win discrepancy between the axis and allies. Personally I’m happy if Russia can at least take Ukraine with 1 unit and escape with the fighters. But still, I know I’m in for a tough game if that happens and west-russia doesn’t go fabulously and my opponent is strong. You have to do the west-russia battle first so you know if you need to retreat quickly out of Ukraine.

While I really appreciate the general balance improvement made by the Gencon 3.0 rules update the 9-12 opening situation feels like the most fragile part of the game. I think there’s still room here for a 4.0 setup of some kind. Gencon 3 feels like a patch (necessary but not perfect) when the setup probably could use a bigger update.

@brian-cannon I think the key is for Germany to stack ukr, trade cauc, and prevent russia from stacking cauc. Russia is forced to trade karelia and cauc. Russia will want to trade belorussia. Russia can’t afford to stack karelia because germany will move into Caucasus. This 3 territory trading, especially if germany leaves more than 1 inf in karelia and cauc will quickly exhaust Russia.

Germany buys max infantry every round and allows uk to trade france & northwest europe. Germany shouldn’t overcommit to defending western europe. Focus resources on pushing to moscow. Once Cauc is stacked, winning is within sight.

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.