Question about blitzing for the 1942 2nd edition

I tried doing the math by hand but I’m very bad with statistics, can someone who is good with statistics proof this strategy? Say you have even odds in a fight your thinking of taking, you win ~50% and you lose ~same IPC overall as opponent. Should you take the fight because attacker can choose to stay or flea vs defense doesn’t? If there are 2 scenarios A) the dice of first round go in your favor or B) the dice go against you and you now have sub 50% and bad IPC then couldn’t you just retreat if B happens and push if A happens? The computer calculating expected losses is doing so under the impression that you stay regardless of outcome so it’s the sum of all negative outcomes + sum of all positives. But if you leave when it goes against you you reduce the sum of negative outcomes partially while I believe reducing the sum of all positive outcomes by less. So you can achieve positive trades from equal fights by having the ability to choose if your going for their full stack or not.

@cloud7707 I dig this. I like how you added it on the real rulebook, that makes it so legit. I definitely want to try it out, but gosh darn it Russia deserves that bomber!

In your games, do the Allies still generally do KGF?

@Lifthil said in Questions from a returning player:

@Panther
With LHTR and LL, what’s a pretty standard bid for 1942-2e?

No idea here, someone else should answer this.

And is the bid per nation or per side? I.e., if the bid is 12, does that mean that Russia, UK, and USA each get 12 IPCs to pre-place, or is it 12 to be spent among all 3 Allied powers?

Usually the bid is per side. It depends on what the players agree.
In our Golbal 1940-league, these are two of the basic bidding rules:

Default settings for bidding:

Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone. The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

I took another look at the house rules I’m considering, and hopefully will get a chance to test it out over the coming Christmas holidays. This mod is definitely intended for games with 4+ active players so that multiple people can be “active” at once and encourage a quicker, less downtime game.

If you only have 2 players, then of course use the the standard turn order.

My 2nd pass of writing it up has resulted with this. Rules/changes in bold, with discussion following.

-Start of game, the “one weird turn”: Russia and Britain take one simultaneous turn. Russia acts as normal. Britain only starts with 12 IPCs and can only move pieces from or into territories east of and including Persia. UK can only buy/place units on the pacific side of the board during this turn

-After this turn finishes, the turn order becomes: All axis powers followed by all allied powers

-The above change allows simultaneous turns while preserving the general flow of each theater and keeps the usual critical opening strikes intact.

Consequences and clarifications: A couple situations will pop up due to the changes.

1)Multinational attacks:
Still not allowed, instead if more than one nation attack a single territory, battles will be resolved one attacker at a time.

IE: If Russia, Britan and US all combat move to a single axis territory, the attacks happen one at a time. Russians fight untill they win/lose/retreat, followed by UK, followed by US. The allied player 2nd/3rd in line may decide to immediately retreat before dice are rolled if they don’t like the results of the previous players attack.

Can opening: No longer possible. Losing this “trick” is an acceptable loss IMO.(Personal taste: It’s very “gamey”)

Loss of landing planes/strait use. IE: US cant land planes on territory UK just conquered. In practicality, this is a minor nerf to allied KGF play.(landing planes in west europe. If there is an example of strait use that happens in a “typical” game I’m unaware). Is this a big enough deal to warrant additional changes? We will see. Easiest solution for balancing may be modifying the British “bid” introduced for first turn pacific spending.

Anything I missed?

Hey MGustav - welcome to the forum.

I think you are talking about a string of static transports allowing land units to jump from one to the next?

In which case - that is not how it works. In a single turn a nation can load land units on to a transport. The transport can move up 2 sea zones. Then the land units can disembark into a coastal territory.

The tanks having two moves is therefore irrelevant. The transport has two moves which it can use for land units of any type regardless of the movement value of each land unit type.

Of course if the transport does not need to move for a land unit to load and unload, for example from the UK to Western Europe, you have a static transport effecting a “bridge”.

Otherwise you might have transport(s) at each end of a sea journey moving backwards and forwards to deliver a constant stream of reinforcements.

Cheers
PP

Agreed. Awesome video Dave but you’ve got to set it all up again. There’s nothing worse than an unfinished game of A&A.

Not to be a complete nerd, but this just reminds me of the old Death Star problem:  the engineers probably told the defense coordinators they were placing a venting shaft directly out of the reactor, and when the defense coordinators complained to the general contractor, the general contractor blew them off citing cost overruns that would occur if they put a simple angel in the shaft line so proton torpedoes couldn’t dive straight down. Really?

Avalon Hill can’t spare one person looking fresh at all the game components before they go out to make sure they, like, add up?  Really?