@TheDude-0
I don’t know if Julius Borosov still says it, but reassess combats after every round. Two rounds of one attacking fighter versus two defending infantry isn’t expected to end well.
As far as 1.3% happening 75% of the time, not quite. Initial round attacking infantry and fighters got no hits; that’s 25/36 * 1/4; around 17.4%. Odds of defending infantry hitting 1 or more times was 56%. The aggregate that round was a bit less than 10%; certainly a bad result for attacker but nothing like 1.3%.
Second round around 21% attacker missing all and again defender hitting 1 or more times 56%. Odds then went to around 12%, again a bad result for attacker, but could be expected to be worse after attacker got no hits and defender did hit, see?
Third and fourth rounds attacker got no hits, and two defending infantry missed both dice third round but got one hit fourth round. But by that point, the attacker might have seriously wanted to retreat. For Japan vs US, US and USSR both go immediately after, and probably at least one of them could prevent German tank blitz to Moscow (or something of similar magnitude that would justify taking 1 attacking fighter versus 2 defending infantry repeatedly).
As an aside, I don’t recommend using that dice calculation tool. It does have nice data presentation, but last I used it, there was some sort of issue with how it handled certain battles so it would consistently underreport expected battles. I forget the circumstances, maybe it was an amphibious assault or something; the battle you put in was probably reported correctly more or less. I’d use AACalc or David Skelly’s (AACalc I don’t think lets you allocate hits to AA guns or I’d probably just stick with that, though David Skelly’s does have some nice data visualizations).
