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.
1942 SE Adding Italy and China
-
The U.S. is in an interesting position with this mod. Sometimes a KJF strategy makes more sense when China and the UK get good rolls.
Going KGF, though, I typically see the U.S. fleet in sz10 to setup a convoy into France. In our games with this mod, the UK fleet sits in sz8 (the UK drops an empty CA, which the US then supplies with fighters), and the US/UK hit France and N.W. Europe. We use the LH 3.0 setup, so Germany has lost its bomber and doesn’t have the fighter it lost to Italy in Romania.
Operation Torch has made sense in our KGF games if Italy starts putting too much pressure on the IC in S. Africa. In that game, the US landed 4 units in Morocco, which took a lot of the pressure off.
As a side note, this is why I think it’s useful to limit Italy to 3 units of production! With just two transports, the US can “outproduce” Italy, which can be super helpful in balancing the African theater.
-
@SMichael23 I wonder how it would go if Italy focused all its income on building an epic navy- just try to shut the Allies out of the Med entirely. Like you said, that 3 production limit makes it so tough to crank out infantry.
Does the German player ever complain about having to give up the income from converted Italian territories? I know the guy who always plays Germany in my group hates Italy in g1940 and always wishes he had that income as Germany haha.
-
Nice idea. But I’m confused:
In the out of box rules for 1942 Second Edition (new), there is no German bomber in Ukraine, it’s in the Berlin territory. It’s a fighter in Ukraine. Can you please clarify this? Thank you!
-
Nice idea. But I’m confused:
In the out of box rules for 1942 Second Edition (new), there is no German bomber in Ukraine, it’s in the Berlin territory. It’s a fighter in Ukraine. Can you please clarify this? Thank you!
This refers to the tournament rules that Larry Harris once published.
See
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/29339/larry-harris-semi-official-tournament-game-patch -
Thank you!
-
Note: Italy didnt own “Italian East Afrika” in 1942…
-
@Imperious-Leader @SuperbattleshipYamato
Absolutely correct, the Italian position under this revision wouldn’t line up with Italy’s situation in 1942. Maybe it’s better not to have them start with Italian East Africa, but I like the idea that Italy can get up to 10 by taking Egypt on Round 1.
As a side note, the relative weakness of China in both the OOB and the Larry Harris 3.0 versions is pretty ahistorical and has always kinda bugged me. I think this modestly helps make the Chinese position feel more realistic.
Either way, the idea is mainly to ensure Africa and China are fuller theatres of war while also allowing for more KJF optionality.
-
@Imperious-Leader
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are trying to say that you don’t like these house rules or that you don’t think they are well thought out because they place an Italian infantry in Italian East Africa.Regardless of the historical reality, don’t you think that, if you were playing with these house rules, the game would only become more interesting if you give Italy “Italian East Africa”?
Adding an Italian infantry there only serves to give both sides more interesting options and keeps an entire continent in the game as a theater of war.
We shouldn’t throw out house rules because they aren’t completely historically accurate. Even the OOB setup isn’t completely historically accurate. This mod for 1942 SE isn’t trying to nail everything exactly as it was on a specific date. In fact, a completely historical setup would be incredibly boring as the Allies would win 99% of the time.
@SMichael23 even put in the second line of their post that the aim of this setup is to encourage players to fight over Africa. That is what the Italian infantry in Italian East Africa does.
-
I don’t know if @Imperious-Leader is saying he doesn’t like the rules (at least not yet), only that they’re not historically accurate, which is true.
I would love to hear IL’s thoughts on this setup!
-
@SMichael23 Its not a solution if you magically give Italy this territory. If you want to model a problem, first get the facts straight with some research, then go into balancing it.
Aside from 1 ipc and 1 infantry, just increase Italy +1 and balance out the additional forces for both sides…
China is a road apple and a basket case. Japan needs to get thru that mess asap or they have no chance… If you hold back an already weak Japan in 42.2 you create a KJF scenario in every game.
Add italy fine, leave china alone and move the German air force out of UKR, give a bomber to Russia. Minor tweeks, then playtest
mostly good ideas, i would add axis minor allies with substitutions
Suggested Topics
