Best posts made by aardvarkpepper

this emphasis on history
is to me a mystery
for things to be fun in a game
things should not turn out the same

if you want divergent play
throw those history books away!
“but the game is world war two”
real tanks roll dice? I never knew

if you want to start a list
of all the thing the gameplay’s missed
terrain, morale, food, intel, weather
oil, iron, and shoe leather

Not enough? Look at the board
No doubt but that things were ignored
Europe, Asia, take your pick
Differences are laid on thick

There’s much more that could be said
Of game design but cheese and bread
Are what I crave so off to kitchen
To make a sandwich that is *****in

Wrote a document a while ago regarding changes between 1942 Online and board game. 41 pages long, though I ended up cutting it short.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

The development team needs to go in and test rulebook implementation line by line. There are just loads and loads of little things all over the place that I didn’t even get to in that document.

My impression is there’s a real possibility 1942 Online is only ever going to be a compromised version of the board game.

==

On another note, I started writing an AI for Axis and Allies. Which is fun for me, so there’s that at least. :relaxed:

Speculation, you say? :thinking_face:

I’m guessing Renegade researched the license and the market before acquiring the license, and that we may see India and China. I don’t expect either to be selected, but a poll would introduce the idea of having games about events in those theaters.

I predict we will not see the First Soviet-Finnish War. It’s an important part of history, not just of itself, but how action and thought around it shaped how things unfolded in Europe. But I think it’s too political in the current climate.

My guess is Renegade may not have the licenses to the particular versions of some Axis and Allies games, like D-Day, and they may try to publish new editions with entirely new rules, to capture whatever proceeds, while capitalizing on name value of the theater.

But for various reasons, I’m guessing Operation Barbarossa / Battle of Stalingrad.

@djensen said in Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy:

It definitely speeds up the game. I feel like timed tournaments should move to this as well.

Can’t agree - whether this is regarding getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy, or whether this is regarding buying and deploying at end of round.

The speeding up, sure. Personally I’d favor allowing purchase phase after combat movement.

But purchasing after combat means a player knows outcomes of battles. The game then becomes less about risk management and more a simple optimization exercise.

As to getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy - I can’t really favor it. Had a game in which UK player ideally would wipe out a German fleet by buying a carrier to create a legal landing zone for additional fighters. By board game rules, the UK player would have to have placed the carrier, then the carrier could easily be wiped on the German player’s turn (they had plenty of air force). But by 1942 Online rules, the UK player didn’t even have to place the carrier; they could buy the carrier to create a potential landing zone, then not place the carrier, never giving Germany an odds-on attack against a poorly defended 14 IPC unit.

1942 Online has a load of changes to the board game - non-use of allied transports and carriers, floating fighters when defending carriers destroyed, submarines can’t be ignored, blitzes are automated and can’t be opted out from, sea unit movement, just this big list. I wish I could say I thought the changes improvements, but I confess to being disappointed.

Discussing moderation of Steam forums is against Steam forum guidelines. But I do want to point out when I wrote recently that the 1942 Online developers need to read up on certain issues, that’s not a “personal attack”. If a teacher tells a student they haven’t done the homework when the student hasn’t done the homework it’s not a personal attack.

Especially when it’s been a few months and the student still doesn’t know what the assignment is.

Literally, how can the developers address an issue if they don’t understand the issue, if they don’t acknowledge the issue, and if they give every sign they don’t even know the issue exists, despite it being written out time and again in short and long versions by different posters over and over again for months at a time?

I’m just saying right? I’m sure some people feel they’re trying very hard, but it’s at the point they need to either acknowledge they’re in over their heads on some matters (which happens, it’s not their fault if they don’t have a huge budget) OR they need to seriously get some work done.

I mean hey. I’ve always said on Steam forums things happen, limited budgets, sure. But the developers never acknowledge there’s even any possibility of there being limited functionality or limited budget or anything. They just ignore issues or play them off as being non-issues or whatever.

Like lack of simultaneous defender decisions, casualty assignation after like-valued dice instead of end of subphase - these are changes to the game.

And even for use of allied carriers, it was played off as a total non-issue “it’s the same for both sides” until I wrote this

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

It’s NOT the same for both sides. But I don’t expect that I need to write fifty pages of documentation to back up each and EVERY point I make (though God knows, I’ve written a LOT on Steam forums)

Anyways players should know - if you don’t care about a load of gameplay compromises and the developers trying to play things off with total denial games, then yeah, go ahead and get 1942 Online.

But otherwise? TripleA has a game state editor, chat, undo, and better UI in terms of presenting information to the user in terms of how many of what are on the board. AND TripleA doesn’t have developers characterizing LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS as “personal attacks”.

Thought I’d responded to some points in this thread but maybe not.

Anyways seeing how the thread is necro and there’s a lot of stuff floating around - going to write some for some of the more “advanced” players I suppose, though I don’t like that term.

1. UK is for the most skilled player.
2. In a decent game without aberrant dice, UK abandons India to help hold Russia. If the Allies position stabilizes, UK can reclaim India in time.

So I read some stuff through the thread like players saying this happens or that happens. But this is just the same oversimplified hash that I’m always saying new players shouldn’t fall for.

Examples?

Suppose Germany blew up UK’s East Canada destroyer and had two submarines and all its air surviving against the UK battleship battle northeast of London, losing the cruiser. The combination is not super likely, but as each action individually has decent expectations of success, there is good reason for Germany to undertake both, and Germany can get lucky.

(As to WHY Germany does those actions, I won’t get into that here as this is a UK thread but anyone can start a Germany thread or whatever.)

Then let’s also say Germany lands its air in range of the UK sea zones, which is also not necessarily the case but can reasonably happen (if Germany doesn’t try to hold Ukraine using German fighters, if Germany doesn’t land fighters on a new Mediterranean carrier).

So then Germany has two submarines five fighters against UK destroyer, cruiser, carrier, and two fighters. It’s not a fantastic battle for Germany, but Germany does have the advantage that it doesn’t really care what happens to its submarines, but every UK fleet loss has to be replaced. (Well, not the cruiser so much, but still). And there’s some complications, like UK potentially losing a very expensive carrier early, or losing its cheaper fighters and thus losing defense power early.

Then there’s also the question of what UK’s transport fleet looks like and its planned usage.

Yes, this is all a bit involved, I know. But I did say UK is for the most skilled player. The stuff I’m talking about so far isn’t even the complicated stuff, it’s not even the basic level, it’s the stuff you know before you even get to basic level.

So let’s say you drop destroyer and carrier and Germany can’t punish. Somehow. But there’s no guarantee of that either. Because Germany air purchases and moves may have left USSR-controlled West Russia in danger of being broken on G2, so UK may not want to keep its London fighters back to land on a carrier, they might want to land on West Russia instead.

And inevitably some silly person speaks up saying “but if Germany breaks West Russia then Germany loses all its tanks”. But first, we don’t know that happens, second we don’t know what happens even if that does happen, third that doesn’t consider the possibility of Germany attacking then retreating, fourth that doesn’t consider the two-peak model plus the aforementioned uncertainties which mean Germany may attack with intent to retreat but keep its options open to simply crack West Russia like an egg, withstand any USSR counter, then crush Russia and Axis go on to win handily.

And when I say that Japan lands two fighters on a carrier south of Persia so they have range to reinforce any G2 push to West Russia or Karelia, and/or Japan pushes a bomber to Europe as early as J1, maybe you start getting an idea of what I mean by UK basic level. UK basic means you’re watching the USSR stacks, the German stacks, USSR ability to defend against Germany, Japan’s reinforcements, you know all of that, you know all their little tricks for both sides, and you know how to use UK to thread that needle. And even then you’re not advanced, you’re just basic.

So how do you know when you’re a little advanced? Well, when you start to understand the applications, and by that point you’re no longer following dogmatic simple advice like “always buy two fighters two infantry one artillery”, but instead you’re looking at the board and in your head it’s like the Matrix. Except of course by the time you’re actually there you don’t think of it as being complicated.

So let’s say Germany lost all its subs on G1, then you’re considering a UK1 buy of carrier and transport because you’re trying to threaten against 1) any German fortification of Norway and/or Finland, 2) threatening capture of BOTH Norway AND Finland if Germany does NOT defend both (which it can’t comfortably do), 3) thinking about what you do if Germany and Japan land mass air at Karelia threatening any UK2 landing, 4) how German fighters at Karelia have limited range opening up a possible UK/US landing at France and NW Europe, 5) US’s builds and fleet timings and how Germany and Japan actions and UK actions may or may not make landings possible as part of an overall strategic plan. Then there’s some other stuff I won’t get into, but even all this stuff doesn’t mean “master” level thinking. That’s just barely the basics level.

All I’m doing there is making the point that playing UK involves more complicated decisions and a better understanding of each other power in the game, and a better understanding of the game itself, than any other single power.

If someone wants to oversimplify for newer players, okay. But even newer players should understand when it is being oversimplified.

To answer the OP, what do I do?

Roughly, it goes like this:

1. I think about the opposing team, any play experience I have of them in the past, any guesses I have as to how they’ll play based on what they’ve said or what they’ve done. I try to figure out their risk preferences, their play preferences, and their familiarity with different lines.

Then it’s important that one remember one’s own risk preferences, familiarities with lines, and weaknesses.

For example? I’m risk averse; when I carry out an action I want to have a good backup plan in case the dice don’t work out. So I try to use superior calculation and long-term planning, wait for an opponent to drop the ball and/or screw up, then I just grind them to death.

But when I play against Craig, I can’t afford to do that, because Craig uses what I call threat multiplication (an unfortunate personal term that bears only passing resemblance to the term as it’s used properly in current military parlance). In fact Craig’s the one that TAUGHT me that. So when I play against Craig, I have to remember I just can’t afford to play it “safe” because that play style doesn’t work, and he’s strong enough that he probably won’t just fall into a grind-to-death trap. He WILL have his chances at reversals, and I have to let him take them, because trying to beat him easy raw power and raw calculations just doesn’t work against his play style.

2. UK1 you have to look at West Russia, Szechuan, the UK East Canada sea zone, the UK/German position in the Atlantic, including whether the UK cruiser survived, Germany’s actions in the Mediterranean. You also have to look at USSR’s actions, USSR1 dice outcomes, Germany’s actions, Germany1’s dice outcomes, Germany’s buys, Germany’s air placement, and you should also have asked US what its plans were.

Why? Roughly it’s something like this. If Germany has a good attack on West Russia there’s a good chance it takes it. And why? Not because Germany intends to capture West Russia, but simply because Germany is trying to kill a load of USSR units to weaken USSR’s threats. Why does trading make any sense to Germany? Because USSR can use a SINGLE W Rus stack to threaten BOTH Karelia AND Ukraine, both of which are points Germany wants to push to. But Germany does not have to worry so much about its ability to press and hold against USSR, because a German push can be followed by Japanese fighter reinforcements, and Germany’s advancing has less to do with raw power single stack offense against raw power multiple power stack defense, and more about Germany simultaneously threatening multiple territories which the Allies can’t both defend so Allies give way at one so Germany presses. OK?

What I’m getting at is it’s not enough that USSR defend West Russia against a German capture action. USSR’s defense at West Russia should be strong enough that Germany can’t even get good results off a planned attack then retreat action. Often that means UK wants to land its London fighters on West Russia, NOT on a newly built carrier in Atlantic. (But it’s a little complicated so read on).

So then you start thinking about G2 attacks into West Russia. Besides UK fighter reinforcement what else can reach? The US fighter on Szechwan. Even without any USSR reinforcements on Szechwan, Japan attacking Szechwan is still risky. USSR can move in an infantry, UK can maybe land a fighter from its Indian Ocean fleet (more on that later). But if UK doesn’t do that, if USSR doesn’t do that, then the Allies have to think about the possibility that Japan makes even a bad attack against Szechwan, just to kill the US fighter, just so it can’t reinforce West Russia, just so Germany has better odds against West Russia on G2. OK? When I say UK needs to look at West Russia, I don’t mean UK can just take for granted that US has can fly in a fighter from Szechwan, UK needs to be aware that Japan has options that may prevent that.

I mentioned that UK may not land a fighter on Szechwan and there’s complications regarding UK fighters on a new UK carrier in Atlantic.

First, suppose Germany gets territory in Africa. In some ways that’s nice because it pulls German units out of Europe, but quick German tanks running through Africa cuts UK income quick and increases German income quick. Germany leverages that income into superior unit count in its Europe factories, then that becomes a problem for the Allies down the line, whether they’re trying to break down Berlin/Europe, or whether Germany’s trying to beat down USSR’s door. More money gives Germany more options, and though there IS that tradeoff of Germany committing resources to Africa, a skilled Axis player leverages that advantage in the midgame to the Axis advantage. So to prevent exactly that, UK may (it also may not) have the opportunity to destroy Germany’s Mediterranean fleet, then use its Union of South Africa infantry along with UK air to destroy any quick German incursion into Africa.

UK will almost certainly lose Africa after Japan captures India for various reasons, but the point is to keep the income out of German hands. But if UK uses its air in the area (and the London bomber) to hit Germany’s Med fleet then there isn’t a UK fighter available to land on Szechwan.

See? It’s all connected.

As to early Allied landing in Finland/Norway, it’s not so simple. Yes, in some scenarios the Axis can beat up any premature UK fleet. But in other scenarios the Axis can’t beat up any UK fleet, for example suppose Germany landed all its fighters in Ukraine and/or Africa (to choke off early USSR income and push UK out of Africa, so there’s reason for Germany to do this, I’m not just saying it just randomly happens). But if that happens then maybe UK can try for some early greedy grabs of territory because it can’t be punished - and UK will WANT to be a bit greedy, because UK is going to take losses elsewhere that it can’t reasonably prevent because of Axis actions. OK?

Then there’s all the other things I mentioned earlier too.

So you have to think about all those things. Sometimes you’ll go three infantry for India and two fighters for London, sometimes you’ll go two infantry one artillery for India and two fighters for London, sometimes you’ll go two infantry one tank for India and save the rest, sometimes you’ll pop in a UK1 bomber to help out in Africa and/or pressure Mediterranean early.

Even off the same board position, what you choose can and probably should be different based on what you think your opponent will do.

@william-macphereson said in How to play UK:

I have a somewhat different approach to Great Britain.

I’m going to make a distinction. Some posters say that I just don’t like anything different to what I write, which is the same I say of certain other posters. But you’ll notice I don’t hesitate to break down the numbers and the details (which others don’t do, not really), and even when I do disagree with something “different” to how I would play, I make a distinction between “different wrong” and “just different”.

Recent example, I think it was “1baddude” on Steam, said he split a German Atlantic sub off to hit the UK cruiser. And this is NOT something I would do, it IS different. But I do not say it is WRONG; I can build out a mathematical line that shows that there are solid reasons to do that exact play. It isn’t something I would normally do, it’s “different”, but I don’t say it’s “wrong”.

But for the unquoted parts, building UK1 3 fighters and the planned usage, mmm . . . well, I hesitate to say “wrong”, but I’m certainly going to say it all is described completely different to what I’d think reasonable to expect.

“3 fighters which get dropped into India. Ideally, by the end of round 2, you’ve consolidated the other two fighters with those 3 in India, creating a hornet’s nest to warn off the Japanese fleet.”

. . . except that doesn’t happen, I think.

First, Allied defense of West Russia is by no means a certain situation. Can you really afford to have a “hornet’s nest” at India? Considering even German attack and withdraw actions could be profitable, considering Japan could kill the US fighter on Szechwan even if USSR reinforced with an infantry. Second, why do you need five fighters on India? Even if Japan’s Kwangtung transport survives, even if you transported units out of India (which you said you did to attack Borneo), you still won’t need five fighters on India, Japan simply shouldn’t leave anything in range for UK to get a good battle - why would Japan do otherwise?

If you are playing out-of-the-box setup instead of the LHTR setup then you could maybe make a case, but I assume the LHTR setup is used as that’s what’s standard for ladder. Which, by the way, if you DO assume out-of-the-box setup, that’s perfectly valid, but I think it would be good to make that clear, yes? Makes a lot of difference.

But either way, let’s think about what really happens.

1. My assertion is India is NOT immediately threatened by Japan. I say UK1 build of 2 fighters on London 3 infantry on India means, if West Russia isn’t broken, that UK2 can land those UK1 London fighters on West Russia then by UK3 they make it to India. More specifically I’m saying UK overcomes its local production limits of 3 units on India by building on London and shifting those to India.

If you claim UK1 3 fighter build on India has a use, I could go with that. But you’ll need something better than a vague “hornet’s nest”, got to have some very specific usage that makes the unit count loss at India worth it (compared to UK1 2 fighter 2 infantry 1 artillery or some other combination of 3 UK ground on India).

2. My assertion is UK does NOT have a hornet’s nest to warn off the Japan fleet. J1-J2 consolidate control of the Asian coast, then J3 Japan starts dropping to Yunnan. This is what happens even if the Allies push KJF (Kill Japan First). UK fighters on India simply don’t have the range to hit any important Japanese fleet elements at any sort of favorable odds for those first few turns, and probably UK will never be able to use its air effectively against Japan, barring possibly threat on Burma, but there again, compare UK1 3 fighters on India to UK1 3 ground on India and 2 fighters on London. The application for UK fighters at India is very specific. It’s not all bad, but I don’t know that I’d say it’s worth the opportunity cost.

Remember, 1942 Online (unlike in 1942 Second Edition) you can’t land UK fighters on US carriers. If you COULD then mass UK air is a whole other story (and how), but you CAN’T. Supposedly it’s been about a year and a half and no official announcements as to their intending to put it in, so I figure it’s probably not in. Anyways.

“After R1, it’s 3 infantry every round to India until Japan has fully committed in Central Asia, then maybe build some armor”.

Disagree. If you said infantry or artillery and maybe a tank somewhere, then I’d be like yeah. But pure infantry cuts your options.

Theoretically you build infantry because you don’t want to spend on artillery which you’ll lose to a counter. Theoretically you have a glut of UK air. But in practical terms that isn’t the case. If you must use your air to get favorable odds to hit a target, then you must use that air for that attack, which means you can’t use your air for other actions. Your opponent knows your options are limited, so then they can hit you with multiple threat options and force you to choose. Whatever you don’t hit they then have the advantage at, and why? Because you went pure infantry and limited your options. And remember, you specified UK is fighter-heavy, not bombers. UK fighters aren’t bad at all, but what do UK fighters on India really have range to do? Sitting on India all they can do is defend. Yes, UK1 mass India air does threaten off J1 battleship/carrier/2 fighters south of Persia, but on the flip side those UK fighters aren’t on West Russia defending there either so Germany has better options. From India, UK fighters can fly to West Russia but there’s not really room for any other action; UK fighters can also help stave off German incursion into Africa etc. etc. but again and again the issue is UK fighters don’t really have a load of flexibility for a long time. And when you do have openings, I assert that often you’ll want cheap UK artillery so you have better options.

Maybe in the back of your mind you’re thinking those UK fighters threaten the Borneo sea zone. But if Japan recaptures Borneo, which it has excellent chances at (unless UK lucksacks on the capture and again on the defense) - but at the outset of the UK action, UK can’t know it will lucksack. So the expected outcome is Japan recaptures Borneo then UK fighters on India don’t have range to hit the sea zone.

But moving on, suppose Japan tries to capture and hold Burma. There’s going to be a turn where it’s awkward for Japan; all UK units on India can hit Burma then retreat, potentially killing a load of Japanese units for a few UK units, and Japan won’t be able to land fighters if it just captured Burma. But in that scenario, if you want to inflict a chunk of casualties, cheap artillery is going to boost UK’s options. But you can just use a UK fighter to make up for the lack of UK artillery? Not really; that’s why I made the point that UK fighters aren’t terribly flexible. If you want to use a UK fighter to help defend West Russia, you can’t have that UK fighter hit Burma, it won’t make it. So if you want to make up the difference, you will want something else. Make sense? And 1 IPC for changing an infantry for an artillery buys two attack pips; 10 IPCs for three attack pips on a fighter you can see isn’t as efficient. (The mathematics works out a bit differently to what I’m implying but in effect 1 IPC for 2 pips or 10 IPCs for 3 pips, it’s just a lot.)

As to late tanks, I sort of disagree. UK can get some very interesting and nice things off early tanks between Africa and even later in Europe, just opens up a lot of options. But is that really worth trading off sheer early unit count? Maybe not. So maybe you don’t build early tanks. But late tanks? Assuming the Axis are competent, probably late UK tanks are way too late to do anything useful. So if you do want gains off tanks, early can make a big difference. Late tanks, it’s sort of too late and UK’s economy gets tied up with units at London anyways.

The rationale on UK tanks early/late? Okay, obviously if you have a UK tank at India then you can blitz towards Africa, and maybe depending you can capture Morocco, Algeria, Libya, or at least deny German income in the south and at Egypt. Or if you have a UK tank at Europe, maybe you can use it (there’s a lot of complicated shenanigans UK can pull) against probably Germany, sure. But it must be early. If UK delays too much at northwest Africa, then Germany is sitting on uncontested income, probably US wants to step in, then US gets the income and UK never does. So it’s early or never there. Or if Germany somehow managed to sneak a tank into undefended south Africa and for whatever reason UK’s South Africa infantry and air can’t do anything and US didn’t do anything, then again, IF all that happens, then if UK builds a tank late it’s going to be too late; Japan can drop to Africa to secure German income even if that means bypassing India, then Germany is just impossible to dislodge. If you have a lone tank racing west, maybe it doesn’t get cut off by Germany from Caucasus because Germany didn’t capture Caucasus yet, maybe Japan doesn’t blow it up because Japan’s still developing at Yunnan and the Asian coast - but late? Late, Japan will be in the area or even if Japan’s dealing with KJF, Germany will have secured the early income. Late is too late.

" transport goes to Borneo with 2 infantry. It’s a suicide mission for all concerned, but it succeeds about 75% of the time"

4. Less than 68%.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=2&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=0&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=1&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Also there’s other considerations. You drain two infantry out of India which seems to be compensated for because Japan has to use its Japan transport to recapture Borneo. If you get super lucksack with UK1’s attack maybe you have two defenders on Borneo and it can get awkward for Japan, but there’s no guarantee at all that you can use those planned 5 UK fighters on India to hit Japan at Borneo, and regardless J2 recaptures.

Maybe you’re thinking that the load of UK power has got to mean something, but it doesn’t work out that way against decent Axis. Think about the pie-in-the-sky projection, you capture Borneo, mass UK fighters on India, Japan doesn’t hit the US fleet at Hawaiian Islands, US captures Solomons. Even off a stock J1 opening that ends its turn with 4 transports, Japan has a counter of 8 ground 4 air and bombards easily against Borneo against perhaps 8 defenders, UK and US trade their whole air for cheap Japanese ground. But that doesn’t happen, and UK doesn’t buy an IC on Borneo as it can’t defend it? All right, Japan recaptures Borneo with little trouble, defending with two battleships, two carriers, four fighters, destroyer, and cruiser; US can ramp up pretty fast but hitting Borneo sea zone on US2 is still too fast, so that doesn’t happen, right? And if US doesn’t press a hard response to Borneo, then Japan can commit less fleet, J2 can still start building 2 subs a turn against KJF, etc.

What I’m getting at is, Allies can have a load of power in the area but it’s very hard to leverage against competent Axis. Especially with 1942 Online’s rules changes. Remember also, if US1 builds Pacific fleet, Germany probably has a load of freedom at Europe and Africa, and that’s going to be trouble.

Anyways you start looking at the pros and the cons and it comes down to UK has less at India, UK’s India stack makes less impact when it pushes into Europe as it retreats from Japan, the loss of UK flexibility contrasted to ease of Japan’s response - my opinion is Borneo shouldn’t be the “stock” UK move. Even if UK1 capturing Borneo without using a cruiser bombard was 75%, even 80%, I would question it.

Don’t get me wrong. I like playing greedy, even when it’s mathematically wrong. So would I hit Borneo? Sure, yeah, I’ve been known to do it. Yay UK income. But that’s not the same as recommending it.

But if someone says to park the UK transport east of Africa I’m not going to say that’s wrong either. There’s reasons for that too.

“Whatever you do, though, don’t camp your India/Egypt fighter on the Indian Carrier,”

Considering you said to send UK’s Indian Ocean carrier and cruiser against Japan’s destroyer and transport off Kwangtung, sure.

But players - especially UK players - need to THINK, not just accept, but to think, run the numbers, etc.

Such as? Say Germany parked its battleship and transport south of Italy and built a Mediterranean carrier. Depending on other Germany moves, maybe UK doesn’t have any good options to hit the German Mediterranean fleet. So then what does UK do? Probably UK still wants to destroy Japan’s Kwantgung destroyer / transport, but now UK can use air to do it, as UK doesn’t have any other good targets for its air near India anyways.

So then what happens with UK’s India carrier and transport? If Germany didn’t hit Egypt or Trans-Jordan then you can potentially have east of Africa UK destroyer, carrier, and fighter. Japan can only hit that with two fighters. But does Japan do that? Probably not. So there’s a decent chance that UK can preserve some fleet to head around South Africa to join up in Atlantic.

Which doesn’t seem like such a big deal maybe but as I’ve written elsewhere, I think Japan should push big air to Europe against KGF, then believe me the Allies are scrambling through the couch for pocket change. A destroyer and a carrier even late is pretty nice.

“The Aussie fleet has a choice in round 1- grab an aussie and a kiwi infantry and head for Africa, or try and sink the Japanese sub”

Or hit New Guinea. Usually I would say UK Aus fleet heading towards Atlantic and eventually Europe (not Africa) is the way to go. Specifically, if UK can capture Morocco UK3 and push east, that’s ideal; UK wants all the income it can get. But normally I expect UK to make a play for Morocco on UK2 anyways. As to dropping to southwest Africa, I think US is better for that. Yes, UK air in the India region means UK ground in India has better options, but UK fleet in Atlantic is so much better I don’t know that I would want to delay. But anyways though UK Aus to Africa is something to keep in mind, I think UK Aus often ends up northeast Atlantic.

“Meanwhile, in England, other than the 3 infantry going to India, it’s Destroyers and a Carrier in round 2 if it’s safe enough, otherwise a bomber and a few infantry/arty for the eventual attack on Europe”

That sounds pretty optimistic to me.

A lot of players say “yeah you can just buy whatever!” but if you’re really looking to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of every IPC, think on this.

UK is starving for income, always. London can place 8 units, India 3, combined 11 units, pure infantry buy requires 33 IPCs. Yes, UK transports in Atlantic can drop to any number of territories but still, infantry aren’t terribly flexible. You want some artillery in there to free up your air to hit other targets of opportunity, you want air, you want transports, you want naval escorts. 33 IPC will not be enough, and if you’re looking at UK income after India falls, you’re still looking at 24 IPC just for infantry. If UK wants any sort of tactical flexibility at all, it needs more than just infantry, so UK is absolutely starving for income, always.

You do UK1 3 fighter buy, then follow up with excess navy and bomber buys, and UK’s going to be low on unit count. You really have to think about the tradeoffs. If you go a bomber (just one) I’d say probably you could make something of that between Asia, Africa, and Europe, but you throw in a bunch of fighters and destroyers too? UK fighters and destroyers don’t have much tactical flexibility, throw in low unit count and I expect it to be an issue. Well, against decent players.

“By round 5, the Germans should be knocking on Moscow’s door and the Japanese will probably be poised for an all out assault on India (which England won’t win in all likelihood)”

That doesn’t happen with competent Axis players.

See what you think.

G1 infantry/artillery buy, G2 infantry on Berlin, then depending either G3 infantry to start building stack defense against Allies (Germany doesn’t want to endlessly trade) or G3 tanks to push the timing on USSR. The G2 Berlin infantry/artillery build push into Ukraine on G4, if Japan is running late it grabs India right around then (it isn’t “poised” to start threatening India on J5, that’s just way late), and Japanese fighters reinforce German stack pressing in towards USSR and/or Karelia.

From G4 capture and hold of Ukraine, both West Russia and Caucasus are threatened; probably the Allies can’t defend both so fall back from West Russia, Germany moves into West Russia in force on G5, then USSR has to defend Russia or Caucasus so defends Russia, then Germany presses into Caucasus on G6, and only on G7 does Germany seriously threaten Russia. And in that there’s some threats and timings I didn’t detail, like Germany moving its Western Europe stack into Berlin to defend it while moving its Berlin stack into Baltic States, freeing Germany to build bombers to hit Russia with, German tanks on Karelia threatening to hit Russia immediately provided certain things, any UK/US pressure into Karelia possibly being crushed by Germany’s stack on West Russia.

OK? Everything makes sense so far?

So the question is if the Axis player is competent, then why is Japan screwing around with India? First, why is Japan so late with its pressure against India? Second, if Germany is developing pressure against Russia, that should be obvious to Japan, so Japan should be trying to bleed off USSR units and income in the east. If UK has a stack at India that gets cut off after Germany grabs Caucasus, too bad for UK, it can’t unite with Russia. Then after Russia falls, Russia has 8 local production and Caucasus 4, plus Japan’s 8, 20 units against about 3 units a turn on India, India falls for sure.

What I’m saying is the Axis know all this, so if Germany is SERIOUSLY threatening Russia, then Japan is NOT seriously threatening India, because that’s like Japan being off picking flowers and watching the pretty birds while the war is lost or won in Europe. And Japan should not do that.

If it’s a G5 threat against Moscow, probably that came off a G1 West Russia break, which was all calculated before Germany’s first turn purchase phase. So Germany is racing to choke Russia out, and if Japan is on its back foot screwing around with India - you see?

So I’m saying with competent Axis, either you probably see G7 pressure against Russia at earliest and Japan capturing India J5 (if not earlier), but J5 is kinda late. But if you have G5 pressure against Russia, Japan is trying to choke out Russia ASAP instead of sitting uselessly near India. And real talk, if G5 pressure against Russia was all calculated and projected, then probably UK lost India anyways early because UK had to abandon it early to send reinforcemetns ASAP to Russia. That’s why I’m saying that scenario where G5 is going to hit Russia but ends up failing while Japan is screwing around against India, none of that remotely should be happening.

==

Don’t get me wrong, if the Axis aren’t competent then it all plays out as was described; UK air is a hornet’s nest against Japanese navy because Japan plays completely incompetently, Germany overcommits to early tanks and air and runs out of steam against Russia, Japan makes a late and bad attack against India. Sure.

Or even if the Axis are competent, considering different player decisions and dice outcomes, some of that could happen. Kind of.

But if making the case for usage, you can see where I’m saying it’s appropriate additional details be provided. Instead of simple and dogmatic “always do this”, it ends up being more “under specific conditions XYZ and ABC, THEN you do this”

But even if you attach conditions to the actions, UK1 3 fighters on India followed by UK pure infantry on India is, I think, going to be tough. Like yeah you can get away with it against the meta, maybe, but I don’t know that I would say it’s “solid”.

Board gaming and miniature wargaming aren’t really two distinct categories. You could have a board game with loads of expansions, added rules, and supplementary miniatures. Or you could have a miniature game with collectible factory-painted miniatures with one simple ruleset.

Cost and equipment vary per game, as does ease of finding players. It’s not like if it’s generally popular nationwide you’ll be able to find a game. It tends to work in clusters - in one area one particular game will be all over the place and in the surrounding towns too, but you drive a few hours in any direction and that particular game’s nowhere to be seen.

I don’t know that I would say there’s really differences. You get together, you do the thing, players tend not to be really strategic or tactical, it’s a casual thing. Maybe ordering takeout or watching a sports game on TV or talking or whatever.

I’m interested in the full records. Particularly the W Rus strafe reasoning and aftermath. Was it a retreat into Karelia? If yes, no need for further explanation on that count, though I’m still curious about the exact distributions, attack roll results, and defender decisions, esp. as 42.3 is Larry Harris setup right? and Germany took the bomber as an early casualty at Ukraine it seems?

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’d hardly call Russia buying INF all game and turtling in Moscow “correct play” in 1942.3, but to each his own. I have no tournament experience in this version but I imagine a marginally more aggressive Russia build (at least 1 Tank bought every few rounds) would yield better results.

Well I mean three Russian fighters seems like a super luxury to me, but as far as 8 infantry goes at least on the first turn, I’m not sure I’d really say that’s passive. The way I figure it, Russia needs casualty count and infantry are what you put out. Germany has this big logistics problem getting stuff to the front. So you build more infantry, you trade with fighters and artillery, you keep building infantry, you do strafes and stuff, more infantry keeps your unit count healthy while Germany feeds into it.

But infantry ALL game, I don’t know. Like, I think I would stick some artillery in there if I had infantry stacks, maybe not R1 or R2 or even R3 but . . . all game, all infantry? I mean, I could see it in some games but I’d want to see a game record to see how that all played out.

Isn’t that an exaggeration after all? I mean if you had three Russian fighters, didn’t you have to buy one? Or does patch 42.3 change that up or something? I don’t know.

“The UK traded a stack of tanks to fend off the german ones coming out of africa” - really, German had a stack of tanks in Africa? Is that normal? I don’t think I would expect it.

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’m interested in seeing one of your replay files if Germany is killing your USSR by only building Tanks and Strat Bombers in 42.3. Doesn’t seem like very cost-efficient trading to me.

Well German tanks repositioning can be really nasty. But still.

Also I’m thinking about the effects of tournament rules, what with timers and things. So if the Axis just contain 7 VCs then they win? How do games usually go on time? To the end with 9 Axis or 10 Allied VCs?

Because the tournament thing is pretty big imo. It’s like okay if Moscow is threatened normally maybe you pull out of India but if it’s a battle for 7 VCs before time’s called that’s less an option.

(edit - After having played more and read some old posts by Hobbes, I agree 8 inf is not the way to go in the now-implemented LHTR setup. If you have a good successful Ukraine strafe and retreat to Caucasus and everything goes right, then 8 inf can work. But if Ukraine doesn’t go well or if Russia captures Ukraine, then Russia loses a chunk of its attack power on R1 or G1 respectively. Then Russia can’t really punish German incursion especially with Japanese fighter reinforcement.)

@Panther: That’s very interesting. I’d been using the FAQ dated September 3, 2014 at

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA1942_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf

but apparently there’s a more recent version dated November 24, 2014 at

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

You are, of course, quite correct. The software should prevent overbuying, and players should have to mobilize all units purchased.

My statement, based on the old FAQ, was incorrect.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog Players are not supposed to be able to voluntarily not place units then get a refund for any non-placed units.

@SniperSquad said in Have you ever done miniature wargaming?:

Thanks for the both of you.

That’s what I was thinking. Miniatures games are mostly tactical and board games mostly operational or strategical. I have more experience in strategic games but I am also interested to learn the tactical ones.

Do you know if one of those types of games can be played more often as solo games?

You can always play both sides or make custom scenarios. But I think you knew that.

The real question is, what do you want from your game experience, specifically? You don’t have to answer that question to me or anyone else. But in your mind, you’re playing a game solo. Where are you? Do you have reliable, sporadic, or nonexistent internet connectivity? Why are you playing a physical boardgame rather than a computer game (say, Hearts of Iron IV against the AI, available on Steam?) Is the physical representation of the model important to you? If weighting historical accuracy of a model against its breaking, which do you emphasize? Are you interested in painting your own pieces? Is it the historical aspect of World War 2 you’re interested in, or miniatures? What about fantasy miniature wargames like Warmachine or Warhammer? (I don’t recommend the latter’s rules or paints but their miniatures are nice).

@Witt said in 1 fighter vs 1 AAA - what happens?:

@aardvarkpepper the AAA fires first . If it hits , it survives. If it fails to roll a 1, then Combat begins and the Ft kills it automatically, as the AAA has no defence roll.

That’s what I thought up until about a week ago when a question came up in another forum and I looked it up. A literal reading of the rules is the AAA and fighter CAN destroy each other because of the “automatically destroyed” special rule.

What I’m asking is if anyone knows of a specific official rules reference that I missed.

This is a 1942 2nd edition question - but the RESOLUTION affects 1942 Online, which is why I want the literal and correct rule. Julius Borosov recently wrote that the AAA gets destroyed and never even fires on the fighter.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/2845669419715663297/

Well, even if we do get a pretty strong consensus on how the 1942.2 board game works, the developers of 1942 Online may still well not change anything, but I still want to know for my own reference for when I play on TripleA or IRL or whatever.

@djensen said in Feature suggestion: dice rage quit prevention:

Or a calming quote might work too. :wink:

==

I find that quote very calming.

VERY CALMING.

==

No, the quote was more a joke on how after the computer screws you with bad dice, it asks you condescendingly if you’re sure you want to quit.

Yes I want to quit you **** computer, why do you think I am pressing this button with a mad gleam in my eye?

==

But jokes aside - I think saying directly to the player that the program is sorry for bad dice is counter-intuitive, because it’s the program that gave the bad dice in the first place. If the program were REALLY sorry it would give better dice, or maybe have a Low-Luck option or something right?

Maybe some quotes from history would prove apt.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/luck

“I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it”
― Thomas Jefferson

“You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don’t help.”
― Bill Watterson

“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
― Terry Pratchett, Mort

“Oh, I am fortune’s fool!”
― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

etc. etc.

@charles-de-gaulle

I think you need to decide whether you’re trying to use statistics and “science” to justify a position, or research a position.

As I’m sure some of you are probably thinking, there are easier ways to playtest with acceptable accuracy than to go to all this trouble building something around a “magic” number that was created through preset rules. But being the curious, stubborn person that I am, I want to solve it this way; it’s fascinating; it’s unique; and although it’s imperfect, it will work for me if it’s indeed possible.

Given that quote, I think you already know what I’m talking about. So why say something you already know? Because I’m saying, as a friend would, just a reminder about perspective. I’m not saying it’s wrong to do what you want to do how you want to do it. But is it really about detecting balance issues in the game, or is it about exploring a mathematical process you find interesting? (In reading through comments after starting this reply, I noticed CWO Marc already brought this up, pardon the repetition).

Is it about getting a product out the door, or about things you may find along the way? If the latter, then by all means, most certainly look into the round robin tournament algorithm. If the former, well.

As you may have noticed, I’ve been almost maintaining a bit of secrecy about what this game is, and that’s because it’s actually something unique we came up with. This is just me being hopeful and daydreaming, but I think the game may have market value, even if only in a digital format.

I wish you every success, but from what I’ve seen, my understanding is you can secure rights to things related to physical processes, but you cannot protect ideas. So you can copyright artwork and such, but you cannot protect, say, the idea that a certain number of dice are rolled and having a number or less indicates a “hit”. You can secure rights to the “Tap” symbol in Magic the Gathering but you can’t prevent other games from rotating cards to indicate conditions. And so forth. I am not a specialist in copyright or trademark, or a lawyer, nor do I have much familiarity with international law, but you may find what I’m saying to be the case.

Am I saying to not maintain secrecy? No. Maintain secrecy by all means. I think were you to open the idea to others, you would find few others that would be able to contribute meaningfully, and a lot of unasked for unproductive advice that even when accurate (which it often wouldn’t be) simply wouldn’t apply to your particular circumstance. When you have the product in release state, you’ll have the advantage of competitors needing to take time to reverse engineer the systems (so to speak) so even if they copy it, they may not be as successful. (Though be aware someone can take what you’ve done, slap on a few distinct features to try to make it more marketable and/or profitable, then overtake your market share. There are literally companies that do only this.)

All right, so the project is secret, but still, a few comments.

1. I recommend using a modified Elo/Glicko formula, with, hm, I don’t know the word for the concept.

As I understand it, Elo/Glicko something like respective player ratings are plugged into a formula, and you get an output that you can interpret to get the expectation a particular player wins or loses. After a match is completed, a player’s rating rises or falls, which is how the system self-corrects.

You probably already know that the, is it “k” value changes depending on the situation? Particularly in I think chess federations FIDE and USCF (are those the names?), you have a high k value while playing your first I think it’s 25 matches, so your rating can correct more quickly. After you finish your provisional games you’re assigned a rating, and instead of using the provisional k value which is high, you then use a new k value for all future games, which reduces the ratings gain/loss you would otherwise get. Then after you reach - I don’t know, Master or something, your k-value decreases yet again. And I think Glicko maybe introduces something like a consideration for real time elapsed, like if you don’t play for a long time, you may get rusty, but your fundamentals are still strong so you can catch up, but maybe you don’t get the rust off because you’re not active . . . colloquially speaking.

So obviously it’s going to be a little more complicated because instead of using only two ratings, you’d ideally use multiple player ratings.

Well, that much is pretty predictable I guess, but I think the tricky part is assigning instead of a constant k-value (or even a k-value that varies under different conditions), you assign a non-straight-line curve to player actions.

Suppose I say you have a 10% chance to win a game, and that you typically play a “conservative” game. If you know your chances are 10%, then aren’t you more likely to play differently than your usual manner? This may increase your chances or decrease them, but functionally you’re using an entirely different playstyle.

So you see what I mean about using a non-straight-line curve, right?

Anyways, there’s a lot of hurdy-gurdy mysticism mumbo-jumbo in the mathematics because who really knows if the curve you’re using is correct? Just as I think initially for Elo systems they used a standard distribution for prediction but it was found the normal distribution was more accurate, or was it vice versa? I forget. And I won’t even get into the specific value of k; anyways you use data received to correct the formula . . . er . . . okay, hopefully you understand what I’m getting at.

Which is, instead of having a readily understandable system that perhaps breaks apart under examination (as I mentioned when talking about cabals of players, differing motivations, and changing playstyles) - instead of saying “well, if you take this PARTICULAR case then the whole testing regimen falls apart” - instead of having a more readily understandable process, instead you use some god-awful mutation of Glicko which is itself a mutation of Elo, which has all sorts of complicated variables and nonlinear this and that, and if investors dare to try to understand it, you just look them in the eye, nod, and say you understand their concerns and can they perhaps point out which specific part of the equation should be changed? You say major federations using ratings formula found it necessary to change formulas over time, you show how you’ve built in self-correcting measures so feedback from data self-corrects the specified variables in the formula, and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts they’ll suddenly find something very interesting just outside the window.

Mind, you do need some serious mathematics and methodology in case someone takes your report back to some serious analysts, but your system is even somewhat reasonable, then by using formulas instead of an extensive and rigid paradigm, you have more freedom.

Of course, you then say that the formulas need something like 5,000 inputs (or whatever) to arrive at a baseline, then say you expect the formulas to change depending on data, then you’re covered and everyone’s covered . . .

Right. It’s not that you are TRYING to be obscure (wink wink). It just works out that way (wink wink).

2. For a digital format, I suggest multiple winners per game and multiple variable win conditions.

Say you have a 5 player game that ends up with 4 losers. If it’s a board game played live, you know the actual people, maybe you’re all watching a movie on TV or whatever, sure, fine, whatever, if someone loses again and again they don’t care, they’re there for the pizza and wings and football game. But digital? They’re not there for the pizza, wings, football game, if digital you’re taking them away from that. So as manipulative as it is, it’s even more important for players to feel their in-game actions matter, that they had fun, that they had a chance to not just win, but win on their terms, and the game needs to be designed that way.

3. Corrective and catchup measures but cut it short. Let’s say game starts, you get screwed by dice (if there’s dice in the game or whatever). Then you get screwed some more. Then you’re like eff it, you don’t even want to play, but you’re stuck because the rules don’t just let you quit. (Or do they?) So how are you going to stay interested in the game? If there’s a comeback mechanic and/or multiple win conditions, that’s one way.

But you have to can’t get carried away with comebacks, you have to make sure the game ends before too long. Don’t get me wrong, there’s players that want the fourteen-hour-experience, and if you really want to cater to that, then by all means, totally ignore what I’m saying here (know your audience and cater to them!) But if you’re going for a casual market, then players don’t want to get into a game that offers every opponent a comeback, then the game just gets drawn out.

==

In closing - all right, so your process is secret, and you will do things your way. Sure. But I want you to realize cabal formation in multiplayer groups is natural and expected, that player motivation is going to be different to simply trying to “win” some abstract “game” by the rules in the box. You must not think of things in terms of one player “bullying” another. Nor should you assume every player is going to play it fair, above board, and try to win only by themselves and for themselves. It should be completely natural and expected in your predictive model that when there are two friends in a game, one of which is bad at the game and knows s/he is bad, that that friend will sacrifice themselves to assure the other’s success. It should be completely natural and expected that a player that is losing badly will try to eliminate a winning player, not because they are spiteful, it’s very natural for players to want to feel that they are personally significant and that their decisions matter; by changing the outcome of the game they feel they accomplish just that.

more philosophical in nature than I actually feel is necessary

If you already have your core clientele and marketing strategy all worked out, of course it is more philosophical than necessary.

But since you know I have no way of knowing you’ve done that based on what you’d written to that point, it’s a thinly veiled hint that I’m wasting my time - and perhaps yours, if I may be so bold.

It is indeed a valuable life lesson to remember that no matter how much time one may spend on something, if it is not exactly what someone else wanted, such effort may at best go unremarked, or even earn a reprimand.

I thank you for your reminder to value others’ time, and to spend one’s own time wisely. It really is good to be reminded of these things time to time.

being the curious, stubborn person that I am

Me too, you know? Me too. I hope you will view what I have written in this light, and pardon me for not having developed and presented an algorithm for you to get the special round robin tournament generator you wanted. (Edit - having read this after it was written, I feel that may have come off as having intended disrespect. That was not the intent; as I commented earlier I do think it’s just an application of combination and permutation mathematics; I could write a computer program to generate and test sequences myself if I had some more programming knowledge; I don’t imagine it would take more than half a day if I were familiar with the commands I’d need. (Though if I’m wrong about the core mathematics (which would become evident in the check step after data generation) it would take a lot longer.)) But you can see if it really isn’t a big project (which I think it might be), no disrespect was intended, if I could have done, I think I might have done it for a bit of diversion even. Well, I still have a ways to go with programming so eh.

I saw from a post in this thread you seem to have already found one solution; congratulations and I wish you every success with your project! I would imagine, that solution being found, that your objectives with this thread are met?

Nice video. Had the piece and type counts for each nation, a United States of America dime to show scale on pieces on the piece closeups, edited so the presentation’s pretty sharp, doesn’t waste any viewer time.

Few comments:

1. There’s errata and clarifications at

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

2. The rulebook looks nice but is terribly organized. (The .pdf I’m looking at anyways).

3. Four Russian battleships is probably way more than anyone ever needs, and two German and two UK carriers could be on the light side in some games. Same can be said for a lot of other pieces, too much or too little. Time was when I’d buy two sets of any Axis and Allies release to make sure I had enough pieces. Usually ran short on Japanese infantry; I think this version requires 15 of 20 for initial setup, then once you start pushing Asia and/or splitting to Africa, Australia, Alaska, well. I suppose I’d feel weird if I didn’t run short on Japanese infantry in an Axis and Allies game though, so eh.

These days I guess historicalboardgaming.com has official pieces so I don’t even have to buy two board game sets. Also has paper money which is nice. Haven’t ordered from them personally though.

4. Plastic bags and a single box of the small dice as shown are really the minimum, good thing you mentioned picking those up. No way do you want a bunch of loose pieces banging around in the box, that’s just a nightmare to sort through, and trying to roll for a hundred unit battle with just six dice, ugh.

Other useful things - separate chips (often the board game runs short), different colored dice (so you can roll attacking carriers, subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers all at the same time, say), and cheap fishing tackle boxes - wee cheap ones with removable inserts (so you can fit the larger miniatures).

I expect probably you know all that and didn’t want the video to be overcomplicated. Still thought I’d mention 'em just in case.

@fenderbender4

Ugh, videos. Give me text any day.

The Japan strat video I didn’t finish watching. There’s a lot of small weird things in there, like India being almost empty, Germany holding Egypt on G1 with 2 inf 2 tank, UK putting its entire UK1 Indian Ocean fleet in range of Japan’s counter (at least the fighter normally lands in Szechwan or something). If that player wanted to make a decent video, they shouldn’t have tried it with a chump AI. Yes, I know they mentioned a disclaimer it’s for illustrative purposes but still.

The German strat video was maybe a LITTLE better, but stuff like - did they say they were surprised by UK’s shift out of India? That’s just bog standard. And I don’t know that Germany ought to have collapsed France / NW Europe so hard by G4 but without much info on the game, eh, what it is.

@fenderbender4 said in Allies advice with an aggressive Japan:

I’ve tried to wrap my head around how the Allies counter while making any progress. . . .
This is all assuming the 2nd edition OOB setup.

stop stop stop. Couple really big things here. 1) You need to REALLY understand 1942 Online doesn’t allow use of allied carriers, which changes KJF timings. You ask for advice in the 1942 2nd edition board, you need to say HEY GUYS I CAN’T USE ALLIED CARRIERS (and a buncha other gameplay changes 1942 Online made too btw). 2) OOB is tougher for Allies. 1942 Online allows LHTR setup, and forces LHTR setup on ladder games - and YOU should use LHTR setup too. Yes I know, it’s kinda lame 'cos Germany often ends up without its bomber on G1 unlike just about any other version of Axis and Allies, and other things, but even so, just for balance.

If you can’t wrap your head around the Allied counter - take a step back for a moment yeah? Far as I know there IS no “hard counter” that always works. You have to look at dice outcomes, opponent buys and moves, and tailor your move to counter.

Say you’re trying to assume a “worst case” scenario for Allies. If you’re trying to plan around the worst case scenario, you assume you have to handle EVERYTHING going wrong, and what with dice results even assuming “reasonable” bad results probably results in a situation where the Allies DON’T really have a good line. If you’re trying to wrap your brain around that, then you just think yourself into a box.

Far as “stalling Japan” - I’d say don’t try it. If you tie up Russian units fighting for 1 IPC territories in the east, that’s Russian units NOT fighting for 2 IPC territories in the west. Even stalling Japan’s advance gets weird. Imagine Russia puts 4 infantry at Yakut (can’t be hit by Japanese transport drops). Okay. Then suppose Japan sticks 1 inf on Buryatia and another 2 on Soviet Far East. Now what? If Yakut pushes to Buryatia or SFE, they die on the Japanese counter at net loss to Russia. If Yakut doesn’t press, Japan kills it. Even if Japan committed less to Buryatia / SFE so Yakut can “stall” (say Japan only put 2 inf between the two territories instead of 3), it’s still 2 Japanese infantry tying up 4 Russian infantry, while Germany’s pressing in the west.

As to India, even anti-KJF Japan can put out 6 ground to India’s 3. You can defend India, sure - but then with competent Axis players I’d expect that to mean West Russia collapses faster. Particularly, if Germany holds Caucasus before UK evacuates India, then any UK stack can get cut off. And that’s really something you want to avoid. (There’s a few different varieties, but basically if you have some kind of major UK stack on India, you want it to join up with Russia safely. If you have a German stack on Cauc and a UK stack on India, if you move the UK stack to Persia, the German stack slaughters the UK stack at net loss to Allies. In SOME games that’s not the worst because that opens Caucasus up for Russian recapture, but the German stack on Persia plus any units Germany fed towards Ukraine get a counter - and normally that counter should be, like, huge. So it gets very weird. Anyways that’s why you evac India EARLIER, if you can move a India stack to Persia then to Caucasus or Kazakh BEFORE Germany or Japan can cut those territories off, then you have a big block of units that can help defend Russia - and in the KJF scenario it’s actually a big block of units that can join up with UK units coming off Atlantic for a potential breakout. (You might NOT be able to break out too btw.)

Baaasically I’d say in 1942 Online just KGF. Always KGF; if you think your opponent’s a noob or you don’t care if you win or lose, then go ahead and KJF, but it’s an uphill battle.

As to Atl, your basic Allied setup is US1 fleet build, US2 air build (if you want, or more fleet whatever). And the US2 fleet move is off Morocco maybe, and US1-US2 maybe you get US transports dropping to French West Africa - but you want UK (not US) to grab Morocco and Algeria etc. IF YOU CAN MANAGE IT. Anyways UK3 drops fleet, then US3 reinforces. Get the picture? Normally the timing on that is very awkward for Axis to counter, though it’s POSSIBLE off things like a J1 bomber buy . . . but then you know about it well in advance and at worst it changes the timing to US4 (but Japan also gets slowed in Asia)

Then you start dropping units alternating from E Can to Finland/Norway to build pressure. Then a lot changes depending on what the Axis do - how they did their air, what they did with their comps. Like if Germany rushed tanks then their defense of France is bound to be less solid - but you shouldn’t be greedy and grab it for income unless you’re starved for income with UK and can’t produce 8 units (plus 3 at India if you still have it) AND can split the Allied fleet. You need to pressure Axis off Karelia if you can at all help it WHILE ALSO keeping in mind Axis Karelia stack can shift into W Rus and other places while still cutting off UK/US landed troops from pressing in to relieve Russia TIMELY. There’s a buncha weird things you can do in there depending on Axis moves, ranging from attacks into retreats to “teleport” armies around, building fighters to rush defense . . . I won’t get into that here.

In closing - you need to say if you’re playing 1942 Online or TripleA/board game. Non-use of allied carriers is a big fat nasty thing. And you need to not use OOB unless you’re using a bid.

“ONE Giant Example” -

1942.2 rulebook looks nice but is badly organized. Some of what I write following is not literally in the book, but interpretation that might be accepted as reasonable.

3:51: “and that should be all the Americans’ combat moves” - can be understood as “combat movement phase is over”, but that’s not actually what’s intended.

I understand the video simplifies to give viewers the best experience, and veteran players often aren’t strict about enforcement, so long as they see no advantage is gained. But for newer players, going more “by the book” helps avoid confusion.

I’d say do all combat movements first, then start combat phase. Specifically:

1. Blitzing tanks. Control markers apply immediately when unoccupied enemy territory is blitzed. This happens during the combat movement phase. I know you know, I’m just making the point to reference later.

2. Air units. Use wee dice or markers to indicate remaining movement. You did a transition at 4:27 where you did just that with dice, but the point was not emphasized. Yet it’s exactly that sort of tip that’s useful for newer players. It comes up again around 8:15; players that are really paying attention may catch it then (you mention ranges that line up with what’s shown on dice), but it could still be missed. I think you may have covered that in the unboxing video, but maybe it’s not too off-topic to mention it again?

3. Move other units. You know how naval and land retreats work. When moving units into an attacked territory, leave at least one unit on each border of an eligible retreat territory/zone. That way players don’t have to keep mental track of where everything was retreating to. Units on transports remain with transports; if the transport is destroyed the units are removed, if the transports aren’t destroyed then they still stay together as amphibiously landed land-based units can’t retreat.

Players won’t be able to always literally do the above with packed boards. But it’s good practice for newer players that might get confused; even when they don’t do it they’re extra careful as it’s drilled into them that they need to track air movement, eligible retreat zones, and keep transported units separate.

5:30: It’s correctly shown a transport cannot unload into sea zone with enemy submarine without a friendly warship. But for newer players, a couple things may be confusing. First, they may not understand the enemy submarine is being ignored by the destroyer. The attacking destroyer may also choose to engage the enemy submarine, and that actually is decided during the combat phase, not the combat movement phase.

Also, the control marker at 5:30 is flipped immediately. But though the entire sequence (including ignoring the submarine) is clear to veteran players, technically it shouldn’t happen yet. Blitzing tanks into unoccupied territory is part of combat movement. But amphibious assaults including into unoccupied territory resolve during combat phase. So actually strategic bombing should happen first. Then amphibious assaults. Then regular combats. The control marker would be flipped when that particular combat resolved.

Veteran players won’t blink, they know the results can’t change and no advantage is imparted. If anything, it could be argued there’s a disadvantage. (It’s assumed the sub is ignored, and 1942 Online would force you to commit to designating the sea zone as “hostile” or “friendly”. But actually under board game rules you don’t have to commit until that particular combat starts being resolved. So if you decided you didn’t want to take the territory, you could fight the sub and retreat if the destroyer didn’t hit.)

Noticed Panther (I assume) moved this thread and put up a sticky in 1942 v2 forum. Good on him.

@fenderbender4 Sent a PM.

“featuring the Game’s Designer - Larry Harris!” - nice btw -

Video has a nice look, bits of footage spliced in, just generally really well done imo ,overlays, etc. etc.

Around 40:00 then for the following sea unit section, some parts were a lot louder relative to the rest of the video. Gave me a bit of a start at points.

I might have just missed it, and this is not an “error” - at most perhaps an omission. But if I remember right fighters can’t use a planned carrier retreat to plan an eligible landing zone. And that could bear mentioning.

Also noticed there were “GERONIMO” references in both videos. So both videos have a thingie in one of the examples, really, not just a cut and paste thing?

Nice videos.

@Brian-Cannon said in Crazy game: Should be titled when the dice reward stupid behavior, expect it.:

https://imgur.com/a/ljg5bRR

https://imgur.com/a/xy1HU7y

These screenshots show the US7 combat move and US2 purchase phases, respectively.

If you want to make a point of players having crazy luck, you should make a screenshot of the COMBAT PHASE showing what attacked, what was destroyed, and what survived, for that attack specifically.

BTW Black Elk wrote about Allied air power to “the center” and mass Allied strat bombing years ago on the 1942 Second Edition forums.

@DoManMacgee said in Crazy game: Should be titled when the dice reward stupid behavior, expect it.:

Sounds like people just used an Allied variant of the “Dark Skies” strategy that Germany likes to use in G40 lol. Once Air Stacks hit critical mass they get pretty nasty but you should be able to use keep tight stacks of land units to deter it.

I’ve read other of DoManMacgee’s posts and consider them good; I think he wrote another good one here. If you want more comments, searching for “Dark Skies” may be useful, and tight stacks of land are what you use.

@Brian-Cannon said in Crazy game: Should be titled when the dice reward stupid behavior, expect it.:

I lost count on the number of times he sent 3 Bombers and a fighter or two at a stack of 3 infantry and didnt lose a thing. He had absolutely no fear of sending in naked fleets of air at ground units and it paid off for him the entire game.

Nah, tight stacks or whatever you call it isn’t 3 infantry against 3 bombers and a fighter. Against such a force, eight infantry would be about right.

If you want to ask “how is that even possible” - some depends on dice results, sure, but there IS an Axis strategy that pushes these large stacks. Ask if you want more details.

Returning to 3 bombers and a fighter attacking 3 infantry - look at the numbers.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=1&aBom=3&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

23.52% 3 bombers 1 fighter
40.75% 3 bombers
25.7% 2 bombers
7.55% 1 bomber
0.9% no survivors
1.24% 1 infantry
0.29% 2 infantry
0.04% 3 infantry

As you can see, it’s expected the mass air attack survives. The median is one fighter lost, but 23.52% of no losses is hardly outside the range of reasonable possibility.

Having it happen multiple times in a game - suppose you’re digging for the 35.73% of 2 bombers or worse for the attacker resulting. You figure your opponent’s number has got to come up eventually, but you’re balancing that against 23.52% for best-case for the attacker, or 64.27% for best or second-best case for the attacker.

Considering 64.27% as “success” for the attacker over five trials, the probability of all five trials succeeding is just under 11%. Unlikely, sure - but not necessarily stupid.

Basic Axis and Allies is infantry chains. What the most effective transport routes are, how to maintain effective lines of reinforcement, and so forth. When you play Axis and Allies at that basic level, if you have one player that understands infantry chains and another that doesn’t, the player that understands infantry chains wins.

If you’re doing basic attacks, an infantry costs 3 IPCs, defending has 1/3 chance of destroying an air unit, cheapest air (fighter) costs 10 IPC, so expected 3.33 IPC (more than the value of the infantry) on defense. It’s just expected that you go plus.

But intermediate Axis and Allies involves thinking about multiple dice, threat multiplication, timings, and other things. As seen with that link to aacalc, often you can get surprisingly cost-effective results.

Think about it like this. With infantry chains with UK/US, say you build destroyers in case of enemy sub builds and for defense fodder, carriers, fighters, and transports. Only with that infrastructure can you move in infantry. By the time you move in that infantry, your opponent’s already been doing whatever they’ve been up to, so you have to play catchup. And maybe you won’t win that way.

With mass air, you don’t need anything but the air themselves. Escorts and transports are slow and hard to protect, but air is very fast. Your opponent may not have been able to harden targets early on, then any gains you make from added speed are often leveraged into additional income for you and less for your opponent. And you can reposition between different theaters at speed too. (Off topic, but bears mentioning German mass air against KGF can threaten both sea and land targets, it’s a big part of that strategy).

So think again about 3 bombers 1 fighter against 3 infantry. The median result is fighter lost, 3 infantry lost. Air loses net on the IPC exchange, but just by a bit. The timing against a strong Axis anti-transport-based KGF is US3 to Finland/Norway. But US3 air hits at about the same time, at higher strength, and is not limited to those targets. They can hit closer to the action, against targets in the interior of Europe, emptying enemy territories may let Russia take control of those territories for income - and Russian income is best of all Allied income. If US wants to reposition its units to hit Axis targets in Africa, transports just can’t get the job done well at all, only being able to reach French West Africa then slowly trundle through Africa. Air can hit points in Africa while still threatening targets in Europe, then return and hit Europe the next turn while still threatening points in Africa.

So - was your opponent really engaging in stupid behavior? Perhaps not. Lucky, sure, and willing to press his/her luck, sure. But mass air of itself isn’t necessarily an indicator of poor play.