Best posts made by aardvarkpepper

2025 Apr 28

So there I was on Discord, reading a post from a player. Long story short, get the popcorn, it’s time to look at UK1 to sz37 (Japanese battleship, carrier, two fighters off East Indies).

I say it’s not good. It only needs one good counterexample to change my mind, but I haven’t seen that counterexample yet.

Addressing some topics players bring up:

STRAW MEN SECTION

GenCon

Yes, KJF UK1 to sz37 is popular at GenCon - where there’s a preplaced bid typically used to add a UK sub to the battle reducing the risk by I think it’s something like 20%. Further, I believe as GenCon games are adjudicated by victory city count before ending normally, that Allied KGF results in the Axis winning by victory city. Only with KJF do the Allies stand a chance to contest VCs - or so I believe.

At any rate, UK1 to sz37 may be standard with good reason at GenCon, but I say not for 1942 Online.

UK1 India/Aus Fleet Are Useless

UK1 India/Aus fleet take forever to be relevant, and J can lose critical things.

My reply is, no, the J assets are not critical. Useful, yes. But no more.

If it’s KGF, J can afford the loss of battleship and carrier. UK1 to sz37 means not landing a UK fighter on Szechwan, meaning J can attack there to destroy the US fighter. The Allies have something in the region of 60% to win at sz37, half of which involve losing one or both fighters.

So where India and W Rus defense are concerned, the Allies open up the possibility of losing three fighters at 4 on defense. Meanwhile, Japan loses two fighters at 3 on offense, and Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer and transport mean earlier drops to Asia’s mainland.

That’s not to say J comes out far ahead on the exchange in terms of pressure against India; personally I think after UK1 to sz37 that J1 should purchase a replacement carrier if it’s lost, and that slows J’s development. But you can see where it’s less “this is fantastic” and more “oh, well, maybe this isn’t bad.”

Particularly, if G is applying fast pressure, it works out to UK1 making an unforced error. Ideally the Allies want to build a combined stack to defend against G’s pressure. That the UK “bleed” out to J means there’s less for G to deal with.

US Builds Less Fleet

No. More on that later.

Straw Men Cast Aside

Well, the above are just some of the popular things that players claim about UK1 to sz37. Personally, I view UK1 to sz37 as a meta switch, that is, playing a line and hoping an opponent doesn’t react well to it - though in fairness that might be overstating things. More on that later.

But in sum, it comes down to some players believe - with reason - that there’s various reasons to use UK1 to sz37. But the problems with the line come up in critical examination - specifically, when the specifics are closely examined, the timing and development carefully considered, when opportunity cost and specific comparisons made.

REAL MEN, WOMEN, AND FUZZY CREATURES FROM ALPHA CENTAURI

(and people of other genders who are also real, particularly those that have read Douglas Adams)

Not much point in spending time on straw men, so what’s really going on?

COUNTERPRESSURE - LOSING A BATTLESHIP IS OK

Games between competent opponents are not a matter of force this, force that, or whatever silly things some like to write to pretend they are in total unrealistic command over a situation.

Your opponent has choices. Choices that have consequences.

I’ve written elsewhere some general notes about KJF defense, probably to the effect that J can build subs, then later fighters when the Allies apply too much pressure to the sea zones around Japan so Japan doesn’t want to build new navy, that J should try to capture India.

Roughly, subs are cheap attackers, an opponent must move their navy into range before they themselves can attack, and when they do, Japan can use those subs to fuel a vicious counter, before the opponent can get an attack off. Though Japan “defends”, it does so by attacking, that is, counterpressure.

Think about how this applies to the aftermath of UK1 to sz37. Japan loses a battleship and a carrier. The carrier frankly was not great on attack. The battleship was useful and could soak a hit, but actually couldn’t be used in many counterpressure situations, as hitting an opponent fleet would likely leave that battleship vulnerable to being destroyed by an opponent counter.

Only if an opponent moved a fleet into range where it could be completely destroyed, and the opponent had no counter, would a battleship really be useful. Make sense?

But competent opponents are not likely to do that.

So you can see where J has another destroyer, which can usefully hunt subs, which is yet considered expendable, and is cheap insofar as naval battles go, considering it can defend against air while subs can’t - at any rate, you can see how it can be more useful to counterpressure than a battleship. It doesn’t seem to make sense, but when it’s understood the destroyer may be considered fully expendable where the battleship is not, there it is.

If the battleship were fully expendable, then of course it’s more useful than a destroyer - but nobody likes to throw away battleships, they’re pretty useful and too costly to replace. So there it is.

COUNTERPRESSURE - LOSING FIGHTERS IS OKAY - BECAUSE -

If Japan defends with counterpressure and the battleship wasn’t such a big loss, then what about the loss of fighters? Fighters are obviously great at counterpressure.

Except not so much. That seems ridiculous; fighters seem to be the essence of counterpressure; they hit, they retreat, they are not vulnerable to attack (mostly).

But counterpressure is a matter of application as well as abstraction.

Suppose UK1 does not hit sz37 and Japan has six fighters two carriers to apply counterpressure. Besides cleaning up UK assets in Indian and Pacific Oceans, exactly where does J want to have counterpressure?

J wants to threaten the India sea zone to prevent any UK naval buys from getting going. J wants to threaten the east Australia sea zone if not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet to prevent US from moving a fleet there with two fighters and a third fighter to West Canada, then on US2 moving those fighters to India. (Though this US action is too late against an Axis pressure line threatening G3 West Russia. A bit more on that later, and I expect I’ll do a writeup on the G3 W Rus line itself in another thread). J also wants to threaten the Iwo Jima sea zone and the zone north of it; if the US unites fleet there, it can threaten both J’s sea zones which pressures against J building any new naval units unless bringing its entire fleet back to defend the sea zone, which in turn restricts J’s freedom to move ground units where it wants (typically Yunnan).

J can counterpressure with navy at the Philippines sea zone, but fighters are a problem. Placing J1 fighters at Kwangtung allows J2 to support a G2 Ukraine push and hold attempt, but most of those fighters do not have range to some of those critical zones. Four fighters only can typically be used for counterpressure; those fighters that can land on carriers.

If UK1 hits sz37, I’ve argued elsewhere that J1 buys a carrier - not because I like it. I very much do not like it; I typically argue against tactically inflexible units, and I’ve commented that after a J1 buy, the Allies can go KGF, leaving any dedicated naval investment useless.

But a J1 carrier is immensely useful. It is a powerful defender, joined by sub, two destroyers, and cruiser along with two already existing fighters for defense against air threats. It also extends effective fighter range for counterpressure.

If carriers and fighters are great, why not buy more? The answer is, after UK1 to sz37, Japan already has fighters to fill a second carrier. Japan does not have any more fighters to fill a third and would have to buy them - quite expensive, and very possibly not the best use of resources.

As to if the Allies do not hit sz37, two carriers is adequate to a range of early air threats and additional counterpressure and control should mostly come through subs, destroyers, or tactically flexible fighters that don’t tie defense down.

In practice, a J1 carrier may not help to counterpressure the aforementioned sea zones, for J2 at least. In theory, fighters landed on the new carrier could reach the various sea zones, but there’s often reason to put fighters elsewhere (like Kwangtung).

At any rate, remember anti-KJF is not strictly about stacking defense, but about counterpressure, and loss of 2 J fighters is not necessarily critical.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

What’s big, gray, weighs forty thousand pounds, and sits in the middle of a room where nobody’s talking about it? That’s right, a Panzer IV tank, or maybe three African bush elephants, take your pick.

Let’s talk about the Panzer first.

WHEN GERMANY ATTACKS

The fastest way for G to advance against USSR is typically the Ukr / W Rus / Cauc line. If the Allies cannot get a good attack against an Axis Ukraine stack, then the Allies are pressured at both West Russia and Caucasus. Whichever the Allies don’t defend, the Axis can hit and very possibly hold; then the Allies retreat to Moscow.

Exactly when and how this plays out is more complicated than I lay out here, with various strategic variations.

But what it comes to is, whatever pressure the Allies exert against Japan is pressure not exerted against Germany.

If a player thinks that UK1 to sz37 defines the game, then the simple fact is they haven’t played against competent Axis that press appropriately, nor have they likely played against Axis that even counterpressure appropriately.

Yes, lucksacking UK1 to sz37 off a blind buy can be very tough and fast, and set the tone for an Allied win on strength of the position. But that’s where we get back to the elephants.

OPPORTUNITY COST

Characteristic of meta discussion “explanations” is explanations that are, well, bad!

A fighter can be used to attack sea or land, therefore it is good.

Yes, thank you, we are familiar with the basic properties of units, the real question is why is a fighter purchased and not, say, two infantry and an artillery?

I understand a desire to simplify discussion, but current meta discussion goes so far in that direction that it’s typically not discussion at all.

I think it’s something like, UK1 to sz37 wins a bit more than 60% of the time, about half of that expecting to lose 1-2 fighters. Where defender “wins”, I think they get wiped like 69% or something, but an additional 10% to retain only a fighter or battleship. Something like that.

At any rate, aggregate that’s risky, it should be seen.

Consider alternatives like UK1 to sz61 (J destroyer/transport) with 3 sub buy at India. (I’m not saying to do this, just giving an example). If the J destroyer is destroyed (94.8% at least, with fighter/cruiser is it?), then J has no counter to the US1 build. As to UK development, parking the UK carrier south of Persia, if G air is not in range, leaves J with risking fighters, committing J btl and/or carrier to where UK has a big counter, and if J doesn’t hit then the UK carrier gives UK fighters on India range to hit sz61 (Yunnan sea zone) along with the subs.

The real question is not whether UK1 sz37 has any good points or is worth the risk, because “good” and “risk” are relative terms that really require comparison. Instead, it’s a question of what the risks really are, how the development plays out, compared to other lines.

Personally I think UK1 to sz37 in 1942 Online, currently with no bid, currently without ability to use allied carriers or transports, is needlessly risky compared to other lines. I think it’s a potentially useful line to play against players that aren’t familiar with fighting it, I think when it gets lucky it can be quite strong, but on balance I think it not worth pursuing against competent opponents, considering what I consider to be lines with less risk.

I think even UK1 3 subs at India is not great; currently I’m trying to figure out a way to defend Moscow as long as possible while not giving up too much in Pacific pseudotimings. No surprise there I’m sure, nor will be my comment that I don’t want the Moscow stack to be cut off from reinforcing India.

At any rate, I think this thread sums up some thoughts I have on UK1 to sz37, cheers.