Posts made by aardvarkpepper

Short version: G1 1 x bomber gains do not adequately compensate for loss of G4+ loss of 4 infantry.

Thank you, you’ve been a great audience.

. . . no?

Fine, let’s get on with it. R1 4 inf 3 art (I won’t get into how apparently meta likes 4 inf 2 tank) 12 W Rus 9 Ukr.

W Rus 9 inf 2 art 1 tank vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank, we say attacker 3 hits defender 2 hits, then attacker 2 hits defender 1 hit, average 6 inf 2 art 1 tank survive.

Ukr 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 2 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber 1 fighter. We say Axis go bomber-fighter OOL; round 1 attacker 3 hits / defender 3 hits; round 2 attacker 3 hits / defender 2 hits / then we say attacker presses on for Reasons, attacker inflicts last hit while defender gets one more hit; USSR has 1 tank 2 fighters, and yes I know that’s not how it often works out but whatever. Ballparking it.

Saying the Novo infantry moves to Moscow, and counting AA guns and fighters that’s 15 units at Moscow/Caucasus or points west. And we say R1 we’ll add 2 more infantry from Evenki (because on Archangel they pressure Karelia), then R2 1 more, R3 4 more (plus the Kazakh infantry makes it back). Then we account for build; we say 7 per turn through R3 then 6 a turn from R4. All infantry equivalents on defense (that is, infantry and artillery).

The Numbers (More or Less, Sort Of)

Yes, horrible oversimplification. But end of R1 that’s 24, R2 32, R3 44, R4 50, then R5+ 6 per turn, and we can add 2 UK fighters per turn and 1 US fighter initial, plus some discretion.

**Bleed / Build **

USSR wants to bleed out Germany; Germany wants to bleed out USSR. But if that’s true, then what happens if USSR tries multi-stack “pressure” against Germany? That is, put four infantry on Karelia, 4 infantry on Ukraine, that sort of thing?

Answer is, USSR loses. Germany has more air so does better on trades. Plus Germany doesn’t have to accept any given battle, and Germany can stack defense on territory of its choice with tanks. That generally means, USSR can and should bleed off minimally to trade, but trying to expand the rate of bleed just leaves USSR at a disadvantage.

Conversely, what if Germany tries to multi-stack? Maybe we say Germany comes out a little ahead in the short term, but in KGF Germany really doesn’t want to trade with anyone; it wants to stack defense.

So assuming KGF, both USSR and Germany want to keep trades light. Can’t not trade; that just surrenders territory without fighting for it, which locks that income away, and since the early stacks are in direct competition that’s just not working out well for anyone.

So we chop 5 infantry equivalents a turn for each side. Again, making assumptions, but whatever.

So what are Germany’s reserves? Totting up everything left in Europe it’s 38 units. Say Germany strips 2 out to dump to Trans-Jordan, that leaves 36, but not all those 36 can pressure West Russia right away. But let’s say Germany gets there in the end.

Germany production is at 13 units, again takes a while to get there. Let’s say the G1 build reaches Karelia on G3, and by then all the rest of Germany’s units in Europe can reach Karelia too. So we set that as our base.

G3 49 units against R3 44. But then, we’re thinking about stuff like UK2 build dumping to France on UK3; US1 build can reach on US3 too. So then, let’s say Germany holds just 5 infantry back. Maybe more. Maybe less. Uses some fighters. Whatever.

In all this, what happens if UK builds fighters to drop to West Russia? There’s the greedy UK1 Atlantic fleet build, there’s the less greedy UK1 London fighters build, both combine with 3 ground units on India. But regardless, we can figure maybe another 4 UK fighters, 1 US fighter, maybe more.

Then it starts to make sense, you see players writing about J3 timings on India, and here’s a G3 push into Karelia, right? See how the timings synchronize a bit? And if the Axis really lean into it, that’s where the pressure breaks down; Allies want to defend both territories and one may expect one or the other to have to give. Like, really.

But let’s say Allies did the fighter to West Russia thing. And let’s really think about the G1 build; if Germany mobilized 10 units on Berlin and 3 on Italy, will those 3 Italy units really push Karelia on G3? Of course not. Because the Italy units march to Berlin on G2, so only reach Karelia on G4, along with the G2 Berlin build.

And it’s right about then that USSR’s feed of troops from east Asia starts tapering off.

Playing fast and loose a lot, but again, base G 49 vs R 44; we deduct 3 units for the Italy deploy, another 5 for France, and boost West Russia by 4 fighters. It just does not look good for a G3 attack into West Russia (actually 4 of the USSR infantry are on Archangel but whatever). Regardless, Germany shouldn’t really be in a position to threaten gains.

But G4, another 13 units join at Karelia. And that is kind of a lot. Plus Germany’s G4 build can include fighter(s) which add to the threat on W Rus and also pressure Allied drops to Med.

Reserved (I may chuck a table of contents and links in here later or something.)

So there I was on Discord, and players are talking about G1 bomber standard meta. And I’m like, they have forgotten the face of their father.

(Dark Tower by Stephen King reference)

But then I’m like, well . .

https://imgflip.com/i/87fhxq

(Picture of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker; Darth Vader says “You have forgotten the face of your father”, Luke says “Don’t be absurd I’ve never even seen your face.”)

Right, so how can we expect upcoming generations to understand stack bleeding/building if it’s not explained to them? Oh, they should just figure it out, okay, maybe. But isn’t that sort of heartless?

So here we go again.

And right at the outset, once again. Probably I’m skipping over a lot, and I don’t claim to be original or whatever. Revised base is about twenty years old at time of this writing, 1942 Second Edition eleven years. Don Rae’s essays older than Revised even. So really it’s about method, application, running numbers, just, you know, basics.

And a lot of the basic methodology comes out of articles on Revised, a lot of which are lost to time now. Like, players would write out the percentages and projections turn by turn. Quite nice, that.

So anyways, this is all stuff that’s been written before, or at most built on what was written before, nothing spectacular really. But maybe worth a read eh?

“The 2nd UK transport round one happens because Germany fails to kill transport in sea zone 10 and there are not enough German attackers on sea zone 7 to cause UK to need to build an additional escort. As Germanys fighters are in Ukraine.”

Well, you did say “the G1 or G2 Ukraine stack”, so I do see that you’re following up on an earlier point. But the thread topic is “G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighter reinforcement”. It really isn’t about G1 Ukraine hold into G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighters. It can be G2 push into USSR-controlled Ukraine and J2 reinforcement.

1. Say Germany has 5 fighters 1 bomber and wants to challenge UK 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 transport; even the transport’s not sure if UK1 East Canada transport grabs Norway.

Yes, I know, there’s the whole 6-0 discussion, but you take my meaning. Germany wants to bleed its stack early vs UK in Atlantic so it can’t challenge Allied Europe? Okay.

There’s lines with G1 2-3 bomber but those are another matter. As usual lots of discussions not being had here. Ah well.

2. G1 3 tanks why? Let’s be explicit here.

G1 10 inf 2 art, G2 Berlin stack to Poland, G3 to Ukraine.
G1 3 tanks 4 inf 2 art, G3 stack is 5 infantry 1 artillery short.

But G1 tank build prevents G2 collapse? So does J1 fighters on Kwangtung; J2 6 fighters to Ukraine, before the R3 counter. And G2 tanks to Ukraine is against the R3 counter. I don’t imagine it’s claimed that 6 Japanese fighters is assumed, and Germany also needs 3 tanks.

3. UK contest Karelia round 2? That’s a bit optimistic. The threat to Karelia is from USSR, really. UK shouldn’t have mass transports as early as round 2; a lot of lines play out even 2 transports by end of UK1 should not be taken for granted. But let’s say Allies northwest is an issue earlier than in other lines. Sure. But the tradeoff is Axis play for actual sustained control of Caucasus early, when the line is played through. It’s not to be expected the Axis can play for that sort of prize but not need to pay anything for it.

4. G1 4 inf AA gun gets ground strafed for loss of AA gun and forward German infantry. In the G Ukraine press, Germany should not give odds-on for USSR to alleviate pressure (by putting additional dice on a potential strafe point). In other games G Karelia is logistics advantage, but in G Ukraine press, Ukraine pressure is the game, so Karelia becomes just another trade territory. Bonus for holding, of course, but that’s unlooked for.

I wouldn’t say G1 4 inf AA on Karelia is strictly wrong. But it’s the sort of situation where, you want West Russia to be so shaky, even odds-on of USSR strafe is still losing, and that’s just not the expectation.

It isn’t stipulated that G1 broke the W Rus stack or anything like that. COULD be, yes, if we WERE saying G1 broke W Rus stack (not necessarily capture, but just really messed it up pretty hard), then G1 4 inf AA on Karelia is winning pressure. But if W Rus expected to hold, and UK1 London fighters / US1 Szechwan fighter on, plus other possibles? Then USSR has some flexibility to run strafes.

It’s not like USSR strictly loses either in the Karelia strafe scenario. USSR can still use fighters to trade Belorussia, and income loss from not capturing Karelia could arguably be said to be offset by destroying deployed forward Germany units.

i.e.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/?rules=1942&battleType=land&roundCount=1&defInfantry=4&defAAGun=1&attInfantry=5&attArtillery=2&attTank=1

So the upshot is, Allies can dump a huge chunk on Paris, but then Germany can smash with Berlin infantry / Baltic tanks. US double-dropped its transports so can’t counter next turn at all. UK can drop 8+, and Germany needs to survive that, but without the US followthrough it’s a lot more survivable. It’s very very bad for the Axis still; even with the Allies having fought a losing mid-stack battle, Germany’s bled pretty dry; even with German tanks surviving, Germany doesn’t really have the unit count to maintain. But though even a FAVORABLE Axis mid-stack battle still LOSES strategically against Allies in Europe in the short term, the Axis do get that much more time for Japan to develop their threat against Moscow, which should be decisive. Well, in theory.

If you’re asking yourself, well, Karelia’s precarious in the first place, so how can Germany possibly put all those tanks on Baltic? Exactly. Germany is digging through the couch for loose change the entire game. So maybe the Karelia position collapses and Germany has a huge Baltic States and/or Belorussia stack, if the difference isn’t too great, Germany can maybe get something out of it.

Worst Case for Germany

Worst case is, Allies are building at Finland/Norway, if Germany doesn’t threaten to block off Allied pressure at Karelia, UK/US get a huge stack of cheap ground units reinforcing Moscow, and that’s just really bad. So let’s say Allies break through at Karelia (theoretically) and also trade France lightly, it’s win-win for Allies . . . .sort of.

But then, Germany only trades lightly at France; it’s definitely “losing” for Germany, but it was losing to begin with, so what more could Axis really get out of that position?

And if Germany retreated from Karelia, then Germany should probably have something at Belorussia and/or Baltic States. Imagine G8 retreats from Karelia, UK8/US8/USSR9 reinforces. Then? Belorussia infantry and Baltic States tanks push Ukraine and trade West Russia. Allies shift their combined stack to West Russia and double-drop to France. But both USSR and US may be out of position to counter Japan push to Caucasus, that’s the problem with the USSR9 (or whatever) reinforcement to Karelia. So that’s Japan’s way to maybe capture and hold Caucasus in the KGF, which solves a lot of Japan’s logistics issues.

And if Axis were losing everywhere to begin with? Well then they were losing, you know?

But you can see if the Allies go all-in, Axis have lines that can play out reasonably; if Allies don’t go all-in, Axis have lines that can play out reasonably, so long as Axis weren’t pretty much losing on all fronts to begin with.

But anyways remember. Stack building and bleeding, okay, tactically seems to me you have a pretty good grip on it, but strategically remember production limits. Germany simply cannot afford to trade on any sort of ongoing basis on western / European coastal fronts with UK/US in the KGF; even fairly advantaged trades can still be a losing proposition. Germany has to be very careful about planning for certain fronts to collapse so others can be maintained/strengthened, that’s the reasonable expectation.

Germany Should Not Trade In The KGF

Okay, well really it should and it has to, but the difference between a really really sharp player and a blunt one is, a sharp player is going to be clawing for those small advantages, a blunt one misses opportunities and makes good short term decisions that come at the expense of long term positions.

So if opponent is sort of competent, what should Germany expect?

Early on, Germany shouldn’t give France up cheaply. But at some point, Germany just can’t maintain pressure in the east if it’s making these bit trades with UK/US in the west. So Germany shifts off France, trying to control Karelia to block off cheap UK/US ground reinforcements to Moscow.

German Pressure Vs Moscow

And this transition is very delicate, and subject to change. Like if Germany can get a credible threat against West Russia from Karelia, then maybe USSR retreats to Caucasus, then Germany captures West Russia in force, and if UK/US moves from Finland to Karelia, Germany shifts back and gets vastly favorable odds on a mid-stack battle, which basically means Axis have winning expectation. But if UK/US don’t move stack to Karelia, then if Axis stack West Russia, Allies must stack Moscow, giving Axis easy access to Caucasus; this makes sense, yes? Or there’s the “brute force” German stack on Caucasus or Japanese stack on Caucasus, and that’s tricky, but I won’t get into those here. Suffice to say, Germany can profit from pressure in the east.

And I’ll also mention, when Germany pushes its eastern stack towards Moscow, that can open up the Allied Triple, where UK, US, then USSR all attack Berlin. The major Allied stack in Europe simply heads for Berlin, lets Moscow fall, then Germany can’t reposition to defend Moscow in time. It can happen, so watch for it.

But we assume Axis don’t let that happen because Axis are watching for it, right?

France Transition

Right. So it’s understood, Germany can’t trade France, can hardly afford to stack France. But if Allies stack France then Germany’s denied France income and the Allies can bleed Germany out at NW Europe and Italy too. So that’s not great.

So how does Germany transition off France? Infantry stack on Paris shifts to Berlin; some Berlin infantry shift to Baltic States, other Berlin infantry shift to Poland (maybe, maybe not), Karelia is reinforced by whatever means - and German tanks are on Baltic States.

(maybe)

(continued)

@meterpaffay
Good questions, but I don’t know what you mean by

“Can it still be a viable tactic to heavily trade France, accepting a better roi for Germany, with the aim to deter Germany from piling on the pressure on Russia?”

What EXACTLY does this mean? Considering the rest of the post, I would say it’s probably a good question, it’s just I don’t know how to answer without understanding what exactly the question means.

Specifically, the Axis should never “heavily trade France” in most games.

Okay, so you already understand about stack building and bleeding; you’re preserving US units so you can build the US to be the major stack controller in Europe to challenge a combined Axis stack.

France is another different application of the same thinking. There, you mention Germany committing a full stack denying trading. This is a different application to stack building/bleeding at West Russia region, which is good tactical application.

But really applying stack building/bleeding requires strategic understanding. Let’s say round 6 or something I don’t know whatever, and UK has 3 transports, US has 4 transports alternating between East Canada and Finland/Norway/France/NW Europe and 4 empties returning. And this is really not too much to ask of Allies, in fact it’s understating the threat if anything, but whatever.

So the threats there are US takes the stuff it dropped in Norway/Finland last turn and the East Canada transports and uses all 8 transports to drop 16 units to France. And UK has perhaps a 10-12 dice attack into France in the first place, what with air. So if US has 4 fighters to spare, you’re looking at UK capture, then US reinforcement with 20 units. Well, probably you know all this, so you’re thinking maybe 20+ units on France instead of 8+ as described.

Anyways, that’s just to put things in scale.

But returning to the strategic view - Germany’s only putting out maybe 14 ground a turn, and that’s if it’s going almost pure infantry. And I’m not saying that’s right, but just for this hypothetical scenario. Well if you assume 4 get bled out to USSR with trades each turn, and say UK trades 6 more (matching its transport capacity) and US another 8, you can see where 18 > 14.

So strategically, Germany should NOT trade, doesn’t this just make sense? Because trading is a losing proposition. And one could say, well, if Germany has mass air then it can make better trades and even trade at an advantage, and mass air pressures Allies to build more escorts and pressures Allies to not drop through Mediterranean so rate of Germany’s bleed slows, and all that is true. But the expense of air on that level means a lot fewer boots on the ground, so if Allies are clever, they can still build pretty unpleasant counterpressure. That is, there really isn’t a way for Germany to get around it.

(continued)

US Bomber East Canada

With US submarine, “keeps Japan honest” or whatever. Keeping US bomber on East Canada limits attack opportunities into Med pretty soon, but it’s an option for a little while.

US/UK Naval Bombardment

US sets submarine at Hawaiian Islands to fight; increases odds from something like 50% to 68% that Japanese cruiser will not survive. If Japanese cruiser does not survive, then if UK did the right move, there could be US1 naval bombard vs inf/bomber/fighter followed by UK2 naval bombard. It’s not a great attack by Allies, but if it connects it can wipe out at least some Japanese air; depending on Japanese player greed / “dummy check” maybe better odds. Allied fleet assets arrive that much later in the Atlantic.

Wrapping Up

So in response to OP, it really isn’t about just taking ONE power and pressuring ONE opponent. Effectively you really want to use turn order and combinations, and have contingencies so what’s used against one power isn’t mono-use (so the counter won’t leave you stuck with nothing).

Generically, use Allied subs and bombers if you want to do some sort of dual threat. But discard thinking about the magical unicorn “can do all things everywhere all at once” because it just doesn’t work that way normally. Each theater needs some sort of cost-economical strategic core; when the minimum there is established (which is a lot less than a lot of meta might argue is a “minimum” but there is still a “minimum”, one can use bombers etc. to threaten multiple theaters

How To Counter Bombers? Tanks and Infantry, Probably

So if bombers have his multiple theater threat, then how to counter? Tanks and infantry are usual suspects. Bombers give better trades to the point air-heavy trades can favor attacker (e.g. 4 inf 5 bomber vs 5 inf; expectation is attacker commits less but destroys more). But at some point, stack battles have to be fought, so defending against air-heavy can use tanks; tanks can blitz to front lines quickly to reinforce, with faster movement defender needs to maintain less defensive stacks.

Bombers are also not great at defending for cost, so again tanks have the edge when it comes to stack battles.

But there’s some odd bits too, like if Allies go mass bomber their navies tend not to have overbuild on defense. So Axis switch to air can pressure Allies to retreat navy while building more escorts, leaving Allied bombers without cost-effective ground units.

So there’s different ways to counter bombers, if a player keeps their head on straight. So if you play some games with loads of bombers and opponents just don’t know how to counter, well, remember you can’t really evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy until it’s used against strong players. Bit of a discussion as to what constitutes “strong” but that’s perhaps a fun discussion best left for another time.

R1 2 Fighters on Archangel

Or, at least 1, anyways.
One of the applications of Archangel fighters is threatening Buryatia, which is usually pretty silly. USSR wants to devote scarce air power to a 1 IPC territory in far east, can only be used to counter Karelia out of all Europe next turn, and Japan just wipes out whatever ground USSR committed to recapturing Buryatia? Really? Ugh.

And if Japan commits towards capturing Buryatia, slowing J push to India? Well really now. USSR is the major Allied stack controller in Europe for quite some time. If USSR is to challenge the German stack, one should be able to see how an additional 12 IPC worth of units should make a difference in terms of pressure that can be applied. USSR bleeding out against Japan is the dream scenario for Axis, PLEASE bleed USSR out against Japan so strengthen the round 4 German-USSR balance in Europe, PLEASE do!

So it should be understood, USSR threatening Buryatia is usually a paper tiger threat.

But what if that weren’t the case?

UK Bomber at Kazakh

What happens if UK1 doesn’t hit the G Med fleet? Suppose UK1 instead flies bomber to Kazakh. And here I’ll say again, there’s a lot I’ll leave out, like what happens if G1 retained control of Ukraine so landed fighters on? Then UK1 bomber to Kazakh gets destroyed on G2 before UK2 can move to safety. So in this theoretical scenario we assume R1 successfully captured Ukraine, or G1 decided not to stack Ukraine; in either event UK has this information before UK commits to its move so it moves the UK bomber or not accordingly. But let’s say for this theoretical scenario UK1 bomber on Kazakh is safe.

Okay what then?

Then if USSR has a fighter on Archangel, then R2 has a credible threat to recapture Buryatia even if Japan moves 3 infantry from Manchuria in. If R2 does that, UK can land bomber on Buryatia safely while that bomber threatens both Japan’s sea zones.

AMAZING! But not really, right? Because Japan can leave a battleship escorting existing / newly built transports, and lone bomber vs lone battleship only has 18% to clear (6% to win outright). Bombers are expensive and it’s not a great attack. If it pays off, great, but it probably won’t.

And if Japan decides to put a little more on defense, like a carrier or destroyer? Then UK has even less to attack with.

But let’s look at it, really. Does UK really only have 1 bomber to threaten?

Not necessarily. The sea zone west of Japan can be hit by 2 UK fighters and a bomber, assuming UK1 2 fighters on Szechwan.

And if UK builds 2 bombers on India, UK can even threaten with 2 fighters 3 bomber. Well, the sea zone east of Japan can only be reached by 3 bomber but . . . ?

But maybe not. Because if UK has a carrier at India sea zone, the fighters have a landing zone even if hitting the sea zone east of Japan.

Dream Vs Reality: I Can Be Everything Everywhere All At Once Or Something Or Maybe Not

So at this point maybe some players start getting excited, thinking about how they can overload threats against Japan with lines that also transition well against Germany. But it really doesn’t work that way. Sure, a player can pull off “tricks” but in the end fighters have better defense than bombers. Infantry take time to push forward. Tanks are expensive. The map is what it is, so logistics are what they are, and optimized lines are what they are. Maybe a player gets a better idea of how much they can move around within probabilistic boundaries, and realizes preconceptions of “hard” boundaries are perhaps a lot fuzzier when seen up close, but in the end there are still some probabilistic realities that need to be dealt with.

So here, what are the realities? Japan has a pretty massive starting fleet that UK cannot take head on by itself. Japan has the income, Japan has the logistics. If UK tries to play “tricks” with expensive units like bombers or carriers, if Japan keeps a level head UK’s expensive “tricks” end up costing too much in the long term considering the temporary gain. At least, that’s how we MIGHT think about things (maybe all those are assumptions that should be challenged.)

Overloading Japan

To appropriate a chess term, “overloading” is when a piece ends up just needing to do too much defensively.

So what does Japan ideally want to do? On J1, Japan wants to avoid US moving to Iwo Jima with destroyer + air, threatening any new Japanese naval builds. Japan can deal with such a US move by moving its main fleet to Japan’s sea zones and reinforcing, but this restricts Japan’s movement, particularly a consolidated Japan fleet means Japan isn’t free to drop to Yunnan sea zone, which affects its timing on India. Make sense?

Sure, US1 to Iwo Jima is a bit of an aside to the OP’s question about pressuring Japan without US commit. But contextualizing again, turn order is important. Japan doesn’t know what US will do. So Japan has to handle the US1 to Iwo Jima threat without knowing if US will actually follow through.

If Japan doesn’t hit US Hawaiian Islands fleet there’s also the US1 to sz45 (northeast of Australia), threatening US2 3 fighters to India. Which has its tradeoffs of course; if Allies want to send US into Mediterranean to bleed Germany out, one can see where US3 threat on Med is not really compatible with US2 fighters on India. Or for those that don’t, basically Germany has threats to sea zone west of Morocco and south of Italy; Axis typically control a lot of territory surrounding that early so Allies don’t really have safe landing zones. As Allies can’t move fighters around freely, transitioning between India-region fighters and Med pressure is not a “natural” transition. So, again leaving a lot out, this is where US1 to Morocco (sacrificing transport) and US second carrier start to be more of a thing. Explicitly, moves that are bad in the short term can make sense in the long term.

But back to overloading Japan. Besides threatening the Iwo Jima sea zone, Japan also wants to threaten the Solomon Islands sea zone, the sea zone northeast of Australia if J doesn’t hit Hawaiian Islands fleet, and the India sea zone with a destroyer+ to prevent UK sub builds. Plus Japan wants to defend the sea zones around Japan against up to a pretty massive threat as was described above.

So one sees, Japan can definitely do multiple, but not necessarily everything well.

Connecting The Pieces

Simply, you see where USSR1 fighter on Archangel, USSR1 capture of Ukraine, and UK1 bomber on Kazakh (and potential India bombers buy) are connected, plus India sea zone carrier.

And though not explicitly described, one may sort of guess at some of the adds. Like really, what happens if UK1 leaves a naked carrier in India sea zone? Japan smashes with battleship/carrier/2 fighters? Really? Then UK2 counters with 2 fighters 3 bombers, maybe 1-2 subs? Or maybe Japan just sends fighters to clear the UK carrier, then Japan risks fighters, and has less to hit ground targets with.

Or let’s say Japan hits Hawaiian Islands fleet or doesn’t hit it. If Japan hits then Japan doesn’t have to think about Solomons / Iwo Jima / northeast of Australia so much. But that will bleed out at least one Japanese fighter, and restrict the options J2 has against Asia.

(continued)

Note to moderators: I may have accidentally originally posted this in 1942 Second Edition. But it was definitely not intended for 1942 Second Edition otherwise I would have mentioned UK fighters landing on US carrier at Iwo Jima sea zone.

There was a topic on a Discord that I thought best covered in some detail. So I’m writing it up in a thread here; that way when a similar question comes up in future I can reference this thread instead of writing it all out again.

“I am looking for ways to disrupt and be annoying to Japan with US without fully going KJF after a successful attack on PH.”

My reply:

Some players pigeonhole powers into “roles” then don’t think about how to combine effectively. Don’t let that be you.

Specific moves, the same - players pigeonhole a move into a “role” then don’t consider the range of tactical applications.

Where to land R1 fighters is a topic on its own; there’s actually quite a lot to it. But for this, let’s just keep it very very simple and say end of R1 has 4 inf Yakut, 1 inf Evenki, 2 fighter Archangel.

(To which inevitably there’s a response saying R1 open was 20 W Rus / 1 fighter to Egypt, or R1 did 12 W Rus / 9 Ukr with bad dice at Ukr so wanted to land 2 fighters on Caucasus, or maybe someone just doesn’t like the coinflip odds Germany has to capture Caucasus with ending turn with 4 infantry equivalents and AA gun defending despite multiple “commit without opportunity to retreat” off 1) AA gun hitting German fighter, 2) German failure to capture Caucasus allowing UK counter of destroyer/fighter/bomber with good chance of retaining both UK air units particularly the deadly UK bomber (unlike UK1 countering the Trans-Jordan sea zone and losing the bomber). Yes, I acknowledge once again I simplify for the purposes of limiting the scope of discussion, as I typically do.)

(Or let’s say there’s a slightly more nuanced objection that USSR keeps a fighter at Caucasus to pick off the German Baltic transport in case of UK1 vs G Med fleet failure. We respond UK doesn’t even intend to UK1 hit G Med fleet; that UK/US dump to French West Africa. Then there’s a discussion about G sub splits in Atlantic, R sub submerging, probabilities, USSR assuming what Germany will do and pre-emptively making its moves beforehand, whether that is in fact reasonable or not, and so forth. Simplifying again, I say that just isn’t a discussion we’ll have for now, we’re just going to assume the simple version for purposes of this rant.)

(continued)

Of course, it’s not all or nothing. Germany can threaten any major Allied push to Karelia while holding Ukraine even without vastly favorable dice. There’s a lot of counterplay. And though it may seem small to stack Ukraine, denying USSR income, it’s just these sorts of small advantages that can end up to a game-winning position.

So I’d say definitely look for early German hold of Ukraine with Japanese fighter reinforcement, why not?

But be careful of Allied counterplay; G2 Ukraine hold is good, but not game-ending. The way it can play out, Allies main stack is bigger, Germany gets bled out so can’t make good on really pressuring the Allied combined stack on Moscow, game transposes to Japan trying to be the major stack controller in Europe but Japan is denied the Caucasus IC because Germany controlls it (and maybe the Allies just won’t recapture Cacuasus to deny Japan the use of the IC).

(BTW I think G2 Ukraine hold is a bit less popular because apparently the meta favors J1 to Hawaiian Islands fleet, which leaves a couple fighters destroyed / out of range of reinforcing Ukraine on J2.)

2. Allied counterplay

Besides the main mechanical issues of G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighter reinforcement and subsequent weakening of Axis Karelia / France / NW Europe, there’s also a problem of Allied counterplay specific to fast Axis development near Ukraine. Some of it can be figured from reading previous post, others should just make sense, here’s some additionals.

A) Protecting Japan’s fighters can bleed Germany.

Suppose Axis stacked Ukraine with German ground and Japanese air. Now suppose UK has 3 infantry on West Russia and 4 fighters and a bomber on India.

If Germany moves its main stack, UK destroys the Japanese fighters before Japan can move to safety.

So Germany has to leave behind a chunk of infantry. But after Japan moves out, that chunk of infantry can be destroyed at expected net IPC advantage to attacker, by US or USSR.

This is especially the case if the UK player is deliberately trying to set up these situations. Players know I typically try to move some UK ground from India/Persia into Europe in any game, for this and other reasons.

B) UK can abandon India. It is not a hard Allied “counter”, it’s just an option. But it is an option that the Allies decide to initiate or not.

C) Allies can maintain stack on West Russia and trade Caucasus. Again, this is not a hard counter, it’s just an option. But again, it’s an option the Allies decide on. And the collapse of West Russia does not end the game for the Allies. If Germany moves into West Russia by force, typically that stretches Germany’s logistics; it’s one more turn away from Germany’s main IC at Berlin. But it shortens USSR’s logistics; it’s one turn closer to USSR’s main IC on Moscow.

1. “Main Stack Controller”.

What is “main stack”?

Suppose Moscow is protected by 8 tanks.

Now say Germany attacks with 8 tanks. Germany has a 50% chance, does this make sense? 8 tanks against 8 tanks, same attack, same defense, same unit count.

Now say Germany attacks with 4 tanks, then Japan attacks with 4 tanks. Low Luck really isn’t how dice work, but for the purposes of this example we’ll use it to simplify. After one round of Germany attacking, German tanks are wiped out and Moscow has 6 tanks remaining. After one round of Japan attacking, Japan has 1 tank left and Moscow has 4 tanks; the second round of Japan attacking sees Japan’s tanks wiped out and 3-4 USSR tanks remain.

This, roughly, is the idea of “main stack” for attackers. You try to preserve the units of a single power, so you have a big “main stack” to attack a defender’s stack. Opponents try to “bleed” your stack by making attacks elsewhere; if you respond then you likely leave units vulnerable to counterattack, and have less units to put into any final decisive battle.

A) UK/US bleed Germany at Karelia.

When Karelia is open to UK/US troops, UK and US troops attack Baltic States, Belorussia, and such. If Germany allows UK/US to keep those territory, Germany loses income. If Germany counterattacks, Germany bleeds its stack.

B) UK/US add to Moscow’s defensive stack with cheap effective ground units.

Both Germany and Japan must contend with the additional cheap ground units UK/US can stream into Moscow through Karelia. This is why the Axis try to defend Karelia in some games; if the Allies cannot break through, it makes it much harder for a cut-off USSR to be defended. (Typically the Allies try to bring various pressures to bear so Allies end up in control of Karelia, and Axis counter in various ways, but I won’t get into that here.)

C) Positional issues for Germany

So let’s think about what happens, what really happens, what exactly happens when Axis try to hold Karelia. Suppose Germany abandoned France to have a main infantry stack on Berlin, a medium infantry stack on Baltic States, and a main infantry stack on Karelia. (This is optimistic for Axis.) But you can see where even if Germany withdraws from Karelia, it’s still poised to crush any Allied move in force to Karelia. And any major Allied landing in France or NW Europe can be hit by the Baltic States tanks. Holding Baltic States allows Germany to keep feeding infantry to Karelia.

But now imagine Germany has tanks at Ukraine. Those tanks are not in range of France or NW Europe. This gives Allies additional tactical options. It’s not a disaster, Axis have plenty of options, but it is one of these things where that’s just how the map is, and a decent Allies player will try to do something about that opening.

D) Loss of Karelia’s industrial complex

Sometimes you get weaker players that think Karelia doesn’t make a difference, and on some level that makes sense. After all, Germany can be stalled out against West Russia, and what difference does a few units at Karelia make? They don’t see a difference. And when Allies start dumping ground units via transport into Europe through Mediterranean, that seems like something really major that needs to be dealt with. What’s a couple units here or there?

But actually, depending on dice and player decisions, Karelia’s industrial complex can be vital to timings. Holding it means cost-effective infantry can get to the front two turns sooner than if they had been placed on Berlin. And though there may not be obvious consequences, an Axis player should be looking for whatever advantage, however small, that may contribute to victory.

It’s okay for Axis not to have Karelia’s industrial complex. But it’s just one of many things that add up.

E) Allied freedom in Atlantic.

When Axis air is near Ukraine, it’s not in range of north Atlantic. So the Allies really don’t need as much transport escorts; they don’t need to buy them, so they can do more transports, more ground.

Again, not a disaster, and if Axis move air power in range later, that can disrupt Allied shipping. But the Axis position can be expected to be just that little bit worse because of the Allied pressure, and that’s something that has to be balanced again whatever gains may come from Axis pushing Ukraine.

F) Japanese logistics.

Japan has terrible logistics against Moscow. Anything on Tokyo can’t just blitz straight to Moscow; they need transports to make it to the mainland; air is expensive, ICs are expensive, capturing India is difficult.

If Allies are going KGF, often Axis want Japan to become the major stack controller. If that happens, then Japan wants to hold Caucasus. It is very difficult for the Axis to engineer this, especially against an Allied player that is very conscious of the dangers of Japanese-held Caucasus. So imagine what happens when Germany controls Caucasus, and the Allies just refuse to recapture it. Go on, keep that 4 IPC, denying Japan the industrial complex is more important.

G2 hold of Ukraine with Japanese fighter reinforcement came up in a Discord chat, and I figured instead of writing a bunch then seeing it all disappear (as things do on Discord over time), I’d stick it on a forum post.

Short version: It “works” but there’s a lot of small problematic bits.

Details to follow.

Recap: First, I looked at UK1 counter to G1, concluding it made sense to submerge the USSR sub as it isn’t needed on defense. Then, I looked at the numbers on 5 to sz7 1 to East Canada sea zone, vs 6 to sz7, and listed some of the relevant numbers.

Which is going in reverse a bit but whatever.

I mentioned earlier a lot comes down to things outside the realm of simple calculations. In the case of 6 or 5 to sz7, it comes down to, do you want to reduce risks and play a conservative strategy? Or do you think a conservative strategy simply doesn’t work? (Or “overly conservative strategy”, whatever.)

What if playing the Axis well requires taking on a certain amount of risk? Aren’t “top players” recommending 6 units to sz7, yet also saying Allies are advantaged? 🤔

“And always, he fought the temptation to choose a clear, safe course, warning 'That path leads ever down into stagnation.” - Dune, by Frank Herbert

==

Woops, realized I left out the 5 to sz7 part, so added it in Discord

==

I realized I didn’t get to the 5 to sz7 part. 🤔

https://youtu.be/qofMAoY0Ts4?t=60

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=2&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-SSub-Des-Cru-Sub-Fig-JFig-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=

Actually there’s this whole thing where players either do sub-cru-sub or cru-sub-sub or sub-sub-cru depending on attacker hits BUT eh.

Anyways you see there’s about 60% one or more German subs survive. Splitting a sub off to hit the UK East Canada fleet has 1/3 chance to lose outright, 1/3 chance to destroy UK destroyer only, 1/3 chance to wipe UK destroyer and transport.

So 5/1 split to Canada, assuming USSR fights is:

33% Germany destroys transport so doesn’t need to put anything on France.

30% Germany destroys destroyer at East Canada and has 1+ submarines surviving at sz7, which gives Germany fodder against UK1 fleet.

30% isn’t the greatest, sure. But compare to 6 to sz7. There, if UK wants to wipe all sz7 survivors, it has 67% to do so while preserving 2 fighters 1 destroyer 1 bomber, if willing to lose bomber, 90% to wipe.

But 5 to sz7 has higher chances of failure or air loss compared to 6 to sz7?

Well, I am always saying one unit makes a difference. So let’s see how that plays out

==

5 to sz7:

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=2&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=1&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Cru-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-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=

8.86% fail, 10.68% lose a fighter. 19.54% to not do well; that’s chunky numbers there.

6 to sz7:

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=1&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Cru-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-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=

2.05% fail, 3.51% lose a fighter. 5.56% to not do well.

Let’s ignore that Germany can do without a fighter (and there’s a lot of other things I’m ignoring too, typically the ones in favor of the point I’m arguing, but eh.)

What does Germany pay for that 14% increase in odds? And how can we put that risk in perspective?

It’s apples and oranges, but every time a bomber hits an IC, there’s 16.6% to lose a 12-IPC unit. Contrast to 14% to lose a 10-IPC fighter. (It’s not really the same, I know, losing the UK battleship fight sucks really hard. But bear with me.)

Against that, we set the 33% of being able to leave France defenseless, the 30% of having offensive fodder against a reduced UK navy. Balance that against the 3.5 IPC expected from strat bombing.

Earlier I quoted sub fighting is 29.02% “win” for Allies, submerging is only 9.87% (and we’re completely ignoring Baltic counter options and Med hit point but whatever.)

So if a player’s thinking “I’m a big spender and I like to roll the dice, so if Allies have to build another sub or whatever sure what’s 6 to 8 IPC” - which they shouldn’t, because every IPC has to be considered - then? MAYBE they think let’s just roll the dice and try to get a “win”.

But if we redefine what constitutes a “win” and say Axis losing just one sub is not good, then we’re trading those Baltic options and the Med hit point to increase a 83% acceptable to 90% acceptable.

If destroying two subs or more is what’s required (which is overkill, but increases odds of UK preserving bomber on counter), then 58% acceptable changes to 38%.

But if UK considers 58% acceptable, then the 67% that UK keeps bomber, 2 fighters, and destroyer on the counter would be acceptable, wouldn’t it. 🤔

“russian (sub) surviving sz7 from submerge has very little value”

Let’s accept that as true for a moment, just for the discussion. But even then, it’s not a question of how little the value is, but how it’s best spent, isn’t it?

Or is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OyrX11cMkE

Conclusion: Let that USSR sub be destroyed, because it’s about sending a message. (That is, it’s NOT really about sending a message, so don’t do it :p )

Would letting the USSR sub be destroyed be edgy and subversive and cool?

But if it’s predictable, is that really edgy? 🤔

And for players that say me switching it up is trying to be edgy -

Well no, as the above demonstrates, I’m simply playing the numbers, based on my read of others’ risk and style preferences. 🤓

And if I sometimes play to counter the 4-to-sz7-gambling-on-submerge, well 🤷

==

So ends the Discord thread.

The “4 to sz7” is the flip side. If it’s logical for the USSR sub to submerge, then Germany may assume USSR will submerge. So Germany may attack sz7 with only 3 subs 1 cruiser, freeing 2 fighters for critical attacks in Europe.

Of course, with the live board game, if Germany attacks with 4, USSR defends in response.

Now let’s have 6 go in and USSR sub submerges

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&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=

16.93% no loss
45.12% lose one sub
27.3% lose two sub
9.87% lose more (say it’s a “win” for Allies.)

I mentioned earlier, though, that setting these arbitrary failure points wasn’t really correct. How are we really defining this arbitrary “win” for Allies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9PrE044sLg

Remember all those discussions I mentioned we’re not having? Well, let’s add another one, the opportunity cost of the meta G1 bomber against the loss of 4 G1/G2 infantry. But assuming you’re in the camp that Believes in G1 Bomber, and Parking Air In Range Of London Sea Zones Yet Not Considering Building Submarines (probably sounds weird when I put it like that but whatever)

Again, we’re assuming R1 captured Ukraine. Now let’s skip ahead and say Germany has 5 fighter 1 bomber to threaten UK’s fleet. What’s a “bad fleet” for Germany?

2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is quite bad.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=2&dCru=&dCar=1&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=

. . . not that 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is a picnic. But 2 destroyers is right out.

==

Remember how earlier I stipulated Germany doesn’t want to trade German air against UK navy? So it doesn’t hit the UK cruiser?

Right. So UK1 can counter Germany’s sz7 survivors with up to 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 2 fighter 1 bomber. Yes, doing that means Germany’s Med fleet is safe. But then, if we’re assuming Germany went 6 to sz7, then US East fleet is safe and can drop at least 1 transport to French West Africa. And does Germany really want to hit that transport with its bomber (assuming it buys one) and land on Morocco, even if it can, in the face of a US1 Atlantic fleet plus transport build? Because that bomber will get blown up; Germany trading with UK is bad but trading with US at a loss?

I mean, there’s bad, then there’s this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c2yvfNEqyw

Like, even attempting it means Germany isn’t helping bleed out India, it’s so super good for Allies I get giddy just thinking about it. But let’s just have that be another discussion we’re not having. (It’s almost like we’re married isn’t it. 🙄 )

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=2&dDes=&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Cru-Bom-Des-Fig-JFig-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=

So IF Germany has 2 subs 1 cruiser, if UK’s willing to drop its cruiser then bomber, then 90% destroyer and 2 fighters survive, making that unpleasant 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter fleet we just discussed.

Oh yes, another discussion we’re not having is why do UK1 fleet at all, why not UK1 2 fighter build and fly fighters to W Rus.

Skipping over some stuff, this leads towards arguing USSR should land 2 fighters on Archangel. I claim USSR can afford to, that Archangel fighters to London increases UK’s range of answers to a G1 Baltic navy build that threatens invasion of London, that USSR in general wants an option to clean up the Baltic fleet, that Archangel fighters can hit east if Japan overextends (which actually they shouldn’t if they’re competent, but if it doesn’t hurt the Allies to check if an opponent is bad, why not.)

. . . and IF USSR fighters are on Archangel, they STILL don’t want to hit Baltic, because USSR fighters want to trade land. So if a USSR sub is around to do that, so much the better.

Why doesn’t UK clean up? Because UK bomber probably has Important Places To Be. UK fighters might be countering any survivors of sz7. What UK does depends in part on Germany’s turn, and since we don’t know what Germany will do on USSR’s turn, we want to keep our options open.

. . . and if USSR doesn’t use the sub at Baltic, it goes Med as fodder, because if the Axis try to push up through Med (which they will), an additional hit point is going to help.

This is one of these things where players say subs are sucky defenders (true), a hit point is helpful but subs are situational (true), etc. etc. BUT the fact is, either the Allies have that extra hit point in the Med, or they don’t, and if it’s blown up, then they don’t.

Make sense?

But now it’s time to get to the relative cost part.

I’ll start by saying Germany has two major attacks; either 6 to sz7, or 5 to sz7 and split a submarine to either East Canada fleet or East US fleet. (Personally I like East Canada, but there’s a point to be made for East US).

I’ll also say Germany can’t expect to hit units off French West Africa and land safely on Morocco. G2 landing Morocco eats US2 counter, unless Germany thinks US1 has no transports.

(Which is a legitimate argument but apparently the meta doesn’t support it so eh.)

==

So we have four scenarios to run for this wee look at things, and the aftermaths. 6 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 6 to sz7 and USSR fights, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges.

Make sense?

But first, even more stipulations. We say Germany does not want to risk air against UK navy, such as Berlin fighter vs UK cruiser. We ALSO say UK is “out for blood” and willing to trade with German air even at a loss, provided Germany does NOT have submarine fodder.

(And you know, the last just isn’t necessarily true, if G1 buys Baltic sub(s). But that’s another story, eh? 😉 I won’t even get into me complaining about why would players even park all fighters in range of London if they have no intention of engaging especially as they didn’t do any G1 sub buy. I mean, paper tiger much, but I digress.)

Ah, one more thing. Let’s say any “acceptable” result for Germany at sz7 is German air survives.

Suppose 6 go in and USSR sub fights.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=sea&roundCount=all&attSubmarine=3&defSubmarine=1&attFighter=2&defDestroyer=1&attCruiser=1&defBattleship=1

87% “acceptable” for Germany. Well, that’s just too high, isn’t it, so let’s come up with some other stuff to test.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&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=

9.94% no loss
31.55% lose one sub
29.49% lose two sub
29.02% lose all subs or worse, let’s say that’s a “win” for Allies. (Actually, not true but I’ll get to that later).