Posts made by aardvarkpepper

But to return to USSR1.

Having defined some preconditions, now to define the conditions under which those preconditions may be bent.

Why do we assume West Russia needs two AA guns to hold? We shouldn’t simply assume; the point of this all is to make mathematically informed decisions. So what we should really do is run the numbers on West Russia’s defense, and the odds of West Russia having what we think is adequate.

But with “we think”, we come to the next conceptual barrier. It is not that there is a single best move, nor is it even simply a question of risk management and understanding probability distributions. Rather, much like a game of cards, a player should do their best to find the “tells” of other players, and when necessary, try to play to their outs.

Suppose, for example, I’m playing against a player that I know doesn’t like to do G1 hit West Russia, because they’re just not used to it. If I do a R1 12 to W Rus / 9 to Ukr open and only have 2 inf 2 art 1 tank surviving at W Rus, they might overcome their reluctance. But what if I have 5 inf 2 art 1 tank 1 AA? Even if Germany is favored in the attack, they might not attack.

So, what are the numbers on G’s attack on Caucasus, if USSR1 captures Ukraine? Say it’s 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 battleship vs 4 infantry.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=amphibiousAssault&roundCount=all&attInfantry=1&defInfantry=4&attTank=1&attFighter=2&attBattleship=1

22.26% attackers lose all units. Well, that’s a disaster.

But here’s a lesson in practical calculation aid reading. If attackers are likely to lose all units, there’s probably some intermediate result where the attackers can tell they’re going to lose, then they can retreat. Germany doesn’t have to lose its expensive air.

So, not so bad? Well, read on.

==

Totting up the numbers, it’s 66% that Germany destroys everything on Caucasus, yet fails to capture. That’s reasonably likely. And if Germany does fail to capture, UK1 can hit the battleship and transport with destroyer, fighter, and bomber. Unlike other scenarios, the UK1 bomber lives, AND UK has a decent chance to lose no air, not even a fighter. And that’s not great for Axis.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=sea&roundCount=all&defTransport=1&attFighter=1&attDestroyer=1&attBomber=1&defBattleship=1

We can run the numbers on if Germany gives up a fighter instead of a tank, and mention some later consequences. But let’s just say generally Germany doesn’t want to give up air, for good reason. That is, I acknowledge assumptions are being made here, but I’m saying absent evidence to challenge a particular assumption, this is what we’re going with. 🤷

BUT?

The core challenging assumption is, what if Germany thinks that trade is reasonable?! Because it might. But that’s where we refine the stipulation of 2 AA on West Russia to, 2 AA on West Russia because we think Germany is deterred from the target.

And THAT closes the circle some. Because when will Germany find it profitable to trade at an IPC-value loss, considering the utility of Axis tanks and fighters? When the Axis plan to make it a battle of simple unit count. And in plain English, that pretty much means when Germany does multiple early attacks that deplete USSR’s numbers more than Germany’s own, and though Germany loses more IPC value and more units even, Germany still ends up overwhelming USSR.

But if we believe West Russia is not attacked (or even if attacked does reasonably well), then we think that precise thing probably will not happen.

Every so often I’d post on another forum or Discord then a couple months later someone would pop up asking the same question but the post would be buried.

So I’m pasting Discord stuff in here.

Today’s topic: Whether R1 (USSR1) should or should not submerge submarine when joining UK’s battleship.

There was some other recent discussion on Discord about whether Germany should send 6 units to sz7 or 5 units, this touches on that.

==

Every so often, players have strong differences of opinion because each side thinks they have a monopoly on the truth. As may be imagined, such arguments are difficult to resolve, especially when each side does have reason to believe their side is correct.

. . . then an aardvark wanders in and poops a bunch of numbers and commentary all over the place then wanders off.

. . . and sometimes players get angry because This Is Not How Civilized Aardvarks Act. There Must Be An Order To Things, And Pooping Lots Of Numbers And Detailed Commentary Is Not How Things Are Done.

And yet, there WAS a time, a golden age of thought, when ideas were commonly exchanged for the good of the community. When the internet was newly introduced, and people still thought of civility, before they learned to hide behind anonymous handles to sling barbs at one another.

(What, you say? No, my mum calls me aardvarkpepper, thank you very much. um yeah, totally true story there 🙄 )

But let us now embark on a journey of exploration, into the Great Questions of Our Time. USSR sub to submerge or nah? How many fighters on Archangel and when? 6 to sz7 or 5? Probably I’ll copy this to Axis and Allies org forums or something I shouldn’t wonder.

==

OVERVIEW:

R1 4 inf 3 art, 9 to Ukr, 12 to W Rus.

Flies 2 fighters to Archangel conditional on 1) capturing Ukr, 2) two AA guns W Rus

The problem with any “analysis” is there are loads of unspoken suppositions. So let’s explicitly acknowledge a few. USSR wants to place infantry and/or artillery at Caucasus, up to production limit, then place excess (including any tanks) at Moscow. Such placement allows USSR maximum pressure against Ukraine.

Why stipulate so many conditions to begin with? Because it is necessary to understand the assumptions of the model. For example, if West Russia is reasonably secure with one AA gun, then an AA gun may be added to Caucasus.

As ever, the addition or subtraction of a single unit is important, even for large stacks.

I quote a paper I wrote some time ago below.

"Consider 21 infantry, 8 artillery, 10 tanks, 5 fighters, 1 bomber, versus 38 infantry 2 tanks 4 fighters (links below.) Attacker odds drop from 62% to 46% with the inclusion of a single additional defending fighter.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=21&aArt=8&aArm=10&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=38&dArt=&dArm=2&dFig=4&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=

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=21&aArt=8&aArm=10&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=38&dArt=&dArm=2&dFig=5&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=

Some posters on Discord are saying how the Allies player counters Japan’s invasion of Alaska is dependent on “player level”. Sure.

But magical abilities are being ascribed, and it should be understood there is no magic.

For example, I read a “top level” player will supposedly “defend” Alaska. How, exactly? When, exactly? Is it magic?

The first post is to players that already have a very good grasp of what’s going on, telling them this is the timing, the timing shift, the opportunity cost, and so on.

This post is more basic.

Assuming Germany doesn’t have early advantageous dice against USSR (or other disasters), assuming Germany is not in a position to dash forwards and crush Moscow before the Allies can really do anything, the game takes a slower pace. Germany and Japan build up and move towards Moscow; UK and US carry out their own development.

But let’s give some concrete numbers. Suppose Japan decides to attack Alaska early. Why would Japan do this? If the US player was very silly, and only then. Generally at the end of J1, Japan should have made whatever opportunistic attacks to start choking USSR’s income. Every unit sent to Alaska is a unit not sent to Asia, and any units Japan dumps to Asia next turn from the Alaska transports will have to be to Buryatia or Manchuria, which is far from India; India has an existing industrial complex that UK uses to disrupt the Axis, and controlling that industrial complex is a big boost to Japan. For reasons I shall not get into at this time.

So the only reason why Japan should hit Alaska J1 or J2 (or generally early), considering it detracts from the basic Axis strategy, considering it detracts from what is normally one of the Axis’ stronger tactical focuses - is if Japan does better to hit Alaska somehow. Which amounts to US overextension. Which shouldn’t happen.

So Japan should not invade Alaska early, unless Allies are super unlucky or super bad. Or unless the Japan player just wants to have fun; games don’t have to be about “winning” or “losing”.

==

What about late in the game? Supposing the Allies go KGF?

We must first talk about tanks and opportunity costs. Suppose US buys tanks. A single transport can transport, say, two infantry, or an infantry and a tank. Though tanks are expensive, they can blitz (probably useless if dropped on France but whatever), and they are more efficient defenders than infantry. So should we expect that the US has lots of tanks? Probably not. Because infantry are much cheaper than tanks, and we may expect that the US will use IPCs to buy more transports and infantry.

But there are other reasons to buy tanks, specifically, tanks on Western US defend Western US and threaten Alaska. Tanks on Eastern Canada are ready for US’s usual KGF transport routes and also threaten Alaska.

Then there’s also certain things about timings at Finland. But suffice to say that building a heavy tank force is quite expensive, and though I expect US to build a few tanks, I don’t expect heavy investment.

Yes, three paragraphs to go over things that veteran players already know very well. I did mention this post is more basic.

Those things said, what can we reasonably expect of a Japan to Alaska invasion? Let’s say reasonable worst case.

REASONABLE WORST CASE, JAPAN TO ALASKA

1. In KGF (if KJF, then Japan hitting Alaska is opportunistic / “best chance”.
2. After Japan takes India (before capturing India, Japan needs its transports to speed attacks on India. Even afterwards, one or two transports may be used for Africa and/or Australia.)
3. US has a few tanks East Canada.

All makes sense? This is as bad as it gets for Japan hitting Alaska. But let’s throw in a few more things that we also know, if we think about it.

4. Japan isn’t making good progress supporting Germany in Europe. (If Japan were doing great with Germany, who cares about Alaska, just smash Moscow and win).
5. Germany’s position isn’t hopeless, or near hopeless. It just needs a “little more”.

Okay. Now let’s say Japan dumps 2 units to Alaska, 4 units, basically a distraction. This is not the supposed “hard counter” that a lot of players are talking about on Discord. It’s just Japan saying “hi”, now Japan is +2, US is -2.

Now what is the magical defense?

Obviously if US has a pile of infantry on West Canada, then US smashes Japan in Alaska and sits there, and Japan can’t really do much about it. (Remember, we expect Japan to have 8-12 ground on the followup, plus up to six fighters, a bomber, two battleship and a cruiser support shots, plus maybe some more air power, who knows.)

Well, if US was sitting on a huge chunk of infantry on West Canada, then let’s really think on it. Somehow, the Axis are not doing particularly well, despite the US holding back a huge chunk of income on a threat that Japan never even needed to commit to? Then why are the Axis generally doing not so hot in Europe?

You see the magic? Where did this perfect defense materialize from? It comes from the assumption that somehow the Allies are basically already winning.

But let’s make it a little less magical, you say? Let’s say there is a small infantry reserve on West Canada? Well, that infantry reserve will get blown up by Japan’s counter. So really, US needs a lot on West Canada. That’s just how it is.

But US can use fighters against Alaska? Most of US fighters are in or near Europe. They simply haven’t the range.

Bombers? Again, out of range.

But the US fighters and bombers are NOT out of range, one claims, if they are held back? True, but then we again have the situation where US is pre-emptively holding back counter forces, and considerable forces at that, against a potential Japanese invasion.

We need more magic!

Then let’s say US responds late to Japan’s attack. That is, Japan secures Alaska on the initial or the followup.

Then everything I wrote in the initial post is true; Japan threatens multiple locations with a single stack of units; US must pull multiple defenses or come out the loser, Axis units that would not be really relevant until a few turns in suddenly become immediately relevant.

This is just the numbers. The situation. The timing. The logistics. No magic involved.

Japan to Alaska isn’t about some poorly considered premature invasion that pulls away from Axis strategic and tactical goals.

Nor is Japan to Alaska about some late game Hail Mary, trying to brute-force some solution. This is what some posters are saying on Discord, but it’s not about that at all. It’s about pulling a US response, where US wants to invest more in the defense than Japan needs to on the offense, because US wants local superiority of force, Japan gains income from invasion while US is merely reclaiming, and US cannot really afford to lose, given the multiple threat development of Japan.

If US does not respond to the threat with sufficient force (including taking reasonable chances and getting unlucky), then Japan captures Western US. That shouldn’t happen, but Japan may still fuel its invasion with traded territory income. But those are both actually silly scenarios. What probably happens is, US responds “late” (if not, then US was paying an opportunity cost for a threat that never needed to materialize), then US has to keep shoveling resources into repelling the threat, then after Japan switches back to Asia, US’s logistics chains are inefficient for some time while US readjusts, and the majority Allied stack holder may be severely disrupted at least.

Did a writeup on Japan to Alaska a few times I think on Steam, came up again on Discord. Putting an outline here so it won’t get lost.

Used to be a paper “Trans-Siberian Express” or something like that from Revised. Japan to Alaska in KGF isn’t new, some of the details are different between Revised and 1942 Online but whatever.

Why Japan to Alaska? Not because US builds a fleet to counter (too expensive). Not because US has to build in W US. It’s a timing shift.

Say Japan dumps to Buryatia, which then goes to Yakut, Evenki, Archangel, Karelia. Every space with infantry is “wasted” in that they’re on their way somewhere important, rather than being important of themselves. Getting into details about Evenki, or Yunnan-Szechwan-Kazakh or through India, I’ll leave off.

What about the necessary infrastructure? By that time Japan should be running 6+ transports, what with Africa, Australia, etc, but none of that is real pressure, and excess transports don’t really help Japan’s infantry stream timing against Moscow. Japan built transports early, but now they’re not being used much, so what to do with them?

Probably Allies are beginning to pressure Germany. What does Japan do to pile on pressure? Depends on the game, maybe tanks through Asia hits a timing, but I won’t get into that here.

But let’s say Japan dumps to Alaska. What then?

1. You can get alternate transports between Japan and Alaska, feeding 6-8 units into Alaska a turn. (I won’t discuss the tradeoffs except to say it’s not great for Japan, but it does mean Japan’s Alaska push has to be taken seriously.)

2. Grab Hawaii. Shouldn’t be a VC victory because Allies should have pressed into Europe by now, but it’s something.

3. Threaten West USA. There’s this thing where Japan builds carriers and lands fighters on to secure W USA under some conditions.

The above happen, but no real threats there with normal dice against competent players. But they’re the “obvious” answers to address before dismissing.

==

When Japan lands bombers on Alaska, both East Canada sea zones are threatened, which means Allies need to split defensive fleet (as opposed to having undefended empty transports off East Canada). But Japan’s air also has range to France / NW Europe, as well as Finland.

Then there’s the things that happen when Japan can push into Western Canada and land fighters, develop a threat against Eastern Canada, blitz into Central United States.

One stack of Japanese bombers threatens multiple RELEVANT sea zones in the Atlantic, can be used in CONJUNCTION with German ground, SIMULTANEOUSLY West US is threatened, US’s troops on East Canada are threatened, Japan has economic pressure if West Canada is left undefended with blitzing into Central US.

None of that is game-ending, especially since US Pacific survivors should be arriving in Atlantic right about then. But at the very least, US will probably have to let up on pressure in Europe.

And what does Japan give up? 8 infantry on Alaska is a lot nastier immediate pressure than 8 infantry on Buryatia. Or Yunnan. Or moved from Burma to wherever, probably. This is the “timing shift”. What would be irrelevant until three turns down the line is instead immediately relevant, with Japan’s shift.

What if the Allies overbuild on navy to prevent Japan from doing this? In RESPONSE to Japan building bombers, say? Then Allies are slower to reinforce in Europe in the first place, also acceptable.

What if invading Alaska “fails”? By then Japan should have Africa and Australia (maybe running around with a skeleton fleet for cleanup, but the bulk of Japan’s transports no longer urgently needed to develop timings or pressure). So Japan really doesn’t have much use for excess transports. So how does it use them? Japan heads towards Hawaiian Islands anyways. Japan wants more income (Alaska). It’s just sort of the natural development.

And if Japan had a winning game pushing stacks into Asia in the first place, then Japan doesn’t invade Alaska. Capture Moscow, consolidate, push Allies out of Europe, win.

Japan to Alaska in KGF is one of the timing shifts used in an air-heavy Japan, just another tool in the toolbox. Japanese bombers on Alaska is the easy spot, there’s some variants I won’t get into but the general idea is the same.

If a player is building (probably Manchuria IC) and trying to push major Japanese stacks then that’s an entirely different strategy. There, it’s like the Axis are locked into trying to build Japanese-majority-stack in Asia, so that’s the Axis game plan. Japan to Alaska in those games can still happen but probably shouldn’t.

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.

@ubernaut ooooo flowcharts, you got a link?

Reckon I’ll head over to TripleA’s forum.

@megatron said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:

I understand that without a destroyer any attacking air units cannot hit submarines. Which also means as a defender I cannot assign hits from air units to submarines.
Isn’t this a huge drawback if I, for example, use submarines to soak up damage in sea combat but would be unable to do so if the opponent doesn’t have any destroyers and therefor I would have to assign hits to more valuable units?

The destroyers ability to make my subs visible should be a drawback. Why can’t the defender just order the subs to surface? From a tactical point of view this just makes no sense to me.

Imagine two carriers four fighters are attacked by four submarines two fighters. Submarines fight best by submerging to avoid enemy attacks. It would not make sense that the submarines leap out of the ocean into the path of enemy guns.

It’s not great that submarines are invincible either, but if one has to pick and choose, I’d say it’s not that bad.

In the above scenario, instead of attacking with four submarines two fighters, the attacker could just go in with four submarines against two carriers, ignoring the defending fighters.

But there’s any number of different situations, which may involve the defender deliberately taking destroyers as casualties early to manipulate how hits must be later allocated? Or attack/defense compositions could be given that are quite different to my example?

Yes, absolutely. But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?

@vodot said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:

Escort/Torp Boat 5c/1a/1d ; cancel sub @1:1
Submarine 5c/2a/1d ; submerge etc.
Transport 6c/0a/0d ; transport 1unit + 1inf
Destroyer 7c/2a/2d ; transport 1inf ; cancel subs @1:3
Cruiser 10c/3a/3d ; bombard ;
Carrier 12c/1a/2d ; 2-hit
Battleship 14c/4a/4d ; bombard ; 2-hit

Or forget the “Escort” unit completely, and just drop the destroyer stat line to 5c/1a/1d ; 1:1 sub cancel.

I feel those suggested changes may have come out of discussion for another version of Axis and Allies. The changes are just way too good for Allies in 1942 2nd edition.

I’m not saying 20 IPC battleships are a GOOD thing either. But I expect 14 is too much of a good thing.

@Raply112

Before getting into strategy and tactics, consider that your group may have read the rulebook differently to other groups. The rulebook (at least in English) is poorly organized and written.

How do the Germans effectively take Moscow? How do the Japanese manage to defend themselves against the Americans? What of losing appeal because the games are always quite the same? Those are not simple questions.

1. Re: games always the same. The map is static; the same territories always in the same positions relative to one another. You can spice this up by using technological advance rules (look up other editions of Axis and Allies, like Revised), or using house rules (look up some of the national advantages in Axis and Allies Global, which is the combination of Europe and Pacific, for inspiration.)

2. The Axis should not overextend. It’s very easy for new players especially to attack in force, get wiped out by the opponent’s counter, then a couple turns later wonder what went wrong. The “logic”, so I understand, is a unit is “fighting”, so it must be “doing something”, and the more one “fights”, the harder one makes it for an opponent. But that is very much not the case.

I recommend getting TripleA (it’s free) so we can play a game over the computer, and perhaps you could get some friends in on a Discord call so we could all have live chat while playing out a game.

You might ask questions like “If overextension really is a problem, why doesn’t it affect the Allies? Shouldn’t it balance out?” or “Could you give an example?”

Consider G1 (Germany’s first turn) following a USSR1 West Russia/Ukraine open. Suppose USSR captured Ukraine and West Russia, and Germany sends all the ground forces that can reach into Ukraine, the rest hitting Karelia. Then what?

Germany has, I forget, something like 9 tanks starting in Europe. Those cost 6 IPCs each. It is VERY IMPORTANT to NOT think of things only in terms of IPC outcomes. Position, mobility, and unit density, and other things I won’t get into here are better ways to measure which side is winning. But for beginners, raw IPC count is a useful measure, and one I’ll use here.

So let’s say Germany sends 5 of those tanks into USSR’s reach at Ukraine. On USSR’s turn, it could place up to 4 units on Caucasus, and had whatever forces survived at West Russia (probably considerable). So on USSR2, USSR smashes 30 IPCs of German tanks, which cost the same as 10 German infantry, and Germany can hardly counter as unless Germany had done very accurate moves it just wouldn’t be in any position to do so.

Let’s say Germany loses some infantry on G1’s attack, and some more infantry on USSR2’s counter. That’s okay. USSR will lose some infantry on the defense against G1, and more during its USSR2 counter. But that 30 IPCs of tanks that Germany lost is NOT okay. If Germany loses 6 or 12 IPCs worth of tanks in exchange for destroying a chunk of USSR tanks, it’s not great but it’s acceptable. But 30 IPCs of tanks is overpayment by 24 IPCs, which is more than half of an entire turn of Germany’s income. So imagine what happens if Germany tries to jump down USSR’s throat, gets smashed down, then has no reply. Germany’s going to lose.

The same thing can happen with Japan, in other ways.

3. How does Germany effectively take Moscow?

Almost the whole point of the game design is to make sure this question CANNOT be answered simply. If there were a simple answer it wouldn’t be much of a game.

Also, remember the comment about overextension above. (Or there could be inefficient use of Axis IPCs, or something else). Plainly, if the Axis player is sabotaging themselves so they’re effectively at half strength (or worse), then they will lose.

Effectively, Germany does NOT take Moscow, because it’s very improbable/impossible unless the Allies screw up. Moscow has to be bled out, and this is how it’s done.

WITHOUT losing too much of its forces, and concentrating heavily on production of ground units - no navy, no air, just ground, Germany pushes into Karelia. Local production of 2 units improves German logistics, this is NOT trivial. Axis-controlled Karelia also cuts off easy UK/US reinforcements coming from Finland/Norway into Karelia. Moscow is cut off.

If Germany can get income from Africa, it should do so. Wherever Germany can get income it should, and Japan should help, PROVIDED AGAIN, THAT THE COST IS NOT TOO HIGH (and the cost can be subtly too high but I won’t get into detail here.)

Japan presses into Asia and captures India, USSR is bled out through attrition, trading with Germany in the west and Japan in the east. If USSR chooses not to trade, great, Germany/Japan sit on more income unchallenged and reinforce their central stacks.

How does Germany pry apart the Allied position? An Axis stack (can be German ground with Japanese fighters) on Ukraine pressures the Allies to defend TWO key territories; West Russia AND Caucasus. The Allies should only be able to defend ONE territory, then Germany moves into whichever territory was NOT heavily defended. Now look at the map and follow along.

If Germany moves into Caucasus, it gains 4 local production, which is amazing. But if USSR prevents Germany from moving into Caucasus by fortifying, then Germany moves into West Russia.

If Germany is at West Russia, then USSR must defend Moscow and Caucasus. As important as Caucasus is, the capital is more important, so Moscow is defended and Caucasus lost.

Once Germany has control of Caucasus, it gains 4 local production, and (long complicated explanation omitted. I will say sometimes Japan should control Caucasus, not Germany, and there’s a lot to this that I’m not getting into here.)

That gives you some idea of how to pry apart the Allied position, but if you’re asking “well how does Germany defend Karelia, push to Ukraine, and prevent the Allies from establishing a beachhead at France all the while protecting Berlin?” - a valid question, which I will answer briefly by stating the Axis do NOT try to prevent EVERYTHING, they only try to control the TIMING of WHEN certain things happen.

4. How does Japan effectively defend against US?

Uff, just throw this question out. There’s a load of 1942 Online players that think they know the answer, then there’s some GenCon players that think they have the answer, but I suspect none of them REALLY have the answer. 1942 Online has lots of rules changes that cripple how the game is properly played, and GenCon has real-time constraints and games there are played with heavily modified rules.

The REAL answer? In 1942 Online, I’d say there’s two branches of play. Either UK successfully does a UK1 attack against the Japanese East Indies fleet, if successful Japan may want to buy a J1 carrier. Otherwise Japan typically buys 3 transports and cheap ground on its first turn, and if US buys a Pacific fleet on US’s first turn, Japan starts buying 2 submarines a turn starting Japan’s second turn (provided Japan correctly prevented US interdiction of Japan’s sea zones), then Japan continues dropping ground into Asia, captures India, uses India as a fallback naval base, switches to fighter production on Tokyo when Japan’s sea zones get interdicted, Moscow falls, Germany comes in to save the day. BUT all that is under allied fighters NOT being able to land on carriers, which is one of 1942 Online’s rules changes (along with those awful defensive profiles, which are another whole nightmare.)

I asked about GenCon, and a couple surprising things to me (and a couple less surprising.) First, because of adjudication by victory city depending on real time spent which also limits the number of turns, it’s not surprising to me KJF was used. Also not a surprise to me was the fact UK uses a submarine to stabilize the dangerous UK1 attack against East Indies. But what WAS a surprise to me was when I commented on the inability of allied fighters landing on carriers and was told apparently that wasn’t a thing at GenCon. But really, the projections are super simple, you can readily see how UK fighter range extension and change to key Allied fleet Pacific timings change. I mean, really. I mean, think on it, you can effectively apply a full 140 IPCs worth of UK/US against Japan’s navy in Pacific by the second turn, which is a huge difference compared to 80 some.

ANYWAYS -

The core of the answer is

A) Japan can’t let itself be pushed out of Asia easily. In fact, Japan should bring huge pressure against India, pressuring the Allies either into heavy defense of India (which collapses Allies’ defense in Europe as the Allies have to bring all that power from somewhere), OR Japan captures India and uses it as a rear naval base which stretches US logistics horribly.

B) Japan can’t let itself be pushed out of the Pacific easily. If Japan loses control of the sea, Japan has no flexibility in terms of repositioning ground units using its transports, which means Japan loses position in Asia (see previous point)

C) As with Germany, Japan can NOT pull off a perfect or eternal defense, Japan’s defenses WILL crumble. The question is HOW, WHEN, and WHERE Japan CHOOSES to let WHICH PARTS go.

Once Moscow falls, PROVIDED THE AXIS HAVE NOT GIVEN UP / PAID TOO MUCH ELSEWHERE, the Axis reverse course from Moscow, push the Allies off the coasts, then consolidate control to win.

@bob-loblaw

Re: “ussr will have 2 aa guns, 3 tanks, 2 art, 5 inf normally in west russia (sometimes 6 or 4 inf)”, “attack Baltic states, belorussia, and West Russia”, “ussr Baltic opener . . . two of them have >90% chance of victory (3 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter vs 3 inf) and (8 inf, 3 tanks, 2 artillery vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank).”

. . . and 1 inf 1 art 1 fig vs 1 inf 1 tank at Baltic States, I assume.

Superficially, the numbers seem to check out. But take a good hard look at the numbers, and not just the net IPC changes, but the resulting positions, counters, and followups remembering dice variance.

Saying you’ll have 5 infantry at West Russia? Reasonable, but not something to depend on. Sometimes 6? If you get lucky. Sometimes 4? Perhaps, but also you might see 3, 2, or less.

And what happens in case of cascade failure? Suppose you do a bit badly at West Russia. You’re prepared for that? But suppose you also do badly at Belorussia. Now Germany has more to counter with, and there’s nothing USSR can do about it once the triple has been committed to.

Nothing can counter super bad dice, but a Ukr/W Rus open is slightly less vulnerable.

"I doubt a smart player would . . . "

You really think Germany would hesitate to destroy both USSR’s AA guns, three tanks, and two artillery, and cut off UK fighters flying from London to West Russia, along with a possible G1 tank build for quick early pressure and possibly even a J1 Manchuria IC to pump tanks on the timing - along with G2 starting with control of Karelia?

“a retreat after round 1”

Instead of assuming Germany stupidly overcommits tanks and loses them to an easy counter that can’t be punished, or assuming Germany needlessly exposes air to AA guns, how about assuming Germany correctly calculates the balance of ground and air that has about a 85%+ probability to capture West Russia and destroy all USSR’s valuable ground units? Not overkill, not underkill, but just about right, and if the attack on West Russia isn’t favorable then of course Germany doesn’t hit that and goes to Caucasus - but again, Germany doesn’t overcommit.

You’re assuming Germany does a 1-turn attack into West Russia then retreats after exposing German air to AA fire, without Germany even attempting to blow up USSR’s valuable tanks. What was it you were just saying about smart players? So it won’t just be a 1-turn attack, right?

“so you prefer Germany can put 5 tanks and 9 inf in Karelia”

Let’s not get sidetracked. There’s a lot that could be said about R1, G1, builds, attacks, counters, contingencies, percentages - but suffice to say I don’t say Ukr/W Rus is SAFE (in fact, I don’t think it IS, and that’s one of the reasons I push for preplaced bid which the developers won’t do but eh whatever).

But I do think Ukr / W Rus open has better outcomes than a triple open.

As to “you prefer Germany can put 5 tanks and 9 inf in Karelia”, do you think there’s a perfect answer? What would that be?

You do R1 tank build and retreat tanks from Ukraine for a heavy R1 counter to Karelia? Even then, how do you answer G1 tanks mobilized on Berlin? I don’t say G1 super heavy tank build, but just say Germany sticks two tanks on Berlin. Pretty good odds that means G2 captures and secures Karelia, especially if Japanese fighters are in range, which they may well be. But then you do an attack/retreat into Karelia to strain German logistics? Very well, then on G1 Germany sees USSR lined up with that mighty counter and instead just doesn’t do a heavy push to Karelia, then Germany captures and holds Karelia on G2.

Plainly, I’m saying if the Axis player is competent, Allies won’t have easy answers. Won’t matter if it’s USSR triple open or Ukr/West Russia, it won’t be easy. If it were, wouldn’t be much of a game.

If you want to go into R1 W Rus/Ukr open and the Karelia game, let’s have that discussion, but that’s a thread of itself.

“med fleet . . . allows uk fleet in India to . . . nearly impossible to take Egypt in (g2)”

I believe this is another topic better covered in another thread.

But I will say, before starting another thread, think on it a moment. If Germany’s about to smash the **** out of Europe, it doesn’t need to push in Africa, and there’s a decent chance something like that gets lined up after a USSR triple open. Also, you’re not considering what happens if Germany lands a chunk of air in Africa, and of course why would you because you probably don’t see it much. And maybe you’ll pull the ‘UK builds an Atlantic fleet if Germany puts fighters in Africa’ and I’ll shrug and say I don’t care because if UK dropped a carrier and a fighter I’ll reposition air on G2 (even better if I have the bomber) and blow up UK’s fleet at low cost to German air if they dare to drop, and if they stand off then I’ll just continue shenanigans in Europe. Then you can come back and say something else and I’ll say something else and that’s how it goes. But on balance, the question is what is gained and what is lost?

“not destroying the fighter in egypt . . . sz 37”

You want to roll the dice on UK1 vs Japan’s East Indies fleet, go for it. I think it’s a bad deal. Which is another thread.

Yes yes, you have ideas and you won’t be dissuaded, and that’s fine. Either you’ll try it over and over and fail when you come up against decent competition and you’ll change your mind, or you’ll try it against decent competition and win and maybe do a writeup and I’ll change my mind. But either way we’re not there right now.

But before you get into future writeups:

1. I don’t worry too much about IPC swings. I tend to think about things in terms of unit counts, positions opening up, and other less-tangibles. Yes, keeping an eye on IPC changes is important, but it’s definitely not the only thing to keep an eye on by far.

2. Don’t just think about 95% or whatever. Think about the resulting position. Think about the opportunity costs. Think about dice swings. Cascade failure. Concentration of force versus spreading out.

3. It is not safe to assume an opponent will not attack because of negative IPC expectation. No, really.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=&aArm=1&aFig=1&aBom=&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=

At Belorussia you look at 3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf, see 95% win, looks super good, right? But actually it’s not that hot, as the above link and some thinking shows.

4.58% no attackers survive (disaster)
5.56% attacking fighter survives (lost 15 IPCs of units for 9 IPCs of units and didn’t gain any income from capturing territory. Unless you want to lose the fighter, which is amazesauce for Germany so I assume you don’t do that.)

(Calculation aids state 5% loss. But there are different degrees of loss; here there’s at least a 10% of a strictly unfavorable outcome. That’s one thing players using aids often may miss.)

15.1% attacking tank and fighter survive. Which is where the situation becomes barely tolerable; at least you capture the territory and trade off 9 IPCs of attackers for 9 IPCs of defenders. But the tank is lost on the counter.

But what happens after the German counter? Pretty good chance that 6 IPC tank dies in exchange for perhaps a German infantry. Let’s say the tank has 2/3 chance to destroy a 3 IPC infantry (I know tanks hit 1/2 the time, but let’s just use 2/3 for Reasons), so USSR expects to gain 2 IPC from possibly destroying a German infantry, 2 IPC from the territory, meaning net gain 4 IPC in exchange for a 6 IPC tank.

Yes, USSR does have positional considerations that offset the 2 IPC difference, but the positional pressure isn’t all that great. Germany has much better options when USSR is spread thin, and if as already mentioned there’s some level of cascade failure then USSR will be in big trouble.

Now let’s look at West Russia.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=8&aArt=2&aArm=3&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=1&dArm=1&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=

Let’s say 20.22% for 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 2 AA or less. Reasonably likely, and I’ll use 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 2 AA as the baseline. Germany’s counter is up to 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 4 fighter 1 bomber, without giving up attacking the UK battleship/destroyer.

https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/?rules=1942&battleType=land&roundCount=all&attInfantry=3&attArtillery=1&attTank=3&attFighter=4&attBomber=1&defInfantry=4&defArtillery=2&defTank=3&defAAGun=2

But also G1 capture of West Russia prevents Allied fighters from landing on, keeping it in play.

If you’re thinking “nah, Germany needs to maintain its air force to threaten Atlantic shipping” - as I’ve written in other threads, I use Japanese air for that when going anti-KGF. Germany still does well to have some air, the more the better, but smashing all USSR’s tanks and preventing fortification of West Russia? Maybe that’s only 20% to have favorable odds of all that following a USSR triple open as was described, but that’s still more than the odds Germany has against a Ukr/W Rus open.

For readers catching up, this is for LHTR setup regular dice.

@bob-loblaw

Re: “G2 4 inf 4 tank 6 fighter 1 bomber vs London”

How does that happen, exactly?

Suppose we assume the German Mediterranean fleet is blocked or destroyed. Suppose we also assume USSR destroyed Germany’s bomber and possibly a fighter on Ukraine. To invade with the listed forces Germany must buy three transports, a carrier, bomber, and fighter, which is 16 more IPCs than it has to spend.

But even with those assumptions made, Baltic fleet defense is minimal; the Allies may destroy the Baltic fleet outright, with UK then USSR followup as I described earlier.

==

Re: “uk fleet re-building in round 1 is pretty much off the table”

It’s nice to have an early UK fleet, but not essential. But Germany dumping a load of IPCs into Baltic fleet that can be cut off then destroyed is a real issue for the Axis. Germany needs ground units. The German position at Karelia collapses, then the Allies pile in.

There’s some cute things Germany can pull off with improved logistics to Norway and Finland, and improved logistics to Karelia helps some too. Axis Sealion can be a fun line to play, but if the Allied player is competent, games of Sealion should lose.

Remember, where you mentioned pulling a USSR triple attack open, I said use 9 Ukr remaining to W Rus open. I don’t like a static boring meta, but if you’re playing to win, you have to acknowledge the strengths of the line. Destroying the German bomber removes a lot of options, that’s why USSR should do it.

==

Re: “you can add 3 more infantry to uk, and the odds go down to 12%”

As I mentioned, I believe those numbers are quite optimistic as I believe the underlying premises behind those numbers are not sound.

But what happens when UK does add infantry to London? Not much. UK wants to get to the point where it’s dropping 6-8 units from London to Europe every turn. London gets emptied out anyways; if UK is pressured to build ground on London on turn 1 it just means it builds less ground somewhere down the line. Meanwhile Germany’s stuck with a big fleet it can’t defend - especially in 1942 Online with its rules changes forcing players to allocate hits automatically and not being able to respond appropriately, inability to use allied carriers, etc.

==

Re: “but…in order for it to work, you would need to kamikaze the uk planes into Baltic fleet in round 1”

That’s not an issue.

Re: “expensive, and pretty much offsets the cost Germany spent”

Also not an issue.

The problem for both Axis and Allies is how to break the major enemy stack. For Axis early game, this is the combined Allied stack on West Russia. For Allies early game, this is the combined Axis stack on Karelia.

Germany’s Baltic navy, including German fighters, is vulnerable to destruction. Normally UK cannot pick off Germany’s fighters, as German fighters on territories are protected by a stack of German infantry. German air is difficult to deal with; they threaten Atlantic shipping, they threaten territories in Europe.

But now UK has an opportunity to blow up things that could threaten the Atlantic navy, that also threaten territories in Europe.

How would UK normally try to break apart Germany’s major stacks? It normally can’t. German fighters are protected, loads of German infantry are running around. But by dropping a load of IPCs on transports that don’t fight, and tying defense to a sea zone that has no good escape zones, Germany invests heavily in a war it shouldn’t be fighting and cannot win. There are compensations to Germany for building a Baltic fleet, but I say they’re not enough.

I say the cost to UK is not an issue because German Baltic fleet gives UK an opportunity to directly attack valuable German units relevant to Europe. The cost to UK is well worth it.

==

Re: “the ussr fighters are not being used in r2 to attack eastern Europe”

Well identified. But apply that level of thinking to what happens with a German Sealion build.

If we’re building optimistic scenarios (which I think is the case if viable Sealion is being claimed), then I could say R2 hard counter into Karelia is still an option.

==

“the simulator I use doesn’t account for cruiser bombardment”

https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/

==

“3 fighters is something you might consider for a kjf strategy”

I wouldn’t say 3 UK1 fighters on India is a good move. Yes, I know there’s a video, and I expect that video was based off advice given by veterans in the community, but I don’t think that line of play properly considers how much 1942 Online’s changes damage KJF.

Without going into the details much, changes, and restrict UK so its best options are usually to put out max ground on India and fighters on London, flying to West Russia then India. UK can switch out builds later but that’s how it starts.

==

Re: “If ussr doesn’t (take Ukraine and land its 2 fighters in Archangel) then sea lion might make some sense.”

There’s a few other things USSR can do, but essentially, yes.

==

Re: “regarding (triple open into Baltic States, Belorussia, West Russia) . … prevent Germany (stacking Karelia, so possibility of R2 counter into Karelia”, “>90%”

The question is not only USSR’s initial odds of success, but the resulting position and Germany’s counters.

1. German stack on Karelia, two things to consider. A) Germany captures Karelia and Baltic States, then moves tanks into Karelia during noncombat. B) Germany builds tanks on Berlin and counters any USSR push into Karelia. USSR will have lost a lot of units on the R1 open so will be very hard pressed to do a R3 counter against the G2 capture.

2. Germany doesn’t have to no-brainer all-in on Caucasus. Germany has a couple juicy options, attacking West Russia with intent to retreat, trying to blow up those pesky AA guns. Or Germany can use its Med fleet to help capture Caucasus; successful capture means Germany almost certainly keeps its Med fleet for the start of G2, which gives Germany a lot of good options to keep that fleet alive for long-term control of African income and/or improved logistics against southeast Europe. Or some combination, depending on dice outcomes.

In this post I address only some of why I disagree with “as UK fortifies London, it leaves India weak”, in context of a Germany first round Baltic buy threatening invasion of London, using the LHTR setup, regular dice, and playing to win.

What is a reasonable R1 open? I say 9 Ukr, remainder W Rus, intending to destroy the German bomber on Ukraine, then either retreating to Caucasus if USSR has a lot of units remaining, or capturing or clearing Ukraine if USSR has few units remaining.

(bob-loblaw mentioned hitting Baltic States, Belorussia, and West Russia, which I disagree with. Any USSR triple attack risks bad dice leaving an opening for Germany. Leaving Ukraine in particular gives Germany attacks into both West Russia and Caucasus.)

Noncombat moves an infantry to join the US fighter in China, moves units in northeast Asia towards Karelia, lands fighters in Archangel.

Investment of a USSR infantry may either preserve a valuable US fighter or pose some risk to Japan’s air. The odds of destroying Japanese air are not great, but considering opportunity costs and the risk, Japan may choose not to hit that territory at all.

Units in northeast Asia push towards Karelia. They’re needed to threaten/reduce the Axis defensive stack that will build up on Karelia.

Fighters land in Archangel because there’s no other good place for them to go. First, assuming capture of Ukraine, which is reasonably likely:

If we assume Germany builds a Med carrier to join its Med fleet and properly carries out other Med clearing attacks so UK can’t clear with good odds, even both USSR fighters on Caucasus would be of little use.

Assuming instead the German Med fleet is used to capture Trans-Jordan (and destroy the UK destroyer), 2 UK fighters and 1 UK bomber have less than 3% to mutual wipe with the German battleship, followed by a USSR fighter on Caucasus picking up the undefended German transport before G2.

There is some chance Germany may attempt to capture Caucasus even with USSR capturing Ukraine, but that has bad outcomes for Germany if capture of Caucasus fails. The UK destroyer in the Mediterranean can be used as fodder, reducing the cost to UK air. Without German ground reinforcements in Africa, Germany in Africa is much easier to control.

Assuming USSR does not capture Ukraine, that could break down into either bad dice (which happens, there’s no great outcomes for Allies in that event but oh well), or neutral-good dice in which USSR destroyed the bomber and retreated a chunk of units to safety. Depending on W Rus outcomes, maybe USSR will want to land 1-2 fighters on Caucasus for “safety”, but there is reason for USSR to calculate things out and NOT land fighters on Caucasus.

Why land USSR fighters on Archangel? USSR doesn’t know what Germany will do exactly, or what openings UK may carry out, and in 1942 Online can’t even know whether the USSR submarine will submerge as it’s submergence is controlled by the UK player, and unlike the board game the Allies can’t even respond appropriately and select casualties after seeing dice rolls which is ridiculous but I digress. Anyways for the first few reasons is enough; it may be that the German Baltic transport survives, and a single USSR fighter (at least) should be left to pick the transport off, as that means 2 less units can be moved from Berlin to Karelia next turn. Yes, it’s that important.

But also, the USSR fighters and USSR submarine can pose a threat to German Baltic navy builds, and USSR fighters on Archangel can reinforce London in case of a German Baltic build. (There’s also the possibility of countering Buryatia if Japan plays very badly, like bad enough to win awards for being bad.)

The takeaway here is two USSR fighters on Archangel is very reasonable, and should even be expected. Even if there aren’t two fighters on, there should certainly be one. If there aren’t any fighters on Archangel, it amounts to either assuming the Allies had middling-lousy dice so both USSR fighters had to land on Caucasus - yet not COMPLETELY lousy dice or landing USSR fighters on Caucasus would just see the territory overrun by Germany anyways, destroying both USSR fighters - OR assuming the Allies player is completely incompetent.

The assertion we’re looking at claims the Germany player builds a Baltic fleet, and that threatens London enough that India is left underdefended. But let’s think about what, exactly, that means. What the risks are.

Let’s say Gemany does not hit the UK battleship/destroyer. That would leave UK with battleship, destroyer, two fighters, and bomber to hit Germany’s Baltic fleet. How does that play out?

1. Germany uses cruiser to block, buys carrier for Baltic sea zone, buys mass transports to “force” UK defense of London. This leaves UK with a free shot, with a USSR followup, and thanks to 1942 Online’s rules changes Japanese fighters can’t land on a German carrier, not that they would have range, but whatever. Also notice how in the board game the player could see a G1 carrier/mass transport buy, see the Sealion incoming, then just choose to submerge the USSR submarine for an odds-on attack against Germany’s very expensive Baltic fleet. Yes, 1942 Online rules changes and defensive profiles are lame, but oh well. Anyways, with both UK and USSR having pretty decent shots at the Baltic sea zone, probably it ends badly for Germany.

2. Germany buys carrier and destroyer for Baltic sea zone, then as above, and with both UK and USSR threatening the sea zone that doesn’t necessarily end up well for Germany either. Veterans of the board game will probably roll their eyes as they lament how stupid it is that Germany can’t assign casualties after seeing roll outcomes, so preserve that destroyer against a possible USSR threat, nor can Germany fine-tune matters so a single fighter is lost first instead of BOTH fighters then the carrier, and there’s a lot of defensive profile lousiness that shows up here but again oh well. Anyways what with 1942 Online rules changes and defensive profile limits, Germany’s chances still aren’t great.

3. Germany buys even more defensive fleet, which means it buys less transports, then the threat on London is less, and what with up to two USSR fighters and the US bomber landing on London and the German Med fleet being cut off, the threat against London is not so great, certainly to the point that UK can afford to buy three ground units for India.

. . . and at some point Germany has to think about the UK East Canada fleet, the US East US fleet, and how it will allocate its attacks against the UK battleship/destroyer/transport/USSR submarine fleet. Whatever isn’t hit has to be dealt with, and that affects both the G2 threat to London and any potential G2 build that may want to double down to hit London.

What this all means is, players can look at the board and play against players that don’t play correctly, and think it works out so a Sealion threat must be over-reacted to, forcing early Japanese capture of India. But it doesn’t work out that way at all.

One of the nastier things I haven’t gotten into is what happens if UK doesn’t even need to buy ground for London (or at least, can split between ground and air). Fighters are pretty potent defenders for London, but those fighters also threaten any German navy.

The worst-case scenario, and what I think can pretty much be forced, is Germany spends a lot of resources on transports that can’t fight. Granted those transports improve logistics to Finland and Norway, and some nice things come out of that, and there’s improvement of timing to Karelia. But a German Baltic fleet also has to be protected against an ever-increasing threat from the Allies, and if Germany doesn’t escape in the first couple rounds, there’s not much Germany can do except cower in the Baltic waiting to be sunk. They can’t escape from the Baltic as they run right into US naval/air buys mobilized on US’s East Coast sea zone, and US ramps up pretty quick.

In the meantime, sure, Allied naval transport timings in Atlantic suffer, and there are other small compensations. But most of those compensations are lost in the end; Germany just doesn’t have the mass of ground units it needs to protect key locations, and UK/US air assets that were used to threaten/destroy Germany’s Baltic fleet can be used to defend territories in Europe/protect the Allied Atlantic fleet.

==

Besides USSR being able to defend London, USSR may also protect India. I’m not saying it’s a great thing for USSR, but if Japan does too much rushing, USSR can stick a wrench in the works. If Germany had a solid ground game then maybe Germany could pry an opening in Europe while the Allies are committing to India. But if Germany built a load of Baltic navy, then things may not work out so well for Axis. The Allies control too much of the timing, and the Allied counter for one transposes into the Allied counter for the other.

@bob-loblaw
I did not see enough in your post to change my mind about how it plays out. I’m open to the possibility Sealion works (hence the ambiguous title), but as far as I see, the evidence is against.

“As UK fortifies London, it leaves India weak.” Rather than starting with unsubstantiated assertion, start with positions, numbers, and walk through the options.

But it’s not “unsubstantiated assertion”? Well, let’s flip it. Say I claim UK can fortify London and NOT leave India weak. We wouldn’t be having a discussion, we’d just be bouncing unsubstantiated assertions off one another, you know?

Other things that we could look at - landing all air in Thailand or adjacent sea zone, J2 capturing India, acceptable odds for Germany capturing London on G2+, USSR not hitting Ukraine on R1 and instead doing a USSR triple open, timing on Allied counters into Berlin.

If you’re up for working the numbers, let’s have that discussion. I’ll post later with some numbers on the India situation. I’m not saying I’m going to break it all down, but I’ll put some stuff out there for discussion.

Thanks to moderators for certain recent action.

I mentioned earlier going into detail would derail the thread, but reading through this thread can give incorrect impressions. So some comments (though brief) are appropriate.

1. Even if imbalance only applies to new players before they get used to certain strategy and tactics, it’s still an issue.

2. I believe there is mathematical imbalance favoring the Axis, not limited to new players. Roughly, the argument:

A. If either side has a fairly “safe” move that offers good chance of advantage, that action should be taken.

B. The Axis have a higher chance of such occurring than the Allies (after player action, dice outcomes, and contingencies). Particular conditions include Germany’s counter to USSR1’s West Russia capture, contrasted to Germany’s failing the UK battleship fight / UK destroyer at Mediterranean fights. For both Axis cases the chance of failure is lower, and Axis ability to recover from bad dice is higher, compared to the Allied position.

Readers should understand B is not an argument that should be undertaken lightly. I make an especial point, as on several past instances some readers would take some parts of what I’d write, and try to twist the argument to support their diametrically opposite positions. But the proof is not in some grandiose “concept” or whatever flim-flam trickery. The proof is in pages and pages of reasoning, mathematics, explanations of contingencies &c, and if you don’t have that, you will fall on your face.

I think posters in search of an absolute truth won’t have a problem with falling on their face sometimes. But for posters that just want to prop up bad arguments with “impressive sounding” phrases, best not.

==

There are a few points that ought be brought up regarding panzer666’s posts.

First, the question of versions. EricB’s second post referenced ranking, which uses the LHTR setup. Snoil’s eighth post referenced his initially referencing the OOB setup and later using the LHTR setup. MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s second post questioned whether LHTR was being used - and for all posters and posts, I think generally the thought was that the LHTR was being used, for 1942 Online in particular.

Then panzer666 posts, and you see where he talks about 12 to West Russia / 9 to Ukraine being soft. (Reference MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s first post / panzer666’s first post).

Panzer666 is right about that in the OOB setup because OOB Germany’s bomber won’t be destroyed at Ukraine, so Germany has a better counter to West Russia. It’s only in LHTR that USSR1 12 WRussia / 9 Ukr becomes more viable.

(But as I read it, everyone else, including myself, was referencing the LHTR setup by that point. Well, these things are easily missed).

Second, though

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke

Doubling down on advice without knowing the version under discussion (at least, that’s how I read the situation), plus calling something a “funny joke” on top of that, plus being wrong on the actual points why something is supposedly a “funny joke”.

Wrong on the actual points? Well, I think so.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke .first of all Germany targets the allies first round except Russia which should be on the defensive anyway unless you think russia can just walk on into Berlin .just look at the facts Germany starts at the gates of Moscow ,real good way of targeting Germany.so Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.

Let’s assume it is OOB setup (which again I’ll point out isn’t how I see any other participating poster in this thread commenting.)

First, about victory cities. Axis control Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Philippine Islands, Kwangtung. Allies control Eastern US, Western US, Hawaiian Islands, United Kingdom, India, Russia, and Karelia.

The assertion is Axis win on victory cities, but that’s not really the focus in games between skilled players. Chess games are not won by the actual capture of an opponent’s king, but by material, by position, by pressure. Similarly, victory cities are a pressure condition skilled players work with and around. A game may end with Axis victory city condition, but with competent players it’s far less about raw power and some forced scripted inevitable victory, and far more about pressure and best chances.

Practically, the Axis need three out of four of the usually-contested territories of Karelia, India, Hawaiian Islands, and Russia to win. Capturing East US, West US, or United Kingdom is not possible with normal dice with reasonably skilled players. I trust I need not go into detail.

The obvious response is the Axis can capture Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands, so “the Axis get a victory city win”. But by the time that happens the Allied player should be able to contest Kwangtung, Philippines, Karelia, France, and/or Italy. I do not say the Allies can always contest one of those victory cities, what with dice and player actions - but understand the definition of a competent Allied player is one with a plan with some reasonable expectation of preventing loss by victory city.

Second, about the Allied navy. “Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.”

There’s a lot to unpack there, but none of it is necessarily correct. There’s just a bit too much “magical thinking”.

“good luck rebuilding the navy”? On the contrary. Even if Germany positions its air west, there are reasonable scenarios that have UK opening with a fleet buy - which you can reasonably say Germany may be able to sink. But if Germany does expend its air on UK targets, that means less that can hit at the Allies in land territories in Europe. To be clear, even if German air has decent odds on a favorable-odds battle against a UK navy, that can still be a strategic mistake. The Axis still need to break the combined Allied stack on land, and if Germany is losing fighters in other battles - you see.

Then too, there’s the question of US1 navy build into US2 air build into US3 noncombat movement and air unifying off UK after a UK3 fleet drop. The Allies don’t want to do things that slowly if it can be helped, but even so it’s moderately quick and there’s almost nothing the Axis can do to stop it, short of measures that end up costing the Axis so much that the investment is questionable.

Finally (for the second point regarding Allied navy anyways), there’s the question of what, precisely, you’re recommending. What, precisely, you think the Allied naval situation is and should be. You dismissively say the Allied navy is blown up, but is it really? If the two US transports off East US survive, for example, they can make a drop to French West Africa, then both UK and US have counterplay against German income in Africa. If that covers Africa, what of Asia? Well, what would you recommend, that the Allies try to fight Japan in the Indian and Pacific Oceans? I’ve written quite a lot elsewhere about how I don’t think that works well at all. So if you’re going to say the Allies go Atlantic, and if the Allies can go Atlantic, and if the Allies have reasonable chances elsewhere, then perhaps the Allied position isn’t that bad.

Unless you’re saying Germany destroyed everything in the Atlantic, which with OOB setup it has some reasonable chances at. But destroying everything requires some extraordinary luck, even in OOB. If you disagree, go ahead and post the OOB Germany1 turn moves and probability distributions that demonstrates otherwise.

The third point is claiming Russia should be on the “defensive”. Actually USSR needs to produce some offensive units to prevent Germany from early gains. I’m not saying USSR should go bombers, but pure infantry isn’t great for USSR either.

If you want to recast that in the context that you’re talking about West Russia being broken, remember. As I read it most others in the thread are assuming LHTR setup, which means far weaker Germany in Atlantic, plus Germany’s bomber almost certainly being destroyed. It’s still quite possible that West Russia gets broken, but it’s not near as likely as in OOB, nor is the position nearly as bad even if it does happen.

The fourth point is the general pessimism and dismissiveness of panzer666’s view of the Allies. If someone’s a bit vague, or even pessimistic, fair enough. But an argument consisting of saying UK is reduced to “tugboats” and Allies “abandon” the Pacific and claiming the Axis win by VC, well, some of that can happen, but what of Allied pressure at Karelia? What if Allies open up early trading at France/Italy? These possibilities are not considered, and even dismissed as a “joke”. There’s good points in what panzer666 writes, especially if you’re thinking about the OOB, but even for OOB, it’s a bit much.

Suppose it’s KGF. Why don’t the Allies develop pressure at Karelia? Obviously the Allies do that; once the Allies can shuttle stacks of cost-effective ground units to reinforce Russia then if the Allies haven’t fought any severely losing stack battles the Allies have real chances (even if down on economy). Besides that, as I wrote, the Allies must have a plan that prevents loss by victory city. It is accepted Axis will have a strong hold on Karelia, will capture India, and Hawaiian Islands. By the time that happens, Allies must contest another victory city. That’s just how it is.

But what if the Allies don’t develop pressure at Karelia? But as I wrote, a competent Allied player will play to prevent VC loss. So the only reason Karelia doesn’t open up is if Allies managed to open up trading at France/Italy instead.

So no matter how you slice it, you see the Allies are preventing loss by victory city condition - provided Russia doesn’t fall. (I’m not getting into KJF/antiKJF here as I’m just illustrating general points).

But you want to say that Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands all fall before that happens? How, exactly? Karelia, sure, but if you send towards Hawaiian Islands early then you’re not pushing to Asia or India early. If you push India early you’re not pushing Hawaiian Islands early. There’s going to be a delay one way or another if the Allies player is competent.

As usual I’m not trying to establish any sort of comprehensive argument. At the open, I usually start by saying look at least at the few things I’m pointing out, think about how things really happen, think about the validity of the counterargument.

If there’s still disagreement that’s fine, but at least there should be a framework of logical argument, of points that can be proved or disproved. When an argument is based on a logical framework, there can be progression in the discussion.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@marineiguana attack Ukrainian territory not a good idea .you can lose that battle still and you risk heavy losses WR.then Germany can walk right through.you should think more about giving yourself at least a chance with every game of winning .

That reads like attacking Ukraine doesn’t have a chance of winning.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke .first of all Germany targets the allies first round except Russia which should be on the defensive anyway unless you think russia can just walk on into Berlin .just look at the facts Germany starts at the gates of Moscow ,real good way of targeting Germany.so Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.

As I see it you’d need aberrant dice, bad play on both sides, very particular Allied risk aversion preferences, and even then what’s stated and implied above still doesn’t quite happen with competent players.

Extended discussion of the point would derail the thread. Could start another thread though.

KJF, anti-KJF, the overview.

1. KJF in 1942 Online is trash compared to 1942 Second Edition. Less powerful by far, less interesting to play.

2. I don’t think KJF in 1942 Online is even viable. (Note I don’t hesitate to personally play bad lines. I just don’t recommend anyone else do the same unless they don’t care about “winning”.)

3. For those that read my comments elsewhere, I’ve said if UK1 hits East Indies there’s a probability distribution worth looking at. But when you look at the percentages on the “failure” outcomes and consider all the drawbacks, it’s just too much.

Yes, you can put in preconditions. But if you stipulate Germany gets a 6% result on German battleship vs UK destroyer (and German battleship being sunk) and USSR having a fighter on Caucasus to pick up the German Med transport, or if you stipulate Germany doesn’t hit Egypt or Trans-Jordan and builds a Med carrier, in the first case perhaps German income can be contained, in the second case even though the German line transposes to only slightly inferior to G1 11 inf 2 art buy off KJF - but even then it’s not enough. UK still can’t effectively add to US’s speed of progress in the Pacific what with 1942 Online’s rules changes; going south around Australia is just too slow.

I think for KJF in 1942 Online to work you also have to stipulate multiple lucksacks and/or the Axis play badly. That’s a bit much for me.

==

For execution:

1. You can ignore or overlook the details but the details still matter.

2. Pick your battles. You have limited resources, think about how your choices will change projected outcomes over time. Not in a vague way, but in very specific ways.

3. Japan can’t afford to skimp on ground to Asia. Especially in KJF.

4. Japan needs subs against KJF, but it doesn’t need them early or all at once. The Allies threat in the Pacific only develops over time, and Japan only needs enough subs to make any early hard Allied push expensive. If the Allies push early light then Japan smashes.

5. If Allies go KJF, UK should hit Japan’s fleet off East Indies. It’s not a “good” battle, there’s decent chance of failure, no good contingencies in case of failure, no alternate plan for even partial failure. But considering 1942 Online’s rules changes, UK can’t land fighters on US carriers to speed US’s progress in Pacific, and Japan can too easily cut off UK navy built at India trying to unite early with US fleet in Pacific. So it’s East Indies or bust.

There’s a load of second-string options, ranging from UK1 India naval build with UK doing attack/retreat into Japan’s East Indies fleet, UK capturing East Indies, UK capturing Borneo, UK threatening early IC on Borneo / East Indies, UK positioning transports south where they can hit Burma and French Indochina Thailand, UK building 3 India ground and 2 London fighters, blah blah. But it all comes down to you’re going to roll the dice at East Indies and there being no real option because there’s just no way Allies can deal with a full-strength Japanese fleet and air force threatening India and pushing off any US naval threat. If UK wants to make a contribution to the Pacific it’s going to involve dice at East Indies, there’s just no way around it.

6. There’s a bunch of KJF so-called threats ranging from US dumping units into Asia from a protected fleet off Soviet Far East (too close to Japan’s logistics at Tokyo, and too late to help Russia), US grabbing Japan’s money islands (Japan can see US coming a mile away, can build in response to US’s builds, and still be in position for cheap punishment, plus Japan transitioning to bomber is expected anyways for when Japan breaks India and Japan decides when to go for India or not; if US wants to sacrifice its whole fleet for cheapo subs and delay Japan capturing India a turn fantastic), US pushing Japan off the coast (only reason Japan lets US push it off the coast is if Japan is using the time to help Germany secure the position against Russia without serious Axis losses so the expectation is Germany crushes Russia and/or chases Allies away, then between income and production at Russia, Axis income at Africa it simply becomes an Axis win off position, stack size, economy, and attrition), US going mass subs to try to blow up Japan’s fleet (doesn’t work, massed US subs are vulnerable to destruction, splitting means sacrificing a few and it takes too long for US to mass a serious threat against a decent Japan), US going transports and air to island hop (doesn’t work, Japan either reclaims in force which it can afford to do with four transports and two carriers, battleship, plus, or possibly Japan just sacrifices a transport, again sacrifices only happening if the Axis are pretty well crushing it on the rest of the board so again Axis victory). Then there’s UK building fleet at India (gets cut off too easily from US’s forces in Pacific, Japan can just pick them both off unless UK goes south around Australia and that takes too long), UK going bombers (not the worst but you can imagine what happens when you’re trying to mass 12 IPC bombers against 8 IPC destroyers and Japan having that huge navy stack advantage). Any of those Allied plans works eventually but I expect each to be a bit too late.

==

You can legitimately play KJF against players if you think their reactions might not be correct. But against a prepared opponent you just need too much luck.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

probably 3-4 subs to prepare for KJF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40

Error 1: If players overestimate the utility of J1 subs - well okay, it’s a matter of missed details and suboptimal application.

Error 2: If players are overreacting pre-emptively on J1 to what might not turn out to be KJF after all (you only really know after a US1 Pacific fleet drop), a 24 IPC commitment to tactically inflexible naval units with very narrow applications, oof. That’s bad.

Understand the difference between that and G1 11 infantry 2 artillery build. Without Germany immediately trying some variation of attack USSR-controlled West Russia setting the stage for a tank dash, the expectation is Germany needs mass numbers to hold Karelia, choke off USSR income at Ukraine, deal with UK relief forces after UK abandons India, etc. There’s some numbers involved and I could get into G1 mixing in 1-2 tanks depending on income denial, opportunity costs, planned counters, but I won’t. Suffice to say Germany makes good on those units one way or another.

But Japanese submarines? Suppose US doesn’t drop a Pacific fleet. What does Japan do with Japanese submarines? If Japan goes through the Suez into the Mediterranean, all right, maybe Japan relieves pressure. But Japan must control the Suez for that to happen, which only happens after India falls - unless Japan slows its attack on India to hit Africa, which often isn’t best. Even if US does drop a Pacific fleet, I explained how often Japanese submarines are used later rather than earlier and (broadly) naval positioning timing and opportunity costs.

You could argue that Japan can “recover” the situation, which if it were only a question of navy, might be the case. But it’s not, which leads to -

Error 3: You may get transposition of more or less viable lines in other cases, but in this case Japan is talking about committing to navy when the ground game is in question. Using a non-viable line in place of a viable line is not merely bad, it’s fatal. After looking at some of what I write later, maybe you’ll see what I mean.

Error 4: The whole “hard defense” mentality regarding Japan is awful. Battle of Cannae. Napoleon. Blitzkrieg. Heck, George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali in 1974. Time and again history has shown the importance of manuever, but some players absolutely insist on trying to force some battle of raw strength, even when they shouldn’t.

==

I’ve explained Japan’s naval situation is precarious, and some readers I’m sure are thinking “if Japan’s navy can’t stand the pressure, how can Japan POSSIBLY afford to build ground units as well?”

I’ve already given the answer in brief in previous posts. Japan takes advantage of stretched Allied logistics chains and applies various other game mechanics that allow late yet effective Japanese naval/air action in the Pacific. I didn’t elaborate, but that’s the basics.

So Japan can afford to build ground. Not unthinkingly! Rather, Japan has very specific objectives with very specific requirements and timings, and should build ground, navy, and air as required.

==

I mentioned earlier Japan has 13 ground in Asia, Allies 15 or 16 or whatever depending on UK India build and USSR Szechwan reinforcement, whatever. Japan has transports and can dump to the mainland, but with UK popping out 3 units at India a turn (and this is with US and UK pretty well totally ignoring Asia) you can see it’s an uphill battle for Japan - especially since UK and US fighters can quickly reposition from West Russia to India.

I’ve read some advising Japan can ignore India. That only works if your opponent is fantastically bad. Otherwise UK simply starts sending UK India units through Persia. And because some players totally have no fundamentals, they don’t understand how bad that is.

I’ll assume readers are somewhat competent. Germany is trying to build a stack big enough to break a combined USSR/UK/US stack. Does this sound familiar? Now if I say - which I do - that Germany needs to think very carefully about what it commits, where and when, because Germany wants to be able to get enough pressure to push that combined Allied stack backwards, and maybe even eventually break it, does that make sense?

Meanwhile, USSR is trying to build a stack big enough to push the Axis Europe stack back. Does that also sound familiar? It should.

So now think about it. Suppose Germany holds a 2-IPC European territory with 1 infantry. UK attacks with 1 infantry 1 fighter. It’s a favorable battle for UK, but what if UK loses its infantry? Then US has a turn. Then USSR has a turn. And if at all possible, and that’s often going to be the case because the Allies try to make exactly that happen, either UK or USSR ends up with income.

Then what happens? Remember USSR is trying to conserve all the units it can to threaten a major stack battle against the Axis in Europe. So if UK is spending UK units, well, that’s a USSR unit saved. If UK just clears but doesn’t claim a territory, that’s even better for Allies; USSR blitzes the territory with a tank on its turn and gets USSR income (amazing) and doesn’t even need to commit a unit.

This is the fundamentals of stack building and bleeding, which in turn is fundamental to Axis and Allies strategy.

But Japan makes gains if it ignores India? How, exactly? Japan moves in force right up to Russia? UK or USSR blow them up. So USSR can’t push Germany back as easily? Considering every turn of delay is another turn for UK and US to break through at Karelia that’s not enough. Japan can cripple itself with overextension and the Axis still lose. If that’s the plan Axis have to rely on luck delivering most of the game into their hands in the first place.

But say Japan moves in only one unit per territory, pressuring USSR to trade? I’d say that’s far less situational and much more consistent with Axis strategy, but in what world does that require some sort of brute force dump through Yunnan? It doesn’t. Japan only needs a small trickle of units if that, because the more USSR pushes back in east Asia, the longer USSR’s logistics lines get, the shorter Japan’s get. Japan LOVES it if USSR flails around blindly in Asia for 1-IPC territories, please do. If Japan could give up territory in Asia to TEMPT USSR out of position, then Japan should do that, only there’s no way for Japan to force USSR to do something it shouldn’t. In the KGF, the key battles are fought in Europe, and early, and that’s how it should be played.

So what happens when Japan just pushes through China? You could argue in some games it works, if Axis are already winning on economy / attrition / position. But how does that happen? I just mentioned lucksacking, and I’ll say it again. It’s not a solid plan. Japan should not allow UK to bleed Germany out in Europe unless there’s pretty solid reason to do so - and there probably isn’t reason to do so.

I already mentioned using India as for a backup sea zone after control of Japan’s sea zones are lost, and as I’ll get into later, India is also massively useful for Japan for loads of other reasons. For now, suffice to say that Japan can produce up to 8 units on Tokyo, but Tokyo is far from the action, Japan’s income can ramp up to 40+, and Japan can make good use of India and its IC, without having to foot the bill and sit on the delay of buying its own IC. Japan has horrible logistics issues, and India solves just about everything.

Yes, I did say Japan DOES ignore India. But in the one case in which it “does”, it actually doesn’t. Because in the scenario I’m talking about, what is it, J1 spends 15 IPCs on an industrial complex just to ensure ONE MORE DICE on the timing to Moscow? That’s how close it is. And if you think Japan can swiftly redirect tanks from the interior of USSR to India, well, that’s what I mean by Japan not really ignoring India after all. When Japan is spending crazy money for just one dice, you really think Japan is going to laugh off UK popping out three dice every turn? It shouldn’t and it won’t, and if UK does it (which it should, why wouldn’t it), then Japan needs to do what it has to do.

==

Well, back to Japan in Asia.

Consistent with stack building/bleeding, you understand Japan really doesn’t want to let USSR have income. This is just entirely consistent with the basics. I also explained earlier that 5 USSR infantry on Buryatia screws USSR over even if it can possibly capture Manchuria because of opportunity costs and timing at Allied defense of West Russia, then there’s possibilities of Allied reinforcement coming through China and/or India, all of which I ignored to this point. And why? Because I say even against KJF Japan is dropping 6 ground units a turn into Asia. If the Allies ruin their holdings in Europe, let Germany storm in super fast, Japan probably still pushes in all over Asia, and if the Allies don’t ruin their holdings in Europe, probably Japan still pushes in all over Asia and Germany gets to where it’s going eventually anyways.

Why 6 ground? Why not 8? Or 4?

The answer links to references I’ve made earlier. Like UK producing three ground on India, two fighters on London, and flying the fighters from London to West Russia to India. Also as I mentioned UK has whatever air units survived UK1, probably there will be some fighters in that mix. So it’s not just that Japan’s trying to race 3 UK units on India a turn it’s more, and Japan has a pretty good-sized hump to get over in the first place. That’s why it isn’t 4 units, 4 really isn’t enough against competent Allies players.

Japan also wants to win at India pretty quickly. The faster India falls, the faster UK can’t put anything out there, the faster Japan can put things out there, the faster Japan has a springboard to Africa income.

I referenced stack building and bleeding, but also something about planned stack battles is, you don’t hold back. If you have just one more unit in a battle, that means a surviving unit the first round, the second round, the third round, any casualties inflicted are casualties that aren’t around to inflict casualties in turn later.

If India’s so important why not send more? Even against the KJF?

The only reason Japan “holds back” at all is because Japan is thinking about two stack battles - one in the Pacific, one in India. And Japan does need to start putting out submarines on J2 if there’s a US1 fleet drop. Otherwise Japan simply won’t have any cost-effective attack fodder (and submarines are quite nice when attacking too). That’s why it isn’t 8 ground units.

Finally, there are some issues with Japan’s production. Not just its logistics, but actually its production.

If UK hits Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer/transport then J1 buys three transports and ground. If UK hits Japan’s East Indies fleet then J1 buys carrier two transports. After that J2 is 2 subs 6 ground (using 30 IPCs, perhaps working in an artillery but even saving IPCs sometimes), then followup probably the same until Japan’s sea zones are interdicted, then Japan switches to fighter and/or bomber production, probably also Japan having done a Yunnan shift so there’s a block of infantry defending Tokyo against invasion (along with any Tokyo air builds).

And yes, if UK hits Japan’s East Indies fleet then J2 there’s some reason to go maybe 3 submarines instead of 2. Maybe even 4. Depends on the situation. But if it’s at all possible Japan should do early ground and late subs rather than early subs and late ground. Not that the subs should be too late, but sometimes Japan can get away with a late-round pure submarine buy. But if Japan tries to get away with a late-round pure ground buy after Japan’s already been pushed out of Asia, too little too late too bad.

Japan must make use of its production before the Allies cut Tokyo off. While Japan can pump out cheap subs and cheap ground and use Tokyo’s production to capcity, then it should do so. But if it’s KJF and the Allies interdict the sea zones around Japan, technically Japan might be able to build 6 submarines 2 infantry and do a main fleet defense of Tokyo but that’s probably not what Japan SHOULD do.

==

Explaining Japan in Asia takes a bit of doing.

Remember the core Axis doctrine. That they want to make USSR bleed. That they want to build on Germany’s starting stacks and superior logistics.

So a lot of Japan players, they get fixated on the idea that they “have” to defend Asia. Because Asia “belongs” to Japan or whatever. But actually no. If Japan gives up all of Asia and its money islands besides (I mean Borneo, East Indies, Philippines, not mainland Japan), so what really? If the Axis crush Russia and have unit count, position, economy, and attrition, then that spells an Axis win. Yes, if Japan lets the Allies swarm too fast then that’s going to be a problem. But if Japan just slows the Allies down, then what?

And while Japan is “slowing the Allies down”, what does that mean? What does that all really mean? Does it mean Japan needs to fight some heroic lone last-ditch stupid defense? No. Think about it, if so much relies on the Axis breaking Russia before Japan’s defense crumbles too much in Asia, then what if Japan makes Russia fall faster? Because Japan CAN and SHOULD do exactly that.

And should Japan blow up its entire fleet, even to get some supposed “win” on IPC? No. That probably isn’t good either. You already understand Japan can shift between key sea zones. What happens when Germany brings a reserve fleet up? If UK has no fleet in the area, Germany moves, Japan moves, then US has to crack a combined Axis fleet. If US wasn’t crushing Japan’s navy to begin with, is that something that will reasonably happen? No. On the other hand if Germany’s racing to build a navy from scratch while trying to consolidate its position in Europe and Japan has nothing to begin with, it’s much harder for Germany. Defense trumps offense; you could argue submarines make navy a different story than ground but 70 IPCs of German/Japanese navy against 40 IPC of US reinforcements, you’ve got to figure how that goes.

So instead of thinking “Japan MUST defend this or that”, think. Just what can Japan give up? And when? And for how long? How does the position develop?

And it turns out Japan can give up a LOT Just about everything except Japan itself. Probably Japan doesn’t want to give up its money islands too fast, if UK and/or US pop down ICs then they can get big boosts to their timings. But even Japan’s money islands can be allowed to fall if the Axis have the position - which, with 1942 Online’s rules changes, is what I’d expect.

Suppose Japan’s been dumping ground into Asia right along. Suppose Japan’s been pushing those ground units in towards Russia, and why not? Axis doctrine is for Japan to try to bleed out USSR so Germany has less to deal with.

But if Japan’s dropping in six units a turn, probably USSR isn’t using six units a turn to fight Japan. Not hardly. If USSR figured its bets right, probably it’s fighting hard in Europe for those valuable territories. So that means Japan has a surplus of power in Asia for a while.

Yes, in a while it’s very difficult for Japan to hold Asia coast. But remember again what happens as US stretches its logistics lines further and further. Okay, so US can drop transports and a chunk of air against any Asian coast territory? Sure, let US land on the coast. Japanese units that landed on earlier turns reverse out of Asia and recapture the territories. And this can happen again and again and again. This is how Japan can lock US out of having industrial complexes working on the Asian coast even after Japan loses control of the Asian coast - because Japanese units are already in the interior. Even then, Japan isn’t forced into a “immediate must recapture” situation, US has to capture a territory, hold past a possible Japanese capture, build an IC, hold another turn, and only then can US produce units, and even then it’s not an assured defense. Japan has the logistics advantage and Japan can pick the timing, you can see that’s very nice.

Suppose US is pushing towards Borneo, East Indies, Philippines. Maybe interdicts the sea zones around Japan. But that isn’t easy for US either. It’s a lot easier for US if UK blew up Japan’s East Indies fleet, but even so, fighters on Tokyo protect Tokyo and threaten any number of sea zones, and India may be producing subs. And though Japan fighters can push in towards USSR (and be used to fight off any Allied navy in Atlantic, relieving pressure on Germany - or Japanese fighters can land on newly captured German territory to reinforce, though UK can counter), at some point Japan may decide to pull all its units out of Europe and Asia and head towards US in the coast. Not as some knee-jerk response, but if the Axis have calculated there’s no need for Japanese support in Europe any more, Japan might as well get on with the cleanup. And by that point maybe Japan has eight fighters so a two-carrier placement at India along with earlier Japan sub/destroyer builds sees a massive Japanese navy. Remember Japan’s income wasn’t crippled, Japan has Asia income, China income, India income, Africa income because Japan tried to push ground hard.

If Japan doesn’t push ground hard, then Allies wrap Japan up in Asia then start blowing up the money islands. As I mentioned earlier UK then sends all its India production to Europe, and Germany has to deal with it.

And I’ll point out - of all coastal Asia, what must Japan hold? It’s inconvenient if US gets a Manchuria IC, but even that’s not fatal. If Japan is on the brink of collapse on the ground in Asia and the Allies grab the coast then Japan’s wrecked. But if there’s swarms of Japanese ground inland? That’s going to be a problem. In the meantime, what can the Allies really do in the Pacific? Even if Japan’s sea zones are interdicted, the US can’t stop fighter production on Tokyo. US trying to recapture India is just incredibly tough in terms of logistics, it’s far more realistic in KGF that the Allies lose India then reclaim it after having secured UK/US ground through Karelia into Russia; if UK/US aren’t breaking through at Karelia, if there’s no reserve of UK units, if all the Allies can depend on is US’s super-long logistics lines in KJF, well, that’s going to suck for Allies. Even if US just sticks around Philippines, Borneo, East Indies, Japan is pumping out fighters on Tokyo and maybe navy near India, and the more US spends on navy/air the less US has any hope to reinforce Russia through Asia.

So now let’s think about Japan in Asia. What do the Axis need to do? Break Russia. How does any amount of Japanese naval expenditure help that? How does Japan getting pushed out of Asia help that? It doesn’t. Japan needs to have ground in Asia, even against KJF. ESPECIALLY against KJF.

Japan shouldn’t lose too much too fast in the Pacific either. But you saw how close the balance of power in Asia was to begin with. You see how US can spend 100% on Pacific and will until US wins. If Japan doesn’t dump a chunk of ground in Asia early, when will it do so? After Japan’s lost control of the sea zones around Tokyo so can no longer safely transport ground units? After Japan’s been pushed out of Asia and is losing money? When? Early or never.

==

I mentioned I’d reference Japan in Europe even against KJF. Germany has nice starting stack sizes and better logistics against Russia than Japan, but even so, Berlin is some distance from Russia, and that’s a problem. German-held IC on Karelia helps, but Germany needs to push far and fast, try to grab Caucasus ASAP. How will Germany do that? Considering USSR also has huge starting stack sizes and is waiting to punch Germany in the mouth? With Japanese fighter reinforcements, Germany can push in, and if USSR punches there’ll be some bloody knuckles.

Besides USSR, there’s also Germany not wanting to use its air to sink any UK/US Atlantic fleet (and there may be some). Yes, it’s going to be a pain for Japan if a KJF is on, but it needs to be understood in some games that’s just what Japan should do. Instead of trying to do some sort of overkill losing defense in the Pacific, improve Germany’s timings, get Russia to fall that much faster, then the Axis can recover the position in Asia.

Imagine the alternative. Germany has to fight against UK/US’s navy and USSR’s ground? Splitting Germany’s stacks? That’s not what Axis want if they can help it. I mean really, that’s just totally counter to fundamentals. On the other hand, Japan taking on as much as it can, leaving the door open for Germany? That’s exactly what the Axis generally want.

I’m not saying in the KJF Japan should always be sending air to Europe. But even against KJF I send Japanese air to Europe far more often than not. Mind that’s part of a decently executed Germany, I’m not just saying to fly Japanese air in randomly.

Next up: the overview.

In this thread I write some about Japan in Pacific and Asia, how the specifics play out. As when I wrote about how Japan’s decision to hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet properly considers USSR1’s buy and outcomes at West Russia, again, a lot of things that might not seem directly relevant I say are relevant. It’s just a matter of understanding how.

I made the point J1 subs are useless against UK lucksack against Japan’s East Indies fleet and/or UK India fleet builds. Some players might argue theoretically J1 subs CAN be used to threaten off premature UK movement in later rounds. But how does that happen exactly?

And as to threat of Allied interdiction against Japan’s sea zones, how does that happen exactly?

Suppose Japan keeps its main fleet off Philippine Islands. From there Japan can threaten any new UK builds at India’s sea zone, threaten any US push to Solomon Islands, and even threaten any US push off Iwo Jima that would threaten Japan’s sea zones.

But Japan doesn’t want to keep its main fleet off Philippine Islands. If Japan does that, then Japan isn’t transporting units from Tokyo to the Asian coast. So, the first point. Remember, it’s not just about Japan shifting units around the Pacific. Japan must also consider its position in Asia.

I bring up again and again elsewhere, you don’t want to walk into the face of your opponent’s logistics given any decent choice. I say the Allies do not WANT to try to push in against Japan in Asia (until the Allies have basically won the game) as that shortens Japan’s logistics lines and extends Allied logistics lines. USSR doesn’t want to be aggressive against Germany for much the same reason. If Germany walks into the face of USSR’s logistics, well, what else is it really going to do. Especially in 1942 Online with its rules changes.

So what does Japan really gain by threatening US at Solomons? Yes, Solomon is just one step away from Borneo, but Japan has to be way out of position to threaten Solomons, Japan’s logistics are badly stretched, and effectively US’s logistics lines just get shorter.

No, if Japan SHOULD fight, then I say it should hit AFTER the Allies push. Or I’d even say maybe Japan just runs away. More on that later. If I forget to get into it, somebody poke me maybe.

If you look at the board, you’ve got to understand. There’s three key sea zones that Japan needs to think about really hard. Japan needs to think about all the sea zones, all the timings, but three in particular. Which do you think those are?

Go on, look at the board. Try to figure it out for yourself. Early game, midgame, late game? What are the key sea zones?

1. Sea zone east of Yunnan. Why? Because Japan can pick up ground units from Tokyo, drop to Yunnan, and that’s as good as it gets for moving units quickly and cheaply from Tokyo towards India. Units dropped to Yunnan can also be picked up by Japan and dropped to India, though that means those transports can’t pick up and drop off from Tokyo that turn, the “Yunnan shift” can be well worth it.

There’s the “Turbo Burma” variant which involves Japan basically shuttling things one way and developing quick pressure but I won’t get into that here. Also the East Indies IC variant. But Turbo Burma is situational and East Indies IC is costly and I think overcommitment so I won’t elaborate on those here.

2. India sea zone, with the mentality Japan captured India. If US interdicts Japan’s sea zones, well, that doesn’t happen right away, but it does happen reasonably quickly. But it should be very hard for US to both interdict Japan’s sea zones and the India sea zones. Instead of hanging back off Iwo Jima, that means US has to be off Yunnan or Philippines. Remember logistics. US’s lines are longer, Japan’s shorter.

3. Sea zone west of Japan. Against KJF probably Japan loses control of Japan’s sea zones, but there are some scenarios where Japan can move its fleet west of Japan and not be trapped or seriously threatened by Allies (that is very important, I am not talking about some stupid last-ditch defense of a sea zone that doesn’t have to be fought over, I’m talking about what happens if the Allies don’t invest heavily in navy/air and push ground instead; the Allies then have a stronger ground game but Japan has counterplay is what I’m getting at.

And why? If Japan’s secured India (which it should), then what with early game gains, Japan should have India, China, probably some bits of Africa. From there, where do the Allies push back? If the Allies push back towards India, they’re bleeding out Moscow and stretching Allied logistic lines. If Allies push towards China, they must go through Kazakh or Novosibirsk; if Japan has control of Persia then Kazakh isn’t reliable, if Japan has control of Evenki then Novosibirsk and Sinkiang aren’t reliable. If Japan has production at India - you see?

Well, maybe not.

Early game, provided Axis aren’t tank dashing, Japan should choke off India. I won’t get into the details except to say if Japan doesn’t then UK should make the Axis pay and pay and pay. For India, Japan wants to press Yunnan. Yes, Japan might use J1-J2 to consolidate control of the Asian coast so Japan can start choking out USSR income in northeast Asia and start grabbing China and other income, but J3+ at least should start seeing Yunnan drops until India falls.

But later in the game when India is secured, look at the board. I’ve referenced elsewhere Germany marching into Ukraine, West Russia, then Caucasus, and it might seem Kazakh is Japan’s West Russia. And some players might think the shortest route from Tokyo to Moscow is via Kazakh (which is true; Tokyo, Yunnan, Szechwan, Kazakh, Russia).

But how does the position really develop? Suppose Japan goes Tokyo, Buryatia, Yakut, Evenki, Archangel/Novosibirsk, Russia. Six steps versus five, what does the math say?

If oversimplifying it’s very easy to concentrate on Kazakh, and in tank dashes then timing is key. But in a slower game, Japan really needs to think about the Buryatia route.

Suppose Japan is pushing through Persia and China. How can Japan possibly reinforce Germany’s forces, or reduce pressure on Germany in any way? Doesn’t Japan need units at Evenki if Japan wants to trade Archangel and Vologda anyways? (It does). Will Japan be in position to create a major stack that USSR can’t challenge? (Shouldn’t be, unless Germany can force, and I do mean FORCE, a major stack battle on Germany’s terms, and though Germany tries very hard to do exactly that and there’s a lot of things Axis can do, it shouldn’t be all that easy). So probably Japan won’t be in a position to REALLY make a brute-force stack challenge, and if it is, then Japan can stack multiples off lines reinforced through Buryatia anyways. (Remember, this is assuming Japan is also feeding units in through India/Persia).

So of those three sea zones I say are key, two are key because they allow Japan to drop ground units from Tokyo to mainland Asia, the third is key because it allows Japan to reinforce its navy if it so chooses (and if not, then Japan can pump out ground units there so it’s still not wasted).

My point here is Japan wants to defend certain sea zones at certain times. The Allies know this. Japan might be able to switch up some, but the Allies know Japan MUST defend those different territories at different times for different reasons, and it’s with that knowledge the Allies create their attack plans.

So do you see now why J1 subs are premature?

I know US wants to threaten Japan’s sea zones. Suppose I build a lone carrier on J1. Or J2. Or J3. Then what?

By J2-J3, that newly built carrier is vulnerable to attack by sea, or attack by air. It could be a lone sub that takes it out, or a mix of air and navy, but there’s any number of threats that could develop; I don’t know what US1 will build but US can build enough that it has a pretty serious threat against Japan’s sea zones on US2/US3.

But J1? A lone Japanese carrier build isn’t “safe” but it’s not terribly vulnerable either. The Allies just haven’t had time to develop their position yet.

Suppose Japan does want to build a carrier J2-J3. How does Japan deal with developed Allied threats? By parking Japan’s main fleet in the build zone. But that means that Japanese fleet isn’t parked off Yunnan. It isn’t parked off Soviet Far East. It isn’t at Borneo, it isn’t at Philippines.

And since the Allies can see that Japan has limited flexibility, that means the Allies have more options.

So it becomes less a matter of vague brute force magical thinking where Japanese J1 subs are “needed” to fight some indeterminate threat. Instead, it becomes a very specific question. Is Japan worried about US1 to Iwo Jima? That’s the one threat J1 subs answer. But even beyond that, exactly what are Japanese submarines going to DO even if US1 DOES push to Iwo Jima?

And the tradeoff is, what happens if you get J1 carrier as oppose to J2+ carrier? You can see J1 carrier means Japan has freedom later when it needs it most, J2+ carrier locks Japan down.

Hmm?

And now I pull out something I’ve referenced a bajazillion times in passing. Axis strategic air doctrine.

(sounds fancy doesn’t it)

Generally it’s like this. Axis don’t lose air. Why? Because Axis air can hit multiple targets. You have a single Axis fighter, Allies have to defend Europe and the Atlantic, or India, Asia, and the Pacific. And no, it’s not as simple as saying Axis can just “buy more air”. Axis also need ground, every air unit built is a real sacrifice, so Axis have to try not to lose air.

There’s exceptions, like if Axis can get a positional advantage, but I won’t get into that here.

On paper maybe Japan can get a “winning” battle out of Iwo Jima, though I wouldn’t count on it. On paper maybe Japan can lose cheap subs. But think about how the position develops, how Japan can use that air until it’s forced to battle (and Japan probably can never be FORCED to battle except at Tokyo and that’s on terms incredibly favorable to Japan). Does Japan really want to start trading off even cheap submarines in exchange for expensive US capital ships, how long can Japan sustain that sort of trading, what is the projection?

The projection is, if US does push Iwo Jima, it’s still too early for Japan to fight. It’s not a joyous thought, that Japan can already be outmatched on US1, but think on it. Even if Japan wins the battle, will Japan lose the war?

Suppose Japan limits its naval units to west of Japan (can drop to Buryatia/Manchuria) and east of Yunnan (drop to Yunnan, Kwangtung, Kiangsu). Let’s say Japan can put 120 IPC of naval/air against Iwo Jima’s sea zone, plus J1’s build. And let’s ignore, for the time being, Japan’s later development. Let’s ignore that Japan should have transports and ground, that Japan should have two carriers, let’s just say Japan goes 3-4 subs, very brute-force. Will we see the magic?

US1 fleet at Iwo Jima is battleship, carrier, two fighters, two destroyers, submarine. Only 76 IPC against 120 of attack.

But remember, US has three fighters, bomber, and cruiser to counter, without US even building anything.

Suppose US is “dumb” and decides to go to Iwo Jima. Japan’s “disposable” fleet is submarine, two destroyers, cruiser. Japan doesn’t really care much if it loses all that stuff if the cost to the opponent is a lot higher. The cruiser is 12 IPCs, but though it’s nice to have, it’s not that much better against KJF than an 8 IPC destroyer. What Japan really wants to protect is its battleship, carrier(s) (if it builds more), and air. Plus of course Japan wants to get everything cheaply as possible.

Without getting into the numbers too much, there’s a few possibilities. Japan blows up US fleet and withdraws, Japan blows up US fleet and stays.

First, the “stay” scenario. Suppose Japan keeps its battleship, carrier, a destroyer, cruiser, two fighters. US has three fighters, bomber, and cruiser without even building anything. Throw in up to seven US1 build submarines and it’s a blowout.

But US might not build seven submarines? My point is Japan shouldn’t commit to a line of play that US can react to after the fact of Japan’s turn. Imagine asking someone to play rock-scissors-paper but before the game begins you shout “rock” and play and commit to rock. Being quicker and “anticipating” your opponent gave you no advantage, all you really did was telegraph your opponent and give them a counter.

Second, the “withdraw” option. Suppose J2 hits US1’s push off Iwo Jima with a load of units. Even ignoring the opportunity cost of J1 positioning to be in place to hit off Iwo Jima, there’s a bunch of problems. First, attacks with intent to retreat are tricky business, if you blow up all defenders by accident you’re stuck. So you actually don’t want to damage them too much, but then you just paid all your opportunity costs for limited gains. Second, US has a battleship and carrier, and should probably have captured Iwo Jima. So US has the option of dropping carriers early as defenders as its fighters can land, and if its battleship survives that’s a capital ship. Battleships aren’t worth their cost but it’s not bad for US if US keeps the one it’s got. And if Japan is attacking with intent to retreat it won’t be capturing Iwo Jima so Iwo Jima will be safe to land fighters on. (Again, in 1942 Second Edition US defenders can react appropriately and in 1942 Online not, because of defensive profiles, but it’s still not peaches and cream for Japan).

How do J1 subs help if your opponent simply does nothing in Pacific? If your opponent goes mass air and island trading in Pacific? Subs are not good for that stuff.

Also consider some stuff I mentioned earlier, like I said Japan can cut off UK from using its India fleet to reinforce US quickly. That’s true - if Japan takes appropriate measures.

But look at the board. If Japan’s committed all its fleet to off Yunnan and west of Japan, then how can Japan hit any UK fleet, possibly including a UK carrier, that survived East Indies? It can’t.

And if you respond saying Japan built J1 submarines exactly so Japan could hit any US1 off Iwo Jima yet also counter UK?

All right, so you line up two favorable attacks. Supposedly. But remember, I mentioned what happens if US pushes to Iwo Jima and Japan attacks full out (bad), or if Japan tries to attack and retreat (limited gains). There’s also the possibility US doesn’t push to Iwo Jima at all. That US builds nothing in Pacific. Then those J1 subs are pretty trash.

Disagree? All right, say US pushes a major fleet to Solomons. From there they threaten both Borneo and Philippines. Oh, it’s not a GREAT US threat, sure. But from Solomons US won’t threaten the sea zone east of Japan. The sea zone east of Japan can place Japanese subs that immediately threaten Borneo and Philippine sea zones. So did you really need J1 subs, as opposed to J2 subs? Was it perhaps that on J2 you were going to reposition the J1 subs to hit Solomons? So then where is Japan’s main fleet, where is its air? No, the probability if US went to Solomons it’s because it’s safe, if Japan wanted to threaten Solomons then that would mean Japan stretching its logistics chains while shortening US’s so . . . J1 subs? Good? Not always. Considering all the opportunity costs (and I haven’t even gotten into Japan’s ground game yet), I’d say very questionable.

And even if you discount that, remember Axis strategic air doctrine. Axis doesn’t want to trade with UK/US, they want to pressure USSR on the ground as late as possible. Axis want to avoid trading with UK/US except on supremely favorable terms for the Axis. If you want to say Japan hit a UK carrier to prevent 34+ IPC of UK navy quickly reinforcing US, well, it’s unfortunate, but arguably necessary. But building J1 subs to challenge US at Iwo Jima when US doesn’t even need to go to Iwo Jima, when multiple scenarios including dice frack make the entire Axis exercise questionable? Better to go J1 carrier/2 transports and see how the situation develops. As I’ll get into later, Japan needs to develop its ground game in Asia.

J2 subs are a different matter, after a US1 Pacific fleet drop, provided Japan could place J2 subs safely. In that case US has already commited a chunk of economy, it’s assured that Japanese submarine investment will have returns.

Even if US tries to be “clever” and redirect its entire Pacific fleet suddenly to Atlantic, US still lost a chunk of time to try to fake out Japan. Even if US doesn’t build anything US1, US still lost time.

So really think about how the position develops.

Closing out, I mentioned earlier if UK blows up Japan’s fleet at East Indies, that I feel Japan shouldn’t go after US fleet at Hawaiian Islands. Having explained what I consider Axis strategic air doctrine, maybe you understand. Japan is a battleship, carrier, and two fighters down. Hitting Hawaiian Islands guarantees the loss of a third fighter, it’s unlikely but possibly the second carrier, and if US decides to take a potshot at Japanese islands, possibly a fourth Japanese fighter or the Japanese bomber. On some level you could argue that Japan needs to fight eventually, but as I explain later, Japan probably doesn’t need to fight for a long time, and I think it questionable that Japan trade sub, cruiser, and fighter for sub, destroyer, carrier, and fighter.

Recap:

1. J1 subs bad. Because opportunity costs. Because timing. J2 subs are another matter, but even then not to go overboard.
2. If UK blows up Japan’s East Indies fleet then I favor J1 carrier/2 transport build. There’s a lot of issues with J1 carrier and I’d prefer to put it off until J2+ if even necessary, but I think against competent play there’s just too much shenanigans Allies can pull.
3. I’ll be covering Japan in Asia.
4. I’ll be covering Japan in Europe. Yes, even against KJF.
5. I’ll also be covering Japan’s defense as I say it should be played, and Allied offense as I say it should be played.

Reading back, I can see some readers might feel lost. There’s a question about J1 attack on US Hawaiian fleet, then I introduce all sorts of complications (except they’re not really complications, they’re just necessary to basic understanding) then I seem to be talking about Japan’s entire strategy from the ground up.

But this all comes from my going back to basics, fundamentals, numbers, specifics. It’s not enough that I say “J1 subs bad”. I explain why J1 subs are bad, both in abstract and specific. It’s not enough that I say “avoid J1 hitting US fleet off Hawaiian Islands”, again I dig into abstract and specifics.

Even so, what I’ve written so far is only rough notes on Pacific development. So some players might feel they can “improve” on what I’m writing by arguing you can do this or that or some other thing by pulling Japan’s support from Asia - all while “handwaving” the details aside because they “don’t matter”. But of course I don’t intend to let that just happen. I’m going to explain why Asia does matter.

Oh wait, I mean I’m going to explain why Asia matters again, because I’ve gotten into this bunches of times elsewhere, but whatever. Nature of the internet, same question gets asked by different people.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

@aardvarkpepper Sorry I meant, I lost my fleet in East indies and I still went ahead doing pearl harbor. I ended up with nothing left in the pacific and got KJF.

I basically learn… That when you lost east indies from UK, should have bought fleet in R1 immediately, probably 3-4 subs to prepare for KJF. Also shouldn’t do Pearl in the future, if I lost my East Indies fleet.

I’m of the strong opinion that J1 should almost never buy submarines. I’d say “never” but I’m open to the possibility of some hypothetical situation that I’ve never even seen proposed in theory.

I mentioned in an earlier post I thought J1 could hit the US Hawaiian Islands fleet, but notice I wrote “- provided UK didn’t hit the East Indies fleet -”. Good aardvark, puttin in them details . . . so proud of me right now . . . :face_with_rolling_eyes:

OK, some readers probably read my basic anti-KJF writings elsewhere (I’ve gotten into it loads of tiems) which to date has mostly been about what happens if UK1 doesn’t hit Japan’s East Indies fleet. And I’m going to repeat a lot of that.

Before getting into it, standard disclaimers, the stuff I write could be wrong, just opinion, etc. Also as usual I’m not even trying to explain everything, just kinda the minimum, just giving readers an idea of some of what’s going on. I expect interested readers to go figure out the rest on their own.

==

Why not J1 submarines? I wrote submarines are tactically inflexible, but I also always say specific application trumps “handwaving” theory. Could the actual board position support J1 submarine builds, because Japan’s raw submarine power can be leveraged into gains?

Typically, no.

There’s several threats Japan has to watch for, but before getting into that and explaining why J1 subs are almost always trash (in my opinion), you need to remember every action has an opportunity cost. I’ve already tried to drive that point in where your own planning for strategy and tactics is concerned, you can’t expect magical solutions. But the same is also true for your opponent. If they push somewhere, they must give up somewhere else. Yes, your opponent can “get lucky”, getting lucky is a real thing, and yes, you may really have no answer. To claim otherwise would be to fall into magical thinking. But the expectation is you will have your chance.

Okay, so stuff Japan has to watch out for, in no particular order:

1. USSR getting Asia income
2. UK building an industrial complex on Borneo.
3. UK building an industrial complex on East Indies
4. US repeatedly dumping units into northeastern Asia
5. Allies pushing Japan out of coastal Asia
6. US grabbing a money island and building an IC
7. Mass US air attack on fleet
8. Mixed US air/navy attack on fleet
9. Allied fleet advancing quickly in the Pacific, including possibly UK forces.
10. UK and/or US interdicting Japan’s sea zones. That means any new navy Japan builds may be destroyed at little cost to Allies.

Probably other stuff but that’ll do to be getting on with.

Then there’s a load of Axis counterthreats

1. Germany blowing up USSR
2. Germany blowing up Africa
3. Allies can’t press fast enough hard enough in Pacific then they’re pressured into desperation plays and probably Japan just kills them
4. Japan helps Germany in Europe. Yes, even despite the supposed “KJF”
5. Japan letting Allies make temporary gains for some cost then reclaiming then Allies are left stymied (short term trades)
6. Japan blowing up northeast Asia, China, and India while STILL fighting the Allies to a standstill in Pacific.
7. Allies supposedly make big inroads on Japan, Allies think they’re doing fantastic, Germany crushes Russia, Japan reverses all its units out of Asia, then Allies get steamrollered in Pacific.

Right now all that’s pretty vague, and if left where it is it’s just magical thinking.

But when you start picking at the details, when you think about when and how, specifically, things happen, then you move from magical thinking to knowing what probably doesn’t work for you and your opponent, and from there by elimination and application to specific courses of action.

Suppose J1 buys submarines. Vaguely, what are those good for? If UK builds some crazy fleet at India? Or if US pushes to Iwo Jima? But why are those problems? How do those threats develop? What can Japan do about those threats?

If UK can link even a fairly weak UK India fleet with a US Pacific fleet then that accelerates the Allied timing in the Pacific. It could be a real problem. But how does UK link up with US, exactly? Imagine Japan’s main fleet is posted off Yunnan, how does UK navy link up quickly and efficiently? It can’t, if UK heads its India UK fleet directly east then Japan can blow the whole thing up. For the moment let’s not worry about UK development and support in Atlantic / Europe (though correctly those should be considered), suffice to say that it is not easy for a UK India fleet to link up. If a UK India fleet heads south of Australia, perhaps. But that happens quite late, is very awkward, and eats loads of time.

What it works out to, in practice, is even if UK builds fleet at India immediately, even if UK blew up Japan’s East Indies fleet, it’s just horribly awkward for UK to try to get anything going in the Pacific in a reasonable time frame. And if UK blows up Japan’s East Indies fleet, there are a lot of different possibilities, but Japan can probably handle all of them. It’s not a certainty, and by the time Japan’s turn rolls around UK’s turn is an accomplished fact; you can’t say “it was unlikely that UK would succeed at all its stupid attacks therefore this is Not Happening” if it is, indeed, Happening. (OK you can SAY it but whatever).

Suppose UK hits Japan’s East Indies fleet, which is chancy. Then there’s a lot of things that probably happen.

1. If UK went all in on Japan’s East Indies fleet then probably Germany’s Med fleet survived. That probably means Germany has a line on Africa income, which chains into Germany’s superior stack sizes and logistics. Germany going to Africa slows Germany in Europe, but come round 4+, Germany will be capitalizing on that.

But we can’t count on that, maybe Germany tried to hit the UK destroyer north of Egypt and failed? I’m not going to be like some other posters and pooh-pooh it saying 6% doesn’t happen. 6% happens. It does. But though the dice aren’t “fair” in the sense that you REALLY shouldn’t try to count on some sort of lucksack reversal after an opponent luckack - still, an opponent’s number is going to come up sometime or later.

2. So G1 got bad dice in Mediterranean, then UK1 got moderately lucky dice against Japan off East Indies? But that still probably leaves UK unable to mobilize a fleet in a timely way to advance US’s quick progress in the Pacific. Even if UK DID buy fleet at India, there’s a decent chance UK lost most of its air/navy off East Indies, so UK’s ability to reinforce US in Pacific is pretty much shot.

In 1942 Second Edition UK fighters can land on US carriers and that REALLY changes the timing on KJF. But in 1942 Online? Nope. It’s very sad.

3. But UK lucksacked at East Indies and had a pretty large fleet surviving? Or suppose UK committed less and lucksacked so had more survivors and/or say UK built fleet at India. Again, dice results happen, no use denying it. But you’ve got to understand there’s bad luck then there’s bad luck. If you presuppose Germany failed at Mediterranean so be it, but then UK decided to be daring (which isn’t a given) then UK also got lucky, and not just a little lucky, but a lot?

Well, if THAT situation happens, THEN maybe you build J1 subs? But no. The real problem for Japan is if US and UK advance quickly in the Pacific. How does a J1 sub build threaten any new UK naval builds off India? How does a J1 sub build stop UK from moving any UK fleet survivors off East Indies to northeast of Australia?

I’m not digging too deeply into details, but you start to understand. J1 subs is premature. I assert what Japan actually wants is two carriers, and I’ll get into that later.

What about US1 to Iwo Jima? I mentioned earlier the Allies want to interdict the sea zones off Japan. What this means, in effect, is if Japan builds anything in those sea zones, Allies blow it up. It could be a UK bomber, it could be US destroyers/air. If US1 moves off Iwo Jima and Japan can’t punish, then what happens? Maybe Japan can unify the Japanese fleet at a sea zone and Japan’s combined might is too much for the US to break.

BUT THAT CREATES PROBLEMS FOR JAPAN. Yes, all caps, practically shouting, because a lot of players get into this . . . mentality that there are these coarse stupid brute force battles, that maneuver means nothing, they can just give up whatever position, let positions develop, and Magickally Things Will Work Out.

They won’t work out.

Recap so far I’m saying

1. J1 subs bad
2. If UK1 blew up Japan’s East Indies fleet, then Japan shouldn’t hit US’s fleet at Hawaiian Islands. (Haven’t explained why at all yet)
3. J1 subs bad because they don’t do anything to stop any of the three early Allied threats which are fast UK fleet reinforcing US fleet, Allied interdiction of Japan’s sea zones, and Allies pushing Japan out of Asia. I talked about the first two briefly and will get into them later, I’ll get into Japan in Asia later too.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

Make sense? :)

Actually, no.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

@aardvarkpepper Sorry I meant, I lost my fleet in East indies and I still went ahead doing pearl harbor. I ended up with nothing left in the pacific and got KJF.

I basically learn… That when you lost east indies from UK, should have bought fleet in R1 immediately, probably 3-4 subs to prepare for KJF. Also shouldn’t do Pearl in the future, if I lost my East Indies fleet.

A lot of posters will think that makes sense, that “learning” happened. But actually?

Suppose I say my “strategy” is to “have more stuff”. That isn’t a real strategy. Anyone can win if they have more stuff, the problem is getting more stuff. A “plan” to win with “more stuff” is not a real plan, that’s just wishful thinking.

So you look at a plan to buy J1 subs, it seems like a “strategy”, it has specifics and everything. But is it really strategy? Or wishful thinking?

If I stopped there, readers that didn’t know what I meant to begin with still wouldn’t know. So I’ll give a pretty rough explanation, not to try to explain the case completely, but just to give readers an idea there’s something to what I’m talking about.

If UK successfully hit Japan’s East Indies fleet, Japan has battleship, carrier, two destroyers, cruiser, submarine, four fighters, bomber. I figure that at 120 IPC, and I want to point out it’s horribly oversimplifying to use raw IPC values instead of considering position but as I wrote, this is only intended to explain things roughly.

If US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet is not hit, US has battleship, carrier, two destroyers, cruiser, submarine, five fighters, bomber. I figure that at 130 IPC. I’m not even counting any fleet at US East Coast.

Japan starts with 13 ground units in Asia. Even if USSR runs away immediately and never returns, there’s still 15 UK and US ground units.

US has 42 IPCs, which falls to 38, but 100% of that can go to Pacific. UK has 30 IPCs which may fall below or rise above, and though their logistics isn’t great with only 3 units at India, it’s not to be discounted either. And I’m not even talking about UK air at all, but that is a factor.

You can say US’s fighter at Szechwan won’t reach US’s main Pacific forces easily, you can say UK/US are split up and have bad reinforcements and logistics, you can say US needs to come into range of Japan’s power so Japan can hit before US. You can say Japan can hit before US goes, and that affects the balance of power in Asia. And in practice, even pretty new players to Japan know Japan can ramp up pretty quick, and I’ve made the point several times elsewhere that I think KJF in 1942 Online is pretty trash. BUT?

But you should understand REAL QUICK, if you think you can just fend the Allies off with some sort of magical-thinking-brute-force defense, that’s not what the numbers support. The Allies have superior unit count, the Allies have superior income.

Then think about what “buying 3-4 subs” really means. Yes, I know supposedly “top players” say you should do it, but honestly. Where in there is any specifics of the timing of how US, UK, and USSR develop, where is consideration of Japan’s countertiming, Germany’s development, or anything? Do you see how I make a distinction between real “strategy” and “wishful thinking”, and if there’s no details, what is it but wishful thinking?

But it doesn’t stop there. Even abstractly, players should understand submarines have very limited tactical usage; submarines can’t be used to support attacks on ground targets at all, submarines can’t hit enemy air units (so aren’t good on air defense), attacking air units can’t hit submarines if there’s no attacking destroyers (so submarines can’t even be used as defensive fodder depending on attacker force composition), and submarines are even pretty bad on defense. Very limited, and you want to shove a load of budget into them . . . why? Exactly? Wishful thinking?

I’ve read elsewhere supposedly German cracks USSR, that all Japan has to do is defend. But that’s magical thinking.

You may read testaments by “top” players saying all Japan needs to do is defend, that they’ve played XYZ games against other “top” players and that’s how it is.

But the deeper you dig into the specifics, the more I assert you’ll find that isn’t how it is.

I read through this post. Often I end up deleting a reply entirely (just let people get on with what they’re doing, not my affair what they do), or I replace walls of text with a few short sentences.

But I decided to leave this post as originally written. Each point was important and appropriate to make. First, a brute-force anti-KJF is not what Japan should do, not in the slightest. Second, some idea of the numbers and forces involved, and how the position develops over time, should be understood. Third, it should be understand even abstractly there’s issues with only-sub buys; subs are great for brute-force application but have practically no flexibility. Fourth, it should be understood positions develop in very real and specific ways, and handwaving magical solutions from any angle isn’t good practice.

To close out this post:

1. I recognize positive reinforcement is important. But in certain conditions I tend to focus on mechanics of change.

2. I’ll get to the specifics of the quoted reply in a followup post. This post was just to emphasize not to use magical thinking and not to think throwing more brute force at something is a “solution”.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

@boston_nwo said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

borneo

Yeah. I did pearl harbor after UK destroyed borneo’s Japan fleet. I lost that game badly against a gold player. :\

I’m like rank 450 in Silver now hehe… A lot to learn.

What did you learn from that game, exactly?

Also Japan doesn’t start with a fleet at Borneo. It has a fleet off East Indies.