Posts made by aardvarkpepper

@quintin said in Russian Openings and AA Online:

@brian-cannon
A G1 ukr stack and hitting egypt, 6 units to SZ7. Egypt is a bit risky at 60~% but its the biggest punish G has round 1, optionally you can shuck troops from italy to ukr instead. Dont remember if you need fighters to stack ukr, but any spare ones should be in NW eur. 6 fight together with the bomber it makes a UK1 fleet drop unlikely. You also obv trade cauc and karelia. the ukr stack forces R to pick between cauc and w-russia. If they stay in w-russia you get bonus cauc income, if they retreat to cauc you’ll go into an axis favored middlegame where G only has to trade w-russia with R, making it easy to preserve your stacks.

I dont like it as a KJF opener either tbh. It leaves the german med navy alive which allows for efficient logistics from G.

I agree if USSR retreats to Caucasus early that it’s an Axis-favored game. Also that a German Ukr stack offers Germany increased income.

For the rest, I feel there are points that should be made. In context, I’m talking about a sharply played W Rus only open.

First, the reasonable assumption. I think we reasonably assume that USSR did not fortify Caucasus, yes? If USSR did fortify Caucasus some, that offers Germany a small-stack battle at good odds, and I think it reasonable we assume that not happen. If USSR declines that and leaves Caucasus open, then USSR cannot use units mobilized on Caucasus to hit Ukraine on R2. I think all posters to this point would agree on this?

Then let’s assume USSR’s West Russia only open ends with 9 inf 3 art 4 tank 2 AA guns. Germany’s counter is 6 inf 1 art 4 tanks 4 fighters 1 bomber (6 fighters if it takes liberties elsewhere but it was stipulated not). Using

https://www.aatoolkit.com/conflict

• which, I know, I had some discussion with another poster elsewhere about its not giving accurate results but at least it’s supposed to be able to factor in AA gun presence - gives about 70% defender if you only use four fighters.

But if you add the two fighters that supposedly weren’t used then it favors attackers somewhere around 60+%, then we maybe have that scenario that Hobbes was talking about years earlier on the 1942 Second Edition board but never elaborated on.

And the first question is - is that really so unreasonable that Germany goes all in on West Russia? I feel that a lot of players on Discord and in the meta are led to believe that 3 subs 1 cruiser 2 fighters against the UK battleship/destroyer/transport/USSR submarine is “standard”. But especially in 1942 Online you can take the chance that your opponent set their defensive profile to “submerge” so can’t respond appropriately to your attack. If the USSR submarine does not participate, 3 German submarines and a cruiser have decent odds against a UK battleship and destroyer. But even if you do not take advantage of defensive profiles, you could still send both German Atlantic subs after UK’s East Canada transport/destroyer and/or US’s East US fleet. Then Germany’s starting Baltic fleet could split, leaving Germany with at least a submarine fodder plus its fighter and bomber against any UK landing.

Then especially if Germany doesn’t follow through on an all-in West Russia attack but only strafes - then I think Germany secures Karelia, Ukraine, and is generally positioned well. I feel this is a much more punishing situation than Egypt, which I think is questionable. Yes, technically Germany hitting Egypt with the bomber is favorable, but I don’t see that Germany gets an acceptable position if it fails - plus, of course, the W Rus only open leaves USSR’s fighters free to go where they like, in which case it is possible that a USSR fighter lands on Egypt. I’m not saying that’s a picnic for USSR, that USSR fighter is horribly positioned, but it does protect Egypt (and is accounted for in my aforementioned estimate of USSR’s W Rus survivors).

(So perhaps Egypt is not the biggest punish G has on round 1, is what I’m getting at. Perhaps all-in on West Russia is. Again, it’s not really about “60% on West Russia” so much as it’s that Germany can very possibly claim Karelia, weaken West Russia’s stack against any contesting of Karelia, also lock down and deny USSR any Ukraine income, after Germany moves in up to 4 infantry 2 tanks, then possibly fighters and/or units moved via the German Med fleet.)

So wrapping up this part - again, is it really so unreasonable that Germany goes all-in against West Russia? I feel that a lot of players are looking at the “greed” variation where Germany only sends four fighters, but I think the outcomes with six fighters are reasonable.

Yes, UK retains a battleship (assuming defensive profiles not exploited with a gamble), but what does it do with it? UK still wants a carrier and destroyer, right? Especially if Germany has its full starting airpower. And what really happens if Germany lets UK build early fleet? It takes quite a while for UK to build a stack capable of challenging Germany at Karelia - and the only reason Germany won’t have a stack at Karelia is if Axis shifted off position, and why? To break Russia and win the game (I’m not talking about VC win condition, I mean generally if Axis capture Russia without making major mistakes or fighting any losing stack battles, I expect Axis to win in the end.)

That is, I feel that Germany can afford to let UK do its thing in the Atlantic (again, Germany has options - hitting the UK fleet gambling on defensive profiles or at least having its Atlantic submarines hit East Canada’s sea zone), which frees German fighters up to land in Ukraine, which frees German tanks to push to Karelia, which pretty well secures the position off a G1 strafe into West Russia (even if capturing then suffering the counter, most of USSR’s attack units are dead and Germany can push to fill that void).

Second, I don’t know that an early German Ukraine stack does force USSR to pick between Caucasus and West Russia. I’ve often written that a G4 Ukraine stack threatens Caucasus and West Russia - but the context is also that G4 has a Karelia stack. and has a massive attack on West Russia regardless. It’s that combined German threat that makes USSR want to push a stack to defend Caucasus regardless - because West Russia’s odds of holding won’t be great anyways, and by that point Germany has an infantry-heavy force that with Japanese fighter backing may seriously hold Caucasus if USSR abandons it then tries to counter-hit anyways (explicitly, I’m saying if USSR reinforces West Russia it might fight a losing major-stack battle, if USSR abandons Caucasus and tries to counter-hit against Germany then USSR might lose, which means instead of G5 West Russia, G6 Caucasus, G7 Russia, you instead get G5 Caucasus, G6 Russia.)

Germany holding Ukraine and denying USSR income is good for Axis regardless. But I really don’t know that I would say I think Germany’s in a position to seriously threaten G2 to Caucasus.

Suppose G2 does presss to Cauacsus. That’s 10 infantry, 1 artillery, 10 tanks , 6 Japanese fighters, 1 Japanese bomber. You can add up to another two infantry if Germany doesn’t look to Africa -which, reasonably, if Germany is trying to close the game in Europe, could happen - I’ll get back to this later (it goes back to my first point that I think G1 Egypt is not the most punishing move). I just wrote USSR’s R1 West Russia survivors are 9 infantry 3 artillery 4 tanks. Add to that USSR’s R1 and R2 builds that will hit before G3. Suppose USSR1 buys 4 infantry 3 artillery, collects 26 IPC, then USSR2 buy is 2 infantry 5 artillery. USSR’s counter is then 15 infantry 12 artillery 4 tanks 2 fighters.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=15&aArt=12&aArm=4&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=10&dArt=1&dArm=10&dFig=6&dBom=1&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=Bom-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Doesn’t favor attackers by much but it does favor attackers - and that’s even if Japan heavily commits to the reinforcement which will affect its timing against India. Do the Axis really want to go all-in on a losing-odds projection?

You could say, fairly, that Germany still has its air force and it could tank dash. But India surviving, and Allies can still push fighters to Russia for fast defense - I don’t know that I really like the odds for a fast G2 push to Caucasus.

Wrapping up this part I’m saying - if you change the projection to include German reinforcements to the Ukraine/Caucasus region, I think you can get more favorable projections. So again, I’m not sure I would say G1 Egypt is the best Germany should do if USSR doesn’t hit Ukraine. I think Germany should consider G1 Egypt, especially if R1 opening dice results give unfavorable projections for a fast German press in Europe, but it should be calculated.

==

Then there’s a few other points. Suppose, again, that Germany’s sending “6 units to SZ7”, which I think is the “standard” meta right now - which is the 2 Atlantic subs, the Baltic Sea sub, the Baltic Sea cruiser, and Germany’s two fighters that are in range. That leaves the UK East Canada fleet and the US East US fleet alone. Then it’s specified that German fighters end up on NW Europe. Which I can see the good points for, you threaten territories in Europe and UK’s sea zones, as well as the sea zone off Morocco (German fighters on France don’t threaten territories in Europe nearly as well) But I do also prefer to send at least one fighter to Africa.

Remember the projection that I’m debating - that Germany lands its fighters on NW Europe, which I think perhaps Germany can get away with not doing. If UK’s East Canada and East US fleet are left alone, you can get UK and US destroyer off French West Africa (and as no mention was made of the UK cruiser, perhaps that survives too). But that is not in range of Germany’s fighters. The lone German bomber can hit, but it’s not a favorable battle even if it’s just the destroyers.

So then UK/US have a pretty formidable force in Africa. It’s not super formidable, but if Germany wants Africa income, it’s going to have to push for it. And again, I don’t think we can just assume Germany destroyed the UK fighter on Egypt, as a W Rus only open can have a USSR fighter flying to Egypt.

As to leaving the German Med fleet alive - I don’t know I would say that’s a safe assumption either.

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

It’s a low dice count high risk battle with no good contingencies in case of failure. I can see that UK might not want to undertake that battle casually. But the base is still around 80%+ that the German battleship is destroyed, then USSR can pick up the transport with its fighter. And if you figure G1 to Egypt as a reasonable risk at 60% (assuming USSR didn’t land a fighter, yes?) then isn’t 80% pretty decent?

I’m not saying any of this is easy for either Allies or Axis in a sharply played game. Both sides are going to look for any small advantage to leverage into a large one. But I am saying I think a lot of responses about what actually happens are far too simple, that the correct projections are being wholly overlooked.

BTW I noticed my post in this thread dated Dec 17 2020 5:09 PM (I guess Eastern US time) mentions Germany’s counter at 6 inf 4 tank 4 fighter 1 bomber for the “greed” riposte. But actually there’s another artillery in there, which changes the numbers. When I looked at the setup again to do the writeup in this post I remembered I’d given what I thought were different numbers in a projection earlier. Eh.

edit - on reading this post for edits, I noticed I mentioned Germany has a 60% on West Russia. That’s not really how it works. The R1 opening dice determine the survivors on West Russia. It’s something like . . . what was it, the 85th percentile that USSR has at least that many survivors. But USSR could have more survivors, which would make a German attack less favorable (though there are compensations, like clearing both USSR’s AA guns and the possible strafe into consolidation I mentioned). USSR could also have less survivors, which is going to happen in 15% or whatever, which leaves Germany with a pretty nice attack.

Which goes into a point I made a few times about pre-placed bids and Axis and Allies. Axis and Allies is packaged as a game of strategy and tactics. But if you have 15% - almost one in six - that the opening moves result in Germany managing to generate a position that may well result in an Axis win, then is that really acceptable in a game that’s packaged as a game of strategy and tactics? And I’ll mention you can look at similar projections off W Rus / Ukr splits, a lot of posters assume it’s safe because it’s the meta and they assume Germany doesn’t send all its fighters, but that isn’t necessarily the case, especially if USSR’s opening dice are a little sour.

second edit - noticed I was sloppy when I wrote “instead of G6 Caucasus G7 Russia you get G5 Caucasus G6 Russia”. It is not necessary that Germany hit Russia on G7 or G6. I knew what I meant, but I skipped over the proper explanation. If Germany keeps its force at Caucasus too long against the KGF (I know, the context of this reply was KJF, I’m just saying) - then UK and US can get a stream of cost-efficient ground units flowing into Russia via Finland/Norway, Karelia, Archangel, Russia. But when Germany retains control of Caucasus, it can place four units there a turn. This is in context of Germany having another stack at Karelia supplemented by Japanese fighters that block UK/US. The end situation is Germany has large stacks that it can cost-efficiently supplement via production at Caucasus and Karelia while cost-efficient UK/US reinforcements are cut off. Depending on Allied pressure, Germany may just sit on Caucasus and Karelia, building advantage, then eventually shift both stacks to Russia. This is what I’m saying the Allies need to try to avoid.

This is quite different to a fast G2 push to Caucasus. If Germany built tanks to try to storm USSR, then it has some possibilities but UK/US fighters can supplement USSR, and the Axis haven’t really had a chance to choke off USSR’s income yet. If Germany built infantry to push to Karelia, then Germany has no followthrough to USSR’s counter. If Germany mixed infantry and tanks, it ends up trading unsupported tanks for USSR infantry, which keeps USSR on its toes for a while but in the end I think the Allies have at least a fair shot to able to overwhelm the Axis. This is what I think happens, why I’m saying there’s a distinction between the G5+ push to Caucasus and the G2 push.

Remove rolls and make game 100% deterministic, but randomize board setups.

The complaint then becomes that randomized board setup was unfair. So something would have to be implemented to handle that.

Some players will object to randomized setup on grounds of historical accuracy, but I figure A&A is already demonstrably not historically accurate (if it were, Allies would always win) so eh.

As to bombing / AA guns, if value >=1 then hit; fractions are saved between combats. Can save fractions of other combats too, naval bombardments, submarine surprise attacks all separate.

Last post for reals? For this subject for a while anyways? Hm . . . :face_with_rolling_eyes: I’ll see how I feel at the end of this post.

USSR. Stack building/bleeding is fundamental. You can do multinational defense, but only one nation can attack at a time. What does that mean in practical terms? If Germany walks up to USSR and USSR wants to push Germany off, USSR needs a lot of power to do it, especially if Japanese fighters reinforced, which they can and really often should do even against KJF.

So what happens if USSR is sending a chunk of its power to east Asia? Those units are way out of position to push off any German pressure, and even if they turn around and head home immediately, they still used valuable turns just moving around. Some players like to claim you can “feint” or other clever-sounding phrases, but the fact is, out of position means out of position; your opponent can clearly see when you’re out of position and should play appropriately.

So when USSR sends stuff at Japan, it should be with the realization that it’s a big commitment, it’s a big problem for USSR. It might not SEEM like four or five infantry is a big deal, but think about what happens if you position seven infantry in the north and one or two infantry in China. That’s nine infantry, that’s 27 IPCs. If you lost all of northeast Asia, it’ll take how long for that to add up to 27 IPCs? A long time.

And if you put up a “token resistance” that’s often just silly. Japan wants to trample USSR anyways, all you do is stick a valuable 3-IPC unit where Japan probably has an odds-on attack to destroy it with no losses and take control of the territory anyways. Japan doesn’t even need to go out of its way, it just grabs the unexpected bonus and rolls on.

But then you look at all the problems KJF faces, especially in the 1942 Online implementation, and think “I need something extra”.

But remember again - the more USSR sends east, the less it has west, the earlier USSR in Europe collapses. It’s not enough that USSR units can race home and reach Russia right before Germany hits. If USSR units were pushed west instead of east, they could deter Germany from even advancing in the first place, without that deterrent Germany can come on fast and hard.

The takeaway here is - if USSR is bleeding out its Europe stack to push Asia, there had better be a real nice reward in there, and regardless USSR’s push can only be temporary - USSR just doesn’t have the time to use a chunk of its forces to mess about unless the Axis are wildly incompetent. Which I suppose you could say usually they are in the 1942 Online meta but still.

By extension, if you’re using just slow infantry then you’re not going to be able to redirect at speed at all. Your infantry will be trudging home after having trudged deep into east Asia and will be totally too late to do anything useful in all likelihood.

So if you want to push KJF, there’s two things to remember for USSR that you don’t need so much in KGF - tanks and bombers.

Yes, USSR tanks, you can use against Karelia, it’s a whole thing. But you need infantry/artillery for unit count and to threaten the big strafe - you hit a German territory, deplete its infantry, move your infantry up. Germany lost infantry, you lost infantry, but Germany can’t really just pull more infantry out of its pocket, it takes a long time to march up. Your infantry, on the other hand, basically just rolled out of bed into action. So then when Germany hits, its infantry shield is a lot weaker, it can’t shield its tanks, it gets messy. If you do USSR tanks, you have much better flexibility but you lose out on raw hitting power for the strafe, and that’s why if you’re greedy and think you can get away with it, you push USSR infantry/artillery as a rule and tanks only situationally.

But USSR tanks in KJF are much different. The application probably isn’t just that you’re trying some sort of counterthreat against Karelia and/or Ukraine. Centrally located tanks along with a small infantry contingent and a bit of air coverage can be a big headache for Axis to deal with.

Imagine you have two tanks on a West Russia stack. You defend West Russia - but you also also threaten Kazakh if Japan tries to push and hold. Imagine now you have six infantry on Russia that can hit Kazakh. Say you can use those six infantry and two tanks to hit and weather any Japanese counter. But then, you need six infantry ready at Russia, which means they’re not at West Russia, which means USSR is splitting its forces.

But now imagine you have four tanks on West Russia and two infantry on Russia. Your defense on West Russia is stronger, as are your potential attacks against nearby European territories. Your ability to hit and hold against Kazakh is reduced. And you might think that’s a tradeoff that means it isn’t so great. But not quite.

If you correctly understand and apply stack building and bleeding you’ll remember - you can only use one nation to attack at a time, but multiple nations can defend. So what seems to be a worse position at Kazakh isn’t necessarily so, as UK can reinforce USSR’s position.

I think even newer players should understand that Germany’s tanks are valuable to Germany, especially against KGF. But in KJF, USSR tanks assume similar importance. They are very very good for threatening multiple theaters while also defending and it’s that threat range along with allied reinforcements that make USSR tanks really very good.

So does that mean you should hit West Russia/Ukraine sending only 2 USSR tanks to Ukraine? Or that you should retreat from Ukraine under some conditions?

I could run some numbers and projections but eh, I’m taking a break. But remember, USSR being able to reposition quickly is worth a lot in KJF.

OK so, broad strokes now.

The big problem with KJF, which 1942 Online’s altered gameplay made a lot worse, is it’s slow. I pointed out in the other thread there’s a lot of issues, UK fighters not being able to use US carriers is pretty obvious but there’s other differences like inability to use allied transports, no live defender decisions, and even improper casualty assignation (not to mention bugs) that make KJF really very ugly in 1942 Online.

But if you’re determined to KJF, so be it. But then you have to realize if you can’t use the normal UK ways to speed US’s progress, what can UK do? Some of those things I mentioned, like UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet with double safeties. But basically - you have to leverage UK’s income to hitting Japan, whatever you do you want to use fighters as you can use fighters to defend Russia in a pinch, or if you manage to chase off Japan’s navy and start taking money islands and things and don’t need fighters in the area.

So that’s one big piece of the puzzle - getting UK being able to pressure Japan effectively. It is not enough that UK just throw income into the area, the income has to be applied in an effective way that improves US’s timings and doesn’t really sacrifice USSR’s defense, and as you might imagine that’s not going to be so easy. USSR can maybe fill in for a pinch, but a lot of it’s up to UK. It’s not that you’re limited to trying to build an India fleet or attack Japan’s East Indies fleet, for example Imperious Leader is a fan of the UK Egypt IC (I am not) but regardless if you want to KJF you need some way to make UK effective instead of just being herded around by Japan.

The other big piece of the puzzle is US action. Either you try to push in from Alaska or Solomons.

Whichever you do, you have to walk into the teeth of any Japan potential attack. They can possibly have a lot of very nasty stuff if they built subs in advance. So your defense will have to be very strong. Again, you’ll need destroyers to hunt subs and for fodder, carriers and fighters for defense (and also because fighters are flexible), and you have to be very very aware of what the Axis can do, not just in Pacific but also in Europe. If you dump a load into defensive fleet and try to play things safe for a while by staying out of Japan’s reach, Japan can dump a load of reactive subs (you weren’t in range so couldn’t punish the build), then while you’re trying to build your Fleet O’ Doom, Japan just continues beating down Asia, Germany beats down Europe, then the Axis win. Sometimes you may have to take a less than 50% chance, but if you don’t take the chance when you can, the odds will just get worse.

Lost games are usually not a matter of “there was nothing (I) could do”. It’s usually there was something you could do, but it carried some obvious risks that you wanted to avoid, so you didn’t do those things, the situation deteriorated, then you really lost.

Alaska - the “theoretical” advantage is you need only one transport fleet. With KGF you need two transport fleets; full transports go from East Canada to France, NW Europe, Finland, or Norway, empty transports return. With KJF, you can offload from Alaska to northeast Asia every turn. But the problem is northeast Asia is far from Russia, far from the action, and you have to fight Japan off.

So you try to chase Japan’s fleet away from being able to threaten US’s fleet, then you dump infantry and tanks that walked up from West US to Alaska into Asia. I’m well aware tanks are horribly expensive. But even a very bad Japan player should be able to stall you out for a long time, and you will need tanks to emergency-reinforce Russia. You might get away with infantry and a few artillery, but if the situation looks close, you have to think about tanks; cheaper than fighters and a bit slower but they do still cover a good bit of ground.

The nice thing about pushing from Alaska is sure, Japan can deal with the push, but Japan can’t really deal with the Alaska push while also attending to India too well. It’s taken for granted that you’re interdicting the sea zones around Japan, also it’s taken for granted that you can really push the issue. If Japan wants to build navy it has to abandon its Yunnan drops which gives India some breathing room. It’s not like the Allies found this big vulnerability though; Japan can put a big defense on Yunnan’s sea zone, shift off Yunnan to capture India, then return to try to push US off northeast Asia - assuming Japan even bothers, which it might not, as Japan will be grabbing Africa income, trying to beat down Russia, and Japan’s well aware that it can let US press; if the Axis crack Moscow then the Axis can likely push US off any gains it managed to get.

For Solomon Islands, then you threaten Philippine Islands and Borneo. Problem there is you’re stuck out in the middle of nowhere, Japan sees you coming a long ways off, builds some subs, moves subs into position, then you have to walk into the face of Japan’s awesome firepower. You don’t really interdict Japan’s sea zones, Japan has loads of time to prepare. Once you get going, you can build an industrial complex so you can dump navy/air right on the spot, that improves your timing, but two US island ICs is usually kind of pointless while the game’s still contested. If you’re clearly winning then okay, you use multiple US ICs to dump mass ground to Asia, sure. But if the game’s outcome still isn’t clear, you use one IC to dump 3-4 air/navy, and that’s all US’s money anyways. If you want to leverage quick gains, you need UK to apply its income.

Anyways with Solomon Islands, US has multiple threats, and there’s different ways it can play out. Ideally US just walks up to a high-IPC island, captures it, Japan can’t do anything, then US builds an IC, Japan still can’t do anything, then US drops production on the spot and just rampages. But that’s the dream world scenario.

Some differences to Alaska. US doesn’t interdict Japan’s sea zones for a long time, if ever. If the board situation’s okay you can do Iwo Jima push then transpose to Solomon Islands or something like that, but the issue just isn’t forced the same way it is with Alaska. Also where Alaska pulls Japan from India, pushing through Solomons doesn’t really impede Japan at all. Japan still whacks northeast Asia then consolidates and starts dropping to Yunnan then pushes India. If you get close, Japan beats you off then continues what you’re doing, if you wait for lots of backup, you might “chase” Japan off but if Japan captured India in the process Japan has a springboard to Africa income, can still pressure USSR, and probably held US off for quite a long time in Pacific. Japan might not even care if US starts grabbing high IPC islands and the coast; so long as Japan doesn’t fight a losing stack battle and has some income and India, it can come back whenever it wants - it just might not want to bother because if Germany grabs Russia then the Axis have a really good looking game.

Again, you need something “extra” more than what US can provide, and it really comes down to UK.

So this post covered US’s moves (broadly). Some of UK’s options I got into in previous posts in this thread; basically UK has to look for opportunities to stick a wedge in and start prying - and sometimes you just have to take a chance that the Axis player is going to miss the best response.

I mentioned USSR briefly mentioning bomber and tank usage. I suppose as long as I covered other stuff, might as well go on with USSR a bit more too. Sooo one more post.

OK last post in this series. I wrote a lot, but I want to be very clear I’m not even trying to do some sort of comprehensive post. I’m just sketching out some of the details, there’s a lot of stuff I’m not getting into. (Like what? Like R1 W Rus attack into retreat into Karelia combined with R1 Baltic sea attack. Detailed use of R1 bomber builds. Probably other stuff.)

I intend only to give a few examples of some of the major concepts, not just here, but any time I post. I provide a few examples, a few details, but leave it at that. Anyone that wants to inquire further can ask - though I won’t just run projections for someone that doesn’t want to be bothered to do the work for themselves.

Anyways, there’s a bunch of flavors of KJF, and you can combine different flavors to get funny little animals. First I’ll write about some of the general stuff, then I’ll get into some of the flavors, then you can build your own funny little animal and see how it acts.

General pointers

1. “Core” US fleet is at least two destroyers, two carriers, four fighters. Why? Even if Japan’s East Indies fleet is blown up, you still have to fight battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, cruiser, four fighters, bomber, and that’s if Japan builds absolutely nothing even after seeing a US1 Pacific fleet drop.

Expanding on that core, probably you want to position a carrier off West US permanently - why? Because if you put fighters on West US, they have very limited range to anywhere useful. But compare if you put fighters on the sea zone adjacent to West US. It’s just one sea zone but you get loads and loads more range. It costs you 14 IPCs to park a carrier, but the benefits on timing are VERY big.

You also probably want more destroyers. You have to push into the Pacific, Japan can run circles around your fleet if you don’t have destroyers to hunt submarines, and destroyers are also the cheapest surface warship (so can be used to block enemy fleet movement). If Germany screws up and doesn’t send a bomber to Asia to blow up blockers you can pick up a lot of nice options with fleet blocking. But even if Germany doesn’t screw up, you still want destroyers, and a good chunk of them.

Finally, you may want some submarines. Understand, it’s very different when Japan builds submarines and US builds submarines. Superficially, some players think “oh, if Japan builds submarines and they’re amazing, then it’s about naval warfare and US should build submarines”. :face_with_rolling_eyes: but actually subs are good for Japan because Japan plays defense, while subs are bad for US because Japan plays offense.

What? Subs are offensive! Yeah I know, just follow along. Japan doesn’t have to move its fleet towards US; Japan’s navy can just sit off Yunnan, wait for US to walk up, then Japan can hit with submarines and whatever else. It’s because Japan can sit and wait that Japan gets the first hit.

But US can’t wait for Japan to walk up to US’s fleet, because Japan just doesn’t have to. Japan can just sit and keep dumping units to Asia while USSR gets overrun. US has to force the issue. So US has to send its fleet into the teeth of Japan’s navy, which means though US is pressing inwards “offensively”, actually US needs a very robust defense.

There’s still something to be said for US subs. They’re cheap, they can sometimes pressure Japan, but your core is destroyers and carriers, because those are the cheapest way to stop most of the fun games Japan can run on you. Just as Japan’s core is subs and air, because those are the cheapest way for it to do what it wants.

OK, so why carriers? Why not battleships or cruisers? Battleships increase the risk profile on naval engagements, but do not perform well for cost and are not tactically flexible. Cruisers the same. Both do have the unique advantage of being able to coastal bombard, which is useful for stack reduction, but you only need that after you’ve essentially won anyways. While the game is still contested, you want destroyers (for reasons already mentioned), perhaps a couple subs, and a carriers/fighters.

Especially for carriers it’s not just a matter of raw defensive strength, you can do a lot of stuff that improves US timings, and further, fighters can fly onto land territories to help defend. Cruisers and battleships cannot.

Example? Say you have fighters on West US sea zone. More fighters on carriers in Pacific. You can fly the Pacific fighters to Asia to reinforce, you can fly the fighters on West US sea zone to the carriers, then your carriers are still defended and you have fighters in Asia. If you have a load of battleships/cruisers instead, any new fighters have to go island hopping and that really takes forever.

Anyways remember the core US fleet - two destroyers, two carriers, two fighters. You can have more, but if you don’t have at least that much, Japan can mess you up with minimal investment. You can get away with less if Japan is bad but you can’t count on it.

2. You’ll likely want UK fighters and a UK bomber. If Germany hit Trans-Jordan then probably your UK bomber dies when you hit the battleship/transport (if not immediately, then on Germany’s counter as UK bomber has to land on Egypt which Germany should be able to smash).

UK fighters can threaten Japan then fly to Russia to defend. A UK bomber can even hit targets in Africa while not needing to spend valuable time repositioning. Especially for a UK bomber, you have to figure US will have all it can handle trying to build a defensive Pacific fleet. US starts with a bomber, but if there’s ever going to be any serious bomber threat, it won’t be US that should build it.

1942 Online’s rules changes mean KJF UK air is really crippled in comparison to the board game, but that’s just how it is. If you try to push UK navy in Atlantic, you’re betting the Axis won’t respond properly in Atlantic at all. It’s a gamble if you can get KJF to work, but UK air/ground won’t just leave you stranded the way UK Atlantic navy will if the Axis play properly, you’ll always have some sort of counterplay.

You can gamble on Axis screwing up their response, you can be greedy and build an Atlantic navy, if the Axis screw up badly then awesome, you get cost-effective UK ground into Europe. But it is a gamble.

3. USSR bomber. This has specific applications in KJF that simply don’t apply in KGF at all. In KGF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack to fend off Germany’s main stack, you know UK and US will pile in, you want to build on the advantages you have. In KJF you’re trying to build USSR’s main stack in Europe again, and it’s counterintuitive that you want to cut unit count in Europe to build a bomber, which is lousy on defense, costs as much as four infantry, and bleah.

But the difference is in KGF, USSR building only ground plays to USSR’s strengths and against Germany’s weakness (such as it is). But in KJF, USSR building only ground means USSR just can’t threaten Japan at all. Even USSR fighters are very awkward; they can hit Japan ground units that pressed in towards USSR, but they can’t push outwards against Asia without USSR giving up position in Europe. Only a USSR bomber has the range to threaten targets in Europe and Asia, which turns USSR’s infantry that are retreating in northeast Asia into units that can actually turn around and maybe fight as they now have air coverage. Then too, as with if UK sent a bomber to Asia, Japan’s options are more restricted as it can’t just leave lightly defended or undefended ships - it has to think about its fleets being picked off, and it’s likely a USSR bomber can get into good position much faster than UK or US.

The point I’m making is NOT that you should build a USSR bomber (you really don’t have to). The point is plays that aren’t even worth considering in KGF can work in KJF. Brute force is always a consideration, but flexibility and playing properly are much more factors. Particularly, USSR may want to deliberately build tanks and use them quite differently than if it were doing KGF.

End of general pointers.

Now some “flavors”. You might see some of these, or none of these, or something. Not trying to be comprehensive, just trying to give you some idea of what can happen.

USSR does W Rus only. This frees up USSR fighters to threaten Asia, or even to fortify Buryatia. Be warned this is HORRIBLE for USSR in a lot of ways as it means they just don’t have the power to threaten any early German push, and USSR can’t just recover as USSR committing its units east is not something that can just be changed; it takes a long time for USSR to retreat. Worst case scenario, Japan puts in a couple units and chases USSR’s stack all the way back to Russia; if USSR stays then Japan crushes USSR’s small stack with its ground and massive air; if USSR runs then Japan eats territory, if USSR fights then Japan shrugs then dumps another small ground force, meanwhile Germany rampages in the east. But if you DO want to do a heavy commit to KJF, this is how you do it, and you frankly can’t do with less if you want to fortify Buryatia as if you don’t have 5 infantry 3 fighters and the Kwangtung transport dead then Japan can just blow Buryatia up. (3 fighters = 2 USSR fighters and 1 UK fighter; this means a lot of other issues - you really won’t have odds to hit Japan’s East Indies fleet and hitting Germany’s Med battleship transport if they hit Trans-Jordan is risky with 1 fighter 1 bomber but that’s just how it is. You compensate by playing differently, or you take risks, things go as they go. You can use UK fighters to reinforce West Russia, you can use US to dump to French West Africa, there are options. Anyways, this is the line you use if you want to try something that maybe your opponent hasn’t seen, if they panic and mess up a bit then you’re okay. If your opponent calmly just presses with Germany and defends with Japan it can be very bad, but that’s the chance you take.

Another W Rus only open has USSR fighter reinforcing Egypt. If you do W Rus only then German bomber survives, then G1 against Egypt with the German bomber is one of those high-risk battles; if Germany wins then great for Germany but if not then possibly very bad for Germany, and there’s not really an in-between. But if you want to make Egypt “safe”, parking a USSR fighter on really makes Egypt an unappealing target, just way too risky.

W Rus / Ukr, you try to whack the German bomber. The bomber is the prize. Bomber bomber bomber. Depending on how things go, you may want to retreat from Ukraine, not because you’re losing, but surprisingly when you’re winning. Whatever you claim Ukraine with will be wiped out on Germany’s turn if the Axis player is worth anything and has normal-ish dice. So if you have a load of USSR ground units, especially if you’re going in with 3 tanks, and there’s just a single German fighter, then you have to think about retreating. A German bomber can really be a problem, but a fighter not so much - and if you’re worried about UK Atlantic navy remember Japan can smash UK’s Atlantic navy regardless. If you’re worried about Germany fortifying Ukraine early, let them, you have a load of tanks and a West Russia stack that can hit at either Karelia or Ukraine; likely Germany can’t defend both. It’s not GREAT if Germany locks USSR out of Ukraine income early, but USSR tanks are really tremendously useful in KJF, you really do NOT want to give up their flexibility unless there’s a nice fat prize (coughGermanbomber)

UK East Indies IC. UK rolls the dice, tries to whack the Japanese East Indies fleet AND claim East Indies. The greed is enormous, the odds are not great for UK winning both, but if it happens Japan’s in a tough spot. If UK captures East Indies Japan may not be in a position to recapture immediately with odds; if Japan doesn’t recapture immediately UK can build an IC, Allies can land a fighter on, then UK has another spot besides India to produce units on that’s a forward position for US to land air on, opens up a load of possibilities.

UK East Indies, safety retreat option variation with India navy. UK takes a whack at Japan’s East Indies fleet; if lucky wipes Japan’s fleet and pops (additional) navy at India, if a bit unlucky retreats to India, if a lot unlucky then just too bad for Allies. What makes it even feasible is UK can pad its losses with its Australia units and UK’s main target is just the carrier. If the Japan carrier sinks, Japan can line up much less of a counter to India’s sea zone, then there’s a chance UK actually has a surface India fleet. If the dice REALLY suck for UK the second fallback is UK pops a fleet in at Atlantic and takes the chance that Japan won’t just send its air towards Europe to interdict UK’s navy. But if Germany has a load of units threatening Atlantic sea zones too, then maybe the Allies shouldn’t even try this.

UK East Indies suicide variation (just trying to wreck the Japan fleet) I covered in that other thread.

Iwo Jima already mentioned. Sometimes Japan just doesn’t play properly; not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet isn’t such an issue for Japan with 1942 Online’s alterations, but if Japan then also does not set up to counter any US push to Iwo Jima, then, uh, too bad for Japan. This especially can get interesting if Japan’s East Indies fleet died and/or UK has a surface fleet at India, it’s still awkward for Allies because of 1942 Online’s altered play but eh.

So I wrote a chunk then I realized hey, I didn’t even cover the basics, I just jumped straight to detail. So next post, (maybe that’ll be the last post) I’ll get into some of the basic theory and major lines.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

@aardvarkpepper said in How to Punish early japanese industrial complex, aka how do you even KJF in online:

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

There’s a lot of things that should happen at a particular time that may not happen. Following is a list of what your opponent may be doing and why, and what you can do if they don’t do it.

The recommendations are not precise. There’s any number of things an opponent can do badly, so instead of trying to come up with loads and loads of scenarios I’m just briefly explaining what should happen with anti-KJF and why. From there, you can figure out what you might be able to do if your opponent botches their anti-KJF.

1. Depending on USSR moves and dice, sometimes the mathematics does support an Axis tank dash, and when properly executed under the correct conditions - typically with Germany capturing or severely weakening West Russia - you have to play accurately - probably meaning KGF - or you’ll probably lose.

If Germany scores loads of hits more than normal, you may be looking at an Axis tank dash game. In that case you had best not KJF, as you want the Atlantic supply chain, whether flying in fighters for quick reinforcement or using transports for slower but more cost-efficient land units.

Even if you planned to do a KJF when starting USSR’s turn, if the dice are bad you’d best change plans as much as you can.

2. Germany starts with infantry then switches to tanks. Watch German and Japanese air movement.

So there you are, USSR’s opening dice didn’t turn out horribly, you’re doing KJF. Nothing looks like it’ll be a problem, but then Axis start doing things with air that you didn’t expect, then you realize you’re losing.

A. Japanese air reinforcement of Europe. This is something you should see as a matter of routine in KGF, but it can happen even in KJF, and when it does, it can be a big problem.

Japan has a logistics/production issue in that its production at Tokyo is separated from the mainland and is limited to eight units. Also, Japan’s starting forces in Asia are severely lacking; Japan won’t be able to seriously challenge USSR’s stacks for quite a while (assuming USSR is at all competent).

Japan has two solutions to its issues. It can go air with excess income; late air builds catch up with earlier ground builds and can be used to fight in the Pacific against KJF or move to Europe to reinforce and threaten against KGF. OR Japan can build ICs and increase its production capacity to build stacks faster. Japan can also mix the solutions up a bit, moving from one to another as appropriate.

If you’re pushing KJF, especially if Japan built a Manchuria IC, Japanese air may be less an issue in Europe because Japan’s forces often get tied down defending Manchuria. If Japan’s fighters are in range of Manchuria, they can’t also be taking up position in Europe. But Japan can reverse its flow of land units out of Asia back towards the Asian coast, so any temporary Allied gains can be reversed. This is particularly the case if Japan invested in a Manchuria IC; if Japan had gone with transports then Japan will likely have pushed India (which has its share of issues for both sides). But if there’s a Manchuria IC, Japan will have ground units near Manchuria especially against KJF unless the Japan player is wholly incompetent.

Right, so what’s the issue? The issue is if UK tries to build an Atlantic fleet. If Japan builds a Manchuria IC, you might think Japan’s air is tied down to defense. But that’s not really the case. Japan can push its air to Europe, allow US to take control of Manchuria and push Japan’s fleet off. Any UK push to Europe is wholly stopped, whether because UK transports and escorts retreat temporarily from Japan’s air threat, or because UK persists and is likely destroyed by Germany and Japan’s air. Then Japan pulls its fighters back east and reverses its ground units out of Asia and reclaims its lost IC.

If your opponent is competent there isn’t anything you can do about it. If you bulk US’s naval and air power, then US’s will have less ground to try to sustain any hold in Manchuria; US can use fighters to defend but bulked Japanese ground plus massed Japanese air means US probably can’t hold (considering, again, that US built a load of fleet). If US does not bulk fleet, Japan keeps fighters in range of Pacific for a while and US can’t make any progress - then Japan can shift to Europe, then if UK bulked naval escorts then UK’s ground game is weak, if UK bulked transports then UK’s navy can be pushed off for a while, then Japan’s air can return to position. The problem is the Allies have to commit to builds and moves, and Japan can just do whatever reactively exploiting any openings, and there will be openings because Japan’s air can hit both naval and ground targets - and Japan has a logistic edge compared to the US when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Asia, and Germany has a logistic edge compared to UK when it comes to getting cost-efficient ground in Europe.

If your play is very sharp, and if your opponent is careless and/or bad, then you can exploit the situation by pressuring Manchuria with US while also using a UK navy to drop cost-efficient ground to Europe. If your opponent goes to pieces and basically loses their head (or if they didn’t know how to play efficiently in the first place) then they won’t defend either well, then you’ll win.

Note: Japan fighters reinforcing German ground pushes means Germany can push safely faster. Yes, if Japanese fighters go to Europe they won’t be around in the Pacific, but you always have to deal with the possibility that Japan reverses its flow of ground units after having helped Germany secure objectives. After Germany holds a territory for a turn, Germany can land its own fighters to reinforce.

B. German air reinforcement of Asia. As with Japanese air reinforcement of Europe, two purposes are served - helping Japan secure a territory after which Japan can land fighters to reinforce, and helping fend off Allied navy.

German fighters don’t have much range; pushing them to Asia leaves them out of threat range against targets in Europe for a couple turns and out of threat range against targets in Atlantic for much longer. German fighters also don’t have good range to hit targets in Pacific and can easily be avoided, especially as German fighters can’t land on German carriers.

German bombers are much better in a lot of ways - they can reposition quickly, can threaten multiple theaters, and have range to pick off targets in Pacific.

Unlike with Japan, Germany’s natural logistics do not support heavy air investment, it’s typically just more efficient for Germany to add to its existing cost-efficient ground stacks, starting with infantry, transitioning to tanks (rather than more costly fighters), and only at the very end transitioning to bombers immediately before a major stack battle. Germany producing air early goes against all that. But the benefits mean it is something you may well see, especially against KJF.

What you’ll have to watch out for is German fighters lurking near southeast Europe and possibly around Africa. Japan moves into Burma in force, Germany flies in fighters to reinforce, UK can’t push Japan off Burma, then Japan has secured Burma. Then Japan can land its own fighters on Burma, and securing Burma also gives bombers built on Tokyo range to India (as they can land on Burma).

You’ll also need to watch out for a German bomber in the area that can pick off any US destroyer blockers. If there’s no German air coverage, US can often hold off Japan’s entire fleet by parking a destroyer (or whatever surface warship) that blocks Japan’s movement. But German air coverage stops that.

If Germany doesn’t send air coverage in range of Asia against the KJF, then you can get away with trading Burma a lot and maybe something nice develops out of all the stuff the Axis can’t do anything about.

Returning to the beginning of this point, I mentioned Germany leads with infantry then transitions to tanks after, then I mentioned air. Why emphasize German ground? Germany’s starting stacks, logistics, and production all favor ground push. If Germany builds air, that can be an issue, and Germany can reasonably build one bomber as early as G1 and G2 with some advantages I won’t get into here. But if Germany builds early fighters and/or navy, Germany’s ground game just won’t be as strong (though note a Mediterranean carrier can result in positions in which Germany’s ground game is even superior, though again I won’t get into that here.) If Germany leads with infantry then pushes tanks, if Germany doesn’t screw up elsewhere, you could be in for big problems.

3. Germany in Africa.

Ideally Germany tries to rob UK’s IPCs in Africa and gain IPCs of its own. This cuts down on UK’s options, and increased German income feeds into its starting stack / production / logistics, which means problems for the Allies.

UK has some counterplay. The infantry at Union of South Africa can be used with air to try to destroy any early unsupported German tank push (which is particularly problematic). The map itself was changed from earlier editions so there’s a dead zone worth no IPCs south of Egypt, which slows Germany being able to pull income.

Then too there’s US counterplay. If US kept its East US transports (and there is reason to believe it may, I won’t get into that here, as always, ask if curious), then US can possibly drop units to French West Africa (not guaranteed to be safe, but it can happen), especially the early US tank again can help push off any early German push into Africa, then the slower-moving US ground can interfere with any later German ground push.

If Germany wants to deal with all that, it has options. It can move air to Africa (which especially with fighters means they need turns to move back and forth and won’t be able to help in Europe at all). Or Germany can dump a chunk of ground to Africa, in which case Germany’s pulling units out of Europe. So you can see how Germany pushing for Africa income actually makes Germany weaker in Europe for a while. It does take a while for Germany to push for income, then it takes a while for Germany’s opportunity costs in Europe to be offset, and that’s not necessarily easy for Germany. (I mentioned earlier Germany might build a bomber as early as G1 - simultaneous threats to Germany, Africa, undefended Allied transports off East Canada, and ability to transition to Asia to blow up destroyer blockers are just some of the benefits of an early German bomber, though there’s reasons not to build an early German bomber too.)

So what should you do, what should you watch out for? Make sure you move the Union of South Africa infantry north, try to have some UK airpower in the area to threaten any early German tank push, if it looks like Germany’s going to make some sort of commit to Africa, be aware of your options with US. If Germany didn’t blow up Egypt and dropped to Trans-Jordan, UK has decent odds to hit the German battleship with the bomber from London, the fighter from Egypt, and the fighter from the India fleet (this precludes attacking Japan’s East Indies fleet and reduces your odds on attacking Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer/transport but that can’t be helped).

The stuff you can exploit - if Germany pushes a load to Africa, you can sometimes cut that German mini-stack off. If it pushes to Persia, you can hit it with your UK stack on India or USSR units from Caucasus. Also, German units stranded in Africa can’t contribute to Germany’s key timings in Europe. You’ll still have to watch out, though, if you let Germany run around too long and you’re also bleeding out UK’s India stack trading with Japan, you can get situations in which Germany has a fat Africa stack that pushes Persia and the Allies just can’t do anything about it, then the Africa stack unites with Germany’s Europe stack and Germany sacks Russia.

BUT if Germany just drops a load to Africa for no good reason, remember to watch your UK stack at India. If you can strand the German Africa stack that’ll help.

4. Japan threatening Iwo Jima’s sea zone at end of J1

Well, really, “threatening the sea zone around Iwo Jima”. If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, that can’t normally be punished, especially against a competent player because they make sure they have units in range of Iwo Jima’s sea zone. But if Japan screws up and does not put a good chunk of units in range of Iwo Jima, and if Japan didn’t hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet, then you can possibly move US’s existing fleet to Iwo Jima’s sea zone. Possibly you build a carrier on US’s West Coast; using a carrier to “extend” the threat range of US’s fighters in the Pacific should be pretty bog-standard but I guess it’s a novelty to a lot of players in 1942 Online’s meta but whatever.

US carrier (and friends) to Iwo Jima’s sea zone - if safe - immediately interdicts the sea zones around Japan with destroyer and air units. This means Japan cannot just drop multiple submarines with impunity, nor can Japan skimp much on defense. If Japan wants to do stuff, it probably needs to keep its main fleet in the sea zone west of Japan. This means in turn that Japan will not be able to do J2-J3 drops to Yunnan, which in turn means pressure on India is relieved.

If Japan doesn’t hit US’s Hawaiian fleet and doesn’t threaten Iwo Jima’s sea zone, it’s like a gift for KJF, but even then it’s not that you can “punish” Japan, it’s just that Japan has less good options and Allies can maybe snowball a bit. Especially if Japan’s East Indies fleet was destroyed.

5. Japan NOT going heavy subs

Japan should NOT go heavy on subs. Yes, if Japan sees a US1 Pacific fleet, Japan can build two submarines a turn then transition to bombers (which it wants to do for the India push anyways). But this is not the same as trying to build four plus subs a turn and, I don’t know, digging itself a grave.

Suppose Japan builds a load of subs. Then what? If Japan wants to take the battle to US in the Pacific, Japan has to move its air out of Asia (never mind Europe) into the Pacific. But key, if Japan wants to press the attack, Japan has to move into range of US’s fleet. Then US can smash Japan because subs aren’t great on defense at all. Yes, it’s not quite like that because Japan has a gigantic starting navy and air force, but mass submarines and trying to force the offensive in the Pacific just work against Japan’s natural interests; it shortens US’s logistics by walking right up to US’s doorstep, Japan can’t help in Europe, even if Japan wants to help in Europe later submarines aren’t multipurpose - it’s very bad.

So what happens if you try to use Japanese submarines defensively? US gets into range, then you whack 'em? The problem there is you just don’t need a load of defensive submarines especially with 1942 Online’s altered mechanics that cripple UK’s ability to contribute properly to a KJF. If Japan is careful, it only needs enough submarines to kick US in the face if US charges in, Japan’s submarines all die, US dies, then Japan takes its fighters and pushes Europe while US uselessly rebuilds.

If Japan builds mass submarines, okay, US charges in, Japan kicks it in the face even harder, then . . . the extra submarines do what? Nothing. And those extra submarines came at a cost. Less ground in Asia.

And what happens when you have less Japanese ground in Asia? Early on, USSR should be moving its units towards Europe, and UK should be preparing to defend India. But if Japan’s going nuts on submarines, USSR and UK don’t have to stay where they are (and really, they’d have to be rather silly to do that). Instead, USSR can think about greedily snatching Asian coast income which is normally out of the question, but if it can be secured is really nasty as it fuels USSR’s production in Europe and is a thorn Japan needs to deal with. Meanwhile UK can press in southeast Asia for income. And any Allied ground units that aren’t needed (and with Allied air, the Allies won’t necessarily need to commit a load of ground units) - anyways, any ground units not really needed to press Asia can push Europe.

6. Japan NOT going heavy ground

Japan shouldn’t go heavy ground either (at least, in terms of building NO navy/air), and why? If US drops a Pacific fleet, Japan wants enough to be able to punish any early US push, and how is it going to do that exactly? Odds are decent that Japan will have one destroyer, one cruiser, and one submarine; Japan must have destroyers against US submarines, which leaves only one cruiser and one submarine as fodder against any naval engagement, after which Japan has to lose expensive air or carriers/battleships. And that is just not good. So Japan builds some submarines. US pushes in, interdicts Japan’s sea zones, then Japan can switch to fighters and/or bombers while Japan captures India (which then acts as a reserve place for Japan to build up its navy if Japan even wants to which it may not).

But what happens if Japan JUST tries to push nothing but ground, in spite of US1 dropping a Pacific fleet? US moves into position and Japan can’t push US off. Even if Japan tries to do a late naval/air build, it still has to move into position to hit any US push to Borneo and/or East Indies, and if US goes the Alaska route instead a late build means US can hit Japan before Japan can hit US. And when Japan’s forced on the defensive a lot, then Japan can’t drop to Yunnan and basically it gets messy.

So if Japan goes pure navy, Allies throttle Japan on the ground; if Japan goes pure ground, Allies push Japan out of position early in the sea which disrupts Japan’s ground logistics from Tokyo to Asia.

Generally, there’s the stuff Axis should do, and if they don’t do it, that usually doesn’t mean you can get a decisive advantage. Only if your opponent sucks and withdraws for no reason and/or fights losing stack battles do you get these big “punishment” plays. Otherwise it’s just you look at your opponent’s play, if there’s a wee gap, you shove in a little wedge and start patiently hammering away, then eventually your advantages pile up and you win.

But if your opponent is sharp, then sometimes spots that looked like a good spot to stick a wedge in turn out to be traps.

Next post, the general KJF variations.

Okay, so you know about that other thread where I wrote out how 1942 Online makes KJF bad, numbers, timings, details, nice stuff. Then in this thread my last post I made the point you can’t “punish” a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet.

Well that just isn’t a lot of fun is it, you want to try KJF, then someone comes along and dumps a bucket of numbers on you . . .

So in the next post, I’ll write how you try to pry apart poorly executed anti-KJF.

But before that - understand why J1 Manchuria IC and Japan not hitting Hawaiian Islands fleet are NOT things Allies can just beat Japan up for, and why even trying can be dangerous.

First, J1 Manchuria IC. When does it go up, properly? R1 has sucky dice and/or bad moves, Germany smashes West Russia and does a mass tank build. The board situation is such that Germany intends to literally overrun Russia before UK/US can do anything about it. Then Germany reverses out of Russia to clean up its coast if necessary. Meanwhile, Japan builds an industrial complex on Manchuria why? Because that gets Japan one more tank in on a key timing. And you had better believe the Axis game develops real fast. When this goes off, Japan knows it is paying 15 IPCs for just one more tank for the timing, and it makes that decision because the calculations indicate it’s likely to be worth it.

Imagine what happens if US tries to push KJF in this situation. US has to fight off Japan’s huge starting navy and air and build a credible invasion threat against Manchuria. But if US pushes too hard and fast, Japan can punish any overextension. Yet if US does not push hard and fast, the Axis overrun Russia. What are US’s options with KJF? US won’t even be able to reliably move fighters to reinforce Russia from the Pacific as there just won’t be any safe eligible landing spaces. With KGF, though, Allied fighters flying off carriers into Russia in the Atlantic is difficult for Axis to stop.

As to Hawaiian Islands - well, I can see a case for the Hawaiian Islands attack in the board game. But because KJF execution is 1942 Online is so bad thanks to rules changes, I think a meta has developed where Japan really doesn’t have to bother with the Hawaiian Islands fleet. Like, what is it going to do (lol)? Bleed on Japan? Sure, it’s a chunk of IPCs, but just see US try to make something of it. There’s really not a lot it can do unless Japan messes up.

J1 industrial complex and Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet are not things you can punish. Trying to “punish” either can even get you in a lot of trouble if your opponent is playing accurately.

Remember the game is about stacks - how you build them, how you bleed them. The starting position is a part of that, income, production, and logistics are a part of that, and single units can make large statistical differences in battles of hundreds of units.

When you look at a J1 Manchuria IC or Japan not hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet, ask yourself - does either result in a situation that forces Japan to fight a losing stack battle? No. So does either contribute to a situation in which you’re able to bleed/build stacks, control income, or that sort of thing? The answer again is no. Especially in 1942 Online because of its rules changes.

So you’re probably saying to yourself - Japan pays for an immobile thing that can’t fight, that needs to be defended, that if captured and held by an opponent gives an opponent a big boost in logistics. There’s got to be something there, right? Or if Japan just leaves the Hawaiian Islands fleet alone, that’s a chunk of IPCs, again, that’s got to be good, right?

But it’s not enough.

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

@aardvarkpepper said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

. PNRG is a valid approximation of randomness, that has also been proven repeatedly.

hasn’t.

Is your GPS working? Then PNRG is working.

if you want to use that as part of your argument, explain how implementations should be and are the same

@nosho said in First time Playing in over 2 months:

. PNRG is a valid approximation of randomness, that has also been proven repeatedly.

hasn’t.

1. I think transports used to cost 8, but now cost 7

2. Two rules are a little odd; I noticed they weren’t mentioned in the carrier / transport videos, figured they might have been saved for later but mentioning them just in case.

A) A fighter cannot use a planned retreat of a carrier when declaring plans to land the fighter. However, a fighter can assume a carrier can move to pick it up in noncombat phase even if a clearing attack would obviously fail. (e.g. single submarine attacks twenty battleships to “attempt” to clear a sea zone so a carrier may move through that sea zone during noncombat to land a fighter. The submarine won’t win (probably) but it’s an eligible move.)

I think that was in an errata or clarification.

B) Transports can’t enter hostile sea zones, but sea zones occupied by enemy submarines are not “hostile”. Only surface enemy ships create a “hostile” sea zone. An enemy submarine prevents a transport from - was it picking up? or dropping off? or both? and the transport can’t “ignore” the enemy submarine unless a friendly warship accompanies the transport.

@djensen

So attacking fighter hit, attacking fighter never rolled (which technically it ought to have but eh), then defending carrier inflicted a hit that you had to take on the bomber because the fighter had disappeared? Does that sum up the screenshots correctly?

As to TripleA’s implementation of a “luck” meter, noted. I thought perhaps you had something different in mind.

@djensen said in 🎲😢 PRNG dice support group — and ranting:

Without a “luck meter” there’s no real way to know for sure.

Suppose there were a luck meter. How would you see it working, specifically?

@kakarrot1138

btw

UK carrier submarine 2 cruiser 2 fighter vs Japan 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 battleship

https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/b/s5nnfm

comes in around 63%

@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:

I have no idea what you could’ve done to make aatoolkit show 2 inf v 1 inf as over 90% odds. It shows around 68% for me every time

I opened up aatoolkit again and ran 2 inf vs 1 inf and got 68.3%. But I originally got the 90%+ figure off aatoolkit that I mentioned after running the naval projections. Maybe that impacted it? You can see below that you do get consistent 90%+ for whatever reason sometimes; I spammed the “Calculate” button to get a few outputs so you’d see it’s not just a one-time thing.

https://imgur.com/a/TnBJY9f

(I turned charts off so there’s less clutter, but the charts showed the same thing as summed in those screenshots). Could it be aatoolkit has some bit of code somewhere that doesn’t get cleaned up properly that means improper results get returned?

@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:

Also, thanks for pointing out that Japan is actually better off taking off fighters before AC in that battle. I’m assuming it’s because if the AC survives the 1st round, a 2nd round sub hit can be assigned to it instead of the battleship, preventing it from dying before it can fire in the 2nd round.

That would explain it in theory, but in practice (and this is what aacalc indicates as well), I expect it not to work that way. I’ve run a load of projections on combats involving submarines; generally the odds of a submarine hitting are low, and though there especially with low unit count battles that counts for something, I don’t expect the odds of the sub hit in this case to increase the odds, when you’re looking at the low chance a carrier hits, preventing the low chance of a sub hit, balanced against the high chance a fighter hits. (Yes, the fighter won’t hit the sub, but the overall chances of battle drop if the fighter is selected as a casualty* before* the carrier? Weird? Anyways aacalc below:)

Attacking carrier first, defender carrier-fighter-battleship, attacker overall 64%

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

Attacking carrier first, defender fighter-carrier-battleship, attacker overall 68%

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

That is, if defender drops fighter before carrier, then attacker chances go up, not down. That’s what I expect - not from actually calculating it out, mind! - but just informally my expectation off “eyeballing” it.

In science, it’s always important to remember the dangers of researchers interpreting data to fit a projected result.

Of course, I haven’t actually calculated out this case (it’s a bit more involved), and even if the calculations did indicate something, there is the question that I mentioned earlier of whether PRNG outputs functionally approximate actual random numbers. So I’m certainly interpreting data to fit a projected result myself, and if it’s a matter of selecting a dataset that fits a projection, I’m doing that too.

But informally speaking, don’t you think it a little weird? If you’re preserving the carrier and losing a fighter instead, you’re dropping a 4 to preserve a 2. For that 2 to make a difference, the 2 has to connect, which in turn is preventing an opponent’s 2 from taking a shot. But the probability of all that, contrasted to a good solid 4? Attacker composition 1 carrier 1 sub 2 cruiser 2 fighter, defender composition 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 battleship? Doesn’t it even look like maybe a defending 4 that couldn’t connect on an attacking 2 and would instead start chopping away at attacking 3’s, would offset a defending 2, even if that defending 2 could possibly negate a submarine surprise attack? Especially if both fighters are set to expire before the carrier. If the attacker had a composition that mostly couldn’t be hit by fighters, then I could see more a case for it, but it’s just that one submarine.

I don’t expect a UK1 attack against East Indies (with no bid and with 2 UK fighters) has over 90% to win. I think aatoolkit may be wrong. Well, maybe not. Be nice if someone calculated it out.

@kakarrot1138

You may find that with the corrected order of loss that “coinflip” no longer applies. But I left the term in deliberately.

With the original quoted statistics, the odds were near 54.3% for attacker, after the correction 63.9% (though the points I made about UK survivors and the subsequent position, versus simply trying to “win” the immediate battle apply). You could say, with fairness, that 63.9% isn’t really a coinflip.

But when I write “coinflip” I mean “an unnecessary attack with no good contingencies in case of bad dice.”. In the case of a UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet, I can see how that attack could be considered “necessary” in terms of desired objectives, and you could even say that if the attack went somewhat bad that there would be some gain. But is it “necessary” in terms of winning or losing? Rather than playing conservatively and looking for an opening from dice results or opponent action, might not the UK1 attack absent bid itself possibly create an opening for an opponent off bad dice results?

That is how I think about the UK1 East Indies attack without a bid. If it goes fantastically, obviously great. If it goes off all right but not spectacularly, then Germany still keeps its Mediterranean fleet and that can be a problem if the Axis player is competent. If the UK1 attack goes badly you just shot yourself in the foot.

So what is not a coinflip attack? Suppose Germany has a stack on Ukraine and plans to capture Karelia this turn. Suppose USSR has a stack on West Russia that threatens Karelia, and that Japan isn’t in position to reinforce German-controlled Karelia with fighters. Now suppose Germany has an attack of 54% or so on West Russia, and that Germany does not expect to be able to defend Karelia well. Say also that Germany can move infantry up to reinforce on following turns. Now, Germany can’t use its fighters to defend Karelia, but Germany can use its fighters to *attack West Russia. It’s possible that the projections will be that even with bad dice that an attack into West Russia will weaken USSR’s stack enough that Germany will be projected to hold Karelia, which will mean two additional German units on the front. That is, in case of good dice Germany can break the game open, in case of neutral dice Germany expects to hold Karelia and after retreating moving infantry reinforcements up means Germany’s precious tanks won’t be at risk, and even in case of bad dice, Germany still expects to hold Karelia and protect its tanks after infantry reinforcements are moved up. Even with the German West Russia attack nominally having coinflip odds, the board position means Germany is likely to gain regardless, so the attack is not what I call “coinflippy”.

Contrast to UK1 East Indies attack. If it fails, it really is a bad position, right? For battles that don’t have some sort of contingency against bad dice, I prefer at least 85% to not think of an attack as “coinflippy” and even then if I’m playing accurately I still won’t do 85% if I think I can increase the odds to above that on later turns.

With all of this, I don’t mean to say the UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet without bid is bad. Different players have different risk preferences, and even absent that, if one thinks that an opponent outclasses them, they could try for a line that their opponent might not be ready to handle. But returning to the original post, I’d still certainly say that I thought KJF in 1942 Online was rather an uncertain prospect, certainly worse than at GenCon in any event.

@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:

Your UK1 east indies navy battle math is wrong. That site’s calc is assuming the casualty order for UK is sub, ftr, cruiser, ac, in order of ascending ipc cost. You need to use https://www.aatoolkit.com/conflict and toggle sub, cruiser, and ftr to be taken last, so that the AC gets taken first. % goes from a coin flip to over 90%.

Thanks for the correction; I edited the original post. But a few things came up.

For the edit, I used AACalc again but changed the order of loss.

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

It gives 64.1% for attacker, using 10,000 runs.

I do use aatoolkit sometimes, though it uses 1,000 runs. Setting the OOLs as I thought proper, a few runs did consistently come in at over 90%, as you wrote. (Note - I used “1942” for aatoolkit for all runs in this post.)

I know AACalc has aggregate rounding errors. But a 26% spread seemed weird to me, so I looked around a bit.

In aatoolkit I kept “take unit last” on attacking sub, cruisers, and fighters, but turned “take unit last” off defenders completely. Attacker odds dropped from 90% plus to around 85%.

If the defending fighters die before the defending carrier, the attacker odds drop? That doesn’t sound right does it? I changed order of loss on AACalc; there taking defending fighters before defending carrier saw attacker odds rise by about 6%.

I know the attacking submarine changes things. But it does look to me like aatoolkit’s implementation might be incorrect, even though your point about order of loss was correct.

==

Besides that is another point that I didn’t mention in the first few posts. One of the big things about the East Indies attack and the bid is the projected UK survivors. There’s some complications, but it’s possible for UK to end up with a defensive fleet that includes a carrier and fighters (and possibly cruiser(s) against Japan’s counter of destroyer, two fighters, and bomber. It’s not the worst battle for Japan, but even trying it will reduce Japan’s options against other targets first turn, may well make further inroads into Japan’s airpower, and even the best-case scenario for Japan probably sees the UK fleet (including that expensive carrier) being able to slip out to the east next turn to safety, after which it can later shadow the US fleet.

Projected UK survivors is also an issue for any projected attack on East Indies. I took the liberty of running 4 attacking infantry against 2 defending infantry on aatoolkit and aacalc; aatoolkit returned 92%+, aacalc returned around 77%. Anyways, if you consider UK1-controlled East Indies, a UK carrier pressuring Japan into a more defensive position, order-of-loss for defending UK carrier being able to take fighters last (though if a cruiser survives I’d say even fighters before carriers would be all right in view of risks to Japan’s resulting position), again, the bid is important.

==

. . . so is aatoolkit functionally incorrect? Well, let’s look at a simple calculation; 2 attacking infantry versus 1 defending infantry. aatoolkit reports 91%+ attacker win with 6%ish defender win, aacalc reports 67.5% attacker with 27.5% defender win.

1 infantry vs 1 infantry, both hit 1/18; attacker only hits 2/18, defender only hits 5/18, both miss 10/18. We change the numbers as “both miss” results in another round of combat; result is 1/8 tie (all destroyed) 2/8 attacker win, 5/8 defender win.

2 infantry vs 1 infantry, both hit 11/108, attacker only hits 22/108, defender only hits 25/108, both miss 50/108. Again, we change the numbers as “both miss” results in another round of combat; result is 11/58 attacker win (with 1 infantry), 22/58 attacker win (with 2 infantry), 25/58 changes to 1 infantry vs 1 infantry.

We multiply 25/58 by the aforementioned results to get 25/464 tie (all destroyed), 50/464 attacker win (1 infantry), 125/464 defender win.

Attacker win with 2 infantry: 22/58, about 37.93%.
Attacker win with 1 infantry: 11/58 + 50/464, about 18.97% + 10.77% = 29.75% (Aggregate for 2 or 1 infantry winning = 67.68%)
Tie: 25/464 = 5.39%
Defender win: 125/464 = 26.94%.

So we should be looking for 67.68% attacker win, 5.39% tie, 26.94% defender win. Again, aatoolkit reports 91%+ attacker win with 6%ish defender win, aacalc reports 67.5% attacker with 27.5% defender win.

So is aatoolkit functionally incorrect? Well, if it just so happens that aatoolkit’s PRNG implementation is identical to 1942 Online’s implementation, then aatoolkit would be functionally correct. But if PRNG implementation in 1942 Online puts out functionally random numbers then it does look like aacalc is functionally correct.

@nosho

You can dictate terms to me when you pay me. Until then -

PRNG evaluation is designed to evaluate groups of single independent events such as dice rolls. But Axis and Allies dice are properly evaluated as groups of groups of independent events.

@aardvarkpepper said in kjf no good in 1942 online:

Keep informed with the action log and war diary

I re-read my last post (usually do to clean up a bit), and this bit from 1942 Online’s Steam store page description popped out at me. Keep informed, sounds nice, right?

But actually, 1942 Online’s war diary doesn’t give you proper information. Last I saw, you check the record, you see what went in, you see what came out, but you don’t see what the attacker hit allocation decisions were, you don’t see what happened in each round of combat, it’s just boop, win or lose. I don’t think the war diary even accurately reflects the order of combats.

TripleA gives all the details right down to the dice rolls. You REALLY know what happened, you get the hit allocations, the attack/retreat decisions, you see it all. It’s not fair to compare TripleA, which has been in development for years, with 1942 Online. But still, things are what they are.

When is having that information important? This is one of those things - if a player doesn’t already understand then even when it’s pointed out to them exactly why it makes a huge difference they still may not understand. It’s just words on a page. But I’ll try to explain.

When an opponent initiates any attack, you can look at the attackers, the defenders, the probability distribution of outcomes, the strategic and tactical situation, and what your opponent could have done differently (could have done other attacks entirely, could have allocated different units to different combats, etc.) This gives you insight as to your opponent’s read on the board position and risk preferences.

What does it say if a USSR player tries a triple attack, a Baltic Sea attack, or Baltic States/West Russia, or Ukraine/West Russia? Each of those attacks says something different about the player. A triple attack player is not afraid of risk. They are going to hit out, if you have a close stack battle in the offing, you’d better watch out because your opponent might be coming at you (and with the two-peak model, things could turn out real ugly). A Baltic Sea attack says your opponent is very confident in their own ability, others say Baltic attack is bad but your opponent doesn’t care and your opponent might be good or bad, but they’re going to generally do things that aren’t “meta” plays. Baltic States/West Russia is another unconventional play though less so, and Ukraine/West Russia is pretty meta. You can’t assemble a complete opponent profile based off one move - maybe an opponent decided to do something “different” this game, or maybe they use conventional openings but then don’t know the “meta” for following turns so they’ll change things up - but you have some idea.

Even things like composition of attack makes a difference. A R1 West Russia / Ukraine open is different depending on whether you send two tanks or three tanks.

Then sometimes opponents make moves that might seem irrational but aren’t. Like if an opponent hits West Russia only but holds some units back, that might be thought a mistake if you’re going with the “conventional” reasoning that West Russia is simply a territory that USSR conquers first turn. But if you know about the West Russia strafe / retreat into Karelia line, well, there you go. You hold back units because you want at least one German unit to survive so you can retreat the masses to Karelia. Not that I’m saying I think that’s a solid line, but I’ll leave off discussing that.

Returning to getting information off your opponent. If you can tell all that information from an opponent just from what they attack with, then how much more information can you get from an opponent by knowing what casualties they assign to what units and when, when they decide to attack or retreat, and so on? Again, it’s not that each decision is isolated. Each decision is made in context of the board position as a whole, even knowing the order an opponent resolved combats is important.

Before continuing, to address that last. Suppose in the LHTR setup, Germany attacks UK’s destroyer/transport off East Canada with one submarine and attacks UK’s battleship/destroyer (and likely USSR sub) with two submarines, cruiser, and two fighters. The battle off East Canada should be conducted first. Why? If the UK destroyer is destroyed, the Allies can’t hunt any German submarine survivors of the UK battleship battle. But if the UK destroyer survives, the Allies can hunt any German submarines, and submarines are poor defenders. If a player initiates both combats but doesn’t do the East Canada battle first - well maybe it’s 1942 Online’s UI (I think you have to right click or something to determine order of battles and that isn’t in the documentation, but whatever). But maybe also an opponent doesn’t know what they’re doing. Watching out for these sorts of things clues you in as to your opponent’s abilities.

Returning to information-gathering. You get a lot of information off an opponent’s combat movement and order of resolution during the combat phase, but within each combat your opponent also gives information. Information you should have includes opponent hit allocation which can give you insight into your opponent’s plans, opponent decisions to press or retreat in the face of changing probability distributions, and that in turn gives you a read on whether your opponent can properly reassess combats from sub-phase to sub-phase and act appropriately. All such information is lost in 1942 Online.

All this doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy 1942 Online. There are players that can and do. But if you’re a sharp player that pays attention to detail, you will feel the differences between 1942 Online and actual board game play.