A Japanese move towards Brazil and beyond is even nastier if Germany has a lot of airpower (say 8ftr 2bmb). That forces UK+US to spread defenses to keep fleet(s) alive and troop flow to Europe - so little naval offensive/deterrence remains against Japan.
Japan also adds a threat ‘inside’ the turn cycle (Germany-UK-Japan-US-Russia) so it gets very hard for Allies to always end with a ‘neat’ position, not exploitable by (one of) the next Axis power.
I’m assuming everyone here knows J Pearl Heavy must lose the Bomber before the Destroyer ? or you talk about such bad J luck to lose both ?
J 2 Fighters, Carrier, Destroyer, Battleship hold quite well to US Transport, Battleship, 2 Fighters, Bomber.
With a Japanese transport bid they can do the Doubly-Heavy Pearl: while a ‘normally-lightly heavy’ Pearl sinks the fleet, 2 tra (3inf 1art) with 1 ftr take the island itself. 1 IPC, counterattack down 1 more ftr, good position to continue earlier the usual NZ offensive or even towards Brazil.
NOW… if Britain sinks the J Solomons sub and lands on US carrier at Pearl: would you prefer it Light or Heavy ?
I’ve lost the original definition: is ADS the “Analog Dice System” ? ;-)
Agree on most analyses comparing Low Luck. Yes, LL makes mistakes more obvious. Yes, strafing is deadly in LL, and avoided by defenders while in ADS the ‘fuzz’ of uncertainty often deters attackers from trying it, and defenders may profit by keeping a territory with a mid-sized force.
Jen had success with different strategies in LL because: 1) they are not much worse than the original, especially if counting own preparedness/opponent shock and 2) she played enough better than opponents met so far ;-)
Big Luftwaffe gets even nastier when a sizable Japanese fleet gets to Brazil and further into Atlantic.
German increasing threats force even more UK-US cooperation to defend the 2 fleets. But that’s easier when the position needs to be ‘neat’ only after Russian moves. After UK it can be as ‘messy’ as needed.
But add a Japanese threat, and any UK-US cooperation gets extremely cumbersome - any ally moving out of position leaves the other easy prey…
Even wiping/chasing away the Japanese isn’t easy - UK-US being divided to defend transports. And the optimal purchase to protect against Luftwaffe - carriers+(fighters) is not as good as lots of submarines to chase Japan… but subs are of very little use against Germany.
Two hard dilemmas - of timing, of force composition. Any solutions around ?
Also think how Allies may ‘dance’ with their fleet to avoid much of the fighter threat (if no Long-Range and 1 or few bombers). No more than 1 fleet needs to be fully exposed.
German Fighters in WEU > Fleet north, transports to Archangel. More escort to SW Britain.
German Fighters in EEU > Fleet north, more escort with it
Don’t know the answer to the later situation when Germans still hold WEU strongly (fighters+inf+AA) and the front has advanced (say to EEU) and Allies need to stay with fleet in both Baltic and SW Britain… Maybe extra transports to threaten a stronger one-time landing even above sustainable flow from UK factory (8 units) or US shuck chain…
For purely naval attack the submarine at $8 A2 D2 First strike is better than fighter $10 A3 D4. For defense too (if figuring the cost of the carrier).
$72 = 9 subs 9 hits, A18 D18 First strike
$72 = 2 car 4 ftr 6 hits, A14 D20
But fighters (add-on to fleet, even massed “alone”) are pretty good from friendly coasts.
My last opponent Rodg started G1 with a build of 3ftr 4inf (42 IPC). It was shown effective enough, even if delaying a bit pressure on Russia - it delayed Western help even more !
If they threaten only one UK+US fleet it itsn’t a big deal; UK or US build 1 carrier, land 2 fighters and the threat of 30 IPC is more than surpassed with 16 IPC.
If they threaten 2 fleets (say: Baltic + SW Britain from France) it becomes interesting…
In many ordinary cases without Luftwaffe increase, Allies would have moments of 3 fleets too (1. SW Britain; 2. Baltic; 3. N. France to add extra transports to Baltic force…) That becomes impractical.
Each fighter also adds to the defence of its base (if not too many) like 2 inf = 6 IPC !
So only 4 IPC for the extra naval threat is really cheap !
Fast defensive reserve to add to areas conquered previous turn.
And Luftwaffe may even increase with more bombers…
Good opening proposed !
If Russia buys 3inf 3arm (3inf 1arm in Caucasus, 2arm in Moscow) they can deter better Germany from stationing a big force in Karelia. (from where they may deter UK/US landings for some time…)
Exactly that is the reason to use “Sum of decreasing punches” - to account for an unknown number of rounds and some +/- variation in firepower at that times.
6:3:1 18+17+16+15+13+11+9+7+5+3 = 114
5:5:0 20+18+16+14+12+10+8+6+4+2 = 110
My 6:3:1 “solution” when applied against 10 inf loses on average 3.33 inf so the 2nd round on average is 2.67:3:1. Not much “waste”. If the battle goes well enough one presses to the end, if not it becomes a 2 or even 1-round strafe.
For planned 1-round raids 1:1:0 is optimal.
True, pure inf and some armor is better defensively but in offensive situations I thinked this for that’s irrelevant. They include the much stronger multi-power attacker’s disadvantage: UK+US trying to break German EEU; Japan trying to take Moscow defended by all 3 Allies etc. If attackers are near strong enough to win offensively their defensive is very safely above equilibrium. So arty is what to add at the end !
What I haven’t told yet is that the 6:3:1 result depends closely on 3:4:5 IPC costs as inputs. If covering the investment in transport ships the ratios may modify.
For how many turns do you think it’s sensible to calculate “amortization” of transports ?
8 turns ? for US that would make 1 IPC per transport*turn, 1/2 per unit transported, 2 stages = +1 IPC per unit. So 4:5:6 IPC real cost.
4 turns ? … … +2 per unit so 5:6:7.
I’ll redo the calculations.
Also for land offensives (Berlin<>Moscow direction, Japan/Asia>Moscow) tanks may save 1-2 turns of march, reducing “dead investment” so inf/art are relatively more expensive.
Any optimum is flat at the top (with smooth functions, at least). That’s what f’(x)=0 really means ! where x may be multidimensional (a vector) too.
Practically, this means that moderate (say 10-20%) deviations from the optimum decision lead to unproportionally small inefficiencies in outcome.
1:1:0 is only ~0.5% less efficient than 6:3:1. I suppose 5:3:1 is even closer.
100 inf 100 art is exactly equivalent to 200 inf defending. (Tactically yes, economically not. Attackers are 7/6 more expensive this way).
120 inf 60 art 10 tnk are equivalent to 201 inf defending (Within the ‘noise’ of simulating 10,000 runs) - and cost the same.
This flat-optimum principle is well to be remembered and can be seen in the whole world. The only clear contradictions come from discontinuities, or sharp IF-THEN conditions.
For instance, 49 inf 51 art are less effective relative to cost than 51 inf 49 art (because of the 1:1 matching rule).
It’s GE 1inf 1tnk 2fig 1bmb. Still a bad battle.
You may even load in 2 places and land in the third.
For instance, a transport off (the coast of) Kwantung can load 1inf from Kwantung, move off French Indochina and load another inf, then move off India and unload/assault with 2inf.
If you trust averages the bomber, or any plane, does 5 successful bombings before dying to AA. With 3.5 IPC per strike that makes 17.5 IPC for its useful life. 6 less enemy inf are MUCH more valuable than the support value of 1 bmr when the attack will come.
So my priorities are:
This applies to all powers except Russia.
The real trade-off is between 1’) sitting as naval threat and 4) bombing.
The optimal ratio for the offensive (from my Sum of Decreasing Punches model) is Inf:Art:Tnk = 6:3:1
1:1:0 is quite close too.
It’s nice to start with inf only for defense, and add only arty later up to 30-50% of the total.
Sorry for the confusion. I’ll try to attach the TripleA 0.902 file for the originally discussed position.
[Damn, no attachment space for files on this forum ? only for Flash, Hyperlinks, FTP links… all mean not putting the file itself. Or is it any option I’ve missed ??]
The UK bomber is dead (by choice) in Africa, for the fighter to live in Persia.
The bomber to Yakut is just a worse-case variant for analysis, like all those Russian chess books (1.UK… J.)
Logically that means no attack in Africa, so I leave to your imaginations better uses for the fighter, transport and troops too. UK fighter landing on US carrier is a classical one. Trying Borneo too.
But then Germans run amok earlier with the African IPC.
I hope discussions like this will build over time an Encyclopedia of A&A Long Openings… if Chess has the Sicilian analyzed to 16-18 moves, then why not A&A at least 1-2 turns (x5 countries, with moves in parallel and dice) ?
The important part being the veteran’s compared experiences on how worthy some continuation positions are.
Newpaintbrush: I still think you answer a different ‘picture’ than the worst case that started this thread !
J cannot use southern fleet (btl car) against both UK des+car for they are scattered: car blocks off Indochina, des (that sunk J tra) off Kwantung and unreachable. Cannot use southern J car to send more fighters to Pearl because transport blocks it, and Solomon sub threatens it.
OK, UK car off Indochina is sunk by southern btl+car. Mandatory to keep Persian ftr out of Pacific action.
Yes, 3 ftr can go to Pearl (2 on the northern carrier, 1 lands back on Wake).
Where does the initial J transport survive ? with Buryat untaken, sz60 is a dead sea for weak forces, even for big 5tra convoy against US bmb ftr then UK des sub. Unless Japan diverts planes or fleet to take them out. Impossible all !
And it can get even worse… what if UK bomber adds to threats everywhere (say from Yakut) ?
Yet another variant: Jennifer’s 2 IPC left to Japan to build 4tra. Existing tra lands in Buryat so ends in sz60.
Then 5tra in sz60 (and without Buryat for landing US bmr ftr) are a solid (?) deterrence against UK des sub. Herd of buffaloes keeping lion at distance ?
Pearl: btl des car bmb 2ftr
Buryat: 3inf 1tnk 3ftr
China: 5inf 1arty 1ftr
But 6 IPC for Japan of the 9 bid is already much… still GE 1inf in Libya is useful.
Newpaintbrush: It’s impossible to “kill ALL the UK navy” when it’s a lot of scattered ships, often standing it the way of cleaning actions. True, it may be not a vital threat early (so ignored for more urgent JA actions), but still a lone JA transport to Borneo cannot survive with them around. Later when JA are ready to clean them, they may run away just before that…
Thanks for the tip - right, the initial transport can go to Kwantung or Indochina with the south fleet, moving some troops along too - if it isn’t needed as cannon fodder (In case of the UK-fighter-landing-on-US-Pearl-carrier variant).
I’m also thinking if in such a situation JA can take out Pearl (with solid remaining fleet - the famous btl des car 2ftr) AND Buryat, and leave China alone on Turn 1. How bad can that be ? Will US reunite in China, or advance 1inf to vacated territories, or even attack with 2inf 1ftr ? Can this incite the building of a Sinkiang factory with even more stalling potential ?
So - with China intact, does Indochina need to stay with a solid JA garrison ? (I figure 3 inf at least).
Then the arty bid - if trying that - is better in Manchuria (choosing Bury/China) not Indochina (choosing China/India). In this case British from India may get cheeky… Of course a tank bid in Kwantung can choose all 3.
Despite some advantages, I still don’t like the “light” Pearl where the battleship does nothing or a minor shore support, instead of adding its good firepower and saving at least a fighter with its first free hit. Then any ships sent to Pearl are marked for sure death, right ? or survivors may be protected only by the counterattack threat from East Japan ?
OK, Low Luck vs regular dice do have different consequences and sometimes need different decisions.
… Back to original topic… how 1J counters 1UK explosion…
If Japan has left alone the Buryat RU and sent the northern fleet to Pearl Harbor.
THEN US can attack sz60 (East of Japan) with bmb ftr and land in Buryat.
Against 4tra: 50% to sink them all.
Against 3tra: 76% to sink them all.
Without transports (or even with 1) Japan cannot punish back Buryat, and is strategically helpless for 2 more turns… so VERY bad ! Possibly a Game Over ?
So it’s either a serious escort for transports kept in sz60, or build in sz61 only (West of Japan) - that cannot liberate, say, an UK-raided Borneo in one turn…
Each transport, even if not directly useful to shuttle more troops (due to lack of IPC for troops ;-) or factory capacity) still stretches German defenses in several places that must be garrisoned stronger: WEU, GER, EEU, KAR etc. “Shadow” forces of which any one may become real.
…
I wonder how common is the early (turn 1-4) overbuilding of UK troops to go together with overcapacity transports when they arrive round Africa and S.America.
To make full use of UK’s 8-unit production limit, one may build early lower quality (say 25 IPC = 7 inf 1 art instead of 2inf 1art 3tnk). When extra transports arrive, there are already 12-16 land units in London, sustaining a maximum transport flow for several turns more.