Help with uneven teams

@domanmacgee

I used to play this version often some time ago… I might remember wrong but I think Germany is strong enough to take down Russia alone some times, just because Germany is so strong at the beginning and sometimes one less than average dice result would kill Russia early. It doesn’t mean Allies can’t hold but it’s tough the first 8 rounds for Allies. Once passed this threshold the chance of Allies victory improves over time typically…

@P@nther:

3. A&A Classic (usually of 1986 or sometimes 1984) - we have another dedicated subforum for it.

Well “dedicated” might be too strong a word… it’s not even called the “A&A Classic” forum (I really wish it were).

@taamvan:

thanks for pointing that out Baron, I was misapplying that.   Seems ok balance wise but may make the offense too risky esp. against Germany.  As you emphasize, the bombers are even more precious in the small economy versions you have fewer to risk and fewer to lose.

The most difficult part for a fine SBR HR  is that it should not be too much bias toward the attacker, while the intercepting Fighter presence on IC should not be a complete deterrent.

Of the many SBR values suggested in the past years, I believe the Young Grasshopper provides the best incentive for both attacker and defender being part of such raid. Using “1” values only is less a deterrent than @2 (because,  with IC’s AAgun it means around a low 50% odds of survival for 1 StB) or first strike @1 (because a hit forbid interceptor to retaliate).

Here is the mechanics:
Young Grasshopper HR
G40.2 SBR HR
**Bomber A0 but 1 Attack @1 per bomber group
Damage: 1D6+2
Cost 12

Fighter A1 D1
Cost 10**
It is less OP than Global SBR, but these features increase interactions.
How?
This means the first Bomber gets a single @1 while additional StBs bring nothing against interceptors but increase damage on IC.
This is also an incentive to bring Fgs escort to get more @1 against interceptors.
For defender, letting go a few StBs is a costly tactics. Adding a defense @1 per Fg increase odds to shot down at least one bomber, which means less damage on IC.

To compare break even point:
Break even point: 2 StBs A1/A0 C12 D6+2 vs 3 Fgs D1 C10
0.667 StB/Fg break even ratio with lower number of units
8 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.8 off/def ratio

Young Grasshopper, in 1942.2 order of economy would probably gets around this 2 StBs vs 3Fgs ratio most of the time.
And .667 StBs/Fg is far better for the attacker than the two other methods previously suggested (both near or above 1.00 StB/Fg break even point).

Also, on an StBs only against Fgs scenario, there is no Interception Threshold ceiling: attacker can add an infinite number of bombers (attack remains a single @1 roll), intercepting with only a single Fighter is still  reducing damage for defender. So, this method have the best incentive to make dogfight happen.

Finally, when escorting Fgs are parts of the fight at low numbers, it is easy to judge if it worths the risk to intercept. Each one on one Fg vs Fg nullify each other damage, and 1 escort above interceptor increase damage by 1.667 (10*1/6). Making Interception Threshold ceiling according to the number of escorting Fighter.

So in a case like above with 2 StBs against 3 Fgs, 1 additional escort makes (1.819 + 0.152= +1.971 IPCs damage on average) less damage than 2 full blown StBs on IC (2*2.583= 5.166 IPCs on avg).
With 2 additional escorts, it means 1 full blown StBs on IC (2.583) because if both Fg are taken down, 1 StB is clear, the last StB against the last Fg is at 1.819. Sum 2.583+ 1.819 = 4.402 IPCs on avg.
And this case still better than letting go 2 full blown StBs on IC (4.402 < 5.166).
On 2 StBs with 3 Fgs against 3 intercepting Fgs, it is clear there is no difference between intercept and no interception: escorts and interceptors nullify each other. Both situations are even, so this is the Interception Threshold ceiling. Beyond that, each additional escort over interceptor brings +1.667 IPCs damage on avg. And from a statistical POV, it is better not intercept.

Of course, if defender feels lucky, it is not an unusual situation to have less units than attacker in Axis and Allies in a given combat.

StB 1A1+xA0, D6+2 vs Fg A1 D1

2 StBs A1+A0 against 3 Fgs D1
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D1: + 5.486 - 3.667 = + 1.819 IPCs, 1 vs 1
1 StB A0 vs 2 Fgs D1: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPCs, 1 vs 2
OR
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs  D1: + 4.850 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs, 1 vs 2
1 StB A0 vs 1 Fg D1: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC, 1 vs 1
Sum: + 8.669 - 8.723 = - 0.054 IPC damage/SBR
Net: -0.054
Break even point: 2 StBs A1/A0 C12 D6+2 vs 3 Fgs D1 C10
0.667 StB/Fg break even ratio with lower number of units
8 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.8 off/def ratio

@NuclearFusion:

How does Combat involving 2-hit battleships work? If you have 5 battle ships bombarding 5 infantry, and the infantry get all 5 hits, can you spread the hits out over all 5 of your battleships. If you can do that, couldn’t you just retreat and your battleships get repaired?

In a sea battle your example would work. Imagine 5 battleships attacking 5 destroyers. The attacker fails to hit and the defending destroyers score 5 hits.
The attacker can now assign the five hits to just damage all of the five battleships. After that round of combat the attacker may retreat - and the battleships are repaired.

HTH :-)

1. im sorta ok with transports not defending themselves. Gone are the days of stacks of transports defeating battleships and destroyers. Transports do have light armament, but not enough to sink a battleship. I do have a house rule that you can only destroy the amount of transports as the number of attacking units, to avoid the unrealistic destroying of infinite trasnports.

2. The reason for this is to prevent germany from collapsing too quickly. Think about it, at most germany is going to have to survive a 123 punch by the allies. Of course, thats in theory, as allied help only really takes place turn 4. If you can keep russia alive until then, the allies have a good chane of winning.

3. And thats exactly the reason it was reduced to 3. 6 tanks a turn? theres no chane for germany to win under those circumstances.

4. I partially agree. It takes too much pressure of of germany to go KJF, and its pretty much up to russia to hold out bar a little fighter support and withstand the onslaught of germany. So basically its easier for russia to fall, but if it can hold, or they can take tokyo fast enough, the allies can win (Russia seams like the only country that has to hold in this game  :|)

5. its not that UK is poor, it actually has a pretty average income. Its just they have a million things to do like take the money islands, make sure germany doesnt get africa, help russia, prop up india, etc. They can drop a navy, you just can’t let africa go until something like G3.

I was looking at 1914 and it is certainly different as a departure (though on a good note) of the old A&A formula. The only prob i have is austria hungary being absurdley more powerful than russia. But other than that, i seem to like it (1942.2 is better simply due to the fact that the map is big enough, and russia actually has units.)

Sincerely, Hitler

@Imperious:

Are they renting rooms in Caucasus? Is the line too long to find a room?

I see what you did there.  :-D

That’s how I always beat Germany, getting grunts on the the ground secure karelia acouple turns have to get immediate navy to bring grunts to karelia then u can defend with tons of grunts,  fighters are money " because they defend at 4 …. with Uk, Usa, n Russia all them 4 's add up big time when the big rolls go down …then you have good attack capability don’t waste your tanks…good luck on your 2’s…(rolling defends).

I’ll keep those tips in mind.