R2 4 inf 4 art, 2 inf 2 fig vs 2 inf at Ukr (74% capture vs 79% with 1 inf 1 art 2 fig, lost 2 inf, 26% this result or worse)
Since USSR can’t get a good challenge on Karelia, I build inf/art; tanks are a last-moment build for pressure. Place 3 inf 1 art at Caucasus; Germany could try hitting with 1 inf 1 tnk 3 fighter 1 btl but that would use fighters Germany needs to defend its Baltic fleet and any fighters/tanks left on Ukraine would be subject to a major hit by USSR. (Even if West Russia collapses because USSR’s stack shifted, Axis trying for Caucasus would leave a load of Axis high-value tanks and fighters vulnerable. The position just can’t be safely fortified especially against a USSR attack/retreat.)
By round 2 Germany’s turn I think it’s clear G Baltic fleet does not work - I don’t think just in this game, but I mean in general. I just don’t see how it can work out well.
I am not saying the Axis lost this game, there’s still plenty of options, I’m just saying I think the G Baltic plays didn’t do as well as other lines would have. Like all right, the Baltic carrier got UK to not hit the Med fleet, great. But a Med carrier can do that too, and that doesn’t get blown up nearly as easily. Of course, I might think G Baltic is not good simply because I played it completely wrong, but read through the material and decide for yourself. I tried a lot of options, you saw the probability distributions.
Germany couldn’t use its fighters to defend land territory. The Baltic fleet is vulnerable to attack and cannot be shielded. In 1942 Online Japan cannot reinforce the Baltic navy. USSR outmasses Germany’s land to a degree that they’ll actually be able to push Germany back in Europe so gain income. Germany cannot cut off UK’s India stack so UK never has to retreat on account of Germany; UK can hold on until Japan gets its push together.
In the current position, if Germany builds mass transports, UK simply blows up the lot, even if Germany blocks UK’s navy with a destroyer. If Germany builds a carrier and destroyers, London comes under no more pressure and in fact receives 4 US fighters anyways at the end of this round so won’t remotely be in danger. UK is free to build air or transports this round, which could have played out differently in the short term if Japan had not hit the Hawaiian fleet (with a Japanese bomber in range, a UK2 fleet build could be targeted), but regardless of what happens, there is no way Axis could stop US1 fleet into US2 move, then UK3 navy build / US3 reinforcement. Japan simply wouldn’t have the airpower to stop it without a J1 mass bomber build (even then, questionable) which would normally cripple Japan’s development in Asia anyways.
Anyways UK builds even more air, then what does Germany do? Build more navy? Germany is out of fighters to land on carriers and a G2 build of 4 inf 1 carrier 2 destroyers following G1 purchase of 4 inf 1 trn 1 carrier 1 destroyer leaves Germany super soft against USSR.
Are there compensations? Sure. The Allies were pressured into a slightly dicey defense at India (which if the Axis attempt the Axis will probably fail and if fail be set back). Germany can transpose to an Africa game. But even if Germany changes course right now and abandons the G Baltic fleet to preserve fighters, G1 still spent 29 IPC on navy that will die to a bad-odds mass attack, then UK air repositions to Africa (especially as UK retained its bomber) to challenge Germany’s income there while US also pushes. Germany is down almost 10 land units in Europe; sure it did delay the Allies, but good use of Allied existing forces and planning, I think, really neutered G Baltic.
Though actually it really comes down to 1942 Online’s rules changes. Can’t land fighters on ally carriers, you know?
And I’ll remind readers - Allied rolled garbage all game. If G Baltic did not work in this game, I don’t know that it would work well in other games.
But? In fairness, all right, I’m rusty, but you saw how many small changes I did (though to both sides). So if I’m not performing optimal plays, then of course someone that’s even less familiar with a G Baltic fleet is probably going to play even less accurately. Though I know that’s rather self-flattering of me to say, I’d think it’s true.
So IS G Baltic / Sealion worthless? I’d say no; even though I think proper play might cut it apart. At the least, players should be familiar with different lines, whether they plan on using it, or plan on defeating it. And if an opponent is known to be strong against some lines, a player looking for a win can try a different line to see if that opponent plays accurately against it.
@marineiguana Sounds like me more-or-less agree then. If you’re not getting into India J3 then that probably means UK fortified it correctly (and didn’t go on any adventures in SEA/the money islands), and thus India is not worth the cost of taking it.
@juliusborisovbeamdog Are you guys also working on making the game less of a burden on a Mac computer? I have a fairly recent and decently powerful Mac laptop and the game is maxing out my RAM and cooling fan, which seems ridiculous given the type of game this is.
Subs are by far the most cost efficient naval attack purchase. Surprisingly, they do okay in defense as well since hit points are so important. Japan should only buy subs if usa purchases pacific naval units round one. Since subs have more attack than defense, the usual dynamic is that two fleets are 3 spaces apart. The stronger navy will try to move to two spaces, either through enough defensive strength or with destroyer blockers. The other side has the choice of building up defense, countering similarly with blockers, or retreating.
3 transports, 3 infantry is an all around flexible and powerful round 1 purchase. If UK attacks japan sz37, this strongly suggests KJF and a buy of 1 trans, 3 sub 1 inf might be more appropriate.
I assume by what you’re saying that I can go backwards in the game and relive the various moves.
Nope. You could try setting up a game with you playing all powers, and try to recreate the situation though.
I wasn’t trying to eliminate them, but in the videos, the swooshes appeared to be 1/4" or so and on my screen they were like 3/4 of an inch. They pretty much covered the width of Japan making it hard to see what else I had left. No biggy.
They used to have the lines connected to the UI, with individual lines for each unit (not merely unit type), which resulted in literally uncontrollable situations when there were too many lines.
You “play with the calc” saying UK is hitting with loads of fighters. But I already addressed those scenarios and more besides to explain exactly how they don’t happen.
The process of logical fact-based reasoning requires resolving differences between frames of reference. It’s a lengthy process. If that was “Tl:dr:” (too long didn’t read) to you, it’s on you if you refuse to read the point, just as it would be on me if I didn’t make the point. (But I did make the point.)
I understand running projections and thinking through the details isn’t for everyone. But game mechanics and probability distributions don’t care if you don’t care to read or think through the details. It’s purely a question of mechanics and numbers. Not egos.
So if UK has fighters at Asia, then how does it really use them to destroy Germany’s fleet, especially if Germany is just bridging units to Libya? UK2 the fighters aren’t in position at all, Trans-Jordan can be recaptured but the fighters can’t land there this turn
Well, this was supposed to be a “support group” not an anything goes attack on Beamdog.
TBH, this thread could have easily been about any of the dice servers that are used to play TripleA or even dice IRL. I’ve played IRL games with very, very bad dice too. I’ve even experienced below average dice for an entire weekend at Gen Con.
I just wanted a place where people could start upset about dice, see that it’s reality all just random, know it happens to the best of us, and then move on. Instead it was hijacked, again. I support @Panther locking the thread. I might start another one but it will be more generalized for all dice. Maybe if we see photos of all those 6s with real dice alongside the PRNG dice, we can all just get over it.
@brian-cannon I think the key is for Germany to stack ukr, trade cauc, and prevent russia from stacking cauc. Russia is forced to trade karelia and cauc. Russia will want to trade belorussia. Russia can’t afford to stack karelia because germany will move into Caucasus. This 3 territory trading, especially if germany leaves more than 1 inf in karelia and cauc will quickly exhaust Russia.
Germany buys max infantry every round and allows uk to trade france & northwest europe. Germany shouldn’t overcommit to defending western europe. Focus resources on pushing to moscow. Once Cauc is stacked, winning is within sight.
Last post for reals? For this subject for a while anyways? Hm . . . 🙄 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.
@boston_nwo this happened to you on tripleA ? I only experienced this once. Maybe the trick is to figure out a circle of “Regulars” on whom you can depend; I suspect that the way the play by mail works on 1942 is not actually conducive to games not taking forever and ever after 🙂
if you ever wanna play a game on tripleA ; write me a PM 🙂
The game uses the profile of the UK player there because there are majorly UK ships in the zone. It can’t use the profile of the SU player for the sub and the profile of the UK player for the rest of the fleet as all the ships are one defender.
@JuliusBorisovBeamdog That’s similar enough to what was done in AAC, the “Russia can’t attack on their first turn” rule. Basically, it gave Germany a turn to get their valuable Tanks and their irreplaceable FTR out of their indefensible positions in Russia. This change gives Germany a stronger initial force, which snowballs, as it takes Russia/UK longer to kill Germany, which in turn gives Japan more time to gobble up IPCs on their side of the map.
For 42SE, giving the Allies a turn to not die saves:
The USSR IC in Karelia, which means it could be a feasible point to hold for a few rounds.
The entire UK Fleet, which speeds up the UK/US’s deployment to Europe/Russia/Africa.
The US Atlantic Fleet, as some German openings favor sending a sub or two after the US East Coast on G1.
The US Pacific Fleet, as no J1 attack on it is possible.
The US FTR in China, which can be redeployed to either help the Soviets or link up with the Pacific Fleet.
@Gargantua said in My Body Is Ready:
I would encourage the dev team to code a general profile setting AND an option during NCM to custom set OOL (order of loss) for any given territory, outside of the basic parameters.
quoting myself for Djensen’s benefit 🙂
And my intent was as others have noted. NOT a mandatory prompt, a right click on a territory or SZ during NCM, OR it could a prompt just AFTER placement which could have a SKIP option. And the information will be SECRET. The attacker will not know their opponents OOL intentions.
@taamvan Whoops. I was at work when this was all going down. Sorry I missed the boat.
Agree with Black_Elk though. I’ve been playing all my games on a PBEM-basis. I just don’t have 3-4 continuous hours of free time to sit down and play out a full game live these days. Best I can manage is like 1-3 moves (countries, not full rounds) per game I’m in a day.
@aardvarkpepper Well if you are interested in developing an AI or improving the AI for A&A games and for an implementation much closer to the actual game then you should consider TripleA as we are always looking for contributions: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea
Perceptions on biased or non-independent dice are due to a host of human perception biases rather than any issue with calculation. A pseudo RNG library is available in every major programming language. People love to complain about how the dice are “not fair” but never back it up with an empirical statistical test or propose an alternate hypothesis in number generation that differs from a [1,2,3,4,5,6] uniform and independent event space.
The main way to solve user complains would be to implement Low Luck or implement a non-independent number generation. League of Legends implements that latter on critical hit chances where each non-critical attack increases the likelihood that the next attack is critical. Both of these would reduce the variance of the dice distributions.