Suggested Topics

L21 #1 trulpen (X) vs Sovietishcat (A+24) BM3
League • • trulpen

39

0
Votes

39
Posts

234
Views

Boosting z36 with a second ac and accompanying air.
Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor
Axis & Allies 1942 Online • • MoonZar

10

0
Votes

10
Posts

65
Views

A

@brian-cannon said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

You should have Japan’s defense profile set to subs submerge.

mvp

@quintin said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

I disagree on the opportunity cost. Unless something bigger if offered by the allies doing pearl is a perfectly viable alternative to these marginal improvements on the ground

Another alternative I favor against strong opponents is hitting szechwan with 1 inf, 1 art 2 fight 1 bomb, even when the R inf is there. Overall w/l is about 80%. If UK lands the india fighter there, this is off the table. Then I generally default to pearl.

Edit: As for the J fighter and bomber being out of position J2, I dont think this makes a significant difference

mvp 2

BTW Quintin, was it you that said Allies should do early trading in Mediterranean in another thread and provided some specifics?

For OP - yeah I put up some text wall posts elsewhere explaining how KJF sucks in 1942 Online. There’s a lot to it, ranging from how UK can’t use US transports so doesn’t have a reliable Africa income plan, UK can’t use US carriers so KJF threats and timing is garbage compared to 1942 Second Edition, bunch of defensive profile applications, and I mean a BUNCH. But whatevs.

Tahweh’s guide combines simplicity and solidity. You ask aardvark (me) a simple question, probably you’ll end up with some kinda horrible decision tree that runs to five pages (at least). So you gotta figure there’s good reasons to keep it simple.

And Tahweh says to do Pearl. Complications aside, it’s pretty much as he says, as Quintin says. Maybe some games Pearl’s not strictly “optimal” but reasonably, you should do it.

But you want complications?

oo boy 😂

😎

Gonna try to keep it MOSTLY short, but a few basics

Starting forces on the board dwarf what you can buy/place.

Opening battles and dice outcomes change probabilities on subsequent possibilities. E.g. if USSR has horrible dice at West Russia, Germany may be able to build mass tanks and try to crush Russia before the Allies can really do anything. But if USSR doesn’t have horrible dice at West Russia, then Germany building mass tanks immediately is probably dumb as Germany will probably run out of steam then lose.

What you buy/place DOES make a difference, even almost immediately, but it’s less about your having total “command” of the situation, and more that you’re going for the best probability outcomes for what evolved from the starting position.

One unit isn’t just “a little” difference. One unit makes a big chunky difference even in battles of near a hundred units. Even the difference between buying a single artillery instead of a single infantry can set the stage for options for an entire turn, which affect the entire game. Some players are quick to dismiss the differences because they don’t want to think about them, and though I’m not saying you need to run all the numbers, you should at least be aware there really aren’t any “insignificant” actions, no matter how small.

So you’re asking about J1 attack on Pearl?

First, what happens if USSR has suck dice on USSR1 and Germany shoves a fat load of tanks down its throat?

The worst responses say it doesn’t matter, Japan just does what Japan does. Bad responses say Japan should “pressure” but don’t explain what, why, how, or under what circumstances, and there’s some vague handwaving that “it makes a difference” but nobody says HOW. Ugh.

So I’m going to say think on it. Suppose USSR bought four infantry two tanks (which I don’t recommend but whatever), tried what is it, 12 units to West Russia and 9 units to Ukraine, got lousy dice at West Russia, and didn’t do so hot at Ukraine (though still captured)? What then?

There’s some scenarios I won’t get into, but keeping it simple say Germany has odds to capture or horribly weaken West Russia and also recapture Ukraine. What happens then?

Then there’s some more scenarios but what it comes out to is in some scenarios USSR only has two tanks and two fighters to threaten Germany pressure in Europe. There might be no chance for USSR to recapture Karelia after Germany takes it. Or even if USSR does have odds, there might be no way that USSR can sustain defense against Germans sending in loads of tanks, especially with Japanese fighters reinforcing German-captured territories.

So UNDER those SPECIFIC conditions, you have to think, what Japan actions are right? Should you go Pearl or not? And the answer is, IF the game went that way (which requires a lot of luck but it happens) then probably you do NOT go Pearl.

And this is why I really don’t like the vague hand-waving some players do that it’ll all just magically work out and nothing makes any difference because that’s just not how it works mathematically.

Suppose you do Pearl. Some players talk vaguely about IPC differences, but really think about it. If UK did not blow up Japan’s East Indies fleet, any Allied progress in Pacific will be horribly slow. So what do you get by blowing up the US fleet at Hawaiian Islands? You kill a valuable carrier and a fighter, but you lose a fighter (if you’re LUCKY, because you NEED a fighter to die or else the fighter that starts on Tokyo pulls a Japanese carrier so the fighter can land then US just kills the carrier and the fighter on US’s turn). Then you also have a fighter and a bomber taken out of the action, not just on J1, but also J2 because that air is out in the middle of nowhere. It’s only by J3 that the air becomes relevant again.

And in exchange, what?

US wasn’t going to make fast progress in the Pacific anyways (provided UK didn’t blow up Japan’s East Indies fleet and even if that did happen with 1942 Online’s rules changes KJF (Kill Japan First) is still pretty not great for Allies). Yes, if you have KGF (Kill Germany First) then normally you expect the US Pacific carrier to make its way to the Atlantic just about in time for after Japan breaks India for Japan’s crazy air power to threaten the heck out of the Allied Atlantic fleet then you need reinforcements.

But in this game US4 Atlantic isn’t the issue. Under the Axis game plan by that point the Axis should already have secured a decisive advantage against USSR in Europe to the point that not only will Russia collapse but also that the Axis won’t have to pay too much to make that happen. That is, the expectation is Axis are well on their way to conquering Russia by that point, after which Axis consolidate their position and there just aren’t any good Allied options.

So in THAT game if Japan goes after Pearl, that’s just entirely besides the point of what the Axis should be trying to do. “Wrong” is a pretty strong term, but you can see if Axis have a tank dash scenario where there’s a pretty good case to say Japan going to Pearl IS “wrong”.

As to whether two fighters and a bomber would make a difference, again, remember. It’s not just J1, it’s J1, J2, and J3 too, because even on J3 Japan’s air that had to land on an island will have sharply limited options. Considering the timeline, it’s not even that the Allies need to screw up then Japan has some sort of magical “opening”. The simple fact is, if Japan cuts its early attack power for so long, then that means the Allies have better options on odds for a lot of choices they couldn’t otherwise probably make. Lasting another turn at India, having time to switch defense focus from India to Europe, all that important stuff is stuff that now the Allies have time to do, because Japan just doesn’t have the units because Japan fought a battle it didn’t have to, that it shouldn’t have fought, and if Japan had favorable odds for the battle, if Japan didn’t “lose” units straight out, what of it? You’ve heard the saying winning the battle but losing the war, this is exactly that.

See what I mean about the handwaving and saying it doesn’t make a difference? You can see it DOES make a difference. Mmm?

Second, what happens if both sides did “reasonable” plays, Allies have a strong defense on West Russia against a G2 attack, and there aren’t really any clear openings?

Well, then you really have to think on it.

What if UK hit Japan’s East Indies fleet and did well? What happened with UK transports in Indian and Pacific Oceans? You can’t really argue UK won’t hit Japan’s East Indies fleet, that UK doesn’t have great odds, that UK doesn’t have good backup contingencies; I mean you COULD argue those things, but if UK has already, in fact, hit Japan’s East Indies fleet and done amazingly, then you just have to deal with it.

Then there’s the question of what if UK didn’t hit East Indies fleet, if USSR put an infantry on Szechwan, if USSR dummied up and tried to fortify Buryatia.

Sometimes you do Pearl, sometimes you don’t. If you really respect your opponent and you don’t have some an Axis tank dash scenario, and if the board situation is right, then you do Pearl. But if not? Then you don’t.

Why “respect”? Because the “standard” Japan attack I’d say is sub, cruiser, two fighters, bomber, against Pearl. It isn’t a bad battle for Japan, but there is some chance the US sub submerges then Japan wipes everything out without losing the Tokyo fighter. Then Japan has to commit its Caroline Islands carrier and probably lose it to the US counter. What I’m getting at is though it’s a pretty good odds attack for Japan, there is some chance for things to go horribly wrong. If you think your opponent is bad then they’re not going to use the US carrier well anyways so you just gave up loads of early Japanese power in Asia (remember, three plus turns for two fighters and bomber) for basically nothing. Only if your opponent is very good will they use the US carrier to optimal effect, even if later on in the game, and only then is the chunky opportunity cost Japan pays really worth it.

Tank dash is tank dash, if the dice went that way that’s how they went.

If the board situation is right is a lot trickier. UK1 hitting Japan’s East Indies fleet has a lot of weird variations, plus Japan should think about G2 pressing into Europe, opportunity costs etc.

@boston_nwo said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

The only cases where you should clearly not do Pearl is if UK attacks borneo, Russia places 5 infantry in buryatia, or some similar level of UK aggression where Japan has use the starting units to great effect. In this scenario, attacking pearl as well overstretches Japan’s navy.

Actually you can still do Pearl in both situations. I don’t know that I would say Japan should do Pearl anyways, just because 1942 Online rules changes makes KJF so generally bad, but Borneo, Buryatia, not so much issues.

You have to think about the opportunity costs, and how the position develops.

Look, I don’t want to overcomplicate it, but some posters REALLY oversimplify stuff. Like, there is no mention of UK successfully hitting Japan’s East Indies fleet, and that’s just . . . . I mean you can’t even talk about it seriously if you don’t consider that.

It works out something like this if Japan didn’t have its East Indies fleet blown up:

If UK captures Borneo, Japan sends Tokyo fighter, Caroline Islands fighter, bomber, sub, cruiser to Pearl. Borneo recaptured with Tokyo transport, up to three fighters two battleship bombards (probably less), leaving Japan a discretionary fighter in Asia. There’s a lot of problems there, I won’t deny it, but Japan can still get good odds on hitting US’s two infantry on Anhwei, US’s two infantry on Yunnan, and defend Manchuria - unless USSR sent a lot east to the point that USSR’s development in Europe will be all screwed up. And if Japan doesn’t defend Manchuria well, at least it can pressure a commit out of USSR. What’s USSR going to do? Keep USSR infantry and fighters and maybe a tank east, walk into the teeth of Japan’s logistics, USSR suffers opportunity cost in Europe? And USSR WILL suffer in Europe. Or does USSR not hit Manchuria then Japan keeps the income?

If USSR put five inf on Buryatia, the “normal” thinking is, your opponent screwed up and left 15 IPCs of units on a bad-odds defense, bam, you hit that. If Japan can bleed out USSR leaving less to challenge Germany with, bam, you hit that. But Buryatia is a bit of an exception. Again, if USSR wants to commit to threatening Manchuria that’s going to pull away from Europe; the territories are just too far apart. And if USSR retreats immediately, USSR will STILL miss the timing on timely reinforcement to West Russia. It’s going to be nasty for USSR whether Japan crushes USSR at Buryatia on J1 or whether Japan just yawns and lets USSR do whatever on USSR2 then Japan hits the coast and consolidates on J2. To be plain, USSR already screwed up badly by USSR1 5 infantry on Buryatia. Japan doesn’t need to jump on it.

Let’s say Japan’s two fighters and a bomber down for four turns in Asia. Okay. So tell me how USSR pushes a chunk of units through northeast Asia and/or China, UK pushes an offensive from India into Burma and points east. No matter how you slice it, Germany gets more freedom, and it uses that to pressure Europe, then Japan gets its units and logistics going and crushes any Allied incursion - and any Allied pressure in Europe simply means Allies are way out of position in Europe. It’s not GUARANTEED it works EXACTLY like that but that’s the mechanics of the rules and board.

I don’t say that I would do Pearl anyways, but if I were considering Pearl, I wouldn’t consider either Borneo or Buryatia “clearly not” situations for Pearl. It’s still good for the reasons it’s good (and still bad for the reasons it’s bad). Provided Japan’s East Indies fleet wasn’t hit, Japan can still recapture Borneo and hit Pearl and still have a reasonable (if not fantastic) position, and I just mentioned Japan can defer at Buryatia - again it’s not fantastic, but it’s an option.

@quintin said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

As for the J fighter and bomber being out of position J2, I dont think this makes a significant difference. Szechwan and sinkiang is usually uncontested, which leaves only Burma and Yakut. The difference between 2 planes and 3 planes in a 2 inf vs 1 inf trade is quite small, and the bomber has reach to Burma.

In MOST games, if you must generalize, that’s pretty safe. But if I remember right Quintin favors USSR1 buy 4 inf 2 tank, 12 units to West Russia, 9 to Ukraine, and capture of Ukraine.

Yeah yeah I know, some critics say aardvark meanders around. But think about it. REALLY THINK!

(blank stares)

Aren’t we talking about Pearl Harbor, then what’s this about USSR1’s buys and moves? . . .

==

Remember, right now we’re talking about J1-3 opportunity costs of Japan doing Pearl. And I’m saying that Quintin’s USSR open and assumptions are playing into his advice, which I’m saying in turn is often true, but not always.

Suppose USSR hits West Russia and Ukraine, captures Ukraine, does decently at West Russia. Without going too into detail, probably Germany recaptures Ukraine (killing most of USSR’s ground attack power), doesn’t hit West Russia (too scary), and captures Karelia lightly, anticipating USSR will recapture Karelia next turn.

And why do we think these things?

West Russia can be pretty scary if USSR got decent dice and moved both AA guns in. I’m not talking about UK fighters from London and US fighter from Szechwan, those happen AFTER Germany’s turn. BTW note that Quintin mentioned hitting Szechwan with Japan which is NOT VERY SAFE AT ALL but it DOES fit into the fundamental doctrine that Japan tries to bleed out the Allies so Germany doesn’t have to so even if precious precious Japanese air is risked, well, I might not like it, but I’m certainly not going to say that’s “wrong”.

But anyways back to West Russia. Suppose Germany decides to try to capture Karelia in force on G1. What do we know? German fighters can’t land on, as Karelia was newly captured. So you have a load of German infantry and a load of German tanks. And the thing about German infantry, especially early, it takes a LONG time for German infantry newly built on Berlin to reach the eastern front. If Germany loses those forward Germany infantry, that’s not a nice thing at all for Germany.

If USSR wants to hit Karelia on USSR2, then what does it need? USSR1 build infantry and artillery won’t reach, only USSR1 build tanks or air will.

So. Think about Karelia. If Germany bulks up at Karelia, USSR has a good chance to kick its teeth in a little, and that’s going to suck for Germany. Germany could even lose some valuable tanks. Then USSR just retreats to West Russia and moves in infantry reinforcements, too bad for Germany. Yes yes, hand clapping all around, good job Allies.

And if Germany doesn’t move into Karelia in force then USSR trades Karelia, which isn’t flashy, but if Germany didn’t control Karelia for the full round then Germany can’t place two units there, which hurts German logistics. And to be real about it, it’s not that Germany is “just going to make up the difference” with infantry from Berlin. It takes time for Germany to get stuff to the front, it’s a real problem, so again, hand clapping all around, good job Allies.

What I’m getting at, in my aardvark way, is explaining why I believe Quintin doesn’t think Germany necessarily holds Karelia at the start of G2. Because I think that is not in his expected range of projections. And why not, if he’s going to say USSR buys two tanks, he’d probably be quite right.

But to me, who favors USSR1 4 inf 3 art buy and who also thinks about a soft USSR1 hold of West Russia in case of bad dice, I do NOT assume that USSR2 has good options against Karelia. Instead, I try to exploit positional distances between Germany’s objectives, and accept the possibility of a German-controlled Karelia at start of G2. (And note, I’ve also written a lot about Allies attacking and retreating from Ukraine, which preserves a USSR2 Allied threat against Karelia, so I’m not just saying the Allies necessarily totally give up on Karelia, plus there’s the possibility of good USSR1 dice, but I digress).

So, Karelia. So what?

So what is Japan can put a bomber on Karelia by the end of J1. It might not WANT to, but it’s an option. Further, as I mentioned elsewhere, in some setups Japan may want to put battleship, carrier, and two fighters south of Persia at end of J1, from where Japanese fighters can make it to Karelia.

Okay, so let’s keep considering the development of the position. Suppose at end of G1, Germany has two infantry on Finland (started out on Norway) and three fighters. Those fighters have range to UK’s sea zones and threaten West Russia. You could say NW Europe is an option, as is France, but if UK’s East Canada transport survived then UK has some attack options against the Finland infantry, and Germany doesn’t want that to happen. Lose territory in Europe, get pressured in Karelia, lose reinforcements to Karelia, bad bad bad, do not want. It’s not a GREAT UK attack but if they make it and get lucky, oof. So German fighters on Finland, yes? Make sense?

Remember I mentioned Quintin’s reference to Japan hitting Szechwan earlier? Specifically I said Japan may be risking valuable Japanese air but the general doctrine is Japan tries to deal with as much as it can so that’s less for Germany to deal with? Pretty important though I didn’t dig into it at the time, then there’s starting position, stack size, effective reinforcement.

But long story short, generally Germany should go ground and NOT air, and Germany wants to press at least one battle against a combined Allied stack in Europe so long as it doesn’t cost Germany too much. I’m not saying Germany must BREAK the Allied stack, but it wants to press a battle on Axis terms so even if Axis don’t win right there, at least Japan can finish Russia off then reinforce a beleaguered Germany. (And then there’s how German carrier or bomber builds aren’t the worst Germany can do but I won’t get into that now.)

So what I’m getting at is, again indirectly - if Germany has really good odds on a hugely IPC-favorable naval battle in the Atlantic early, then Germany wants to think about taking it. If the Allies are competent probably that doesn’t happen, but Germany wants to watch for it. But if it’s not hugely favorable, then Germany doesn’t want to bleed out its air, because Germany wants to SAVE Germany’s air for that big stack battle that eventually will be coming one way or another. Make sense?

Then there’s some complications I won’t get into that mean probably Germany can’t hold on to Finland for too long, Germany wants to choke off US/UK reinforcments to pile up uselessly in Norway and Finland while it also prevents any “teleport” retreating into West Russia, pushes USSR back from West Russia . . . things.

Right. But anyways, Karelia.

In the meantime, consider UK and US’s naval situation. UK is choked for income for various reasons I won’t get into, US has lousy logistics. But there’s not much Germany can do about US1 naval build off East US, US2 air build and naval movement, UK3 fleet drop, US3 fleet reinforcement. That is slower than the Allies ideally want, but at the latest, even if Germany builds crazy loads of air, there’s not a lot Germany can do against that combined UK3/US3 fleet.

But Germany is not alone, and this is where it all starts to come together. Just to recap, so far I talked about USSR1 buy / dice assumptions, how West Russia develops, how that affects projections on Karelia, and the Allies in Atlantic in KGF. I also referenced how by end of J1 Japan can put a bomber on Karelia and by end of J2 two fighters and a bomber (the two fighters from a J1 carrier that ended its turn south of Persia).

Suppose UK1 and UK2 place three infantry at India, leaving 70ish IPCs for a UK3 fleet drop. Say UK drops another 12 IPCs on four infantry for London to fill out four transports that plan to drop eight units every turn. (Actually there’s some old papers on Axis and Allies org I think on the Revised boards that talk about the merits of UK transports 5-7 in the Atlantic, and though that’s for a different version, some of that still applies, but I won’t get into that too much here). Anyways that still leaves around 60 IPCs for UK3 four transports, destroyer, and carrier, and a bit to spare besides.

But now think about what happens if UK just drops that fleet on UK3. UK3 placement followed by US3 reinforcement isn’t something Germany can at all reasonably handle. But if it’s Japan? If both Germany and Japan have air forces in Europe, then if UK’s Atlantic fleet moves then Japan can hit before US can reinforce; if US moves then Germany can hit before UK can reinforce. True Germany doesn’t want to spend its air, but if there’s a fat transport payout that disrupts Allied shipments to Atlantic, well, if UK and US have to build another escort fleet and transports (and they need some escorts if Japan still has a mighty air force), well, you see how it is.

But that isn’t a “real” issue because UK/US can still do all that, just going northwest of London? And J2 fighters on Karelia won’t have range? Well, I could say Japan could send those fighters to France instead but whatever. If Japan’s sending stuff to France then it’s definitely out of circulation near India and that’s going to mess with Japan’s timings there. And three Japanese dice isn’t the greatest attack force against five or six UK defenders which is a real possibility etc. etc. SO eh.

But the real problem, as I mentioned with USSR “pressure” at Buryatia earlier (quotation marks because imo it’s not a real threat) - is if Japan doesn’t move into Europe on that timing, that opens UK’s options.

Some things in the game, the timing can be deferred. But is that what happens here?

Suppose Japan doesn’t move fighters to France, which there’s good reason not to as Japan wants its Japanese fighters to pressure UK’s stack off India. Is that a thing?

In some games, even most games, I’d say Japanese air can push UK off India 1-2 turns earlier, and that’s not a small thing.

But I don’t know that it’s decisive. I say if Germany moves its stack up and captures Caucasus, and if UK’s stack at India is cut off at that point that’s a big shift in favor of Axis. Yes, I think Japan should try to capture India early, yes, I think Japan can capture India early, but I’m saying even if Japan doesn’t do it, if Germany cuts UK’s India stack off, that does quite nicely, that’ll do.

But what happens if Japan doesn’t move Japanese air to Europe early?

Let’s say Japan keeps the bulk of its air back to trade in Asia and pressure India and keep light UK/US fleet action off in the Pacific, in a KGF (Kill Germany First) scenario.

For every turn of Japan delay, the Allies have time to get naval escorts in. It’s not just about US having time to build and being able to use its decent economy but sucky logistics to help UK’s sucky economy and fantastic logistics. Nor is it even about pressuring early UK/US naval escorts that could otherwise go to transports. Nor is it even about the awkwardness of Allies defending new UK naval builds placed around London. It’s also that UK can get its Australia fleet to the Atlantic, UK’s India fleet survivors may move around south Africa into the Atlantic, and any US Pacific fleet arrives too. It’s all these things adding up. And even then I’m not saying early Japanese air to Europe is this amazing thing. I’m not saying “omg! u lose J1-4 air pressure!” I am saying, though, that there’s considerations. The less pressure Japan pushes on Allies, the more freedom Allies have.

This isn’t supposed to be some kind of super comprehensive address on Pearl Harbor. I’m just trying to give you the idea that J1 attack on Pearl is not really a “simple” question. Sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong, often it’s ambiguous and you make the call depending on factors other than simply the board position - such as your read of your opponent’s risk assessment, and your understanding of your own playstyle.

I’m not saying players need to be thinking about all this stuff to play. Players can do whatever they want. But if you’re looking to rationality and mathematics, you’ve got to understand things are connected, and not in some vague way, but in very specific and detailed ways.

==

Would I attack Pearl Harbor?

If I were serious about the game and trying to win, I would not attack Pearl Harbor in 1942 Online. I don’t say that’s categorically correct; I’ve never run serious projections using hard math. But I do have a lot of reasons, only some of which I’ve gone into here. I’m not saying it’s all one-sided, there’s plenty of counterarguments, only some of which I’ve mentioned here, but on the balance I’d say no, I wouldn’t go for it.

But that is not to disagree with Quintin. I think if the meta were different, I probably would go Pearl.

Roughly my thought is - provided UK didn’t hit the East Indies fleet -

If I do Pearl then I have some positive chance (not super high but still) the Tokyo fighter doesn’t die then I have to commit Japan’s Caroline Islands carrier, it’s a US no-brainer counter and that sucks for Japan, because I want to move one carrier into Mediteranean and probably keep another for east Pacific. So I want two carriers at least, and I don’t want to build any new carriers as they’re expensive, so I don’t want to lose any.

If I don’t do Pearl, considering what I’ve seen in the hundreds plus games I’ve played, considering what I’ve ever read from posts by players, I think the odds are VERY SMALL that I’ll actually have to deal with a competent player that will actually use the carrier in a way that makes me feel “wow, messed up there.”

So very small (but non-zero) chance of eating a nasty counter, versus practically zero chance of maybe someone playing accurately but even if they did I’d have counterplay. That’s what it comes down to in my mind.

That said, I probably am NOT going to be serious in any given game, and I will probably do Pearl, or UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet, or whatever thing, almost certainly I won’t run proper projections and there’s every probability I won’t even use any calculation aids.

==

Should YOU do Pearl Harbor?

I’d say yeah. If you have any doubt about it, you should do it, for your development as a player if nothing else.

And for your development as a player you should also play games where you do NOT do Pearl Harbor.

Even when things are pretty “dumb” you should probably do them at one time or another just to get a better understanding of why you shouldn’t do these things, how you can try to salvage the situation if you do do them, and often this sort of thinking lets you work out a better plan in case of bad dice.

Like if you think USSR defense is hard, try a USSR1 battleship buy. It’s NOT SMART, but the longer you play it the more you understand some weird stuff you might not think about.

Like what happens if USSR builds a fleet north of Karelia? Nobody’s saying it’s smart, but how does that affect the development of UK and US in Pacific? If Germany wants to challenge that fleet, what does Germany need to give up to make that happen? If Germany doesn’t challenge that fleet what are USSR’s options? What if USSR builds navy at Caucasus? What are the percentages of projected attacks against Germany’s Med navy, and where do USSR’s fighters have to be to make that happen? If USSR has decreased unit count in Europe, in what ways can UK and US slow Germany? If UK and US fly fighters in for quick reinforcements, how does that position develop, how does that delay UK/US fleet in Atlantic, what is the timing of Germany and Japan’s threats - not poorly handled by an incompetent player, but in the hands of a very sharp player? Etc.

When I say Japan can hit Pearl even if USSR stacks Buryatia, why do you think I say that with such confidence? Because I’ve been there, I’ve played that game, not once, but multiple times, from both sides, and each time I didn’t just knee-jerk react to what my opponents played, I ran projections (even if very basic ones) and did some light calculations. That’s why I know USSR committing east is going to mess them up at West Russia in upcoming turns, that’s why I say USSR committing to threatening Manchuria costs in Europe. I know that because I thought about things from the USSR perspective, I know about Japan’s best responses because I thought about things from the Japan perspective, and though there wasn’t a lot of “thought” involved, a lot of it was just you play a lot of games, do a lot of different stuff, even stupid stuff that you know doesn’t work, you think about things.

If I recall right, when I stacked Buryatia with USSR, Japan botched the response, Germany botched the response, and I just steamrolled them. But that’s not how it should have worked. When I played the Axis side, I knew Allies would have weak defense at West Russia, and you think I’ll say I steamrolled West Russia? But I didn’t, I used my basic Japan strategy, ended up with unit count, positional, and economic advantages, and attritioned my way to the win.

The point I’m making is - you can know the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of a line, but raw theory has a way of interacting with other theory and mathematics in actual practice. If you want to improve as a player you have to understand the practical expression of conflicting theoretical factors, such as, say, concentration versus dispersion of force. If I played Axis saying the “theory” says Allied West Russia is weak, therefore I MUST break West Russia, that would have been wrong. But the fact that the Allies sent so much towards Japan in that game what was what messed with them in the end. They made sacrifices to protect West Russia; instead of taking the Allies head on and playing their game, I redirected some to Africa and choked them out.

So try different things, don’t worry so much about whether something’s “right” or “wrong”. Try to improve your fundamentals so you know why something is “right” or “wrong”.
S

Chromebook/Linux
TripleA Support • • starcmr

3

0
Votes

3
Posts

1
Views

S

@starcmr said in Chromebook/Linux:

Now when I put my Daisy Pod into bootloader mode, a dialog pops up saying “USB device detected. reviews Open Settings to connect DFU in FS Mode to Linux.” You can ignore that; directly below is a clickable button/link “CONNECT TO LINUX” which does what you want. Then “make program-dfu” works. Note that I have to “CONNECT TO LINUX” every time I want to re-flash, which I find mildly annoying. But it works!

Now when I put my Daisy Pod into bootloader mode, a dialog pops up saying “USB device detected. Open Settings to connect DFU in FS Mode to Linux.” You can ignore that; directly below is a clickable button/link “CONNECT TO LINUX” which does what you want. Then “make program-dfu” works. Note that I have to “CONNECT TO LINUX” every time I want to re-flash, which I find mildly annoying. But it works!
T

Oztea 1941 Game (DJ v. JB)
Play Boardgames • • Toberwhompus

226

0
Votes

226
Posts

304
Views

T

TripleA Turn Summary: Germans round 14
TripleA Turn Summary for game: Ozteas 1941 Global Setup, version: 4.0

Game History
Round: 14 Research Technology - Germans Purchase Units - Germans Germans repair damage of 6x factory_major; Remaining resources: 42 PUs; Germans buy 14 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - Germans 1 bomber moved from Ukraine to Russia 1 armour moved from Novgorod to Vyborg Germans take Vyborg from Russians 1 armour moved from Vyborg to Finland 1 infantry moved from Novgorod to Archangel Germans take Archangel from Russians 2 infantry moved from Baltic States to Belarus 1 fighter and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Ukraine to Belarus 20 armour, 22 artilleries, 37 infantry and 10 mech_infantrys moved from Ukraine to Rostov 6 infantry moved from Eastern Poland to Belarus 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Bessarabia to Eastern Poland 7 infantry moved from Germany to Western Germany 5 infantry moved from Poland to Germany Combat - Germans Strategic bombing raid in Russia AA fire in Russia : 0/1 hits, 0.17 expected hits Bombing raid in Russia rolls: 3 and causes: 3 damage to unit: factory_major Bombing raid in Russia causes 3 damage total. Battle in Rostov Germans attack with 20 armour, 22 artilleries, 37 infantry and 10 mech_infantrys British defend with 1 infantry Germans roll dice for 20 armour, 22 artilleries, 37 infantry and 10 mech_infantrys in Rostov, round 2 : 29/89 hits, 28.83 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 infantry in Rostov, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the British lost in Rostov Germans win, taking Rostov from Russians with 20 armour, 22 artilleries, 37 infantry and 10 mech_infantrys remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for British: 1 infantry Battle in Belarus Germans attack with 1 fighter, 8 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Russians defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Germans roll dice for 1 fighter, 8 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers in Belarus, round 2 : 1/11 hits, 3.00 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in Belarus, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Belarus Germans roll dice for 1 fighter, 8 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers in Belarus, round 3 : 1/11 hits, 3.00 expected hits Russians roll dice for 1 artillery in Belarus, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Russians lost in Belarus Germans win, taking Belarus from Russians with 1 fighter, 8 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7 Casualties for Russians: 1 artillery and 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Germans 1 fighter moved from Belarus to Novgorod 2 tactical_bombers moved from Belarus to Novgorod 4 aaGuns moved from Ukraine to Rostov 1 armour moved from Northern Italy to Western Germany 1 bomber moved from Russia to Novgorod Place Units - Germans 3 infantry placed in Western Germany 8 infantry placed in Germany 2 infantry placed in Ukraine 1 infantry placed in Novgorod Turn Complete - Germans Germans collect 42 PUs; end with 42 PUs Objective Germans 2 Control Novgorod Or Volgograd Or Russia: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 47 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
AA fire in Russia : : -0.17 Germans : -3.83 Russians : -1.33
Savegame
L21 PtV FlyingBadger (AL) vs AetV (AX+8)
League • • aequitas-et-veritas

21

0
Votes

21
Posts

77
Views

TripleA Turn Summary: French round 1
TripleA Turn Summary for game: WW2 Path to Victory, version: 6.0.0

Game History
Round: 1 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 artillery and 2 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 transport moved from 64 Sea Zone to 65 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from New Zealand to 65 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 65 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 55 Sea Zone to New Guinea 2 fighters moved from New Zealand to Queensland 1 cruiser moved from 65 Sea Zone to 64 Sea Zone 2 aaGuns and 2 infantry moved from New South Wales to Queensland Place Units - ANZAC 1 artillery and 2 infantry placed in New South Wales Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 10 PUs; end with 10 PUs Politics - French Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in Algeria Trigger Axis Conquer All France Cruiser Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 cruiser placed in 95 Sea Zone Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in Tunisia Trigger Axis Conquer All France Destroyer Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 destroyer placed in 95 Sea Zone Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in Southern France Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Artillery Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 artillery placed in Southern France Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in Morocco Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in Syria Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3 Infantry Place: Neutral_Axis has 1 infantry placed in French West Africa Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory Tunisia Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory French West Africa Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Central Africa 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Central Africa 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Central Africa 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory French Central Africa Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory Algeria Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory Syria Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory Morocco Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Algeria 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in Algeria Trigger Axis Conquer All France Cruiser Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Cruiser Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Cruiser Remove: has removed 1 cruiser owned by French in 95 Sea Zone Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Tunisia 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in Tunisia Trigger Axis Conquer All France Destroyer Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Destroyer Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Destroyer Remove: has removed 1 destroyer owned by French in 95 Sea Zone Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in Southern France Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Artillery Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Artillery Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Artillery Remove: has removed 1 artillery owned by French in Southern France Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Morocco 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in Morocco Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Madagascar 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Madagascar 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Madagascar 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory French Madagascar Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France Syria 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in Syria Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France Southern France 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory Southern France Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Indo China 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Indo China 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Guiana 2 activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Guiana 3 Trigger Axis Conquer All France French Guiana 3: Neutral_Axis captures territory French Guiana Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3 Infantry Place activates a trigger called: Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3 Infantry Remove Trigger Axis Conquer All France French West Africa 3 Infantry Remove: has removed 1 infantry owned by French in French West Africa Combat Move - French 1 destroyer moved from 74 Sea Zone to 83 Sea Zone Non Combat Move - French Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame
malmessi74 (Axis) v FlyingBadger (Allies) - PtV LL
Play Boardgames • • FlyingBadger

371

0
Votes

371
Posts

804
Views

M

@flyingbadger

Tomorrow vacation. Maybe in the evening…
A

A list of terrains on some of the harder-to-see land zones?
Global War 1936 • • Aldrahill

9

0
Votes

9
Posts

52
Views

D

What about Malaya ? is it jungle or mountain or both ?
Eric Wool (Axis) vs TGC (Allies) no bid
Play Boardgames • • The_Good_Captain

111

0
Votes

111
Posts

333
Views

TripleA Turn Summary: British round 19
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Classic, version: 2.0.0

Game History
Round: 19 Purchase Units - British British buy 5 transports; Remaining resources: 4 PUs; Non Combat Move - British 10 infantry moved from Kazakh S.S.R. to Persia 10 infantry moved from Novosibirsk to Sinkiang 1 infantry moved from Novosibirsk to Sinkiang 1 infantry moved from Novosibirsk to Kazakh S.S.R. 1 armour moved from Sinkiang to Kazakh S.S.R. 1 armour moved from Kazakh S.S.R. to Persia 1 armour moved from Anglo Sudan Egypt to Congo 1 armour moved from Novosibirsk to Sinkiang Place Units - British 5 transports placed in North Sea Zone Turn Complete - British British collect 39 PUs; end with 43 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame