Grasshopper's first game

[Private-Panic]

No - was watching a superb episode of Inside No 9 - have been fascinated, appalled and entertained by them since League of Gentlemen.  Turning off now …

[Young Grasshopper]

@drummerinheat:

What we’re your 1st round USSR attacks?

I took out the territory facing Moscow, the territory with the fighter and tank next to the south factory, and the territory up north with the infantry and tank (sorry I don’t have my board open to name the territories). I also, abandoned my north factory as I couldn’t see a way to keep it, is it worth building there just to get countered my infantry and planes G1?

[Young Grasshopper]

That’s bad luck PP, of course my situation was crazy and rare getting 100% casualties and 0% loses. Wittmann is right… no point in doing it unless you’re willing to include the African fighter.

[Private-Panic]

@Young:

That’s bad luck PP, of course my situation was crazy and rare getting 100% casualties and 0% loses. Wittmann is right… no point in doing it unless you’re willing to include the African fighter.

Was willing YG, but had already gone to G’s successful attack on Egypt. In which case forget SZ37!

Did not reinforce Egypt with a R fighter, but instead used both those to take out the G Baltic fleet.  Did not save Leningrad, though, which went G1 with overwhelming force. The result has been a significant G force in W Russia by turn 3, too big for R to take on, but not enough to seriously threaten Moscow yet. Getting closer to your experience.

Thanks to you (and a post by another forum colleague elsewhere) I decided to focus all my G1 eastern front efforts on Leningrad and it worked.  Need to re-set the game to consider the extent to which success depended on pure luck.

Interestingly the Allies almost have regained the N Atlantic turn 4 so help will soon reappear for R.  Even fighter reinforcements had been interrupted by Axis territory gains.

[drummerinheat]

@Young:

@drummerinheat:

What we’re your 1st round USSR attacks?

I took out the territory facing Moscow, the territory with the fighter and tank next to the south factory, and the territory up north with the infantry and tank (sorry I don’t have my board open to name the territories). I also, abandoned my north factory as I couldn’t see a way to keep it, is it worth building there just to get countered my infantry and planes G1?

It’s easy to over commit with Russia.  Lot’s of options in the opening round.  Taking west Russia is a given.  You ALWAYS need that buffer between the werhmacht and your capital.  There is always discussion between attacking/strafing Ukraine.  Attacking  either Belorussia or the Baltics can be argued as well.  Abandoning Karelia is a common defensive move.  It’s easy to counter attack and distract the germans from the real prize.  My personal rule of thumb is decide on no more than 2 attacks.  Be sure you can properly defend a territory if taken.  If not, leave 1 inf and abandon!  Keep your art/tanks/planes alive too!  Tanks and planes especially.  Being able to hop through West Russia is important for counter attacking.  It’s a fun dance that Russia must do to survive as long as it can.  I actually enjoy playing as Russia.

My personal favorite move is to Attack W Russia and Belorussia.  That’s 6 inf you are eliminating.  Great to get rid of their cannon fodder early.  Abandon Karelia (leave 1 inf) and stack Caucacus.  That way you are ready to defend and counter very nicely the next turn.

[Private-Panic]

Well - in case anyone is interested I have worked out what happened. First I should mention that the Allies surrendered turn 6 following the loss of Moscow. This is why … I think! …

Allied Error No 1: Previous games R has focused all its forces into W Russia w/out any of the secondary strafes/attacks advanced by others, leaving 1 inf in each of Karelia and Caucasus. This game I varied from that because I knew what G was going to do (the danger of a solo game) and left the Karelia garrison there with the thought that would test the G Leningrad in force strategy. In fact it did the opposite by removing the counter-attack option, unless risking a 50% attack which would kill R if it failed. If everything had been in W Russia the chances of that counter being successful would have been approaching 100%.

Allied Error No 2: Despite G’s initial success against R, the capture of Moscow was brought about by J’s rampaging across central Asia and combining with G. J took India in turn 3 - they are getting better!  This is, for me so far, the biggest challenge for the Allies and one for which I do not yet have a solution, except to make SZ37 work, which relies on G not committing it’s bomber to Egypt (see below) or the UK’s 3 unit builds there each turn going to higher value units, which is a hard call  given everything else the UK has to do. Perhaps that’s what has to happen …? Central Asia is the key! But then so is the N Atlantic! And …!

Allied Error No 3: The R fighter attack on the G Baltic fleet looks good, but w/out a R fighter in Egypt G has a 90% chance of taking Egypt.  The R Fighter brings it down to 60%, unless G commits its bomber, bringing it back to 90%. So nothing clear there, 'cos either the bomber goes to the UK B/ship (if G has no Baltic fleet) or to Egypt. Either way the UK loses all of its western hemisphere naval and Egypt in G1, provided G is sensible in Russia. So not really an error, but a debate with myself.

Allied Error No 4: Desperate to get US forces across the Atlantic I took risks which resulted in massive loss of US naval materiel as the cost of landing enough force to recapture Africa. Two huge battles in SZ13. More caution might have worked better?

Allied Error No 5: Too slow to get carriers off US east costs and UK of fighter reinforcements. The UK was simply having to save enough IPCs after India builds to be able to place a N Atlantic fleet with some chance of survival in one go. The US was trying to get to Africa, which (as above) now seems like the wrong call.

I am going to stop posting every game on the board now. My very sincere thanks to those who have taken the time to respond. Their thoughts and my post and review process have been a huge boost to my learning. I do hope I have demonstrated that learning in these posts. But I think I have already drawn too much on your generosity and helpfulness.

Thanks again everyone.

[Black_Elk]

Just real quick to PP error 3. If Germany puts their battleship in sz 17 to take Egypt, one possible response is to take the UK bomber and sink the German battleship and transport from the air. Use the remaining Indian ocean fleet to hit 61 and kill the second Japanese transport. Sinking the German med fleet makes India somewhat less critical to the Allied warplan, as it allows you to hold Africa and push across the Med.

1 fighter + 1 bomber vs 1 battleship is 60% odds to the attacker. There is a 20% chance of a draw, but only 20% chance for the defender to actually win. That means only a 1/5 chance that the German battleship prevails. Considering the strategic advantage of locking down the med on UK1, this is a strong trade for Allies. The bomber can land in Transjordan.

What’s more, if Germany fails to destroy the UK fighter in Egypt and take the Canal, then their African ambitions are royally screwed. This comes down to the first round of combat, meaning that G has to put a lot on the line. If UK is able to bring a second fighter or naval fodder unit into their counter attack against the German battleship, their odds of success shoot back up into the 90%+ range.

As for the odds numbers you posted, those odds are a bit off. If Germany brings the bomber (and they must for an attack on Egypt to work!) that is…

Germany: 2 inf 2 tanks and 1 bomber vs UK: 1 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.
a little over 70% odds to the German attacker.

A Russian fighter in Egypt drops these odds down to about 30% for the German attacker.

It’s possible you were including the battleship bombardment in the calc, but the UK destroyer in sz 17 negates this. So Egypt is a very long shot for Germany if the Russians send fighter support. And even if the Russians don’t, there are still a viable way for UK to punish Axis for a G1 hit on Egypt, namely by killing their Med Battleship. ;)

The Russian hit on sz5 is high risk. I would be careful getting too used to that move, as it can burn you really hard when it fails.

One other quick point about leaving 1 infantry behind. I would caution against this on R1, in any territory that could be cleared by German coastal bombardment. You’re better off pulling back and saving that 3 ipcs TUV in infantry for counter attacks on R2, rather than leaving them behind for a weak defense. They will get just smoked on G1, especially if left in Karelia. The Karelia factory already blocks German tanks, so inf isn’t necessary here.

[Young Grasshopper]

Playing my 2nd game tomorrow, I’m the Allies again… should learn from my first loss, but playing different opponent will present different obstacles.

When I play the Axis, I’m planning on leaving the German battleship and transport (bridges 1 infantry and 1 tank into Africa) and building an aircraft-carrier G1 (where 2 German fighters can land) to support a G2 attack on Egypt.

[Black_Elk]

It’s a nice play. If you buy a med carrier you can clear the UK destroyer in 17 with a fighter, since it will have a place to land. Stacking Libya makes holding Egypt a risky proposition for UK. I find when I do this with G that UK usually withdraws leaving just a blocker inf behind in Egypt. If the med gets too hot from UK or US Air you can always bounce through the canal to the Indian Ocean and link up with Japan for safety, until Axis are ready to re-enter the Med in force. Have fun man, let us know how it goes!

[Witt]

I concur.I always buy a Carrier for the Med, YG.
I never do Egypt on one. I wait for G2 or G3.

[Private-Panic]

@Black_Elk:

Just real quick to PP error 3. If Germany puts their battleship in sz 17 to take Egypt, one possible response is to take the UK bomber and sink the German battleship and transport from the air …. 1 fighter + 1 bomber vs 1 battleship is 60% odds to the attacker. There is a 20% chance of a draw, but only 20% chance for the defender to actually win. That means only a 1/5 chance that the German battleship prevails. Considering the strategic advantage of locking down the med on UK1, this is a strong trade for Allies. The bomber can land in Transjordan.

Thanks BE. Not thought of this move. Playing solo tends to present repeats of previous tactics unless you get such helpful contributions.

@Black_Elk:

Use the remaining Indian ocean fleet to hit 61 and kill the second Japanese transport. Sinking the German med fleet makes India somewhat less critical to the Allied warplan, as it allows you to hold Africa and push across the Med.

Ditto!

@Black_Elk:

What’s more, if Germany fails to destroy the UK fighter in Egypt and take the Canal, then their African ambitions are royally screwed. This comes down to the first round of combat, meaning that G has to put a lot on the line. If UK is able to bring a second fighter or naval fodder unit into their counter attack against the German battleship, their odds of success shoot back up into the 90%+ range.

As for the odds numbers you posted, those odds are a bit off. If Germany brings the bomber (and they must for an attack on Egypt to work!) that is…

Germany: 2 inf 2 tanks and 1 bomber vs UK: 1 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.
a little over 70% odds to the German attacker.

A Russian fighter in Egypt drops these odds down to about 30% for the German attacker.

It’s possible you were including the battleship bombardment in the calc, but the UK destroyer in sz 17 negates this. So Egypt is a very long shot for Germany if the Russians send fighter support. And even if the Russians don’t, there are still a viable way for UK to punish Axis for a G1 hit on Egypt, namely by killing their Med Battleship.

Yes - dug out my notes and I must have mis-entered the numbers. However G also commits 1 fig, so odds are 65% with the G bomber and the R fig also in play. So G has a good-ish chance of success.

@Black_Elk:

The Russian hit on sz5 is high risk. I would be careful getting too used to that move, as it can burn you really hard when it fails.

I am thinking R either 2 figs on SZ5 or 1 fig to Egypt. 2 figs on SZ5 is 90% - or am I misunderstanding you?

@Black_Elk:

One other quick point about leaving 1 infantry behind. I would caution against this on R1, in any territory that could be cleared by German coastal bombardment. You’re better off pulling back and saving that 3 ipcs TUV in infantry for counter attacks on R2, rather than leaving them behind for a weak defense. They will get just smoked on G1, especially if left in Karelia. The Karelia factory already blocks German tanks, so inf isn’t necessary here.

Thanks for the guidance BE. As always!  :-D

[Private-Panic]

@Young:

Playing my 2nd game tomorrow, I’m the Allies again… should learn from my first loss, but playing different opponent will present different obstacles.

When I play the Axis, I’m planning on leaving the German battleship and transport (bridges 1 infantry and 1 tank into Africa) and building an aircraft-carrier G1 (where 2 German fighters can land) to support a G2 attack on Egypt.  Â

Would really like to hear what happens YG. :-)

In all my 3 solo games I have left the G b/ship & t/port in SZ 17 for that reason, but have not yet failed with capturing Egypt G1 - as I keep preferring to use the R figs on the Baltic. Another solo player rut!

@Black_Elk:

It’s a nice play. If you buy a med carrier you can clear the UK destroyer in 17 with a fighter, since it will have a place to land. Stacking Libya makes holding Egypt a risky proposition for UK. I find when I do this with G that UK usually withdraws leaving just a blocker inf behind in Egypt. If the med gets too hot from UK or US Air you can always bounce through the canal to the Indian Ocean and link up with Japan for safety, until Axis are ready to re-enter the Med in force. Have fun man, let us know how it goes!

@wittmann:

I concur.I always buy a Carrier for the Med, YG.
I never do Egypt on one. I wait for G2 or G3.

The UK destroyer in SZ 17 and Egypt have always gone in G1 with me.

I was actually thinking about a G carrier in the Baltic, plus a t/port, as a means of forcing the UK to use scarce IPCs on a home force.

I have probably done as much as I can to learn this game solo. Too many unchallenged ruts and false conclusions. The BoB will show me! And really looking forward to meeting wittman.

Again - my thanks to everyone for their help. :-D

[Black_Elk]

It’s possible there is some confusion with the Bulgarian Fighter’s movement. Unfortunately Bulgaria does not border sz 15 (the European part of Turkey is in the way) which means that there is in fact no German fighter that can attack Egypt on G1. The fighters in Bulgaria and Ukraine are both 4 moves away. Alas!

It’s 3 moves for the Bulgaria fighter to attack into sz17 and kill the British destroyer from the air, but it can only do this if a carrier is purchased, so the Fighter could potentially land in sz15 (on the carrier deck). Same deal with the Ukraine fighter, though that fighter could be killed on R1, if the Russians are out for blood, so you can’t really count on it for G1 plans.

If testing solo, you might enjoy playing TripleA. You can face off against the HardAI, which is not as competent as a human opponent, but still pretty decent, and can be helpful for showing certain things like territory connections where the physical map is sometimes poorly drawn. The Bulgaria situation being a good example :)

As for the sz 5 Baltic hit by Russian air, the odds are strong 90% to win, but there is also a fairly strong likelihood that one Russian fighter will die in the process. Average units left for the attacker is somewhere around 1.5, but the .5 doesn’t do you any good, since there is no such thing as half a fighter unit in A&A. And even if the second fighter does live, it has to land in Karelia, where it is certain to die on G1 ;)

So its a question of whether you think the Russians can manage the Eastern front on R2 with only one fighter, or if the TUV trade is really worth it for your warplan as Allies long term. The risk is not in the battle per se, but in the aftermath on R2 or R3, where being down a fighter in the territory trading game can make things a lot more challenging for the Russians.

[Private-Panic]

@Black_Elk:

It’s possible there is some confusion with the Bulgarian Fighter’s movement. Unfortunately Bulgaria does not border sz 15 (the European part of Turkey is in the way) which means that there is in fact no German fighter that can attack Egypt on G1. The fighters in Bulgaria and Ukraine are both 4 moves away. Alas!

Sorry BE but I don’t understand. Rom/Bulg has a clear border with European Turkey, allowing it to reach Egypt via SZ17 in 3 moves, then land in Libya. Or am I losing my marbles? :-o

Or does a move from European into Asiatic Turkey constitute an additional move? :x

@Black_Elk:

If testing solo, you might enjoy playing TripleA. You can face off against the HardAI, which is not as competent as a human opponent, but still pretty decent …

wittman has suggested the same thing and I plan to take a look when I get back from a holiday that starts on Tuesday.

@Black_Elk:

As for the sz 5 Baltic hit by Russian air, the odds are strong 90% to win, but there is also a fairly strong likelihood that one Russian fighter will die in the process.

Very true. And R fighters are good for minimal infantry being committed to buffer zones, which has been a strong feature of my rookie R play. Will think about this. :|

Thanks yet again BE. :-)

[Black_Elk]

Sadly the marbles are lost.  :-D

1942.2 is like Revised, Neutral territories are impassible. Neutral spaces are effectively out of play on this board, so aircraft can’t fly over them. Turkey is like this, same deal with the Sahara and Mongolia et al, basically dead tiles that exist purely as movement boundaries/obstacles. The Global 1940 games have rules that try to bring True Neutrals into play (Classic also had a mechanism for this where you could pay to occupy neutrals) but 1942.2, Spring 1942, and the Revised game on which they were based, all used the impassible neutrals model. The 1941 starter board used this model as well.

In this case G’s Bulgarian fighter would have to first enter sz 16 (or Southern Europe), then sz 15, then sz 17, using up its 3 movement points, with only one possible place to land: a new carrier purchased in sz 15.

[Private-Panic]

@Black_Elk:

Sadly the marbles are lost. � :-D

Darn it! I had thought you could fly over neutral territories. :roll:

The rules clearly say otherwise so where on earth did that misunderstanding come from!

It also makes the game more interesting though ….

[Private-Panic]

Now that I understand the rules properly (well some of them anyway :lol:) I can see a whole new set of options for the UK, in Egypt, India & possibly the Med, perhaps including SZ37. wittman’s G carrier in the Med is also making a whole lot more sense. And my use of R fighters looks set to change. I will just have to be sad enough to play one more solo game to test these out I guess.

I can not think of any previous game I have ever had which would have interested me enough to be as sad as that! :-D