# New G1 Move - what do you think?

• I haven’t seen this move discussed on the boards but I used it twice this weekend and was successful both times.

I don’t have the game board in front of me but from my description it should be clear.  I use the solo German sub in the Atlantic to attack the USA fleet off the east coast of the USA consisting of 2 transports and 1 cruiser.  I am poorly trained in statistics and so the unusual aspects of a sub’s sneak attack on the win/loss statistics have me stumped but it seems a good roll of the dice for the sub because the payoff is so large.  The fleet is collectively worth 26 IPC and I’ve won the gambit both times I’ve tried it.  This move can set the USA back a turn at a small cost.  The opportunity cost of this maneuver is that you will not be killing off the UK Battleship in the North Atlantic and it is a suicide run for the sub, however it is costly for the US and delay’s their atlantic buildup nicely.

Can anyone figure out the statistics of this maneuver?

Any thoughts?

• Buster

• Its a coin toss for SZ10: 51%/49% or something.

If you go for both SZ2 and SZ10 then its 2 coin tosses. The Russian sub has no effect on the SZ2 battle and the probabilities are 60% for killing the BB and TRN, 20% for only the TRN surviving the battle and 20% for the Battleship killing both the FTR and the BMR.

• Can anyone figure out the statistics of this maneuver?

• Buster

While it isn’t hard to do the math yourself, for those of us less mathematically inclined there are odds calculators out there

• It’s something to consider if you don’t mind skipping the attack on z2 OR you consider your opponent the stronger player by a good margin and want to gamble for an early lead. For example, in a current game I wanted two fighters helping countering in Ukraine where Russia took with 4 units and wanted a G1 Karelia stack so Norway couldn’t be defended. In this scenario, an attack on z10 may be a good idea, although I sent my sub to z13 to save a plane if the cruiser hit(or to prevent a hit with a sneak attack).

• It might stall the USA for a turn but why give Britain a better chance of survival?

• @M:

It might stall the USA for a turn but why give Britain a better chance of survival?

It is a gamble. Instead of slowing down 1 of the allies you slow 2. The thing is that the odds of winning both battles decrease to 33% or something. But if you get them…

• Its a coin toss for SZ10: 51%/49% or something.

If you go for both SZ2 and SZ10 then its 2 coin tosses. The Russian sub has no effect on the SZ2 battle and the probabilities are 60% for killing the BB and TRN, 20% for only the TRN surviving the battle and 20% for the Battleship killing both the FTR and the BMR.

Actually it is exactly 50/50. In each round of combat you have 1/3 chance of winning, 1/3 chance of losing (1/2 * 2/3 of the sub missing), and 1/3 of the battle continuing to another round. You can then throw out the odds of going to a second round since that would be a repeat of the odds of the first round and you adjust the denominator and you get 1/2 odds for the sub and 1/2 odds for the cruiser.
Note: This method of calculation only works for battles of 1v1 where the second round of combat would begin the same as the first.

This method also works with sub v DD. Sub has 2/9 of winning (1/3* 2/3 of DD missing); DD has the same 2/9; Mutual destruction is 1/9; and going to a second round is 4/9 (2/3 * 2/3) You then throw out the odds of going to a second round since it would be a repeat, adjust the denominator to 5 since there are only 5 possibilities left and you have your odds:
40% (2/5) sub winning, 40% DD winning, and 20 (1/5) tie.

Back on topic, I think that is a great move. I have never played AA42, but a 50/50 26 IPCs for 6 is definitely worth it. Also, since transports and subs cannot be taken as hits, that dooms that poor UK fleet. If I were playing, I would definitely hit both SZs.

• Back on topic, I think that is a great move. I have never played AA42, but a 50/50 26 IPCs for 6 is definitely worth it. Also, since transports and subs cannot be taken as hits, that dooms that poor UK fleet. If I were playing, I would definitely hit both SZs.

Depends on how you see the odds. You’ll have 25% chance of winning both battles, 50% for winning at least 1 and 25% for losing both. I’d rather prefer to send the sub to SZ2 and raise the odds to win that battle.

• Back on topic, I think that is a great move. I have never played AA42, but a 50/50 26 IPCs for 6 is definitely worth it. Also, since transports and subs cannot be taken as hits, that dooms that poor UK fleet. If I were playing, I would definitely hit both SZs.

Depends on how you see the odds. You’ll have 25% chance of winning both battles, 50% for winning at least 1 and 25% for losing both. I’d rather prefer to send the sub to SZ2 and raise the odds to win that battle.

I have to agree. You can clear out the whole Atlantic/Med fleet of the UK on G1 with a high success rate or you can take those big gambles. I would take the high success rate. You gain a lot of breathing room with those moves and establish a certain dominance with the Germans that cannot be initially repelled. G1 is usually strong and aggressive and with those gambles it COULD lose out and show weakness.

• Back on topic, I think that is a great move. I have never played AA42, but a 50/50 26 IPCs for 6 is definitely worth it. Also, since transports and subs cannot be taken as hits, that dooms that poor UK fleet. If I were playing, I would definitely hit both SZs.

Depends on how you see the odds. You’ll have 25% chance of winning both battles, 50% for winning at least 1 and 25% for losing both. I’d rather prefer to send the sub to SZ2 and raise the odds to win that battle.

Actually, you have 30% chance of winning both battles. However, it is even better. In SZ, with ftr and bmr you have 61% chance of winning AND a 20% chance of tying with the BB - only 18.9% chance of not killing the BB. So, you would have 40% chance of winning the US battle and at least killing the UK BB.
Also, assuming the Russian player put his sub in SZ2, sending the sub in doesn’t help your odds all that much. Your odds of surviving with your bomber and killing the transport are 84.6%. That is only 3.5% higher odds of killing the Battleship. True, your odds are 23.7% higher of killing the transport, but I would say the BB is the most important part of the fleet; the transport can be much more easily replaced.
HOWEVER, it gets even better. The odds of winning (when attacking with the sub) would go slightly (maybe more than slightly) lower if the allies took the russian sub first from the German sub’s shot. Unfortunately, my odds calculator cannot be set up to hit anything before the first hit on a battleship.
Also, your logic can be reversed too. Sure, the odds of winning both battles may only be 30% (40% counting tying), but the odds of losing them both is only 9% (19-20% counting tying). This is compared to the 13% in the attack only SZ2 scenario.

So the odds of SZ2 go up slightly (maybe) by sending the sub there, but is it worth losing the 50/50 chance of killing the US Atlantic fleet?

Let’s look at the Net IPC gain. (These net gains were derived from multiplying the odds for each outcome of the battle by the cost of the units lost in that outcome (subtracting the attackers loss from the defender’s loss - transports were included)
In attacking both the net IPC gain is 17.5 IPCs
In attacking just SZ2 the net IPC gain is 8.74 IPCs
Attacking both yields a 8.75 IPC higher net gain than attacking just SZ 2. Practically, it should be around 9.6 since some of the SZ2 only net gain is from the Russian sub, which is pretty useless later on.

So by attacking only SZ2, you are giving up more IPCs than a transport only for 24% more odds of killing a transport (the >3.5% for the battleship is negligible and the Russian sub is rather useless). That makes little sense.

Buster27, before before I did the math, I thought your move was a good one. Now I KNOW it is a good one.

• I don’t question the numbers. It’s not just a question of stats and economics, it’s a question of risk management and is therefore totally subjective. If all goes well on G1 how you have it laid out, the Allies can probably say good game. However, if Germany misses out in z10 and loses or ties in z2, then it’s grim for the Axis. Often, sending the sub to z2 will save Germany a fighter and every fighter counts in a competitive game. The Axis doesn’t need to take all those risks G1 to start off the game on the right foot, this can easily derail the game one way or the other. If you don’t expect to outplay your opponent, go for it.

• I see your point. Doing risky battles can make for a less interesting game. Still though, from a purely strategical viewpoint, it is the best move, and if I were to play in a tournament, I would probably use it most games. I would probably use it if R1 went really bad for Germany to try to turn it back around.  If I lost both battles as the allies, I wouldn’t quit yet, unless R1 went badly too. It might cause me to do a US Pacific strategy though. Remember last game we played. I lost both Mediterranean battles G1 and still won (by a fluke I admit, but I think I would have had a chance if you had diverted sufficient Russian troops to hold Karelia.

2

131

8

5

1

1

1

32