Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Thank you!

    I hear you on the difficulty of finding a way to make Japan stronger without also making Japan cluttered. It is a hard task. I don’t object to how strong Japan was in your v3, just how cluttered the board was. Maybe there’s a way to give Japan more BBs and CAs, with fewer DDs and SSs. Or maybe there’s a way to put stacks of units on top of each other, e.g., one sea zone has 3 SS but 0 DD, and one sea zone has 0 SS but 3 DD. It’s not perfectly realistic, but it also will not matter against anyone except Russia’s lone submarine, and then as soon as Japan moves things will sort themselves out more neatly. Or maybe we can move the fighters, etc. that are on the land tiles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima over to Japan, or over to the Caroline Islands, where there is a little more room. With four CVs, it should not be that hard to get the Japanese air force into forward positions without also needing to clutter up the Japanese islands. I think the worst cluttering effect is when there is a big navy in a sea zone, with planes on carriers, and then also an air force presence on the island itself. I like the USA planes on Wake Island, etc. because it is just a land-based plane; no clutter. But for Japan there is a lot of clutter.

    I like the general thrust of your new picture, although as you say, it needs more work. Keep in mind that if you remove the third destroyer from the San Diego fleet, then it becomes possible for Japan to hit it with 6 planes if they really want to. I would prefer to avoid a situation where Japan can hit and sink all three US Pacific fleets on J1 with better than 10% odds, dead zoned or otherwise. Sinking even 2 out of 3 major fleets should either be (a) risky or (b) require committing extra resources that might have been better used in Indonesia/China.

    I could live with a a fighter that has ASA @ 1 but no ASD. That sounds right; if a sub sneaks up on a carrier, the carrier is in trouble, but if a fighter squadron escorts some destroyers to hunt for the sub, then the sub is in trouble! Do you want to give ASA @ 2 to either tac bombers or destroyers? Do you want to remove ASD from tac bombers (ASD = 0)?

    I’m fine with the lonely transport near South Africa, I think. It is interesting for Germany to decide what to do with its 2 southern submarines. I think in many games the Gibraltar carrier group will survive G1, which is kind of fun. Maybe the transport can be abused; you will have to show me when we play! The transport can reach Egypt in one turn if it lives.

    I am not worried about the Vichy West Africa forces getting crushed for three reasons: (1) I think the Vichy victory at Dakar was a coincidence, and (2) the Allies have other things to do in the Atlantic on the first turn, like hit Norway, reinforce UK to protect against Sea Lion, hit France, hit NW Europe, hit Morocco, and move forces down to mobilize South America.  The Allies will onliy have 2 or 3 transports to get all of that work done. So, if they want to hit Dakar, fine! If not, also fine. Finally, Germany can easily arrange to make it so that UK cannot really afford to use the 1 inf, 1 art, 1 ftr in Dakar. E.g. if Germany sinks the lonely transport in SZ 27, and hits Egypt with the Libyan forces plus one loaded transport and the Italian fighter, then Germany probably ends G1 with 3 land units in Egypt. If you send the whole FEA stack west, then your max stack on UK1 in Sudan is 1 inf, 1 art, plus whatever planes you want to land in Sudan from off of your South African carrier. If you land the planes, then the carrier can’t go east to fight Japan, and Japan gets an advantage. If you don’t land the planes, then Germany can attack Sudan on G2 with something like 1 art, 2 tnk, 1 ftr against 1 inf, 1 art. This is very risky for UK; if Germany wins without taking casualties, and UK did not build a factory in South Africa yet, then Germany can wind up controlling most/all of Africa even though he only sent one transport. It takes too long for forces built in liberated West African factory to make a difference to that conflict.

    I’m not thrilled about the starting American Atlantic carrier, but I can’t deny it to them in good conscience; America certainly had a powerful Atlantic fleet in 1941, and it’s silly to pretend they had zero capital ships. Maybe a BB would make more sense than a CV, so that the planes aren’t set up to hit Morocco on US1? Or maybe the tank in Eastern US can be moved to Central US for starting setup? The tanks were probably mostly made in Detroit, not in New York. Right now, even if Germany max-stacks Morocco with 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 tacB on G1, then Morocco is not safe against the max American invasion (pulling in the Panama infantry and cruiser) of 2 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tacB, 2 cruiser bombards. USA has 64% odds to win that battle, with average TUV swing of +5 for USA. That doesn’t seem realistic to me – the US Army was not ready to fight in autumn 1941; they needed time to train. I am OK if they take Morocco on US2 (which I imagine represents spring 1942, still well ahead of the November 1942 invasion that actually happened in history), but I don’t think USA should be able to take a well-defended Morocco on US1 unless the UK helps soften it up on UK1.

    I’m not worried about the German subs attacking the US fleet – they can if they want, but it’s a pretty weird strategy and I don’t see that it would help them.

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    This is a very interesting setup you’ve produced.

    Overall you have some very interesting ideas, and I’m glad we’ve been able to work on this together. :-)

    Another point which is astonishing me in this on going process is how far we get from the basic AA50 OOB 1941 migrated setup. Almost every points of debate was leading to reconsider the basic setup and underlying assumptions it conveyed.

    Neutral TTs or lack of, Africa’s wasteland, Infantry only in USSR and status of Red Army and of Wehrmacht, no UK’s fleet after G1, US1 building-up and waiting turn, all uninteresting zero IPC TTs: Gibraltar, Wake, Midway, Solomons, questioning JTDTM via Chinese TTs and the last nail on coffin of the basic OOB is this out of reach US Carrier in PTO.

    It is very challenging and I learned a lot from our on going (and much improved IMO) more historically depicting 1941 military situations set-up. Clearly, any theoretical discussions would never bring me that far into WWII 1941 and A&A than this more actual discussion within this project frame.


    On Anti-Sub, I would only modified Fighter. It was experimented by Barney on Global setup.
    He came to the conclusion that only TcB and DD should have ASAD @1.

    Destroyers are 5 IPCs, so for the same cost you already get 2 rolls @1 compared to TcB.

    Another reason is to give specific function to Fg : escorting and intercepting ; TcB: anti-sub offense and defense. Still Redesign Fighters don’t need DD to hit Subs in regular naval combat. This is already a pretty good capacity.
    However, since TcB gets an A1 in SBR, it can be reasonable to give an A1 to Fg in Anti-Sub mission.
    (So, this would imply Fighter in Global Redesign need to be playtested that way, to see if this can work.)

    My main wish on this is to keep the same unit for both G40 and 1942, as much as possible.

  • '17 '16

    I prefer US Carrier because of historical depiction and no Battleships were available in ATO (AFAIK all were at Pearl). Instead, I would make this fleet weaker by turning Cruiser into a Destroyer. So, moving early in Morocco becomes more dangerous (and only 1 Panama’s Cruiser would protect this Task Force). Also, keeping this Carrier in EUS SZ make it a faster entry point for any planes purchased and going to UK. It allows to reach it on US2.
    And this feature can easily be credited to Carriers planes reinforcement capacity in ATO.

    Also, both USS Wasp and USS Ranger work early on in Atlantic Ocean:

    After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)

    One year after the invasion, forces from the still officially neutral United States were stationed on the island by agreement with the Icelandic government, relieving the bulk of British ground forces. US forces grew considerably after the US entered the war on 7 December 1941, reaching up to 30,000 army, navy and air force personnel at any one time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland#Outcome

    In December 1941, she was returning to Norfolk from an ocean patrol extending to Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Arriving in Norfolk on 8 December, she sailed on 21 December for patrol in the South Atlantic. She then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard for repairs on 21 March 1942. Ranger was one of 14 ships to receive the early RCA CXAM-1 radar.

    This last one can also be accounted for Carrier unit either moving to Brazil SZ or West African SZ.

    I’m confident we can find a way to keep both planes on this Carrier. US1 counter-attack on IJN will need these planes and Panama’s Cruiser too. USA cannot have its cake and eat it too :  getting both sides PTO in Midway or Hawaii and ATO in Africa.


    On Tank in Central US, I’m not against it for better depicting Detroit Factories (on Triple A, Detroit is still part of EUSA).
    However, it doesn’t change anything for any amphibious assault: Central USA is connected to EUS SZ11.
    Maybe changing it into 1 Inf and 1 Artillery?
    So it becomes less useful in Africa on USA 1, and deliver a weaker punch when Inf is taken as first casualty and if 1 Fg has to be taken as another one, TcB can no more gets its A4 attack.

    I like the general thrust of your new picture, although as you say, it needs more work. Keep in mind that if you remove the third destroyer from the San Diego fleet, then it becomes possible for Japan to hit it with 6 planes if they really want to. I would prefer to avoid a situation where Japan can hit and sink all three US Pacific fleets on J1 with better than 10% odds, dead zoned or otherwise. Sinking even 2 out of 3 major fleets should either be (a) risky or (b) require committing extra resources that might have been better used in Indonesia/China.

    That was the idea. But, don’t forget: you have only 6 planes which can reach that SZ, no fodder.
    It is a 57% vs 43% odds of survival for Japan.
    You are also crippling any attack on Pearl Harbor (2 Subs, 1 DD and 1 Cruiser) or the Carrier Task Force (1 Cruiser).
    Although, IJN numbers of DDs, Subs in Caroline or Okinawa are not totally determined: if there is only 2 Subs and 1 Cruiser with no air support, attack on 2 BBs becomes a loosing proposition: 17% vs 83%.

    I’m not against any fine tuning here. (Adding a Sub in WUS SZ or coming back to 3 DDs is not forbidden.)
    I’m just opened to a more daring raid on San Francisco fleet (as another alternate entry in war), but I share your POV I don’t want to loose 2 US fleets without losses on IJN part.

    So, I reintroduced this 3rd DDs and put a picture below. So, we don’t have to get to last page.
    I made weaker and more vulnerable Carrier in EUSA fleet with only 1 Destroyer. So no Cruiser can escort a TP into Norway SZ on USA1. And I changed 1 Tank for 1 Art in EUSA and 1 Inf in Central USA.
    All these little things make US less ready for waging war.

    I also moved IJN DD and Sub into Okinawa and Caroline respectively as well as 1 Fg to Caroline.
    As you suggested to sort things out.


    Another game point: it is not possible to make a G1 Sea Lion because Baltic SZ is contested and North Sea SZ will be too if TP move there. So, Sea Lion can only be done as early as G2. (Oops. I forgot TP gets 3 moves. But there is only Infantry to bring on this Baltic TP. All Tanks are on Eastern Front and Artillery in Germany. Giving an odds of success around 3%.)

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03_Pearl alternate openingv1.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha03_Pearl alternate openingv1.tsvg

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Much better. I like it a lot! I think you have created a very interesting strategic puzzle for the Japanese player: he can hit Pearl Harbor and a couple of isolated destroyers for an obvious profit, but that still leaves the core of the American Pacific fleet intact. He can hit Pearl Harbor with something like 2 SS, 1 CA, 2 planes and send 4 planes to hit the small south Pacific carrier group, which is very profitable if you win both battles, but the odds of winning both battles together is only 80%, and even if you win them both you might lose several planes. Or, as a third option, he can ignore Hawaii, ignore the south Pacific, and hit both Midway Island and the San Francisco fleet with all 6 planes, which is very risky (only 58% odds for Japan even if we remove the third American San Francisco destroyer), but if enough of your planes survive, you can seriously disrupt or maybe even dictate American strategy on US1 by forcing them to stack their navy in Midway on a turn when they don’t start out controlling the island. America is still not in any immediate danger of being wiped out of the Pacific, but this gambit can force the USA to use a strategy that they may not be familiar with, or that will pull the USA out of the Atlantic in a way that Germany may be able to exploit.

    These are very interesting choices. The map is also noticeably less cluttered, which I appreciate.

    I am not worried about no G1 Sea Lion – with the game starting in 1941, that reflects the initial German attack on Britain having been successfully fought off, so if Germany wanted to make a second round of attacks on Britain (other than just bombing raids) then it would have needed a few months to prepare. That seems fair and realistic and interesting.

    The only changes I would recommend are:

    1. Remove the third American destroyer in San Francisco Bay
    2. Remove either 1 inf or 1 AAA gun from Western Australia – that area was very lightly held by ANZAC in 1941, and the extra Allied unit on the Australian continent makes invading Australia extremely unattractive for Japan (instead of just moderately unattractive).

    Even after those changes, there might be a very slight Allied bias on this map (3 IPC to 6 IPC bid needed for Axis), but I’m OK with that, and it is worth testing to find out.

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    I’m trying to find the correct balance for 3 planes Carrier and lower cost planes.
    To use redesign on my table top game 1942.2 with G40 units. It was the more convenient thread.

    ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1

    Destroyer A1 D1 ASA1D1 M2 C5, 1 hit, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Submarine A2fs D1fs M2 C6, 1 hit, Stealth Move, No DD block, Submerge after AAS. 2D in Convoy SZ.
    Transport A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit, taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Cruiser A3 D3 M3 C9, 1 hit, shorebombard @3, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Carrier A0 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits, carry 3 planes
    Battleship A4 D4 M2 C15 2 hits, shorebombard @4, 1D in Convoy SZ

    Fighter A2 D2 M4-6 C7, 1 hit SBR A2 D2, 1D in Convoy SZ, hit air first, then AAA
    Tactical Bomber A3 D2 ASAD1 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6, 1D in Convoy SZ
    Strategic Bomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit, SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6

    Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB

    Second version, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB:

    Transport, defenseless
    A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
    taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Transport working as warship
    A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
    carry 1 Inf+1 any ground

    Submarine
    A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
    Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Destroyer
    A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
    ASA1D1,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Escort Carrier (optional)
    A0 D2 M2 C8, 1 hit,
    ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
    No dice in Convoy SZ

    Cruiser
    A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
    Shorebombard @3,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Carrier
    A0 D3 M2 C15, 2 hits,
    carry 3 planes, damaged Carrier carry 1 plane
    No dice in Convoy SZ

    Battleship
    A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
    Shorebombard @4,
    1D in Convoy SZ

    Strategic Bomber
    A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
    SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6

    Fighter
    A2 D2 M4-6 C6, 1 hit, _target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) _
    SBR A2 D2,
    Can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Tactical Bomber
    A3 D2 M4-6 C7, 1 hit,
    TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
    ASA1D1, can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    Anti-aircraft Artillery
    A0 D1* M1 C3, 1 hit,

    • @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, each combat round.
      It is not preemptive but a regular roll.

    @Argothair,
    what do you think of this last roster and cost structure?
    It keeps mostly the same dynamics between Subs and DDs but all combat values are much nearer OOB and warships roster is scaled on within 3 IPCs increment, except TP 7 PUs and using C5 for Sub:
    SS5, DD6, CA12, CV15, BB18 and TP A0 D1 M3 C9

    TP C9 acting as warship will increase independent action and gives total freedom on casualty selection for better reenactment of Subs vs TPs + DDs naval combat. And planes being cheaper than TP can be acceptable losses when attacking TPs.

    Also, combat between Fg, TcB vs warships keeps near similar odds to OOB.
    No need to add AAA to Cruiser and BB to balance vs DD A2 D2 C6, as the case actually in G40 Redesign with DD A1 D1 C5.

    Tactical A3 D2 C7 (no more combined arms needed) and Fg A2 D2 C6 may compensate for lack of A4 bombers C12.

    @Argo,
    there is another variants with Fighter A2 D3 you will possibly like:

    Variant:

    Fighter
    A2 D3 M4-6 C7, 1 hit, _target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) _
    SBR A2 D3,
    Can hit Subs without Destroyer presence,
    2Ds in Convoy SZ

    G40 3 planes Aircraft Carrier
    Attack 0
    Defense 2
    Hits 2
    Move 2-3
    Cost 15
    Carry 3 planes, 1 if damaged

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    Much better. I like it a lot! I think you have created a very interesting strategic puzzle for the Japanese player: he can hit Pearl Harbor and a couple of isolated destroyers for an obvious profit, but that still leaves the core of the American Pacific fleet intact. He can hit Pearl Harbor with something like 2 SS, 1 CA, 2 planes and send 4 planes to hit the small south Pacific carrier group, which is very profitable if you win both battles, but the odds of winning both battles together is only 80%, and even if you win them both you might lose several planes. Or, as a third option, he can ignore Hawaii, ignore the south Pacific, and hit both Midway Island and the San Francisco fleet with all 6 planes, which is very risky (only 58% odds for Japan even if we remove the third American San Francisco destroyer), but if enough of your planes survive, you can seriously disrupt or maybe even dictate American strategy on US1 by forcing them to stack their navy in Midway on a turn when they don’t start out controlling the island. America is still not in any immediate danger of being wiped out of the Pacific, but this gambit can force the USA to use a strategy that they may not be familiar with, or that will pull the USA out of the Atlantic in a way that Germany may be able to exploit.

    These are very interesting choices. The map is also noticeably less cluttered, which I appreciate.

    I am not worried about no G1 Sea Lion – with the game starting in 1941, that reflects the initial German attack on Britain having been successfully fought off, so if Germany wanted to make a second round of attacks on Britain (other than just bombing raids) then it would have needed a few months to prepare. That seems fair and realistic and interesting.

    The only changes I would recommend are:
    1) Remove the third American destroyer in San Francisco Bay
    2) Remove either 1 inf or 1 AAA gun from Western Australia –
    that area was very lightly held by ANZAC in 1941, and the extra Allied unit on the Australian continent makes invading Australia extremely unattractive for Japan (instead of just moderately unattractive).

    Even after those changes, there might be a very slight Allied bias on this map (3 IPC to 6 IPC bid needed for Axis), but I’m OK with that, and it is worth testing to find out.

    I made changes you suggested: 1 less DD on USW coast, 1 Inf less in WAustralia
    I added 1 Inf in French-Indo China and 1 german TP in Baltic Sea.
    UK get 1 additional Strategic bomber but 1 less AAA and no damage on IC.
    Germany also get 1 additional Strategic bomber.

    These changes maybe will slightly tip balance toward Axis IMO.
    Axis will have a difficult game to get enough incomes compared to Allies after round 3.
    With this additional TP, Sea Lion may be possible G2 or G3, more difficult.
    I will made some simulations but US Fgs and Infantries may now land England US1.

    Also, there is 3 U-boats which can launch an attack on US East Coast.
    That way, Germany may decide to DOW on USA before Japan make Pearl raid.
    Japan get an additional Inf for the initial assault in mainland Asia, but farther from center China. As you said, this would represent a 3 IPCs bid.

    All in all, I’m trying to open as much options as possible in the first rounds.
    If Germany try Sea Lion G2 (1 Carrier and 3 transports buy G1) and leave almost Russians planes intact, there is a around 33% odds of conquering UK.
    But it remains a difficult challenge after this against USSR growing army with 5 or 6 planes as back up.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha04.png
    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha04.tsvg

  • '17 '16

    Hi Argo,
    IDK if you have opportunity and the will to focus again on this spring 2017 project…

    I made a few simulations and to get at least a viable counter attack by US, if Japan want to attract all US air-naval forces into Hawaii or  Midway, I added 1 DD into Mexico West Coast (so WUS coast fleet remains vulnerable to IJN 3 TcBs+3 Fgs) and 1 TcB into WUSA. It leave more opportunity options for East Coast Fg+TcB.

    Is it too much on PTO, does US becomes too strong afterward, if Japan doesn’t place his fleet as a target?

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha05.png

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Hi Baron,

    I need to keep tripleA off of my computer, because I find it addictive and it tends to ruin my life. You and I have also already spent many hours on this particular map, and while we are making progress, it is pretty slow progress and we often wander around in circles a few times before we’re able to move on to the next stage. So, I am happy to give some occasional advice on the map, and I will be happy to playtest it with you if we’re ever in the same city, but that is all. I am no longer very interested in this map. Nothing personal; I enjoy working with you, but this particular project has mostly run its course for me.

    I took a look at your Pacific navies here, and at first glance it appears that Japan is too weak relative to the Allies. As you can see in the attached chart, Japan does not really outnumber the Allies in any category at the start of the game. I am counting the Indian, ANZAC, and US Pacific navies, plus the US navy in the Panama canal and the two planes that start off the coast of New York, because all of those units can participate in relevant Pacific battles on the first turn. I am not counting the American fighter in China or the British fighter in India. This gives Japan a -11 Total Unit Value (TUV) handicap vs. the Allies at the start of the game: the Allied navies are stronger.

    Admittedly, Japan can do very well with its first-strike battles on J1 and wipe out something like 6 Allied destroyers, 2 Allied planes, 2 Allied battleships, 2 Allied transports, and 2 Allied subs with only minimal losses – perhaps a loss of 2 Japanese destroyers and 2 Japanese planes. So that is a net gain for Japan on turn 1 of about 4 destroyers, 2 transports, and 2 battleships – a TUV gain of +74 IPCs, which puts Japan’s position at a net advantage of +63 TUV.

    However, if Japan wants to conquer a reasonable number of the money islands and other targets, then Japan will have to either sacrifice multiple transports or sacrifice one or more destroyers as part of blocking fleets. Let’s say that imposes loses on Japan of about -20 IPCs. This reduces Japan’s net advantage to +43 TUV.

    Japan could try to achieve a more dramatic advantage by destroying more American boats on turn 1, but that would also tend to put more of Japan’s boats at risk, and it’s not clear to me that there’s any way to get an expected advantage of more than +43 TUV after J1. You might get lucky in some games, but overall it will probably average out to about +43 from this setup regardless of whether you make an aggressive attack or a conservative attack.

    This +43 TUV advantage is then further reduced because the Allies can drop many more boats and planes in the water than Japan for the first few turns. On turn 1, Japan only has 15 IPCs to spend, total, some of which might go for transports, a factory, or infantry. If they boost this to 30 IPCs on their first turn’s conquest, that’s a good first turn. So Japan is spending something like 45 IPCs on turns 1 and 2, not all of which will go to navy. (If Japan does spend 100% on navy and air, that further reduces Japan’s ability to achieve a breakout against, e.g., India, west China, and central Russia).

    By contrast, The British start with about 35 IPCs, and the Americans start with about 40 IPCs. They should keep that same rough income level at the end of turn 1, because the British can walk into places like Saudi Arabia, Italian East Africa, France, Norway, etc., whereas the Americans can walk into Mexico, Brazil, and so on. So any early losses by US/UK can be offset in the short-term by taking neutral or poorly defended territories. That means that US/UK are spending a total of about 35 + 40 + 35 + 40 = 150 IPCs on turns 1 and 2. If they split that evenly, half to the Atlantic and half to the Pacific, that’s 75 IPCs to the Pacific to fight Japan, which means Japan is being outspent by 75 - 45 = 30 IPCs.

    If the US/UK spend less money on infantry than Japan in the Pacific, as I think they will in most games, then that further increases the Allied naval advantage.

    This reduces Japan’s total advantage in the Pacific to (at most) only +13 TUV – roughly one carrier, or one cruiser. This is not enough of an advantage, I think, to overcome Japan’s unfavorable territory structure. Japan needs to penetrate deep into enemy territory to get past 30 IPCs/turn, because it is surrounded by 1-IPC and 0-IPC territories. By contrast, the US/UK can pick off high-value Japanese territories if they make any gains anywhere on any front. Moreover, as the Axis player, it is Japan’s obligation to achieve or at least threaten a breakout. The Axis start seriously behind on income, and they will lose the game unless they find a way to capture a capital or stabilize the economic balance of power. I don’t think this setup gives Japan enough of a chance to build enough momentum to get up to the 45 - 50 IPCs / turn that Japan needs in order to do its part to stabilize the economic balance of power.

    My preferred solution here is to remove some Allied units. I think there are too many units on this map already, and that the visual complexity is not yet justified by appropriate strategic depth.

    Good luck and thanks for sharing!

    Pacific Navies.png

  • '17 '16

    Thanks for your in depth analysis,
    I did not expect such.
    I easily understand how our interest can change or our focus is modified by the many opportunities of life.

    I really like the table you provided, it clearly might help make better choice when reducing number of naval units.

    We clearly agree on principles, Japan need a big J1 TUV and need to be ahead from Allies in PTO.
    Assuming Allies will grow fast with their higher economy.
    Less is better for set-up time and for first round options and combat resolution.

    Thank you very much again,
    You are really an A&A passionnate.
    I hope to see you around.

    If some maths might interest you, here is my last discovery on A&A ground units comparative strength.
    It is a table which give an immediate idea of a given ground unit compared to an Infantry:
    It is in Player Help.

    @Baron:

    At the bottom of this post, wodan put a few numbers to get the strength of Classic, Revised and G40 Tank.
    Is there any maths genious who can sort out the equation he used?
    IMO, it may be near Enigma formula.
    Thanks.

    @wodan46:

    @Veqryn:

    KEPT the tank at the pre-revised stats of 3-2-2-5

    Hmm.

    For 20 IPCs
    4 Tanks=12 Attack, 8 Defense, 4 Hits
    5 M-Infantry=5 Attack, 10 Defense, 5 Hits

    For 21 IPCs
    3 Artillery, 3 Infantry=12 Attack, 12 Defense, 6 Hits
    7 Infantry=7 Attack, 14 Defense, 7 Hits

    Interesting.  That actually works a lot better.  Tanks are still clearly the best way of projecting offense, but M-Infantry are better at securing territories.  Artillery/Infantry are the best all around force, but move slower, and Infantry have the best defense/health, but have pathetic attack and move.

    Also, M-Infantry are going to be really bad for Invasions, as when transported, they are the same as Infantry, but take up the better slot of the Transport and cost more.

    In fact, the full statistics are below:

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry=1.40 Attack, 2.80 Defense, 1.40 HP
    Infantry/Artillery=2.40 Attack, 2.4 Defense, 1.20 HP

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry=1.05 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 1.05 HP
    Tanks(Original)=2.52 Attack, 1.68 Defense, 0.84 HP
    Tanks(Revised)=2.52 Attack, 2.52 Defense, 0.84 HP
    Tanks(1940)=2.10 Attack, 2.10 Defense, 0.70 HP
    Tank(Original)/M-Infantry=1.88 Attack, 2.35 Defense, 0.94 HP

    OK, I found he used a 420 IPCs basis/100.

    If I use Infantry as the basic reference: 420 IPCs/140

    If all these units have the same 3 IPCs cost, here is what you would get for:

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense, 1.00 HP
    Artillery= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.71 Attack, 1.71 Defense, 0.86 HP

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.75 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    Tanks (Original)= 1.80 Attack, 1.20 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.80 Attack, 1.80 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Tanks (1940)= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.50 HP

    Tank (Original) A3D2/MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.33 Defense, 0.67 HP
    Tank (Revised) A3D3/MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.67 Defense, 0.67 HP
    Tank (1940) A3D3/MI A1D2= 1.20 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP


    It is also possible to use the Enigma formula with a small addition to get the relative strength between each unit:
    36PowerHP/cost^2= Strength factor
    And since it is all 3 IPCs basis 3^2 = 9, a
    simpler formula of Enigma for  3 IPCs: 4PowerHP = Strength factor

    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense, 1.00 HP
    3611/9= 4.00        3621/9= 8.00
    Artillery= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    361.5.75/9 = 4.50
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.71 Attack, 1.71 Defense, 0.86 HP
    361.71.86/9= 5.88

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.75 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    36*.75*.75/9 = 2.25    361.5.75/9 = 4.5
    Tanks (Original)= 1.80 Attack, 1.20 Defense, 0.60 HP
    361.8.6/9 = 4.32    361.2.6/9= 2.88
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.80 Attack, 1.80 Defense, 0.60 HP
    Simplified formula: 41.8.6= 4.32
    Tanks (1940)= 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.50 HP
            41.5.5= 3.00

    Tank (Original) A3D2 + MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.33 Defense, 0.67 HP
    41.33.67= 3.56
    Tank (Revised) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 1.33 Attack, 1.67 Defense, 0.67 HP
    41.33.67= 3.56      41.67.67= 4.48
    Tank (1940) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 1.20 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.60 HP
    41.20.60=  2.88    41.50.60= 3.60
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.50 Attack, 1.50 Defense, 0.75 HP
    41.50.75= 4.50


    So, when on the same IPCs basis, the underlying factors in Vann and now Enigma formula was simply:
    PowerHP ( 36/cost^2) = Strength factor
    Assuming Power and HP can be a fraction from reference unit.
    Above, I choose Infantry A1 C3, 1 hit as reference unit.
    And *36 or *4 was simply a factor to get whole number results for Tank C6 and Inf C3

    This give for each ground unit, without this little multiplying factor, these attack and defense factors:

    Ground units:
    1 Movement Force
    Infantry= 1.00 Attack, 2.00 Defense
    Artillery= 1.125 Attack, 1.125 Defense
    Infantry/Artillery= 1.47 Attack, 1.47 Defense

    2 Movement Force
    M-Infantry= 0.5625Attack, 1.125 Defense
    Tanks (Original)= 1.08 Attack, 0.72 Defense
    Tanks (Revised)= 1.08 Attack, 1.08 Defense
    Tanks (1940)= 0.75 Attack, 0.75 Defense

    Tank(Original) A3D2 + MI A1D2= 0.89 Attack, 0.89 Defense
    Tank(Revised) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 0.89 Attack, 1.12 Defense
    Tank(1940) A3D3 + MI A1D2= 0.72 Attack, 0.90 Defense
    Artillery + MI A4 D4, 2 hits = 1.125 Attack, 1.125 Defense

    These values allows to easily compared with Infantry A1 D2 to know below or above Infantry strength a given unit is.
     
    Eventually, it will be possible to derivate this formula from Stack formula (based on Lanchester’s Laws).


    Aircrafts:
    Fighter A3 D4 C10, 1 hit becomes 3/10 in Inf basis=
    0.90 Attack 1.2 Defense, .30 HP
    Strength factor: .90
    .30= 0.27 Attack, 1.2*.30= 0.36

    Strategic Bomber A4 D1 C12, 1 hit becomes 3/12 in Inf basis=
    1.00 Attack 0.25 Defense, .25 HP
    Strength factor: 1.00
    0.25= 0.25 Attack, 0.25*.25= 0.0625

    Tactical bomber A3-4 D3 C11, 1 hit becomes 3/11 in Inf basis=
    0.82-0.91 Attack 0.82 Defense, .273 HP
    Strength factor: .82
    .273= 0.224 .91*.273= 0.248 Attack,
    0.82*.273= 0.224 Defense

    Combined Arms:
    Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C17, 2 hits becomes 3/17 in Inf basis=
    1.235 Attack 1.059 Defense, 0.353 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.235
    0.353 = 0.436      1.059*0.353= 0.374

    Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C21, 2 hits becomes 3/21 in Inf basis=
    1.00 Attack 1.00 Defense, 0.286 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.00
    0.286= 0.286               0.286

    WARSHIPS:
    Submarine A2 D1 C6, 1 hit becomes 3/6 in Inf basis=
    Regular: 1.00 Attack 0.50 Defense, 0.5 HP
    Surprise strike: 1.50 Attack 0.667 Defense
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    1.00
    0.5= 0.500    0.500.5= 0.250
    Surprise strike:
    1.50
    0.5= 0.750    0.667*0.5= 0.333

    Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit becomes 3/8 in Inf basis=
    0.75 Attack 0.75 Defense, 0.375 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.75
    0.375= 0.281    0.281

    Cruiser A3 D3 C12, 1 hit becomes 3/12 in Inf basis=
    0.75 Attack 0.75 Defense, 0.25 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.75
    0.25= 0.188    0.188

    1942.2 Carrier A1 D2 C14, 1 hit 3/14 in Inf basis=
    0.214 Attack 0.418 Defense, 0.214 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.214
    0.214 = 0.046  0.418*0.214= 0.092

    1942.2 Carrier Full Fighters A7 D10 C34, 3 hits 3/34 in Inf basis=
    0.618 Attack 0.882 Defense, 0.265 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.618
    0.265 = 0.164  0.882*0.265= 0.233

    G40 Carrier A0 D2** C16, (**2 hits = 1.618034) 3/16 in Inf basis=
    0.00 Attack 2
    31.618034/16= 0.607 Defense, 31.618034/16= 0.303 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.000.607 = 0.00  0.6070.303= 0.184

    Battleship A4 D4 C20, 2 hits, (**2 hits = 1.618034) 3/20 in Inf basis=
    4
    31.618034/20 = 0.971 Attack 0.971 Defense, 0.243 HP
    Offense factor:                  Defense factor:
    0.971
    0.243 = 0.236                0.236

    Both values for 2 hits Carrier and Battleship are correct since you can use Baron-Larrymarx values /4 and gets the number above.

  • '17 '16

    I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
    In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
    It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

    Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
    Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

    IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

    Here is a picture.
    I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

    @Argothair:

    Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

    1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

    1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

    There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

    That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

    SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 14
  • 4
  • 9
  • 2
  • 19
  • 3
  • 1
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts