When to buy subs in the pacific and best strategy to use them

Down the analytical rabbit hole.

OK so there I am writing about generalities. But let’s look at some specifics, in the .tsvg, then I’ll move to the screenshot I put up.

TSVG:

R1: 5 inf to Yakut implies unprepared player. On the other hand, they put inf at Sinkiang, 2 fighters on Archangel, and didn’t just dump artillery on Caucasus, which as G1 could capture Caucasus makes sense.

But then, why not 1 fig Archangel 1 fig Caucasus, see if G wants to roll unfavorable dice on G1 Cauc? Because R is committed to countering G1 Baltic? And we see on G1 that R submerged submarine, which would be consistent.

From R1 I’d say R isn’t going to take big possibly unsafe gambles (if they mobilized 3 art at Cauc and no fighter for example). But also, they’re possibly very risk-averse to losing fighters, they’re willing to let their Europe game suffer to fake a counter against Japan (I don’t imagine for a moment they’re seriously going to try to fight Japan early and solve Japan’s logistics issues for them), and inf/art build indicates they don’t think G will misplay into a fat R2 counter, (as opposed to R1 inf/tank build which punishes bad play and overextension).

So basically noncommittal, won’t say R good or bad, but they’re playing a bit greedy and a bit conservatively.

G1: 7 inf 5 art perhaps overconfident (because it implies Germany’s going to be using artillery to break down R’s door instead of using infantry to establish a front then tanks for hitting power), then 2 inf to Gibraltar bleeds out Europe, 2 fighters to Africa. There’s no real G2 London invasion threat but probably there wasn’t meant to be; looks like G is going for a mid-long game with Med control for Africa/southeastern Europe threats.

Here, I’d say G isn’t exploiting a weak UK India/Africa, and G is really playing a mid/long game despite a heavy artillery opening. I wrote “overconfident” but G’s position is pretty good, so there’s some good chance it makes good on all its threats.

Again, noncommittal. I don’t like G’s tank placement; I prefer Baltic States to Poland and France. Seems pretty ambitious to me to keep tank at S Europe for Med transport pickup, and the AA/art at Italy as well, but on balance I like it more than the R1 turn.

UK1: Committed to Atlantic fleet, but flew air east.

They didn’t like UK1 destroyer/bomber against G Med fleet. Maybe they’ll like fighter/bomber against G Med fleet but my guess is maybe not.

At any rate, they bought ground to defend against G invasion of London, and only placed 1 unit at India, plus committed to a navy in Atlantic. That’s big signals. Theoretically they could build a decent sized fleet at India on UK2, but fundamentally they just don’t have the wherewithal to stave off Japan and Germany both pressuring India/Africa.

So now I revisit earlier advice. I wrote you shouldn’t fight US IPC for IPC, shouldn’t sink IPCs into ICs which are immobile targets, and you should go transports. Make more sense? If UK commits to Africa, Japan gets India. If Japan gets India in the KJF, Japan has a rear position to mobilize carriers, destroyers, and attack Africa (and if you fought IPC to IPC early on then you won’t have the weight of numbers to add to cheap subs to punish US overextension, or if sinking IPCs into ICs the same. And if US hangs back to build up strength, fine, Axis grab Moscow then consolidate, Japan’s 50ish IPCs battle US’s 40ish plus US has to come to Japan, that is, US must come in range of Japan’s cheap subs.)

Returning to the OP, “pressure on sz 60/62” - absent other considerations, sure. But? Germany has a pretty good threat on Africa income, India’s 3 infantry down compared to what it would be in LHTR setup, and UK1 dropped an Atlantic fleet. Sure, UK has an offensive threat, but if they don’t keep up on ground count (which they didn’t), then either Germany gets early Africa income (hooray) or Japan eventually pushes UK out of the naval zone or Japan grabs India because UK has loads of navy/air in the region but not much defending Calcutta; if R helps India then G can push faster in Europe, especially with G Baltic fleet intact. Make sense?

That is, there’s a UK threat, sure. But when you think about how that UK threat really needs to develop, and how to leverage Axis current position, well, I’d say transports.

About contingencies:

I mentioned contingencies a few times in passing. If Germany can’t break USSR from Karelia into West Russia with raw power, Germany can go in through Ukraine to push USSR / Allies combined stack back. If Allies can’t break Axis defense at Karelia with one power, it can do followup attacks with another.

Or when contingencies are absent; if Allies commit to France but can’t do much off the position, if Axis pressure Russia then the Allies may not have any outs. If Allies are committed to France, a partial pullout means Dunkirk except Germany doesn’t hold back, and anything sent to try to help Russia may not arrive in time anyways. If Germany tries a stack defense of Karelia and it fails, well, probably all Axis air is dead, most German tanks are dead and Germany can’t recover.

So you’re looking at this and maybe thinking “well, if Axis are in danger at Karelia why don’t they just pull back? isn’t aardvark always saying not to assume players are brain-dead?”

Right. But that gets to what I want to lead off with when talking about contingencies.

Some other players say things like “there are always things you can do”, or “if you’re smart you can always figure a way out.”

Usually, yes. Always, no.

If players want to play accurately, they need to think about things mathematically. Not romantically, not movie hero defying the odds, but coldly, mathematically, objectively.

So the problem with going right into how to use “contingencies” is when players build up a little confidence in their abilities they think maybe they can fudge things, get a little lucky, maybe small things won’t make a difference. Then it’s all about the romance and movie hero escapades, except now there’s a Scientist (fancy) that says Dramatic Things and is a Genius that Figures A Way Out. There’s always a Contingency Plan.

But really? What if your opponent is just better at running the numbers? And/or what if your opponent just got lucky?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRCTeQtNdU

So the first thing to remember about contingencies is you won’t always have them.

The second to remember about contingencies is sometimes you SHOULD NOT have them.

Wait, what? How can NOT having a backup plan be a good idea?

“Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket” - Andrew Carnegie

If the Axis stack Karelia, what does that really mean? The strength is, UK/US ground reinforcements are cut off at Finland (there’s some Allied outs but they’re not great), Japan and Germany both have air that “locks down” UK and US fleets. (If UK and US fleets are together, maybe Axis don’t want to take the combined defense down. But the moment UK moves off, Japan can hit UK and/or US before US can move to reinforce UK. If US moves off first, Germany can hit UK and/or US before UK can move to reinforce. Even if Germany doesn’t have a huge air force, if Germany kept just five fighters that can be pretty nice if there’s a big transport payoff.)

Say the plan is Germany tries to force an Axis-favored battle against the USSR/Allied combined stack near Russia, while Japan pressures trades and grabs Africa income.

Suppose Japan tries to have a “backup plan” of pushing mass units through Asia to challenge Russia.

Then what happens? Probably Japan still doesn’t have the unit count to challenge USSR head-on. It’s still absolutely necessary that Germany get an Axis-favored battle against the USSR / Allied combined stack.

But how will Germany do that, when Japan has less units at Karelia, so Germany needs to commit more units there to defend? Japan also has less air near Atlantic, so UK/US don’t need as much naval escorts and can just keep building then dumping ground which in turn pressures Germany.

That doesn’t mean Japan building mass units is categorically wrong. Maybe dice and player action make it clear it’s unlikely Germany will ever be able to get any sort of decent battle against the USSR/Allied combined stack near Russia. Then the Axis need to try something else, if the current plan is unlikely to have any success.

But for this example the point is building a backup plan can cut the chances on the primary plan.

Watch out for whenever a “backup plan” requires significantly different buys and/or moves to a “primary plan”. When that happens, only switch plans if the primary plan has already succeeded or if the primary plan is unlikely to succeed. (If the primary plan already succeeded, mission accomplished and time to set new objectives and means of accomplishing those objectives. If the primary plan will probably fail, better not throw good money after bad and adapt a new plan.)

Do contingencies exist, are they of practical use? Sure. If Germany wants to choke off USSR income at Ukraine, if USSR has a bit too much at West Russia and Caucasus (which could hit any German push to Ukraine), USSR can deny income to USSR at Belorussia instead. The USSR infantry/artillery at Caucasus can’t reach, probably anything Germany could have pushed to Ukraine can reach Belorussia instead.

Yes, if Germany can’t capture and hold Ukraine that won’t push USSR into having to decide between defending West Russia and Caucasus. But Germany can still try to force a major stack battle favoring Axis at West Russia, perhaps by building air. In turn that could mean Germany’s defense of France collapses, but if the Axis can still get a tolerable position out of it, that may be what has to be done. (Though there’s no guarantee even allowing France’s defense to collapse would give the Axis a decent position, depending on the position.)

Third thing to remember about contingencies is you can’t do them if you don’t have what you need. When you leave a resource where it can be destroyed, whether it’s an expensive bomber or an inexpensive infantry, that means you won’t have it later.

Consider if the Allies try to pressure Japan. If Japan tries to pressure Asia and Africa (which I’d say usually it should despite the oncoming USA navy), US can advance in the Pacific, threaten any new builds in Japan sea zones, and push Japan’s navy away. Then US can start grabbing high value islands and set up industrial complexes and the Axis game can get pretty awkward.

But there’s a difference between “awkward” and “deadly”. If Japan loses control of the entire Pacific coast, if US is taking high value islands and setting up ICs, that’s tough for Axis. But if simultaneously Germany is about to crush Russia and UK has nothing happening in Europe, then Japan can wait for Germany.

But then what happens? Suppose Germany has a small fleet, moves it into position, then Japan uses its fleet to reinforce. The further US pushes into Pacific / Indian Oceans, the harder it is for US to protect its lines of reinforcement. So it’s possible that even if US had good odds against a Japanese fleet, just a few German naval units could tip the scales. And it’s very easy for Germany to, say, produce two carriers and a destroyer at Italy, then move through the Suez if Axis have control. Then Germany can land four fighters on, and that’s pretty hefty defense, especially if Japan still has a good-sized fleet.

But if Japan has no fleet left to reinforce, if Japan tried some (unnecessary) losing-odds battle for nonessential territory that it couldn’t hope to hole for long anyways, then Germany has no backup. And if Japan took a bad-odds battle then US won’t even have been severely weakened.

That doesn’t mean Japan shouldn’t try to fight in the Pacific even without German reinforcements, it doesn’t even mean Japan shouldn’t try some bad-odds desperation moves. It depends on the position. But if Japan loses a chunk of navy and air force for no good reason, that navy and air force won’t be around later to make a difference.

So to recap, for this section on contingencies. Rather than trying to have some complicated clever plan with a lot of parts moving in different conflicting directions, stick to the basics. Consider the numbers, consider your strategy, know when something’s not working as well as it needs to so you know to switch to something else. If you must spend units don’t hold back, but think about whether you really need to spend resources. You may, but you may not. Also remember even if your opponent plays completely correctly mathematically (they may not, I don’t), there is still dice variance so there may be an opening.

Forming 1942 Second Edition and 1942 Online research/testing group for strategy/tactics. Writeups to be published as guides in time. Games will be played on TripleA v5 and 1942 Online and TripleA v5 (Larry Harris Tournament Setup) without bids.

Applicants must be comfortable with discussion of mathematics and exact details and are expected to contribute meaningfully. This is not a group for casual players, nor is it a group for players that want to develop “secret” lines of play.

Thanks! I appreciate your quick response.

@Dimitri Taking the Solomon Islands prevents Fighters flying into the SZ from 3 spaces away from being able to land unless they bring a Carrier with them, which in-turn gives you the opportunity to counterattack with Submarines, dooming the FTRs.

That being said, what I typically do after B1 is have the US fleet move to Solomon Islands (if able) and after that have the UK fleet shadow the US one, as you said.

Gonna file the two glitches I found in two separate threads.

First, the QoL changes and addition of ranked mode have breathed new life into this game for me. Thanks a ton for implementing both.

Anyway, this glitch is something I call “Sub Vortex”. Allow me to explain:

Scenario: USSR has a sub in SZ7 (English Channel). I Combat Move my German Sub into that SZ to attack. Both the Allies Player and myself have my Combat Profiles set to “Submerge Subs if no Destroyer Present”.

Battle Occurs, battle is canceled because Soviets submerge. USSR Player’s turn, battle is canceled because Germans submerge. Germany Player’s turn, I should have the opportunity to have my Submarine leave the hostile Sea Zone. This is where the possible glitch comes into play.

For whatever reason, I cannot leave the SZ with the Soviet Submarine. I can click the sub and see SZ7 come up in “yellow”, but the surrounding SZs are not “blue” and I cannot click any of them to move away from the Soviets. As this is a ranked game, I do not know if my opponent is also experiencing this glitch, or if it’s only affecting me.

Not a huge bug, but a bug nonetheless.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you! I found it and was able to create a new Defense Profile that submerges subs!

One problem with the casualty choice concept is a sub overwhelm. If the enemy has enough subs, and you lose all your destroyers first, and any subs survive the first rounds of combat, the attacking player can retain those. In a normal casualty choice, the last destroyer would not be lost until most or all of the enemy subs were destroyed.

This puts the defender at a disadvantage and alters the dynamics of the offense vs the defense. It forces japan and the atlantic allies to modify the way they defend because they have to set up to make their own overwhelming attack before the sub stack can attack.

Of course the defending ships on the sea will be able to fight back against the subs, if they survive the intial attack. But the planes wont–and the retention of the fighters + 1 DD in the later rounds of combat is one of the most powerful defensive combinations. If you’re out in the open sea, they can also exploit this dynamic to crash all your fighters, having first striked your carriers out from underneath you.

There aren’t any easy fixes to this problem, because its not only an issue with losing lower value units first. I want to lose all my defensive subs, then all my defensive dd except 1, then move on to losing better stuff.

I suppose there could be a checkbox or default to “lose all dd 2nd (after defending subs), except 1, until I’ve lost all my air, or the enemy has lost all their subs”

As others have pointed out, the changes made to facilitate async play may at first seem to have a small effect, and they would have a different effect on differerent versions of the game because the rules for subs and destroyers change. But the order of casualties issue obviously causes a major departure from the normal game dynamics, in all versions.