@colonelfrost said in Why can't my tanks move into Ukraine?:
Ah, I think I figured it out. A complex is considered an enemy unit so you can’t blitz through it.
You did figure it out. Well done.
Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online)
-
Note: I decided not to reroll things, just play through.
R1 buy: 4 inf 2 art. Cmove 12 to WRus, 9 Ukr. Retreated from Ukr to Cauc. Took low casualties at W Rus, lost no tanks at Ukr, left German tank and fighter alive on Ukr. Move only one AA to W Rus.
G1 buy: 1 destr 2 trn 1 car 1 inf. USSR has 19 dice into Karelia. Cmove Baltic States inf to Karelia, Italy inf via trn to Gibraltar, sub and fighter to UK cruiser.
Bit of weirdness here, not sure if it’s “correct”, but playing fast and loose anyways. Thought about sending sub after US East fleet, but instead of Germany’s fleet being disposable here I’m trying to preserve it.
Submerged USSR sub first round; normally better to leave unsubmerged first round but I’m restricting options by 1942 Online’s changes to the game.
Notice the German sub/fighter got wiped against UK cruiser. This was not likely to happen (6.6% chance of this result or worse happening), but players need to be prepared for variations from dice outcomes and opponent decisions.
Here, Germany doesn’t need to fortify Morocco to preserve the German fighter (as it’s destroyed already), freeing its units in Africa to be at Libya. This moves Germany’s development at Africa up a turn. Germany would much rather have the fighter, but oh well.
For UK turn, we look at destroying the Baltic fleet and the battleship.
AACalc gives 30% to clear the defenders then USSR sub can finish off. That would be a massive loss to Germany. Under normal rules, UK could purchase a carrier and destroyer, place east of London, then USSR would have a followup of sub and 2 fighters, giving an excellent followup. But in 1942 Online you can’t do that. The only followup is a sub, which will win against a lone destroyer 1/3 of time (both destroyed 1/3 but that would leave German transports alive). Still, it’s about 30% for Allies to wipe Germany’s Baltic fleet, 19% for German destroyer and transports to survive, then 1/3 of that 19% for the German fleet to be wiped with USSR’s followthrough. So about 36% for a winning position.
UK has about 75% to clear the battleship with destroyer/bomber. It’s a low dice count high unit value battle, and there are no followthroughs.
Which does UK take? If the Allies player feels they’re losing, they might want to take the 36%. 75% looks pretty good, but it’s not certain that the German battleship is really a threat, so think things out.
What about hitting the Baltic fleet? Germany has 3 inf 3 tnk 5 fig into London. Hitting the fleet kills German fighters first, reducing the German threat against London. But also, removing Germany fighters will restrict Germany’s options later on in a big way. Tactically, hitting the fleet is perhaps questionable, but strategically it’s not the worst.
How do we know German fighters die first? If destroyer dies first, USSR followup beats a carrier 60/40, and it’s a big payout. Germany probably doesn’t want that to happen. If carrier dies first, Germany retreats after having destroyed an expensive carrier and perhaps some air, Germany lands fighters, then USSR followup has 33% shot at destroying the entire fleet, plus Germany is out a carrier (and Germany is really pressed for income with this setup, like all right it can buy more if it must, but Germany doesn’t want to). Ideally the defender would see how many hits were rolled and could make appropriate decisions, but 1942 Online doesn’t let you do that.
What about hitting the battleship? Tactically it looks better with better odds, but strategically it’s not such a great thing for Germany. When UK and US combine fleets, Germany’s battleship won’t be of too much use; it’ll certainly be useful, but it won’t be flexible like Germany’s fighters.
So the decision is made, hit Germany’s Baltic fleet. Note that regardless of the actual result in this game, Germany probably loses about 36% of the time if UK decides to go with this attack. (I mean, maybe Germany can come back from the position after the Baltic fleet is destroyed, but I wouldn’t give it good chances).
What should UK buy? 9 infantry 1 artillery is the “safe” buy, 7 infantry 1 fighter the “greed” buy. (A fighter helps UK threaten the German navy). Assume we take 3 units off for India.
If the Baltic attack fails badly, Germany will have perhaps 3 inf 3 tnk 4 fighter to hit London with, against greed defense of 1 AA 1 bmb (US) 6 inf 1 art 1 tnk 1 fig.
This is only about 1/3 successful for the German attackers, and if they lose, they lose, Germany’s air will be decimated and there’s no followthrough.
But we can’t just leave it at that. We need to think about the possibility G2 goes 7 trn. UK will be completely unable to attack the Baltic fleet at that point (no odds). But US can reinforce with 4 fighters from E Can/E US, UK can build 8 land units, and we can expect perhaps another 3 fighters from West Russia by the time Germany can follow through. 14 attackers against 15 defenders, with high fighter count for favorable skew for defender, I’m not going to bother to calculate that (though really I should).
But let’s think through the UK greed buy. Okay, maybe UK can get away with it, but suppose the Baltic attack fails. How useful will another UK fighter be, strategically? Well, we know it can threaten the German Atlantic fleet with reinforcements from the India/Egypt region, it can be used to trade territory if the Allies ever land in Europe, fighters can be stuck on Allied carriers, and though maybe UK doesn’t need a third fighter for that, leaving a fighter free for Africa/India gives UK much better options. Though a UK bomber would be better, whatever.
What else could we do with those IPCs? Well, London needs ground for defense if Germany builds transports. Otherwise, fighters can threaten navy and defend London (ideal). Otherwise, submarines if US blocks Germany’s fleet, so UK can get a cheap shot at Germany’s navy. But we’re really not at the point that we need to be thinking about UK submarines yet, Germany doesn’t even have that much of a war fleet at Baltic and US isn’t position etc. etc.
Anyways, UK goes greed build of 7 inf 1 fig.
The UK Australia fleet heads east; it won’t arrive until late but UK will need all it can get in the Atlantic soonest.
UK destroyer in Med goes off Caucasus. Germany’s battleship surviving means Germany can press for income in Africa, which will be quite a problem. Since the German battleship won’t go to Caucasus (probably?), the UK destroyer may be safe there, which will allow UK to build a threat against Germany’s Med battleship.
But it’s not really a threat because the German battleship will escort the German transport to bridge to Libya, then UK fighters will have nowhere to land? True. The UK destroyer might be able to do something later.
Why not land UK fighters at Caucasus to pressure the Med early? I think about it, but 1) UK needs to pressure the Baltic, 2) with no German fighter on Morocco, US can land units at French West Africa, 3) UK can retreat its Egypt units to the south to defend.
Usually UK retreating Egypt units to south is pretty solid against German incursions into Africa. If Germany pushes infantry deep into Africa they’ll be stranded, and Germany wants all the units it can get near Ukraine to support a G4 Ukraine push. Even if Germany units push up through Persia and are cut off by the UK stack on India, there’s at least some possibility they’ll be relevant if they just push east.
But here, UK retreating Egypt units south is not so great. Germany’s given up on a G4 Ukraine push, so has nothing better to do than push Africa. Still, opposing German income in Africa will be needed, so that’s what Allies will do.
I notice I should have placed the Germany infantry at Italy instead of Berlin. Edit function’d it.
-
J1 buy 3 trn 1 inf 1 tnk. Between northeast Asia, repositioning in Asia, and pushing quickly in Africa, Japan just has a lot of nice use for tanks. Note Japan’s tanks are not like German tanks in use; German tanks are very brute force and repositioning with Germany’s massive starting stack sizes and huge tank forces, Japan’s tanks are more about opportunistically exploiting any small openings that the Allies inevitably have to leave someplace and small ability to redirect pressure. Japanese air lands at Wake.
Usually I’ll push 1 infantry to Burma, setting up UK to start draining its UK India stack with trades (or if not, Japan gets income). But here I use all land units to hit Yunnan, trying to get enough units to deter a US counter from Szechwan, and keep 2 infantry idle at Manchuria planning to move them to Kwangtung and land fighters to deny Allied income. The Japanese transport hits Soviet Far East to start draining USSR income immediately. Pearl light (US submerges, Japan loses sub, cruiser, fighter).
I don’t like Pearl light with a G1 11 inf 2 art open in 1942 Online. KJF is so crippled with 1942 Online’s rule changes I just don’t even think it’s necessary. Also with G1 11 inf 2 art I prefer to start trading out in Asia, get Allies to commit their forces. But here the Allies won’t be challenged by Germany nearly as much as if having used a G1 11 inf 2 art open, so I’m playing Japan more conservatively, trying to preserve Japan’s artillery in southeast Asia, etc. As to Pearl light, it’ll be a long time before the US could have gotten that fleet over to Atlantic, but every bit of power UK, US, and USSR can bring to bear on Germany accelerates Germany’s collapse in Europe, and with Japan having to go solo against India (with possible USSR reinforcement), that could mean Allies break Germany’s position in Europe while Japan is stalled at India.
If choosing between US possibly hitting Wake or Solomons to try to get a shot on Japan’s air, I’d rather they hit Wake. Solomons is too close to southeast Asia - not that I anticipate US will try KJF (besides playing both sides, just generally a big G1 transport buy I’d guess Allies would push KGF), but still.
US’s first decision is whether to go after Wake.
About 8.2% for US to win or wipe all Japanese defenders out, assuming Japan loses bomber first about another 25% to destroy the bomber. Japanese air is really great for the Axis, bombers even more so. On the minus side, a battleship and transport would be very delayed from pushing towards Atlantic, becoming relevant around US6 instead of US4. That’s a lot of lost time.
Intuitively it seems US should not hit Wake. We know by round 4, Allies should be starting to break apart the Axis positions in Europe and Atlantic, having an extra battleship and transport in the area will certainly be helpful.
But I think about the specific expected timing for this game. In a G1 11 inf 2 art open with normal-ish dice, Germany threatens to cut off UK’s India stack so UK is forced to withdraw pretty quickly anyways, then Japan has a guarantee to smash India early. But not in this game; besides Germany not building land units to push on Russia, the Allies rolled very well, Allies are very strong in Europe to the point USSR may even help defend India without losing too much position in Europe. Perhaps Japan will be delayed at India and won’t be able to shift its air to Europe for quite some time, meaning an Allied delay may not be as much an issue.
US buys 2 infantry, carrier, 2 fighters, attacks Wake, destroys infantry and bomber.
==
For USSR’s turn, the first thing I look at is USSR and Germany’s ability to hit and hold Karelia.
USSR can likely trade Karelia with no issue, but holding is another matter. Germany can hit with 14 inf 10 tnk 3 fighter, USSR can perhaps get 20 units there if lucky. Plainly USSR doesn’t have near enough to try to capture and hold Karelia this round, but if USSR moves all available units to reinforce West Russia and builds all tanks, it can get 31 units there next turn. By that time, though, Germany can easily get 35 units there. No matter what USSR builds, Germany can counter-build in Berlin to be able to hit Karelia with more units. This is not as deadly to Germany as it may seem; Germany’s Baltic fleet is defending the Atlantic, reducing pressure on Germany’s ground. However, the situation may become deadly for Germany, as Germany’s already lost three fighters and its bomber between R1 to Ukraine, G1 to UK’s cruiser, and UK1 to the Baltic fleet.
Against a G1 11 inf 2 art build I’d sit back with USSR, build up at West Russia. If Germany tries to capture and hold both Karelia and Ukraine to deny USSR income, USSR can pull a deadly attack/retreat or follow through depending on the position.
But here, even though just about all of USSR’s infantry may die next turn, I think I may want to go all tanks. I want to challenge Germany’s ability to hold Karelia on G2, so I want to counter the 24 dice Germany can sit on Karelia with. After using 2 USSR infantry to capture Karelia this turn, I’ll be able to bring 25 units to challenge the Axis 26-stack (considering Japan can reinforce with 2 fighters), which considering all the German tanks and Japanese fighters for high skew won’t be nearly enough, even though USSR has a load of high attack dice in those 25 units. If USSR wants to pose a serious challenge, it needs all tanks.
(BTW this is why I don’t like a R1 4 infantry 2 tank open. It’s just so easy for Axis to bulk up on Karelia on G2/J2 then USSR’s short on defense. I’d rather usually go R1 4 inf 3 art then build R2 tanks if Karelia can be challenged. But to be fair, if USSR doesn’t build tanks, and if USSR doesn’t want to retreat from Ukraine (German air is a high priority target), then USSR may not be able to prevent a G1 take and hold of Karelia, then Axis fighters land G2, then that gets ugly too.)
I send the USSR sub to hit the German Baltic fleet. This is about as good as it’s ever going to get for whittling down the Axis fleet.
If destroyer dies first 12.5% attacker wins, 35.34% carrier and transports only live. That translates to 12.5% horrible loss, 35.34% not great but tolerable (everything else is Axis win).
If carrier dies first, 9.1% attacker wins, 4.2% transports only live, 35.16% destroyer and transports live. Cumulatively that translates to 9.1% horrible loss for Axis, 39.36% really bad (valuable Axis carrier lost), everything else Axis win.
So here what does Germany do? Losing destroyer first gives 12.5% of “horrible loss” and 35.34% really not hot but maybe tolerable. Losing carrier first gives only 9.1% of “horrible loss” then 39.36% “really bad”. The problem is, destroyers are 8, carriers are 14, carriers are just so expensive.
I decided to play greedy with Germany and lose destroyer first. USSR wiped out the destroyer immediately, then after some rounds of rolling, eventually Germany potted the USSR submarine.
-
Comments on the game so far:
I don’t like how the Mediterranean is playing out for Germany. That was always going to be the case; the Allies just have too many options with UK and US in the Atlantic, and Germany just doesn’t have any real way to pressure, but even so. I think it might be better to try to push Germany’s Med fleet to Trans-Jordan early on. Very possibly not though.
Germany lost two fighters at the Baltic and another against the UK cruiser. It’s best not to judge actions by results after the fact; the UK cruiser was a reasonable risk. But I don’t think the Baltic defense was necessarily a good idea. Without trying to judge things after the fact, Germany just didn’t have any safety margin there for losing defenders. I think it might be better to push 3 subs 2 fighters and keep the cruiser at home, and still build the destroyer so Germany ends up with a pretty healthy naval defense.
US has the anticipated threat of 4 fighters 1 bomber against Germany’s fleet. So let’s think, suppose everything played out exactly the same way, only UK didn’t hit the German fleet. Germany could unite northwest of France with destroyer, carrier, cruiser, two fighters, battleship. UK would have 5 fighters 1 bomber, US 4 fighters 1 bomber, and USSR 1 sub. (Might be a little more for Allies really; changing the Germany move would leave UK with another cruiser). So I have to really think about whether unification northwest of France is any sort of real issue for the Allies. I don’t know that it is; the boost to Germany’s navy walks right into the fist of US’s logistics of US fighters newly produced on a carrier on US East’s sea zone.
USSR really did get lucky at West Russia, but that was a precondition of the game start. (If I had rolled poorly I would have edited in units). USSR also got somewhat lucky at Ukraine, inflicting decent casualties and losing some units but keeping all its precious tanks, and most importantly not taking Ukraine by accident leaving USSR’s tanks vulnerable to a counter.
US1 lucked out at Wake Island, blowing up Japan’s precious bomber. Again, not trying to judge the position after the fact, but did Japan really need to leave its units so there was no counter to US’s hitting Wake? Did Japan have to leave its navy south of Persia? For south of Persia there wasn’t any other way to get Japanese fighters in range to reinforce a G2 push on Karelia. Did Japan have to hit the UK cruiser off Kwangtung? Perhaps, but I didn’t have to do things the way I did.
With a G1 11 inf 2 art opening with more regular dice, I’d expect Germany to be able to capture and hold Karelia on its own a lot of the time. If Japan didn’t hit Pearl in that setup, I’d leave Japanese units in range of Iwo Jima to prevent US pressuring Japan’s sea zones. With Japan’s fleets and air really having no commitments there would be plenty of power for that.
But for this game, I wanted to put two Japanese fighters in range to reinforce a G2 push to Karelia in the face of an unusually powerful USSR. That sapped part of Japan’s naval power. Then, I used Japan’s navy to hit UK’s cruiser off Kwangtung. Along with losing Japan’s submarine and cruiser at Pearl, that left no cheap naval fodder in range to counter any US push to Wake, and actually there wasn’t any Japanese navy or air at all able to punish the push.
So I think I misplayed. If I wanted to have a Japanese counter to Wake, I would want at least a battleship east of Japan. That could also protect newly placed Japanese transports. But I couldn’t just ignore the UK cruiser; leaving the Japanese battleship west of Japan to protect Japan’s remaining transport offloading to Asia would leave Japan’s battleship out of range of wake, and sending the Japanese transport to Soviet Far East as I did would leave it in range of the UK cruiser. I could have hit the UK cruiser with destroyer and two fighters, and probably should have done.
Of course, US could also have lined up a W US sub build to counter any Japan counter to Wake. But considering the situation in Europe, that would have taken pressure off Germany. So I think that would have been acceptable.
Between Axis misplays and aberrant dice, this game isn’t really a fair representation of Sealion. But Sealion games do have to have a plan in case of bad dice, and the Allies were always going to be making a run on Germany’s Baltic fleet and reducing its air. I think the game certainly isn’t going well for the Axis, but I don’t think the Axis mistakes were so unreasonably bad that the game unfairly represents the possibilities of a Sealion with some important dice favorable to Allies, so I’ll play it out some more.
On looking at the board again during Germany’s turn, the condition of the Baltic fleet is a real issue. So maybe the game DOES unfairly represent Sealion because the Germany turn was botched.
-
The Allies can target down Germany in the Baltic, and Japan can do nothing to help. Well, that’s what happens with 1942 Online’s changes. Too bad.
What are Germany’s options at Baltic now?
-
Mass transport buy. UK responds with 3 fighters vs German carrier / 2 fighters, then US has a followup of 1 fighter 1 bomber, then USSR has a followup of 2 fighters. So, no.
-
Abandon Baltic and just produce land/air. If this is done there wasn’t any point to Sealion in the first place. So, no.
-
Build 2 destroyers to defend / hunt subs. UK builds 3 subs, either US blocks or UK splits placement. Germany’s Baltic fleet is then 2 destroyers 1 carrier 2 fighters. UK threatens with 3 submarines 3 fighters, US with 5 fighters 1 bomber, USSR 2 fighters. Germany’s Baltic fleet is dead by US3 unless Germany does a major fleet buy on G3.
So what have we gained with the Axis by Sealion? Germany held Norway and Finland income, not bad. UK spent on air and ground instead of transports and escorts, not bad, but not nearly good. It’s not that UK had to build a glut of useless ground on London, Germany’s air is dead, Japan can’t move into place anytime soon in Europe, the Allies have a lot of freedom in the Atlantic. Just a bit too much. And soon, UK will drop a load of transports and escorts. So by round 5, in exchange for loads and loads of naval expenditure, Germany bled out against UK/US instead of USSR, USSR will be surging in Europe, and Japan won’t be doing particularly well - not badly, but considering how quickly Germany’s position will be degrading in Europe, perhaps not fast enough.
A lot of it comes down to Germany losing that sixth fighter and losing a chunk of defense on UK1. If those had been different, the whole game would be changed.
But really, the fact that Japanese fighters can’t land on German carriers cripples Sealion’s options. It’s sad. Well, even though there’s things to be learned from playing out this game (like Japan could press in Africa and stuff), I’ll start again switching up Axis moves.
-
-
Last game USSR had super rolls, and each of the Allies had lucky chip damage on Axis, made worse by inaccurate Axis play. This time I’ll switch up the Axis moves a bit. At end of Germany’s turn
USSR got lucky again at both West Russia and Ukraine though it was less “luck” and more a precondition for Sealion in this thread. (I actually rolled a couple bad USSR opening games that I discarded).
Germany got lucky at the UK battleship fight, leaving a chunk of Germany submarine survivors, though that probably won’t make a big difference as UK’s East Canada destroyer can hunt Germany’s submarines.
Otherwise, Germany played differently in the Mediterranean and Europe. Units are placed on NW Europe; UK can capture France easily but that’s an unfortunate byproduct of Germany wanting to stack NW Europe, from where units can be transported easily to Karelia (as opposed to stacking France, which doesn’t allow that option).
Germany hit Trans-Jordan, left a tank at Italy and mobilized its infantry at Italy to threaten Africa via transport. UK can either hit Libya or the German battleship. Units at Italy could be inaccurate; UK has such incentive to destroy Germany’s battleship to prevent German income in Africa leaving units at Italy’s almost bound to be useless.
After looking at the map, I think I have to reconsider entirely my assumption about preconditions for Sealion, and the entire implementation of Sealion I’ve been using.
If Germany can’t capture and hold Karelia on G1 to threaten a big hit on West Russia G2 and accelerate its G3 threat with G2 Karelia production, then Allies have a lot of freedom in Africa, which is a problem as Germany’s Africa is weaker than normal with Germany keeping all its units so close to London.
But there’s compensations for Axis because of delayed pressure on the Baltic fleet? In 1942 Online Japan can’t land fighters on German carriers, so Germany is stuck with few naval options. Even if UK delays its air a turn from W Rus to deal with Germany’s battleship, it can reposition its air to hit Germany a turn late, with the added bonus that by that time US can position a destroyer blocker and UK safely produce cheap subs.
The kicker is even with cruiser bombard and 6 fighters, London is still not in much danger; UK can afford to build 7 infantry 1 fighter, remove its bomber from defense, and still have 28%+ to defend London. If Germany even attempts to hit London, it chances losing a chunk of irreplaceable German air and Allies have too many followup options even in case of German success.
Next game, instead of trying to build Sealion to threaten London on G2 (useless), I’ll send German air to Africa to push UK out early, then perhaps reposition for a G3 threat against London.
Is it enough that Germany position fighters in Africa to push UK out of Africa early and get Africa income? Must USSR also be weak in Europe for a Sealion projection to have decent Axis outcomes?
If Germany can’t capture and hold Karelia on G1, so be it. It’s not great for Germany, but perhaps not too awful. But if Germany can’t capture and hold Karelia on G2? For a G1 11 inf 2 art open, that’s pretty bad; Germany really needs Karelia to get more local production going. 2 units might seem like a small difference but it’s not.
But Sealion allows Germany to move units from Berlin to Karelia in one move. This seems to be a big advantage, but again, it’s not so much. Remember again the huge costs of the Baltic navy what with transports and escorts, its vulnerability to attack, turn order allowing US blocking into UK sub/air attack.
For a while Germany benefits by being able to drop 14 IPC per carrier then land already-existing fighters; though carriers are expensive, the fighters are “free” (not really! but after a fashion). But this is offset by the fact Germany has no good flexibility with its Baltic fleet; moving the Baltic fleet northwest of France puts it in range of US air, staying at Baltic lets Germany reinforce but then UK can build mass subs and US send in a blocking destroyer. Eventually Germany runs out of fighters to put on carriers - granted, not for a long time, but with such massive investment on navy and fewer ground units in Europe, USSR is a problem.
There are some advantages for Axis. A large Baltic fleet preserves Germany’s income at Norway and Finland, leaves Allied landings at France unsafe, and means Berlin and Baltic States don’t need defending.
What about Germany’s improved logistics to Karelia? What about Japan?
The problem I think at Karelia is Germany’s on the defensive rather than the offensive. Mass transport to Karelia sounds good on paper, but what do you really do with it? With so much ongoing investment in navy, do you end up sending cheap infantry/artillery to Karelia from Berlin around G3 (after a G2 build) to boost Germany’s timing threat against Karelia? But think on the timing; G1 10 land units on Berlin, G2 to Baltic States, G3 Karelia. Or G1 Baltic fleet, G2 transport perhaps 4-6 units to Karelia, G3 6 units? Germany’s not appreciably ahead and Ukraine is soft; on later turns Germany needs to keep investing in fleet.
Then what about Japan? Germany doesn’t threaten to cut off UK’s India stack, USSR has some room to mess about in Europe, possibly freeing USSR land or Allied air to go to India. It’s not going to be great for the Allies to do that (multnational forces are good for defense but lousy on attack) but there’s compensation for the Allied inefficiency; every turn of delay at India means another 3 units on UK’s India stack and 3 less for Japan.
Still, we can perhaps assume India eventually falls to Japan’s 8 units from Tokyo a turn. But then what? The multinational Allied force retreats into Europe, which was already unstable for the Axis, and the Allies will have been building pressure on the Baltic fleet the entire time. Once Germany’s Baltic fleet is broken, the Allies start landing almost immediately. Again, this is not doom and gloom projections, it’s simply what’s expected; US wants to have a carrier to accelerate its timings on US fighter reinforcements to London, the Allies have a load of airpower they used to break the German Baltic fleet in the first place, an Allied destroyer and carrier suffice to get transports in the water.
What I’m getting at is - perhaps I’m missing the timing on Sealion or a key concept somewhere. But where, exactly?
Even if Germany changes to a G3 threat to London instead of G2 and breaks into Africa income, the exposed Baltic is still vulnerable to the Allies, Germany still can’t get any Japanese reinforcements to its navy under 1942 Online’s rule changes, the Axis will be soft against Ukraine and India, the Allies have loads of fighters it can move in for emergency defense, while the Axis simply cannot unite Germany and Japan at all effectively. Oh, Japan can still move its air to Europe, no question, but there was also the question of the India / Ukraine / West Russia / Caucasus region which is now gone.
A problem with so-called “analysis” absent comprehensive actual numbers is, the prejudices of the writer come out. Because a writer doesn’t see how a plan can work, they assume it cannot work, even if it does actually work.
But though I’m keenly aware of that problem, I still have to think. All right, I’m used to infantry push attrition stack building / stack bleeding. Sure. And I learned variations of multiple threat mechanics, which plays out quite differently. And I think neither are enough to get Sealion working.
So what is this, a third way to think about Axis and Allies? But how? If you look at the concept of multiple threat mechanics, you could say theoretically Sealion pressures bad Allied responses because it simultaneously pressures London and West Russia (once Karelia is established). But you look at the vulnerability of the Baltic sea zone, you look at Allied options, you look at the fact Japan can’t reinforce at all with 1942 Online’s changed mechanics. What are you left with? Really, what are you left with? Is it something other than attrition or multiple threat? Or is it really multiple threat and I’m missing something? How?
For example, if someone said “oh look, aardvark, you’re missing THIS IMPORTANT BIT where Japan captures and holds Karelia!” I’d be like “oh, fantastic, that changes everything”. Because you have a Karelia Japan IC, then Japan can start popping out ICs locally and land existing fighters, and Baltic defense can go into overtime. But you’d need to have something big like that, I think, and if you think it’s easy for Japan to secure Karelia, well, it’s not.
I can play it out some more, but I expect things to go the way they have been. Germany can’t seriously invade London against a competent player. Not only that, but I believe Allied responses to Sealion don’t even require significant Allied sacrifices. I mean, yes, the Allied timeline does change, but it’s more of a “this is a different game” than “the Allies needed to make a sacrifice that set them back”. Germany holds Norway/Finland for quite a while longer, UK/US landings in Europe are certainly delayed. There’s a whole bit with German Baltic submarines in later turns I haven’t even gotten into with these projections yet. But even though the Allies definitely are set back, so too are the Axis. I think the balance given competent Allied play is in favor of the Allies.
Again, it could just be I’m just missing something important.
I think I’ll run through at least one more with TripleA, see what happens with G1 fighters to Africa. Perhaps have R1 capture Ukraine too, and precondition a game in which G1 captures and holds Karelia. It really is such an issue that Germany has no credible threat to West Russia on G2; it gives the Allies so much freedom to simultaneous develop threats on the Baltic flee while also defending London.
-
OK, so this game I’m presupposing G1 has a take and hold of Karelia. What needs to happen? R2’s threat to Karelia is West Russia survivors (probably including 2 artillery 1 tank), probably 2 USSR fighters, and any R1 tank build.
We’ll assume USSR went 9 units to Ukraine (not that I’m recommending that but I’ve heard it’s the meta so whatever, plus it plays into our presupposition) and captured Ukraine (which I’ve also heard is the meta). It’ll be a little weird landing two USSR fighters on Caucasus as they’re not strictly needed but we’ll attribute that to Allied player’s risk profile.
G1 to Karelia (with Ukraine and W Russia lost) is 7 infantry 4 tanks plus one transport’s worth of units (whether inf/AA, inf/tank, or two inf). What sort of USSR attack can that fend off?
Let’s say R2 to Karelia is 2 fighters, 1 tank, 2 artillery, 7 infantry, plus whatever R1 tank build. AACalc gives about 31.47% for USSR to have that or worse. (So probably USSR will be better, but again, this is a precondition for Sealion, so if USSR has better than Germany just does something else).
https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/
Let’s take R1 2 tank and G1 transport inf/AA first. AA means USSR has to risk fighters to even attempt the attack. Attacker has 56.2% to win, but can of course withdraw earlier to safety to preserve USSR’s valuable tanks then move up infantry reinforcements. So that is not really nice for Germany.
Switching to G1 transport inf/tank reduces attacker to 55% (note David Skelly’s calculator doesn’t run that many iterations so there is variance in reported results). But though it seems safer for the defender, it’s not really that great, as there’s no deterrent against USSR air. USSR knows its valuable units will be safe with no AA gun, so is more inclined to carry out the attack.
If R1 builds 1 tank, attacker odds fall to 33-35%, if 0 tanks around 15%.
There’s a lot of weird things going on behind the scene, mathematically speaking. I mentioned Axis and Allies results often manifest in a multi-peaked curve (usually about two).
With 16 attacking tanks against 16 defending tanks, the results don’t come out to mutual wipeout, or even 1 tank on one of the sides surviving. No, if you look at the chart, it’s something like 3-5 tanks usually surviving on a single side with the other wiped out. Sometimes more.
What I’m getting at is with perfectly evenly matched forces, you see the end result usually favors one side or the other by a good margin. It’s not that both sides evenly wipe one another out right down the light; differences in initial dice outcomes get magnified over subsequent rounds until, well, you see what happens.
So when USSR has a fair-odds attack that can perhaps wipe out a chunk of Germany’s irreplaceable tanks (you can build more, but gone is gone), what does USSR think? If USSR gets lucky on opening rolls and Germany unlucky, it can inflict a chunk of casualties on Germany’s valuable forward infantry (it takes time for Germany to march all those units to the front, and that time has value and opportunity cost), and maybe take a shot at some tanks as well. If USSR doesn’t get so lucky? Well, not fantastic, but USSR can retreat to West Russia and move infantry in to reinforce. So long as the dice outcomes aren’t an absolute disaster for USSR, the position will be all right. So USSR does attack. Even if the odds look not to be fantastic, USSR really doesn’t have a lot to lose, and has a lot to gain, so it does it.
But if the odds look really bad for USSR, then it’s a little different. All right, destroy Germany’s forward infantry, that’s very nice, but how much of USSR’s units are lost? Eventually Germany may establish a forward position then try to push USSR off West Russia, if USSR took a chunk of casualties and Germany didn’t, the balance of power is shifted towards Germany.
Even at 33-35%, it’s not categorically wrong for Russia to hit Karelia. Remember those were about the odds for US getting good results in the first game for attacking Wake, and US lost two infantry but destroyed an infantry and a bomber in exchange. In that game, Japan wasn’t in position to punish US pushing to Wake, similarly Germany may not be in a position to punish USSR for attempting a hit on Karelia then retreating to West Russia. Yes, if the dice are an absolute disaster for Allies there’s a possibility of an immediate German counter, but it’s unlikely if the Allies played competently. (I mean, literally unlikely in the probabilistic sense, it can certainly still happen).
But you can see here the sort of thing that happens once you start looking at the numbers and specifics. It’s not “just one or two units here or there”, R1 2 tank build literally makes all the difference between a viable R2 Karelia hit or not. R1 retreating from Ukraine to preserve USSR tanks starts to make more sense. It’s understanding the numbers that separates accurate play from inaccurate play.
It’s not absolutely necessary that a player analyze games mathematically; a decent player will get some idea of what outcomes will be based on intuition shaped from years of experience.
But I do want to point out I’ve always been very critical of players that push dogmatic lines of play absent detailed analysis, because new players that lack experience are going to make loads of inaccurate plays everywhere which will add up to their losing. The more actual board conditions are ignored in favor of “simple advice”, the less it applies against actual board conditions, the more players that follow inflexible advice end up losing as they didn’t understand the basic principles underlying.
I’m not saying it’s right to just hit new players with text walls either. But there should maybe be a series of videos and/or articles that take Axis and Allies from fundamentals to mathematical concepts to concrete applications.
Like here, I’m saying Sealion turns out not to just be about brute force invasion of London, it seems to turn out to be about securing early German Africa income, freeing Germany from having to defend much of Europe with ground units (using naval units to do so), and coordinating Japan’s timing with Germany’s development to get effective Axis defenses in Europe against the KGF. There’s a lot of specific actions that turn out to be problematic, like pushing J1 fleet south of Persia, from where Japanese fighters can reinforce G2 push to Karelia; it seems like that might be a good idea, but it restricts Japan’s options with transports depending on UK’s results against Japan’s destroyer/transport off Kwangtung (assuming that attack is carried off). Appreciation for these details is what differentiates levels of play.
It’s not that I’m trying to claim to be on some other level. I’m just saying, there really is a difference between players that apply mathematics and projections and those that don’t, there is a difference between conversations that show mathematics and projections and those that don’t. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with playing without mathematics; players ought to do what they enjoy. But you can see where advice that doesn’t have mathematics at its core just isn’t going to see much progress.
Imagine trying to explain, without concrete mathematics and screenshot projections, why it’s important that Japan consider moving battleship, carrier, and fighters south of Persia on J1. What does that have to do with Sealion at all? But it DOES have something to do with Sealion.
Imagine trying to explain why USSR retreating from Ukraine and/or purchasing R1 tanks makes a difference to Sealion. Isn’t Sealion about invasion of London? So what does USSR have to do with anything? But it IS related.
So for this upcoming game I’ll use R1 4 inf 3 art open and R1 pushes Ukraine until capture or USSR fighters endangered. Japan won’t push its J1 fleet south of Persia but will instead consolidate, then try to rush Axis income in Africa. Germany will push Africa early then reposition fighters to Europe (joined later by Japanese fighters), Japan will reposition to try to hit India.
The slow Axis buildup might be dismantled by UK/US picking off Germany’s Baltic fleet, after which Germany will scarcely have the land units to hold off any sort of Allied pressure. USSR will bulge out at Ukraine and have a healthy income. UK’s India stack will build over time, and eventually will likely play a role in pressuring Germany off Karelia.
If Axis lose control of Karelia, then Axis lose soon after (provided the Allies didn’t sacrifice Russia to make it happen). That is my prediction. Probably I’ll play it out later a bit on TripleA, post screenshots.
-
The next commented game has the most mathematics and explanations of the series. But three cautions. First, this is not intended to be any sort of full address or even a real case study. It’s really just an opinion piece with some illustrative examples, nothing more. Second, though the focus is on mathematics remember opponents will not play accurately, you will not play accurately, and even the following text probably isn’t a sample of accurate play. It might look that way, but if there was something I missed? (Shrug).
Third, what I write following is not even Operation Sea Lion in the proper sense. I don’t think London can be successfully invaded. At best, I think it’s fairly described as trying to use a German Baltic fleet to secure Germany’s Norway/Finland income, reduce or eliminate any need for Germany to defend most of Europe with land units, instead substituting Germany’s navy to fend off the Allied navy. There are a lot of problems with the plan, Germany’s Baltic navy is exposed with nowhere to hide and is easily cut off, I believe there is no way for Japan to meaningfully reinforce Germany’s fleet with 1942 Online’s abysmal rule changes, and USSR and UK end up with a lot of freedom in the area between Ukraine and India, which leads to problems.
Because the following is so demonstrably NOT any sort of serious threat on London, it is hereafter referenced as “the G Baltic fleet” or such.
The preconditions for the G Baltic fleet for this game were USSR performs poorly at R1 West Russia, does not retreat its tanks from Ukraine, and does not purchase 2 tanks. This allows G1 capture of Karelia in force with the expectation that Germany not only holds, but will perform so well against any USSR attack/retreat action that even attempting attack/retreat is expected to generate bad outcomes for USSR. Securing Karelia on G1 allows local production of units, to which may be added units produced on Berlin moved in via transport.
Unlike land-based strategies, with a G Baltic fleet Karelia cannot count on fighter support for defense. Germany’s fighters are locked to carriers, Japan’s fighters are busy near India. The compensation that UK/US cannot easily establish a beachhead at Finland/Norway is balanced out by Germany’s lack of ground forces as it buys Baltic navy, and a stronger USSR pushing for income near Ukraine.
The German open is not mass transports and a carrier, rather it builds a destroyer, a transport, a carrier, and ground units.
-
A G Baltic fleet of lone carrier and 2 fighters is vulnerable to UK 2 fighters 1 bomber, then a possible followup of USSR 1 submarine. 1942 Online’s defensive profiles do not allow proper use of the USSR sub, but a player may still reason that an opponent will attack with overwhelming force, and decide to submerge the submarine. If the German carrier is lost first, it is still almost 41% that UK destroys the entire German fleet, I consider that a near-loss condition for the Axis. Even if UK fails completely, if the carrier is gone USSR has a 100% followup with a submarine; even if the carrier is not gone the USSR submarine has 60% to win against a carrier (and winning destroys the entire German Baltic fleet).
-
A G Baltic fleet of cruiser, carrier, and 2 fighters is vulnerable to attack by UK air with USSR followup. If Germany loses air units first, there’s less of an invasion threat against London and fewer German units that can contest a USSR stack push. Germany cannot simply replace fighters as that will cost ground units in Europe. But if Germany loses naval units first then a USSR submarine followup has better chances. No matter what Germany loses, it is problematic for the Axis, and too much depends on the opponent’s decision regarding the USSR submarine.
-
A German fleet of cruiser, destroyer, and carrier only leaves budget for 2 transports. Even with 6 fighters, Germany cannot pose a credible threat to London of a level that pressures UK to make a buy that is strategically inflexible. A UK1 buy of 7 inf 1 fighter allows 3 infantry to be placed on India, 4 infantry and a fighter on London, defending London and threatening Germany’s Baltic fleet.
As London cannot be credibly threatened on G2, this G Baltic game attempts to bolster Germany’s logistics to Karelia, with the Baltic fleet providing cover for a possible German mass transport build that may threaten London and trying to cut off UK/US from reinforcing Europe with cost-effective land units (nothing can be done about Allied fighters from London to West Russia except breaking West Russia).
The Axis need to strike a balance between choking off UK’s income and racing to try to take down Russia before Germany’s Baltic fleet can be broken.
R1: 4 inf 3 art, W Rus 9 inf 2 art 1 tnk vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tnk. Attacker survivors: 4 inf 2 art 1 tnk, i14.78th percentile). Ukr 3 inf 1 art 3 tnk 2 fig vs 1 bmb 3 inf 1 art 1 tnk 1 fig, German bomber died first, USSR captures with 1 tank 2 fighter surviving (37.07th percentile).
As USSR performed poorly at West Russia, both AA guns were placed in West Russia. That left few defenders on Caucasus. Considering the Kazakh infantry to Szechwan frees up UK’s fighter to hit Germany’s battleship, instead of moving the Kazakh infantry to Szechwan, or leaving 1 inf 3 artillery to defend Caucasus, or even adding just 1 fighter to Caucasus, USSR landed 2 fighters on Caucasus and placed 1 inf 3 art, defending against German 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter battleship bombard which would have been an expensive gamble for Germany but potentially very profitable, especially considering USSR’s weak open.
G1: 4 inf 1 trn 1 car 1 dstr, Ukr 2 inf 2 fig vs 1 tnk (no losses, 45.89% chance), sz 7 3 sub 2 fig vs 1 sub 1 destr 1 btl (sub not submerge) lost one sub (33.11% chance that or better), sz 17 1 btl vs 1 destr (no loss, 93.98% chance), Trans-Jordan 1 inf 1 art vs 1 inf no losses (52.2% chance)
This game is really a bad example of a G Baltic fleet game. Even presupposing bad dice on a R1 open, the R1 open dice were really bad, then G1 had almost all optimal dice results (not just decent or good, but optimal.)
-
-
Proper play does not consist of canned “strategy” with everything “evening out in the end”; everything does NOT even out in the end. G1 noncombat moves in this game illustrate this point.
Germany had two submarines survive at sea zone 7, very unlikely but it happened. Its battleship survived in the Mediterranean, which was expected, but even so. We know UK will be choked for income in this game, why? Because as Axis we deliberately plan to choke it out to reduce UK’s options against the G Baltic fleet and at India. As Allies, we know this because we know the Axis player is the sort of player that thinks that way.
So how can we prevent UK from taking France cheaply, perhaps preserve Germany’s submarines, and Germany’s battleship, not only with a minimum of risk, but a minimum of investment? Frankly we can’t, which is a failing of some guides that say you can “force” your opponent to do one thing or another or “trick” them or whatever nonsense. There is no hidden information in Axis and Allies, and almost no “forcing” of moves (there are victory cities but it’s less about focusing on and fighting for control of victory cities in some sort of “clever” play, and more about simply having strong fundamental play that wins on its merits with victory cities being taken in passing).
But though in Axis and Allies there’s not really “force” or “trickery”, sometimes an opponent can be presented with possibilities to make inaccurate plays if they don’t correctly apply strategy or tactics. Or plays that are “wrong” in some situations can be “right” in others.
Consider Germany’s defense of France in this game. There are a lot of conflicting things going on.
Consider what happens if UK captures France. Income, which is badly needed to challenge Germany’s Baltic navy. Germany will want to commit units to recapture France, which will detract from Germany pushing east. UK loses an infantry or leaves its tank stranded in East Canada (considering 1942 Online doesn’t let you use allied transports it’s rather more of an issue). UK will lose its transport on Germany’s counter, but a 7 IPC transport that wouldn’t be much use for a long time (Germany’s Baltic navy would destroy any early fleet escorts) and a 3 IPC infantry for a 6 IPC territory and positional pressure? Might not seem like the worst.
Now suppose instead of Germany simply lining up an obvious counter, Germany actually puts a bad defense on France. Suddenly, France becomes more tempting, not less. The income is less certain, but now factor in Germany loses land units from an area already low in land units, increasing positional pressure. With the loss of German units, the net expected IPC gain/loss may be even better than before, even considering the possibility France is not captured.
But why would Germany put a bad defense on France? Which it does in this game. Because using a single AA gun as part of an understrength defense may offer a shot at UK air, which would be dangerous to Germany’s high-value Baltic fleet when built up later. It’s unlikely UK will lose air to the AA gun, but the more risks UK takes, the more chance something will turn sour. Also, if enough units are used that UK air are required for favorable odds on France, in this game that might mean the two German submarines survive. Those German submarines will be a pain for the Allies to deal with once they move back to safety at Baltic, then they can be used as cheap fodder. But “cheap” at 12 IPCs for the pair, is not really that cheap.
The fewer fighters UK sends to France, the less its chances there. The more fighters UK sends to France, the less its chances against the submarines. If UK sends its bomber to France instead of the Mediterranean, Germany can build up in Africa, which might seem like a bad idea as Germany’s already drained in Europe trying to feed the Baltic fleet. But persistent German income in Africa over time is a real problem for the Allies.
So here, defending France with 1 AA 3 infantry is not a “good” defense of France. But if UK really tries to capitalize, then it’ll leave openings elsewhere. If UK doesn’t try to capitalize, then Germany at least committed fewer forces to protecting France, leaving more units to head east against USSR.
But this entire line of play simply doesn’t come under consideration if there were no German submarines, if German air were in a different position, if there were no German carrier to provide eligible landing zones in case of a UK fleet build (which I didn’t mention but is the case). A “canned strategy” does not allow best adaptation to the situation; it’s easier for beginning players to follow, but not thinking is a bad habit to get into.
Another bit that might look odd is leaving Belorussia and Poland open. What if USSR captures Belorussia? Blitzes a tank to Poland? The answer is, USSR would be able to capture Belorussia regardless, and trading a 2 IPC Poland for a 6 IPC USSR tank, even allowing for the possibility of lost German infantry, is not too bad of a trade for Germany. USSR tanks seem pretty useful in the early game, but USSR tanks in the early game are nothing compared to USSR tanks in the late game handled by a competent player. They’re a real problem to deal with, so if USSR wants to lose one, fantastic.
Sometimes players assume something will work out, without really calculating in advance. We know G1 will hold Karelia, but what about G2? If R2 builds 4 tanks, it’ll have 12 inf 5 art 5 tank 2 fig; 24 units with 48 attack. Compare to Germany’s projected defense if nothing is added: 1 AA 8 inf 4 tank, only 13 units with 28 defense. We add in what may be expected; 2 Finland infantry, 2 German infantry built on Karelia, and 5 tanks from elsewhere, for 22 units with 51 defense. This seems better, but remember Germany has a logistics issue so USSR may hit just to reduce Germany’s numbers, then there’s the two-peak model; if USSR hits and gets lucky Germany’s irreplaceable tanks may get wiped out and it’ll functionally be game over. It might seem there’s plenty of margin for error with up to 4 units coming via Germany’s transports and 2 fighters, but remember those are conditional on there being 4 units for Germany to transport (which may not be the case if Germany wants to counter UK and USSR which may mean recapturing France and Poland) and fighters may be needed to defend the Baltic fleet (since UK can build air and/or sea units and bring over its Asia fighters to threaten the Baltic fleet with a pretty big hit) or even for other targets.
How do we know Germany’s fighters might be needed at Baltic? There’s no obvious indicator, players should always consider what their opponents might buy that could change the situation. What can UK2 build to hit Baltic with? Say 2 fig build (leaving enough for 3 ground on India) and the bomber need not hit the German battleship at Africa, for up to 6 fighter 1 bomber vs carrier, destroyer, cruiser, 2 fighter. UK is happy to reduce Germany’s air force and navy, leaving less for USSR to deal with, throw in a couple transports for a payout and favorable odds and that’s what Germany can expect UK to do. There will also be followup threats from US then USSR from West Russia so even more German navy may be needed.
Germany is very close to the edge on a lot of planned future defenses, and the entire turn was very different to what it would have been if R1 had different dice rolls, or even different actions (such as retreating from Ukraine). If the Axis had been following a canned strategy, Germany simply would not have played accurately to the actual board position, and that would have been costly.
Particularly at Karelia, the importance of understanding the G Baltic fleet’s issues was important. For a player used to a G1 11 inf 2 art opening it might be thought sufficient that Germany be able to withstand R2’s counter; a player used to that opening would be used to being able to land German fighters to secure the defense. But with a G Baltic fleet, Germany’s fighters are needed to protect the Baltic.
Without German fighters available to help defend Karelia, it could have fallen to a R3 counter if Germany didn’t set up its land units at the end of G1 to reinforce Karelia sufficiently on G2.
-
On UK’s turn, I go back to consider opportunity costs and might-have-beens.
Looking at the board it’s easy to dismiss Germany’s moves as mistakes. Germany could have 9 inf 9 tanks 5 fighters threatening W Rus, and 3 inf 3 tanks 5 fighters threatening London. Surely the pressure of both simultaneous threats could force some sort of breakdown somewhere out of the Allies, even if only to prevent destruction of Germany’s battleship at Mediterranean. Germany could even threaten with 4 inf 4 tanks 5 fighters if buying another transport instead of destroyer.
But it’s a bit more involved than that. Instead of thinking vaguely and reasoning with such force surely something must be possible, the details should be worked out. Even things that may seem like weaknesses may not be.
First, what of raw force? Consider London. If Germany bought another transport so less a destroyer, even keeping the cruiser back leave the G Baltic fleet at high risk against a UK air attack and a USSR submarine followup. Against a player known to use their USSR submarine to fight it might be considered, but it’s very possibly the entire game right there. Even if both German carrier and cruiser survive, reducing USSR’s submarine’s odds, USSR might still attack, there’s nothing else for the USSR sub to do and the payout is massive.
If Germany accepts those risks and doesn’t lose its navy before G2 (a real possibility) to threaten 4 infantry 4 tank 5 fighters to London, UK buying 7 infantry and keeping 1 fighter back defends London about 58% if the AA gun then the US bomber are removed first, leaving 3 UK fighters, 1 US fighter, and 2 USSR fighters to land on West Russia. UK could add another tank from East Canada (but would lose the transport) or keep back its second fighter, but 42% is not the best odds for Germany even absent those reinforcements.
If Germany builds a destroyer for safety its invasion of 3 inf 3 tnk 5 fig is down to about 36% after a UK placement of 7 infantry on London even if UK has no fighters there.
What about W Rus? 19 defenders 39 def against 23 attackers 51 att, assuming USSR attack of 1 inf 1 art 2 fig vs 2 inf at least destroys the opposing inf (decent chance). This is not at all safe; even if USSR outnumbered the attackers, most of the defending dice are 2 and attackers 3, more importantly initial rounds of combat would remove Germany attackers at 1 and USSR defenders at 2. A lot more defense is needed. Where can it come from?
But we saw even with Germany threatening London with 4 inf 4 tnk 5 fig, there are still 4 UK/US fighters available to add to West Russia. It’s still not the greatest defense and there are some opportunity costs, but even trying the attack risks German air to UK’s AA gun. True, Japan might prevent the US fighter from being available by hitting Szechwan, but that would risk Japanese air, and considering all the factors outside Axis control, many of which don’t even come down to just bad dice but also opponent blunders, it’s just too much to expect. Even if the US fighter is not available, Axis odds of breaking West Russia are still less than 43%.
Imagine, first USSR has to have set its submarine to fight so it dies without being able to threaten Germany’s fleet, UK has to attack the German Baltic fleet but fail (losing UK’s fighters in the process), 1942 Online automatically lands fighters if their carrier is destroyed and will probably land them someplace they shouldn’t be then Germany ends up with 2 less fighters on the attack, after failing the attack UK would place 7 units on London instead of 8 and not move the East Canada tank in as an emergency measure. If any part of that process fails, Germany’s odds go down.
The Allies can keep both Germany’s chances of capturing London and its chances of breaking the Allies on West Russia to less than 50%.
So does Germany really have so much flexibility and raw power that a bad position is forced out of the Allies? No.
Some things are not as obvious as they may seem, like the defense of France mentioned in the previous post, or Germany’s need to use its fighters to defend Baltic so Karelia’s defense after a G1 hold being far weaker. The use of the German Mediterranean fleet in a G Baltic game is one of these things.
Consider the use of the German Med fleet in a G1 11 inf 2 art game. Germany holds Karelia by G2 with Japanese fighter reinforcement from a J1 fleet sent south of Persia, and G1 tank builds to balance any threat R1 dice outcomes and buys posed. Germany then lands fighters to secure Karelia, and pushes surplus ground towards Ukraine, With German fighters defending Karelia and German infantry/tanks pushing to Ukraine, Ukraine can reasonably be held about G4, after G1/G2 infantry and G3 tank builds are joined by Japanese fighters (which are still in position to hit India). In such a game, the German Med fleet is deadly as it allows fine control of Germany’s forces in Africa. If Germany gets income from Africa, that slows UK’s actions but also increases Germany’s income, add that to Germany’s large starting stacks and high production that’s all on the same continent as Russia, and Germany can use that income to ramp up aggression quickly. The Ukraine stack incoming can also be reinforced by the German battleship and transport; two units may seem like a small difference but as examples through this thread have shown even one unit makes a big statistical difference even in large battles, add two a turn for a couple turns and it really does add up. So with a G1 11 inf 2 art opening, the German Med fleet is a high priority target.
But with a G Baltic open, the German Med fleet is NOT a high priority target. German fighters are locked to the Baltic so cannot defend land, so more German land is locked to Karelia. German income is siphoned into navy; it’s true Germany also needs less land to defend Berlin, Baltic States, and other spots (as its massive navy can wipe out any light UK/US escorts and transports), but combine the two and the net expectation is Germany simply cannot afford to build a stack for Ukraine to deny USSR income. So the German Med fleet can never add to a stack that doesn’t exist, so isn’t near as deadly.
But German income in Africa is still deadly? Certainly. Absolutely. But considering the current board position has 6 ground 3 fighters challenging Egypt and Germany’s battleship and transport at the moment, what does UK do? If UK hits the battleship it’ll lose its bomber in the battle (or lose it when Germany hits Egypt), then after Japan destroys UK’s Indian Ocean transport there’s no way for UK to prevent Germany from grabbing Africa income. Or UK could try a chancy battle against Libya, leave Germany’s battleship alive, then get wiped out by Germany’s counter.
But the German battleship threatens UK/US fleet? It doesn’t. If the German battleship moves west of Gibraltar it walks into the face of UK and US’s massed logistics and is destroyed, whether it unites with the Baltic fleet northwest of France or no.
So all the German battleship and transport really do here is give Germany some fine control in the Africa/Europe region, which will certainly help the Axis, but is not a critical point. The Allies simply don’t need to use resources to hit it, and should instead focus on the Baltic fleet.
Considering the probability distribution of a UK1 attack on Libya, I edit the map to put 3 German fighters on Libya (instead of 1 on Algeria). This weakens any German counter to a UK destroyer/carrier build northwest of France, but I figure if UK is building a carrier then perhaps Germany can do all right out of the position anyways, but losing air at Libya would be a real problem. Changing Libya from 2 to 3 fighters makes a tactically chancy but strategically reasonable UK attack into a tactically extremely risky attack (and if failing, UK fails its strategic objective of destroying German air while preserving UK air).
The above may all sound pretty convincing, like the G1 Baltic plan I used is a good idea. But I’ll point out, perhaps my entire perspective is wrong from start to finish but I just don’t know it. Second, this is not a “normal” game, so far USSR has very bad rolls and Germany very good ones. Third, even if the Allies can’t blow a huge gaping hole in Axis defenses so far, it’s only round one.
==
Looking at UK’s position, there’s three major issues that leap out. First, Germany threatens West Russia with 8 inf 9 tnk 2 fig. Second, Germany threatens London with 2 inf 2 tnk 2 fig. Third, Germany has its fleet at the Mediterranean and a lot of units lined up to hit Egypt.
London may not appear to be in danger this round, but a less obvious threat is the possibility of Germany buying 6 transports on its turn. If the Allies don’t plan for that possibility, dumping 8 units on London just may not be enough.
Complicating the matter is India, UK’s India fleet, Japan’s destroyer and transport at Kwangtung, and Japan’s upcoming attack into India. If possible, it would be nice to preserve UK’s carrier, sending it around Africa to become relevant in the Atlantic around UK5.
==
First, London. Germany’s 2 inf 2 tnk 2 fig isn’t a real invasion threat, but 7 transport buy and G3 is 9 inf 9 tank 5 fighter.
What about trying to clear some of Germany’s navy? Probably UK would lose, but could UK at least clear a German fighter or carrier? WIth UK 2 fig 1 bom vs 1 dstr 1 cru 2 fig 1 car (with German carrier taken last in order of loss)
There’s a 64.25% Germany keeps 2 fighters 1 carrier or better, Allies have no followup, and Germany can build on its turn to pad against future attacks. So no, UK won’t hit the Baltic fleet this turn.
Suppose UK tries a greed build; 2 fighters for London, 3 land for India, threatening UK2 6 fig 1 bom vs Ger 1 car 1 destr 1 cru 2 fig, with followup US2 1 bom 1 fig (if fig survives Szechwan) R3 2 fig. As there are followups, Germany can’t just dump its carrier early; that would leave no fighters defending the sea zone, especially as 1942 Online’s rules changes mean Japanese fighters can’t reinforce. Even if Germany buys a carrier and lands two fighters, with 1942 Online’s inflexible defensive profile there’s about 31% the UK2 attack clears the German fleet, and another 21.6% Germany is reduced to 1-2 carriers, which US/USSR followups have a chance of clearing. Even if the Allies don’t clear the German fleet, there’s a good chance Germany loses a chunk of irreplaceable air, weakening its ability to challenge USSR, and the Baltic fleet gets destroyed on followup rounds.
But suppose Germany takes that chance. It does need a carrier, that reduces its G2 buy to carrier / 4 trn, reducing the invasion threat to 6 inf 6 tnk 3 fig (assuming at least 2 figs are lost at Baltic, which is very likely).
UK’s air force will be gone, but after US1 carrier/2 fighters and 2 fighters to East Canada, US reinforces with 4 fighters. If the UK attack did not go well, US and USSR may reinforce London instead of attacking the Baltic fleet, for possibly another 1 US fighter, 2 USSR fighters.
So Ger 6 inf 6 tnk 3 fig vs AA, bomber, 2 inf, art, tnk, 6 fighter. Attacker wins 61.4%.
That seems all right, but UK2/US2 can also reinforce London with UK 1 inf 1 tnk from East Canada, 3 inf 1 tnk from East US. It is not a question of whether the Allies can defend London, it is a question of how many transports the Allies lose to secure the defense. Just 1 US transport reduces attacker chances to 29.3%.
So you can see there’s a real question whether Germany only builds 1 carrier at all. Just 1 carrier leaves Germany possibly losing its entire Baltic fleet, and the Allies have good chances to defend London even if UK’s attack on the Baltic fails. More, US will have a US3 attack of 4 fighters 1 bomber against the Baltic fleet, and that could be an issue for a severely depleted fleet.
The unspoken assumption on London defense so far is UK hits and destroys the 2 German submarines northwest of London successfully. I won’t compute the odds here, but 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 2 fighters do have really good odds to clear. So I assume it’s probably safe, and the backup is splitting Allied transports between East Canada’s two sea zones; the odds of both German submarines surviving is super low and if just one survives it can’t hit both.
==
Second, West Russia. Germany threatens West Russia with 8 inf 9 tnk 2 fig. If USSR tries to defend it alone, Germany has similar numbers but better attack dice than the defenders have defense dice, and the attackers lose attackers at 1 initially where defenders lose defenders at 2. Without even calculating it, those add up to a winning Germany attack. UK can land fighters, and perhaps US (if it survives Szechwan). So you see here how 1 USSR infantry at Szechwan can preserve the US fighter against Japan’s attack, and frees a UK fighter to not land on Szechwan; potentially two fighters for the cost of one infantry is a good price. (Though Japan may still risk the attack). This is why even with bad USSR1 dice it’s still often nice to put a USSR infantry on Szechwan.
Germany has the invasion threat on London but it really is a weak threat. Just the new fighters on UK could help defend, leaving UK London fighters free to land on West Russia. But UK cannot use its London fighters to hit Germany’s subs and still land in West Russia, it’s one or the other. And the German submarines need to be destroyed before they can escape to the Baltic.
Considering the situation, I switch out a Baltic States infantry for the AA gun on Karelia. Originally I wanted to use the AA gun to buffer against USSR attacks, but assuming the G Baltic is about simultaneously building pressure on West Russia and London, a more forceful move could be “correct” if it can’t really be punished, which I forget if it can be or not but I’ll look at it again later.
So now the threat on W Rus is 9 inf 9 tnk 2 fig (if 2 USSR uses inf art 2 fig and eliminates Germany’s infantry on Ukraine). UK fighters land on, it leaves Germany with a 22.6% to win. This does not account for the US fighter. It’s not great; Germany wants to keep its forwards infantry and its tanks and its fighters, and really doesn’t have the numbers to push more reinforcements. If Germany had a good lot of ground units following up, Germany could try attacking then retreating to cut down on USSR’s stack and try to get lucky, but the Baltic fleet hasn’t had a chance to really help Germany’s position at Karelia yet.
So W Rus can be defended, if UK doesn’t hit Africa. Since in this game I think the German battleship is sort of a sideshow anyways, that’s what Allies will do.
Assuming defending subs “chicken” (submerge if possible), leaving 1 UK fighter and 1 bomber 1 dstr 1 cru to hit Germany’s 2 subs
==
Third, Egypt. Nothing UK can really do about that; hitting Germany’s Med fleet means W Rus can’t be defended, Germany already has a huge counter into Egypt. Hitting Libya, after the edit, 3 German fighters just leaves too much dead UK air and too much live German air in the possible outcomes.
So at this point, UK’s buy is figured (2 fig 3 inf, normally an art would be nice but UK really wants to pinch pennies). It’s just a question of figuring UK’s attacks - probably carrier/cruiser to Kwangtung’s destroyer/transport (if left alive it’s another 4 units in Asia by end of J2 which would accelerate Japan’s timetable on India).
The question is what to do about Germany’s position on Trans-Jordan, what to do with UK’s units at Egypt, and what to do with UK at India.
The “Africa Defense” plan would move Egypt units south, Union of South Africa infantry north, and perhaps 2 India infantry via transport to Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. I don’t like it, but as the Allies don’t plan to challenge the battleship for a while, Germany can get a lot into Africa, and UK will need a good chunk of units if it wants to pose a reasonable challenge (even with US support).
==
UK1: 3 inf 2 fig, inf/art/fig vs inf/art at Trans-Jordan (attacking inf/art destroyed, surviving fighter retreat, 2.4% worst case), car/cru vs dstr/trn off Kwangtung (trn survive, 14.69% this or worse), dstr/cru/fig/bom vs 2 sub northwest of London (64.81% best result, no losses)
With the Kwangtung battle lost, Japan will have accelerated development in Asia, and with losses at Trans-Jordan, Germany has enough to perhaps start pressuring India and certainly secure north Africa. I cancel the planned move from India to Africa; if Germany could be stopped in Africa it might be different but there’s really just no way with Trans-Jordan going so badly.
I split defense between India (1 AA 5 inf, can be hit by inf, art, 3 fig, btl) and Persia (4 inf, can be hit by 1 inf 1 art 3 fig). Japan and Germany would both have to risk air to attack, and at least one attack would likely fail. If India fell but Trans-Jordan survived, Trans-Jordan could reclaim India (then lose it to the counter next turn). If UK did lose control of India it wouldn’t be able to produce, and that would mean quick loss of India, but with Japan’s timetable accelerated that’s probably going to happen very soon anyways, and USSR doesn’t quite have enough room to send reinforcements to India just yet.
It bears mentioning this is exactly what the Axis want, but it’s really not that the “Axis plan worked”. At best it could be said after horrible R1 Allied dice, Germany risked a G Baltic fleet open, then further horrible R1 Allied dice left the Axis with a decent position.
The UK bomber lands at Kazakh, where it can pressure Africa, Baltic, and a lot of Asia.
J1: 3 inf 3 trn, 4 inf 1 fig vs 2 inf at Anhwei, 2 inf 1 art 1 fig vs 2 inf at Yunnan
US1: 1 dstr 1 car 2 fig; Yunnan 2 inf 1 fig vs 1 inf 1 art (won, lost 1 inf, 59% this result or better), Hawaii sea zone 1 sub 1 dstr 1 fig 1 bom vs 1 sub 1 cru (lost 1 sub 1 dstr, 19.06% this result or worse)
(Note: Old picture; US destroyer should be at Greenland)
-
R2 4 inf 4 art, 2 inf 2 fig vs 2 inf at Ukr (74% capture vs 79% with 1 inf 1 art 2 fig, lost 2 inf, 26% this result or worse)
Since USSR can’t get a good challenge on Karelia, I build inf/art; tanks are a last-moment build for pressure. Place 3 inf 1 art at Caucasus; Germany could try hitting with 1 inf 1 tnk 3 fighter 1 btl but that would use fighters Germany needs to defend its Baltic fleet and any fighters/tanks left on Ukraine would be subject to a major hit by USSR. (Even if West Russia collapses because USSR’s stack shifted, Axis trying for Caucasus would leave a load of Axis high-value tanks and fighters vulnerable. The position just can’t be safely fortified especially against a USSR attack/retreat.)
By round 2 Germany’s turn I think it’s clear G Baltic fleet does not work - I don’t think just in this game, but I mean in general. I just don’t see how it can work out well.
I am not saying the Axis lost this game, there’s still plenty of options, I’m just saying I think the G Baltic plays didn’t do as well as other lines would have. Like all right, the Baltic carrier got UK to not hit the Med fleet, great. But a Med carrier can do that too, and that doesn’t get blown up nearly as easily. Of course, I might think G Baltic is not good simply because I played it completely wrong, but read through the material and decide for yourself. I tried a lot of options, you saw the probability distributions.
Germany couldn’t use its fighters to defend land territory. The Baltic fleet is vulnerable to attack and cannot be shielded. In 1942 Online Japan cannot reinforce the Baltic navy. USSR outmasses Germany’s land to a degree that they’ll actually be able to push Germany back in Europe so gain income. Germany cannot cut off UK’s India stack so UK never has to retreat on account of Germany; UK can hold on until Japan gets its push together.
In the current position, if Germany builds mass transports, UK simply blows up the lot, even if Germany blocks UK’s navy with a destroyer. If Germany builds a carrier and destroyers, London comes under no more pressure and in fact receives 4 US fighters anyways at the end of this round so won’t remotely be in danger. UK is free to build air or transports this round, which could have played out differently in the short term if Japan had not hit the Hawaiian fleet (with a Japanese bomber in range, a UK2 fleet build could be targeted), but regardless of what happens, there is no way Axis could stop US1 fleet into US2 move, then UK3 navy build / US3 reinforcement. Japan simply wouldn’t have the airpower to stop it without a J1 mass bomber build (even then, questionable) which would normally cripple Japan’s development in Asia anyways.
Anyways UK builds even more air, then what does Germany do? Build more navy? Germany is out of fighters to land on carriers and a G2 build of 4 inf 1 carrier 2 destroyers following G1 purchase of 4 inf 1 trn 1 carrier 1 destroyer leaves Germany super soft against USSR.
Are there compensations? Sure. The Allies were pressured into a slightly dicey defense at India (which if the Axis attempt the Axis will probably fail and if fail be set back). Germany can transpose to an Africa game. But even if Germany changes course right now and abandons the G Baltic fleet to preserve fighters, G1 still spent 29 IPC on navy that will die to a bad-odds mass attack, then UK air repositions to Africa (especially as UK retained its bomber) to challenge Germany’s income there while US also pushes. Germany is down almost 10 land units in Europe; sure it did delay the Allies, but good use of Allied existing forces and planning, I think, really neutered G Baltic.
Though actually it really comes down to 1942 Online’s rules changes. Can’t land fighters on ally carriers, you know?
And I’ll remind readers - Allied rolled garbage all game. If G Baltic did not work in this game, I don’t know that it would work well in other games.
But? In fairness, all right, I’m rusty, but you saw how many small changes I did (though to both sides). So if I’m not performing optimal plays, then of course someone that’s even less familiar with a G Baltic fleet is probably going to play even less accurately. Though I know that’s rather self-flattering of me to say, I’d think it’s true.
So IS G Baltic / Sealion worthless? I’d say no; even though I think proper play might cut it apart. At the least, players should be familiar with different lines, whether they plan on using it, or plan on defeating it. And if an opponent is known to be strong against some lines, a player looking for a win can try a different line to see if that opponent plays accurately against it.
(Edit - in closing, 1) it won’t matter if Sealion isn’t mathematically sound if an opponent doesn’t apply the mathematics (and I’d say there’s every reason to think they won’t), 2) I think Sealion is disadvantaged in particular under 1942 Online, 3) yes, I could have missed something (but as ever I say where, specifically?) 4) Board Game Nation put out the first in their Axis and Allies Strategy Session videos so I’m watching that now.)
-
The ranking are competitive and the high ranked player win far more they lose to get there. And these players overwhelmingly do not build naval units in the Baltic round 1. This should give anyone interested in winning pause about whether it is a good line of play. Maybe someone can innovate in a way that shows a large body of evidence wrong, but strong claims require strong evidence.
The Baltic round 1 buy is problematic because Germany has extremely strong and reliable lines with a standard 11 inf 2 art buy that reliably can take Russia by round 9. By investing in the Baltic, Germany gives up this valuable opportunity.
Second, UK has simple strong counter play to prevent a decisive win. This is an 10 infantry buy with 7 or 8 placed in the UK. This ensures over 99% safety of UK round 2. With USA navy buy round 1, it is nearly guaranteed that allies have a navy around UK by round 3.
By going Baltic round 1, Germany does an all-in where it must capture UK quickly to have a good chance of winning. This goal is easily frustrated by a reliable response that does not depend on luck.
-
It does the community a disservice to claim not thinking is thinking.
@boston_nwo said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
Second, UK has simple strong counter play to prevent a decisive win. This is an 10 infantry buy with 7 or 8 placed in the UK.
As ever, I remind readers “simple” answers for a weak meta do not survive a strong meta.
-
Thinking about strats that get easily and consistently refuted is a waste of time, unless you like arguing for the sake of arguing. There has to be some baseline of viability, or you end up discussing full sub G, full bomber G, full cruiser G etc which isnt productive. G2 Sealion is mainly for cheesing inexperienced players. Even then for stomping newbies a J3 india timing into a round 4 VC win is a lot more consistent and less risky(though less flashy).
-
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
Thinking about strats that get easily and consistently refuted is a waste of time
Readers will decide for themselves whether thinking things through is a waste of time or not.
Just because you’re not personally planning on reading a book doesn’t give you the right to burn all the copies.
-
Germany making uk’s navy creation difficult through some combination of killing UK cruiser with the battleship, bomber buy and/or even a sub buy could be interesting. UK right now transitions so cleanly from round 1 carrier buy into Europe landings. Denying or delaying Nordic countries is worth 6 income a turn net.
Germany attempting to directly strike at uk’s capital is really an uninteresting line to discuss. UK has a guaranteed way to ensure that the capital does not fall with higher than 99% chance with an 8 infantry placement. Germany has minimal alternative follow ups since the entire Baltic region is already controlled by Germany. From Germany’s perspective, Sealion is a big investment at huge opportunity cost thst requires allies to absolutely blunder to gain a major advantage.
-
I’m not going to dig deep into it because I’m sure neither Quintin or BostonNWO/MarineIguana wants a numbers-based discussion. Look through their posts anywhere, look through mine anywhere, that’s how it is.
But a couple basics:
-
It’s exactly the Allies pushing for “extreme safe” lines of play that can make the German Baltic navy viable.
-
Oversimplify the “advice” and the Allied player plays right into Axis hands.
==
As to Baltic navy bomber / subs, apply the same stuff I wrote in this thread and adjust it for reasonable Allied action. When you look at the numbers, should be pretty clear it isn’t any more “interesting” than Sealion.
Which is not to say it isn’t interesting.
-
-
Thought about it, decided to add this part on after all.
As ever, I imagine some are going to pick on pieces of what I wrote and completely ignore the actual point. So I’m going to lay it on a little thick now.
Suppose you have a new player that gets the advice “you can’t let either of USA’s victory cities be captured, if that happens game over”.
So what does this new player do?
Why, the SMART thing of course. They know, from other “advice” that infantry are a good defensive buy.
So for the first three turns as US, that player does nothing but buy infantry for East and West US.
They are doing their job as an Allied player! There is NO WAY the Axis are going to capture US any time soon!
BEST ALLIED PLAYER EVER AM I RIGHT
:relaxed:
(In case it isn’t clear just from context, that’s really bad US play.)
. . . so now you have a UK player that sees a possible threat on London, and they dump a load of infantry on.
So simple!
:relaxed:
-
Luckily for allies UK doesnt need to get any inf until after G commits and flushes his G1 buy down the toilet. You reactively get the inf. Same as in your example where the US player would reactively defend W-USA, only buying stuff after J sends troops in range.
At that point its fine if UK doesnt get a navy until UK2/UK3 since G isnt progressing with the actual axis wincondition: pressure on Russia.
The posts would be a lot more convincing if you had tried and won with this against plat rated opponents.
If anyone is curious there is a match on youtube where aardvark tries this. Not exactly a fair example since he failed SZ7, but its the only documented case of what he’s advocating against a decent opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqzpuBQPEQ -
If you read this thread, you would know how silly you were being.
Also saying I “tried” anything is a complete mischaracterization. Go ask TTG if I was playing seriously. Ask Tahweh about the 35-page writeup I did for less than two rounds of play, and for the record I wasn’t taking that game terribly seriously either.
Maybe you feel you have a bone to pick because I flesh out my arguments with details and you never ever have any good response. Going on two years now, that’s how it’s been. So maybe you want to flex on me, assert your authority or whatever.
Hey, I get it. That’s the world we live in. You want to misrepresent me as “advocating” literally the opposite of what I believe, sure, whatever, you do you. No hard feelings.
But here we are again, I’m saying “think”, you’re saying “don’t think”, I’m saying “look at the numbers, the real numbers”, you’re creating straw men. Is that the legacy you want to build for yourself?
You can’t take thirty minutes to read and another thirty minutes to write? Okay. But then you say anyone that wants to be taken seriously should spend whatever hours a week, for how many weeks, playing a busted game, to achieve whatever rank before their opinions are worth considering. Come on now.
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
You reactively get the inf. Same as in your example where the US player would reactively defend W-USA, only buying stuff after J sends troops in range.
It’s not that I have high expectations of you, but we’ve been here before and you should know better. How have these things ever played out?
-
You make some vague claim that I disagree with. I explain why I disagree; I lay out the mathematics and the projections. You reply you’re top platinum, I say the meta is weak, and the undercurrent is you’re saying you’re a champion, I’m saying the field’s so weak the title’s meaningless. I try not to make a big thing of it, but it’s there.
-
You never reply with any details, just saying that it “works”, I say “but it shouldn’t work”, and in so doing I write a lot of details, a lot of numbers. You never engage. You never reply. You just set up straw men and bad examples and claim absent any real projections or preconditions that what you say comes to pass. You engage in wishful thinking, not serious discussion.
-
But then, was it you that had what I said was an optimistic opinion about Allies advancing in KJF? Whatever it was, Philippines or Borneo on round 5 or 6 or whatever? I said that didn’t happen. And of course “top platinum” says it does happen (no details, just it happens). So I took my time, I wrote a LOT of documentation showing this is the German timing, this is the Japan timing, this is how the pieces connect, here is the reasonable range of Allied responses, here is what happens when the Allies do this, here is what happens when the Allies do that. And I don’t say I’m right about everything. That isn’t how I operate. But I say if I am wrong, where am I wrong? What unreasonable assumption have I made? What is it that does not logically follow, at any point? And no response. And that wasn’t the first time.
-
But for that PARTICULAR back and forth about anti-KJF on Steam forums, what happened? I explained how others used “shifting goalpost” arguments trying to claim after the position had developed to a certain point, that supposedly the conditions leading to that position changed, to such a degree that a player would actually have to go back in time and change what they did on previous turns for their line to play out the way that those others were claiming they played out. And I explained how my arguments were not the same, as it’s simply that I hadn’t taken the time to detail every last branch and contingency, but reasonable play by both sides had the board position developing roughly on the time I said it would, with the consequences I’d said would happen, right along. And if I didn’t spell out every little detail in the first place? Haven’t I always said that I’m just trying to cover the basics, that I’m not even trying to fill in the details? I have other things to do, I give others the basics but let them work out the details for themselves if they’re interested, they don’t need to be spoon-fed all the way and even if they wanted spoon-feeding, that’s not my job. But back to KJF and anti-KJF, I explained how turn order led to exactly the scenarios I specified, how J1 didn’t typically need pre-emptive subs (and I mentioned the East Indies attack scenarios as a branch and broke down the risks and projections), how J2 built two subs a turn - no more, no less, and only AFTER a US1 Pacific fleet drop, and how even despite this Japan simultaneously developed pressure in Asia - and how no matter how you sliced it, if the Allies did one thing, the Axis simply responded after the fact, and all the scenarios simply looked bad for the Allies. I showed the Allies CAN pressure Japan, but pressuring Japan and getting the results others were claiming simply meant high likelihood of sacrificing Russia early, and I showed how that in turn ended up with Axis winning, I showed how various transpositions and variations of various branches all played out with Japan not needing to commit to more than 2 submarines a turn until quite late in the game, and how different variations all played out. I explained how and why Japan transitioning to bombers was only natural and expected, how trying to say Japan sticks to ONLY two subs, EVER, is NOT a reasonable understanding of the points I had made, how exactly the German and Japanese timings interacted with one another, how the Axis recovered from Allied pressure in the Pacific, and all sorts of scenarios, ranging from Allied transports from Alaska relieving in Asia (too slow) to Allies pushing southeast Pacific (too slow), how Japanese ICs on the mainland locked Japan down so shouldn’t be built, how Japan used its economy, units, and developed its position to pressure Russia then reverse to Allied pressure - I didn’t get into EVERY detail, but I put a lot out there. You can see just from my recollecting a few of the salient points, there was a lot. Yes, ol’ aardvark do put in that time and the details. And what was the response? That I was wrong. Then I gave even more details, showing how I wasn’t wrong. And then? Ghosted.
And of course, again, I wasn’t thanked for laying out the details. I wasn’t credited. I was attacked, hounded, etc. Sure, okay, whatever. And of course, there was never EVER any response. Just the opposition suddenly didn’t have any response, oops, everyone takes the day off, nobody says “why aardvark, you laid it out so well, I have to agree with you.” Nope, just woops, nobody’s in, can’t accept your call. Heh. If it happens once, sure, a few times why not. But every time, everyone just suddenly left for lunch. You can imagine I’m skeptical by now. My, they were all so spirited just a little while ago, so fierce about “aardvark is wrong!” I wonder what ever could have happened, dear me, didn’t even leave a forwarding address.
But I imagine the points I made did register somewhere, and the points I made rankled. Someone maybe remembered that I demonstrated that reasonably, you take the turn order and take reasonable projections and still arrive at a certain line . . . and now, someone is trying to explain the same process, to me, who pointed out the importance of properly considering turn order in the first place? Really?
I mean really. This just happens again and again and again. I say there’s such thing as a “timing”, I’m roundly attacked for it, then some kid that was shouting timings don’t exist I’m not a top player whoever heard of such stupid nonsense, same kid has the nerve months later to try to explain, TO ME, what a timing is! And now you’re trying to explain turn order to the same person that explained the importance of turn order. Then there’s players trying to explain the timing of Japanese development against India and Africa, TO ME. Explaining how Japanese subs work, TO ME. Explaining Karelia pressure TO ME. Again and again, kids pulling out half-assed versions of stuff I’ve explained, not even to others, but to them, personally, months back, they distort it, reverse it, ignore most of it, then throw it in my face and say they have some new ground-breaking line of play and have I, aardvark, ever thought about this? I mean, honestly! The absolute cheek!
I’m like, you were there months ago when I made these points, you told me I was an idiot again and again for saying exactly these things you’re so proud about “discovering” now, and now you’re beginning to come around only you’re still ignoring more than half of what I wrote because you didn’t understand it, and now you’re trying to explain to me how it all works? What about X and Y and Z and A and B and C for that matter? What about them? No answer? “Waste of time” or “I’m overthinking it”? Hey okay, let’s see what the next “breaking meta” is in six months, again I’ll see people doing a half-assed version of stuff I wrote a year ago and saying it’s groundbreaking. Sorry if I can’t be too excited about that process.
It’s not that I’m claiming to be some big original thinker. I don’t think anything I’ve been saying the past couple years about Axis and Allies is new. If I’m just applying the same concepts Don wrote about to new editions, what’s the big deal? Don kept his stuff simple and didn’t get into the details, read between the lines and you see Don probably didn’t want to overcomplicate it, never mind writing about versions of Axis and Allies that didn’t even exist at the time. And yet, as simple as Don kept things, you can see obviously some people had a big problem with him too. Oh no, someone actually being methodical, better have a witch-burning! “Numbers”, “thinking”, what is this sorcery?!
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/essay1.htm
BUT FIRST…HERE ARE SOME CONCEPTS TO CHALLENGE YOURSELF WITH:
I will first ask you to not to negatively challenge the statements mentioned forthcoming, which I naturally accept as verbatim for all of my upcoming described strategical play. I’m also going to be asking you to suspend any skepticism or any immediate disbelief for now"
Don had to put up with so much nonsense he wrote out an address in his first essay, I get it, it’s not personal, Don had to deal with it, I deal with it, whatever.
But that doesn’t make it right.
I’m going to try to make this as plain as I can. Yes, I’m going to repeat myself, but as there’s no engagement or sign of understanding, that’s how it is.
I don’t mean you DISAGREE with what I’m saying. I’m okay with people DISAGREEING. I mean fundamentally no response to what I’m saying, arguing with straw men. So here we go again.
- “Simple” advice only helps to a point. You try to keep things too simple, you end up with players doing bad plays like US1-3 all-infantry builds, pulling out of everywhere and trying to “defend” US, because “defending US is good”. You want to say defending US is good? Go on, explain how US1-3 all-infantry builds are good, explain how you just can’t go wrong with simple advice. I’ll wait over here to avoid the rush.
Except you can’t, except I’m setting up straw men? There’s a difference between a straw man and an analogy. Saying I’m claiming Germany should build Baltic fleet is just . . . literally you haven’t read the thread. Saying bad play is bad is, well, it’s bad, what more do you want?
-
UK1 all-infantry buy plays right into German Baltic fleet. Oh, it’s not like Germany has some big obvious stupid counter to it, which is the level of thinking that you and some others are applying. If you can’t drive a houseboat through a strategy, it must be solid, that’s what I’m getting from you and some others. Not just on this topic.
-
The problem is, UK1 all-infantry and turtling London is passive on other parts of the board. New players turtle London, they give up in other areas. Yes, you can transpose out of too many ground units on London with excess transports, but you simply can’t apply pressure to Germany, you can’t restrict its options like you can if you cut it tighter and go for some UK air, which I did explain in this thread. You don’t counter-pressure Germany early, you leave Germany open to options like uniting its Med and Baltic fleets. Explain how just infantry on London deter German freedom in the Atlantic, except you can’t because it doesn’t.
You’re used to playing against weak players, and if they’re platinum so what? Again and again you get away with overbuilding to 99% or 99.9999% margins of safety because the opponents wreck themselves by overextending. So you get away with sloppy play, you don’t need to look for wins in the margins. In fact, in a weak meta you shouldn’t take risks assuming players will play optimally because if they never do, then you just risk eating a counter; better for you to wait for an opponent to screw up, does this sound familiar? Because it’s exactly what you and others keep saying, except you also claim players shouldn’t think and that the meta is strong, you can see how you could go with one or the other but saying it’s all true at once, I’m saying that’s not just hard to swallow but actually contradictory.
When I write, I’m talking about solid play. I’m always talking about solid play. Why? It’s fun to talk about R1 and R2 battleship buys, but why would I seriously waste my time on that? Now I should explain why players should calculate the percentages and look for wins in the margins instead of trying to go 99.99999% on everything? Seriously?
So I wrote that then I thought about it. Okay, so some kid yelling at me on Discord about how “timings” don’t exist. Same kid trying to explain “timings”. They don’t understand the importance of allocation. So when have I ever explained why you take the percentages, when have I dug into “best chance”, when have I talked about projections? All right, ALL THE TIME, but when have I talked about it in detail, and ONLY about that?
Obviously it’s incredibly arrogant for me to think “well, if I haven’t explained it then for other players it might as well not exist”. But perhaps I can be forgiven, considering all the bloody precedent with everything else!
So sure, anyone that wants me to dig into it, just pop me a message. I’ll create a whole new thread about it on the 1942 Second Edition boards.
Not that I expect anyone to REALLY message me but (shrug), if they do, hey, why not.
-
And AGAIN, I emphasize, new players that are looking for simple advice are not going to know what to weight correctly. They are going to be sloppy, they are going to mis-allocate, and vague advice is not going to fix that. You need a 99% on London? New player thinks let’s just be safe, let’s just make it 99.999%. Never mind that probably Axis take Africa, Axis have plenty of time to develop in Europe and Asia, USSR gets cut off, Russia falls, then the Axis have an expected easy win off position and attrition. And why? Because newer players don’t understand they can’t just play it “safe” all the time. It’s exactly players that should know better giving them bad advice that makes things worse.
-
To make it REALLY simple, I’m saying, plainly, I think UK1 pure infantry response is wrong. And let’s be clear, when I say “I think”, there is an actual thought process. That’s no empty boast, look through the thread, you see the math, you see where I outline contingencies, is that thought or not? It’s a lot more than “I’m a top player so this is right”.
Sure, you could say SOMETIMES UK1 pure infantry is necessary. Depending on the dice, depending on the moves made to that point, it MAY be the appropriate move, but you do not WANT to do it, it is not your go-to answer, it is something you want to try to AVOID if at all possible. And as I detailed through this thread, it is often possible with accurate play to avoid UK1 all-infantry. And as I also detailed, there is good reason to avoid it if you can.
Do you really not understand that a passive UK1 response of all infantry does not necessarily threaten Germany’s Baltic fleet? Do you not understand how that passive response restricts UK’s development options on later turns? Do you not understand the importance of single units even in battles of near a hundred units or more? Because that’s what I’m getting from you. That you don’t understand.
But I do understand. So just as I wrote about KJF, just how I wrote about KGF, just how I wrote about Karelia, just how I wrote about timings, just how I wrote about turn order, here’s another thing I’m saying. Maybe if I was right all the other times, I’m right this time too? You think?
But this time maybe instead of disagreeing with me now, then six months later quoting back at me a half-assed version of what I wrote in the first place - maybe this time we can just skip all that and we can agree all-UK infantry is not usually the best response to German Baltic navy.
Why? Because aardvark said so? You would think maybe on account of all the times I said things and was right, maybe you could take my word on it. I mean, REALLY.
But I’m NOT just saying take my word on it. The basic numbers, contingencies, and branches are all in this thread. If you do all UK infantry, then you just don’t have the numbers to restrict various German options AND YOU CAN CONFIRM IT YOURSELF, AND WOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS, IF YOU HAD LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS IN THIS THREAD. NOT JUST ONCE. MULTIPLE SCENARIOS. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD AT ALL, YOU WOULD NOT MISS IT. BUT YOU MISSED IT.
Except you weren’t looking for the possibility there was something you hadn’t considered. Do you ever?
Could I miss something myself? Sure. But as I ever say, show me where I missed something. Point out the scenario, pull out the numbers. Show how a UK1 all-infantry response is superior. Explain how the line transposes. Every time I say go on, show me the details, show me WHERE I am wrong, every single time, every time I ask to be shown the work, no response. You think I didn’t notice?
(I noticed.)
And don’t try to say that I didn’t explain myself. I used the exact example, I used the simplification, I even built out an analogy. No response to anything, just refusal to engage and straw men. I am saying it is not that simple, you just keep repeating that it’s simple, I’m saying show where it’s simple, show how the lines transpose, give me an example, give me numbers, give me a projection, ANYTHING. But nothing.
I expect you won’t even go as far as acknowledging that an all-UK infantry build is useful under certain contingencies. Me, I have no problem acknowledging validity of points I disagree with, so long as there is some validity.
No? You think not? Just read through the thread. I never have to dig far for an example, I always use fact-based methodology, so an example is always ready at hand. Even in this thread, I say Board Game Nation may be coming out with a German Baltic navy video, I’m saying I don’t think German Baltic navy is good against solid play, but what? Do I say German Baltic navy is garbage? That Gary’s an idiot? No, I say if the Allies play sharply, I think Germany’s disadvantaged, but if the Allies do NOT play sharply, there are possibilities. I try to acknowledge what validity there is in others’ arguments. And why not? I think it’s true.
And exactly what those possibilities are, I already went into. If you simply read through the thread, reading about the branches I discount with accurate Allied play, then you should understand what happens if the Allies DON’T play accurately. Then of course the branches aren’t discounted. Then the Axis have all sorts of nice options. Must that be spelled out? Really?
So here we are, think or don’t think? I say think. You say don’t think. I say if you don’t think problems. You say if you don’t think no problem. I don’t have to chase after that argument because it isn’t going anywhere.
For Quintin, I suppose acknowledging “contingencies” would go against him and other supposed “top” players repeating that it’s simple and players don’t need to think. Acknowledging “contingencies” would go exactly with what I’ve been saying going on two years, that Axis and Allies is MOSTLY simple, but players do still need to think and know what they’re doing.
I could say ulterior motives, maybe some players are trying to sabotage the community and anyone trying to build out resources for players seriously looking to improve themselves. There are a lot of ways to get top rank, you draw out your games and maybe your opponent misses a checkin, lie to other players about what strategies work, whatever.
But whether there’s whatever silliness going on or one-upmanship games, so what? Bottom line, someone says think, someone else says don’t think, someone lays out the details all the time, someone else doesn’t. You think people don’t notice? They notice.
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
The posts would be a lot more convincing if you had tried and won with this against plat rated opponents.
Son, I don’t need to convince anyone of anything. I can sit right here and in six months to a year or whatever the meta will have some new “groundbreaking” nonsense and I’ll just point to an old thread of mine that already covered the whole line, as well as possibilities the “pioneers” never considered but should have. Then I’ll point to various articles, textbooks on mathematics, Don Rae’s essays, and explain how everything I ever wrote was just natural development. Nothing special, nothing exciting, just applied mathematics, and not much of it at that.
Y’all kids can run around and have a good time, rediscovering the wheel. Me, I’m just gonna bake some cookies and have a nap. By the way, that thing that goes round and round, maybe you should poke a hole in it and make an axle . . . don’t look at me that way. I know all the “top stone rollers” never heard of such a thing, but I think it could work . . .
(continued)
-
-
(continued)
Convince anyone? Why bother? Even if it were TripleA in which player options aren’t crippled, who’s serious enough to run projections and do mathematics? You don’t have the first idea of what serious play even is.
But you do, because you’re top platinum? Please. The “don’t think about things” champion.
Nah, if the game was serious enough, if you even wanted to be a CONTENDER, you need a team. I’m not even talking CHAMPION, just to be in the running.
Like what?
- You need a numbers team. People that understand the mathematics and methods of a system, that can run proper analyses and make recommendations. Experienced industry professionals too.
You don’t need a “team” if you can take advantage of already researched information. You can look at books that tell you the odds if you don’t want to work them out for yourself, but you need technical expertise from somewhere. But Axis and Allies? Nothing like that out there.
But you’re an experienced industry professional? Show me the experienced industry professional that says you don’t need to think about details; I’ll kick that ass so far, Earth will have a new satellite.
- You need a breaker team. People that understand how the system can be broken, that look not to the intent of rules, but how they can be exploited, and not just the “rules” that are written, how systems can generally be exploited.
Kiddie stuff like trying to draw out the game in 1942 Online so an opponent misses a log-in, sure, whatever. I’m saying you have a team that monitors inputs and outputs to the system, determines for real how 1942 Online’s PRNG can be exploited. Not because you’re interested in trying to exploit the system, oh no. But you need to know what to look out for. You play a pickup poker game for a few thousand dollars, you have people walking around behind you while you’re looking at your cards and you let it happen, then you just have no business in that game, better get out before you’re plucked. That’s just how it is. You have a real team, a good team, that team is prepared.
-
You need a support team. People put serious time in, you can’t expect them to handle that load and also be doing all the cooking and cleaning plus never mind their work and family obligations on top. Doesn’t matter you have the top analytics team in the country, whatever time they’re spending on cleaning up or cooking or picking up the dry cleaning is time they’re not performing their role.
-
You need financials. You can hire support staff, you can order delivery instead of cooking, you can cover travel expenses or whatever else, but only with money. If you have a pretty serious group they might foot the financials themselves, just eat the cost, do their own support, etc. But if not, you have to look to sponsorships, prize winnings (which often aren’t guaranteed), and supplemental income. And of course that means possibly another whole load of responsibilities ranging from marketing to facilitating communications to networking.
-
Hierarchical command. Because we are not wasting time in a committee. And command is not going to be someone that’s too stupid to understand the importance of details.
But you say the meta is so good and smart? We can dispense with most of that because you just don’t need any of that?
Let’s go with that fairy tale for a moment. 1942 Online’s been out for going on two years or whatever. So we know it was demonstrated mathematically, covering all contingencies, why Allies are or are not disadvantaged against Axis. We also have a final answer to whether or not 1942 Online’s PRNG is, in any way, broken or exploitable. We have documentation and mathematics, and I don’t mean BAD documentation and BAD mathematics, I mean GOOD documentation and GOOD mathematics, right down the line. These are topics that are naturally going to be of interest, these are the first things that the first and second teams I spoke of would look at, just naturally.
Except it’s been two years and none of that’s happened. You hear of either of those being done? Should give you a clue about how “serious” the game really is. But there’s this fantastic secret team of next-level players and who knows what they’ve come up with? Right. By the way, I’m Batman.
But you don’t need a team for 1942 Online like that because . . . oh wait. Because it’s NOT A SERIOUS GAME. I don’t mean the compromised gameplay, I just mean people don’t take it seriously. They really don’t. Don’t take my word on it, think about how things would be different if players were serious. If you can’t picture that, my bad for assuming you could.
I see some players talk about “top ten in the world” or “blah blah whatever”. And I think some really sold themselves so hard on this idea, they really think the game is serious or whatever.
But to me? I see a lot of players shouting “serious!” but ACTUALLY serious? Talking out the details is a “waste of time”? You know who says that? It’s not anybody on any part of a good team, and I mean ANYONE. Even if someone’s just there to clean the toilets, they know better than to say stuff like that.
No, the sort of people that say that are the losers that never learned to understand the importance of details, or people that are trying to sell you something, take your pick. They’re the ones that fight against understanding details. They demand my time? Whatever.
Or wait, there’s a secret Team Evil, and someone’s spreading disinformation, trying to undermine potential good players . . . but wait. If they were actually competent at being evil they would know better than to put out a bunch of weak stuff like “don’t think and you’ll be a champion!” So even if there IS a secret Team Evil, if that’s what they’re up to it’s still nothing to be excited about. Little sad, actually.
Now me, I take my time and write out some of the details, math, and projections, get told it’s a “waste of time” or whatever, then what? You think I have to running after people, hat in hand, please respect me? You kidding? Oh you’re not kidding, it’s just that I can’t take it seriously. I suppose you expect me to apologize now. Maybe share some of my cookies. Look pal, get your own cookies. My cookies are for me and my buddies only, and you’re not my buddy, pal.
Tell me about how I should be “convincing” whoever. What do I get out of it? The respect of players whose acquaintance I want to cultivate? Who? Money? Where?
Far as I’m concerned, if there’s ever going to be players that can operate as part of a real team, they’re going to need to understand the numbers, and how things really work. I’m doing my part to build that future, a future in which there’s actually a strong meta and competent players. And if I’m not “simple” about it, if I’m not dogmatic, if I don’t kiss ass, so what? I’m not trying to sell players on joining my team or whatever stupid thing. You really think I want to network to try to build serious prize money and sponsorships for a niche interest market, you better think again. If there’s going to be a team, it’s going to be like-minded players drawn together by mutual interest that have a strong interest in working together. Or if it’s corporate and a corporate sponsor wants me to earn top platinum a bunch of times, I’ll just do it then.
You want me to spend hours a week playing ranked . . . for what? Prop up the legitimacy of a bad rank system that I don’t even believe in? I already said k-values were too high for provisional and too low for regular, and don’t even get me started on rank degradation, 24 hour clocks, never mind all the UI shortcomings, and I’m not too hot on the developers either. For you, maybe ranked is a big deal. For me, it’s nothing.
I understand what I’m saying right now, it’s probably totally incomprehensible to you. I wouldn’t usually want to lay it out like I’m about to, but here we are.
Suppose, in just one week, I could have every single platinum player say aardvark is a god. Don’t argue with aardvark, don’t waste aardvark’s time, aardvark is always right. I imagine maybe that’s what you want for yourself, but I don’t need that, I don’t want that.
For me, that would be one week of not baking cookies, or cleaning, or doing chores. Miss out on some TV programs. A movie or two. I know you don’t care. But I care. That’s the point. I care about stuff you don’t care about. I don’t care about stuff you care about. Different priorities.
You think it’s worth a week, two weeks, whatever? For me it’s not even worth one minute.
No amount of flaunting rank would help me build the sort of community I want to see. None of it would produce players that I thought worth being on a team with. I don’t need to deal with kids trying to “challenge” me or whatever thing because I’m on top. I don’t need any number of mindless drones nodding their heads with whatever I say. I want thinking players, if they disagree that’s fine, but I want to know why they disagree, I want to dig into the details, pull out the numbers. That’s what I think is fun and interesting.
Do I care about top platinum? I don’t. Look through my posts. Where do I ever say rank is important? I say rank is NOT important a lot, and I mean just that. Other players are like “what’s your rank”? Or they lead supposed reasoned arguments by saying they’re top rank. But not me. Never. You may remember when I was on Discord (ugh) I deliberately deranked from platinum to wood to get the wood badge, and why? It was a pain in the butt, took a load of time, but that’s how I do, and I wanted to make it clear to anyone. I don’t respect titles, I don’t respect rank, I don’t care about your experience, I don’t care about your history. Can you perform here, today, now, can you think, can you operate as part of a team, can you communicate? That’s enough. If you’re a wood league with a good mind, you won’t be wood for long if you don’t want to be. Then you see silver or gold players that are strong but never bothered to rank up and you really realize how little rank actually means. Then you see the “top platinum” players saying “don’t think! thinking about details is a waste of time! this is how top platinum players are!” It’s enough to make you, I wouldn’t say sick. Bored. Indifferent.
So there you are, going on again about top platinum, like you actually think I’m interested in all that. So how do you explain me being platinum in both Axis and Allies to begin with, then deliberately deranking to earn the wood badge in Discord? Queuing all those games, ugh. Did I mention I don’t like 1942 Online’s UI? I had to WORK for wood, and I did it. Can you even comprehend that sort of thinking? Probably not.
If I wanted to boast of having high rank I could just have sat there and said “check me out, I’m platinum!” But I wanted wood to make a statement. And when whoever was on Discord said I couldn’t just HAVE it, I had to EARN it, that I needed to show a screenshot of actual wood rank, I actually spent my own REAL TIME to EARN THAT WOOD BADGE. Doesn’t sound like something you’d ever do? I get that. I’m saying you don’t get me. That’s what I’ve been saying right along.
So you kids can go on about how I need to “convince” whoever. You put up a few thousand dollars guaranteed and/or show there’s players that can actually operate as a team, then I’m interested.
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
the only documented case of what he’s advocating against a decent opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqzpuBQPEQThread title is "Why Sealion Doesn’t Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online) "
“Doesn’t Work” =/= advocating.
If you miss the details because they’re a “waste of time”? In the title of the thread, “Doesn’t Work”, at least get that much.
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
waste of time
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
Same as in your example where the US player would reactively defend W-USA, only buying stuff after J sends troops in range.
Except that wasn’t my example, I wrote US1-3 fixed infantry buy. You’re the one that’s slapping on straw-man “reactive” non-arguments that has entirely nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying ever, just like you’re saying I’m arguing FOR Germany Baltic fleet, and whatever other nonsense.
@quintin said in Why Sealion Doesn't Work (Maybe) (edit - in 1942 Online):
Luckily for allies UK doesnt need to get any inf until after G commits and flushes his G1 buy down the toilet. You reactively get the inf. Same as in your example where the US player would reactively defend W-USA, only buying stuff after J sends troops in range.
At that point its fine if UK doesnt get a navy until UK2/UK3 since G isnt progressing with the actual axis wincondition: pressure on Russia.
The posts would be a lot more convincing if you had tried and won with this against plat rated opponents.
If anyone is curious there is a match on youtube where aardvark tries this. Not exactly a fair example since he failed SZ7, but its the only documented case of what he’s advocating against a decent opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqzpuBQPEQLet’s see.
-
Misses the point of UK building air. I already addressed it. No counter. No engagement. Nothing. Just totally misses the point.
-
Oversells Germany “flushing down the toilet”. Again with the hard sell, Quintin, seriously. But as I already explained in the body of this thread, if UK placed less at India, has no pressure in Atlantic, Germany has better logistics to Karelia. It’s not fantastic. But it’s not awful. And if UK has no pressure in Atlantic, Germany has more freedom. If the Allies don’t think about the position at all other than kneejerk mass infantry overprotection of London, then you get all sorts of stuff like Germany uniting off France.
But I said that didn’t happen in this thread? But why? Because the Allies do certain things - which doesn’t include UK just blowing all its IPCs on infantry in some non-thinking kneejerk response. I gave the details.
-
Again, there was no “my example” where US is reactively defending against Japan invasion. Just a straw man.
-
“At that point its fine if UK doesnt get a navy until UK2/UK3 since G isnt progressing with the actual axis wincondition: pressure on Russia.”
Which again completely ignores natural development.
If you assume Germany is incredibly stupid and self-destructs, great, Allies control Africa, Allies control Europe, Allies control Pacific, fantastic, uber, supreme.
But if you assume Germany is not incredibly stupid, if the Allies don’t apply pressure, then the Allies get stalled out in the Atlantic while Japan builds up. And to TRY to be perfectly clear, I’m not talking about this boring brute force brainless stupidity buildup that some players apparently assume is the only thing their opponents are capable of. Japan takes Asia, it takes Africa, it builds a fat income while Germany stalls in Europe. “Pressure on Russia” is not a timed stack pushing with Germany trying to choke off Russia’s income; Germany accepts Russia has more income in exchange for controlling UK/US in the Atlantic; Germany’s naval costs in the Atlantic are offset by Germany not needing to build nearly so many ground units to defend. It is not the same as the 11 inf 2 art G1 buy into timing pressure at all; it is a longer Axis game that wins on attrition, and if the Allies don’t play accurately in Africa and Europe, if they misallocate forces, the Allies will NOT recover the timing, and the Axis WILL win.
And if I didn’t explore exactly how that happens in this thread? Excuse me if I say that spelling out all the details is not my job. Because it’s not. If someone’s interested, sure, if it’s relevant, sure, but my point to begin with was competent Allied play prevents that from happening.
-
Posts would be a lot more convincing, platinum whatever, already been over it. Don’t care, not interested. But I’m just saying that because I’m scared? Right, so I hopped in a time machine and posted on various forums saying hey let’s play out some analytical games weeks ago, so I could point to those threads now and say “hey look, I really AM interested in discussing and analyzing mathematically good play”. Whatever.
-
Not exactly fair? Sigh. This is how you think. There is “fair” there is “platinum” there is “rank” there are all these hierarchies and things that have nothing to do with anything in actuality but in your perception shapes everything.
Look. I bought the German carrier to begin with because I thought it would be a fun line for viewers. Not because I thought it was mathematically sound. Just as I did a R1 retreat from West Russia to mass-fortify Karelia with a Baltic attack - not because I’m scared of losing. But because it’s FUN, you know? I refused to use calculation tools for the match, and I didn’t write out any projections either. Why? Because I’ve throttled players with numbers before. It’s just as exciting as watching paint dry. For the players that watch and understand exactly what’s going on, I play a line they’ve seen a hundred times before and if I play it more accurately, so what? Still boring.
And do I say Sealion works? Read the title of the thread. (Answer is no). Do I say R1 Baltic attack and retreat from W Rus to Karelia works? I sure as hell didn’t. Probably I wrote a book in the comments saying “this isn’t a solid line, don’t try this at home”.
So I got bent at the sea zone, and what? Then I had a shortage of brain cells and placed the carrier in the Baltic, which was obviously dumb because the UK battleship was still alive. I mean, really, that was just bad. Obviously I wasn’t thinking. And you know? TTG was such a good sportsman, he said do you want to do over? And I said no.
You know why?
Same reason I’d fight with two hands and a leg tied behind my back, which is exactly what I’m doing if I’m not using calculation tools or running projections. Because it’ll be fun, to watch and to play. And I expect ol’ TTG found, even in concurrent games where he could replicate my tech from one game to another, I didn’t just roll over and die.
The real fact of the matter is - there’s no use in someone complaining things weren’t “fair”. If they got the 6% result, if they got the 2% result, it happens. A player has got to be able to handle that stuff in stride and not worry about “fair” or whatever. (And if it’s weird to the point that maybe “fair” IS a question, well, I did talk about having analytics and breaker teams. But I digress).
And if I failed the UK battleship battle? So what? It’s the risk I took. Probably I kept the cruiser back, sent all the subs, played greedy and took subs before fighters. I don’t remember what it was exactly, but I’ll bet it was greedy, and you know why? Because I usually play greedy, I think it’s fun. If it works, great, fast game. If it doesn’t work, great, interesting game.
And if I felt the games were played out and resigned both instead of playing it out? So what? I like to play things fast. Do I really need to run Japanese air all over Europe, AGAIN? Do I really need to throttle Axis with attrition, AGAIN? Once the position’s developed to a certain point, whether it’s “winning” or “losing” or “uncertain”, the key decisions are made and it’s just a matter of accurate play along predetermined lines based on game mechanics. Eurgh.
- A decent opponent? By your standards? I know, we all have to judge the world through our personal lens, of course I can’t expect you to have the same standards I have. It’s not about “higher” or “lower”, just different. But if you must (shrug)
I keep a record of the 1942 Online players I’ve played. Out of I think 780 or so players on my record, I found less than 0.5% interesting enough to consider it worth my time playing them again.
It’s very rare, that I find players I consider competent, and the list shrank over time, not grew. How could it shrink? If I played with someone again, I’d watch their plays and look at the notes I took from previous games. Was it really that they understood the German-Japanese cooperative timing? Was that Buryatia fortification a lucky fluke or a calculated gamble? If they’re good at slow-stack mechanics, are they also good at fast-stack mechanics? You can tell by their play, and it’s not just one thing. You look at the pacing, you look at their contingencies, you see how the parts of what they do interact with other parts, how they interact with other players, and you get a pretty good idea, especially if you’re paying attention.
TTG’s a content creator, and I respect that. I think generally games should be entertaining to watch, I think a lot of players in the meta have this really stolid boring (and wrong) idea of what “good” play is. Being a (self-proclaimed) nice aardvark, of course I want interesting games for the viewers.
But I’d watched some of TTG’s games on Youtube before he played me.
So here I am (self-proclaimed) nice aardvark. On the one hand, let’s give them a show. But am I so nice that I’m going to throw away an opportunity that comes in less than 0.5% of games? Am I going to come out of retirement to install 1942 Online whose altered mechanics I don’t care for, for a community that really hasn’t been supportive (or even comprehending), to play against TTG, and waste not just one, but two games, refusing to use calculations or projections against a player, not pursuing the mathematically correct lines of play, giving up taking a closer look at opponent responses under mathematically correct and fully analyzed lines of play, possibly getting, from an “interesting” opponent, something I’d never considered? Perhaps (and probably) not, but would I give up on that possibility?
To you, maybe that was a game where I was trying my hardest against a proven opponent to demonstrate German Baltic fleet is viable. But that has nothing to do with reality.
You can dig through old posts on Steam, I’ve been saying Baltic fleet isn’t good for almost two years now. Like what, suddenly I forgot all the mathematics and projections I’d ever explained, and thought German Baltic fleet was a great idea?
I remember TTG saying on Reddit that I just wanted to be “different” or some such. I believe I replied that I don’t claim to be different (I don’t), I don’t claim to be original. I’ve said before, I’ll say again. you look at Don Rae’s essays, all the same stuff, the same approaches, same ideas. Different application maybe, but Don’s essays were for an earlier version. And if I wanted to say but I haven’t read anyone else write what I do? Nobody goes into the details like I do? So what? Crack open a mathematics textbook. It’s all there. Tactics, strategy? That too.
All I say is players should build on the basics, understand the mathematics, understand the principles, then simply apply. And often, the application is not what supposedly “top platinum” players say, it certainly isn’t “a waste of time” to look at the details, because that’s simply not what the mathematics supports.
Sure, for real-life applications, you’ve got to understand the importance of observational versus theoretical, but for an abstract construct with a very limited ruleset, the applications are simple, and you can’t and shouldn’t ignore them any more than you should ignore the odds when playing cards or dice or any such thing. You try to claim “a winner is a winner”, see how long that holds out in Vegas. No system, just ride that raw luck, see how long that lasts.
And I think I made the point on Youtube comments too; it’s not even R1 Baltic attack and retreat from West Russia to fortify Karelia is “new”. Nor is German Baltic fleet “new”. Maybe it’s exciting for the kids, but for those that understand the game mathematically it’s simply another application of core principles that transposes into very much the same lines over time.
Sigh, people saying what I’m trying to prove, or what I’m trying to do, or what I’m whatever, without any regard for what’s actually happening. And if I were #1 ranked platinum, there would just be so much more of it. And if people said shut up, don’t backtalk aardvark he’s #1 platinum, even worse. Then I have to explain how thinking is important, the shortcomings of the ranking implementation, how the last thing I want of anyone is that they just “shut up” (so long as they can actually follow and maybe even contribute meaningfully to a discussion anyways), players get angry that I’m asking them to be nice to other players, and just so much whatever.
Suggested Topics
