Navigation

    Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    1. Home
    2. aardvarkpepper
    A
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 214
    • Best 36
    • Groups 0

    aardvarkpepper

    @aardvarkpepper

    42
    Reputation
    100
    Profile views
    214
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online

    aardvarkpepper Unfollow Follow

    Best posts made by aardvarkpepper

    • Wrote up a document regarding changes between 1942 Online and board game

      Wrote a document a while ago regarding changes between 1942 Online and board game. 41 pages long, though I ended up cutting it short.

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

      The development team needs to go in and test rulebook implementation line by line. There are just loads and loads of little things all over the place that I didn’t even get to in that document.

      My impression is there’s a real possibility 1942 Online is only ever going to be a compromised version of the board game.

      ==

      On another note, I started writing an AI for Axis and Allies. Which is fun for me, so there’s that at least. ☺

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: More Announcements from Renegade

      Speculation, you say? 🤔

      I’m guessing Renegade researched the license and the market before acquiring the license, and that we may see India and China. I don’t expect either to be selected, but a poll would introduce the idea of having games about events in those theaters.

      I predict we will not see the First Soviet-Finnish War. It’s an important part of history, not just of itself, but how action and thought around it shaped how things unfolded in Europe. But I think it’s too political in the current climate.

      My guess is Renegade may not have the licenses to the particular versions of some Axis and Allies games, like D-Day, and they may try to publish new editions with entirely new rules, to capture whatever proceeds, while capitalizing on name value of the theater.

      But for various reasons, I’m guessing Operation Barbarossa / Battle of Stalingrad.

      posted in News
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch

      this emphasis on history
      is to me a mystery
      for things to be fun in a game
      things should not turn out the same

      if you want divergent play
      throw those history books away!
      “but the game is world war two”
      real tanks roll dice? I never knew

      if you want to start a list
      of all the thing the gameplay’s missed
      terrain, morale, food, intel, weather
      oil, iron, and shoe leather

      Not enough? Look at the board
      No doubt but that things were ignored
      Europe, Asia, take your pick
      Differences are laid on thick

      There’s much more that could be said
      Of game design but cheese and bread
      Are what I crave so off to kitchen
      To make a sandwich that is *****in

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy

      @djensen said in Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy:

      It definitely speeds up the game. I feel like timed tournaments should move to this as well.

      Can’t agree - whether this is regarding getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy, or whether this is regarding buying and deploying at end of round.

      The speeding up, sure. Personally I’d favor allowing purchase phase after combat movement.

      But purchasing after combat means a player knows outcomes of battles. The game then becomes less about risk management and more a simple optimization exercise.

      As to getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy - I can’t really favor it. Had a game in which UK player ideally would wipe out a German fleet by buying a carrier to create a legal landing zone for additional fighters. By board game rules, the UK player would have to have placed the carrier, then the carrier could easily be wiped on the German player’s turn (they had plenty of air force). But by 1942 Online rules, the UK player didn’t even have to place the carrier; they could buy the carrier to create a potential landing zone, then not place the carrier, never giving Germany an odds-on attack against a poorly defended 14 IPC unit.

      1942 Online has a load of changes to the board game - non-use of allied transports and carriers, floating fighters when defending carriers destroyed, submarines can’t be ignored, blitzes are automated and can’t be opted out from, sea unit movement, just this big list. I wish I could say I thought the changes improvements, but I confess to being disappointed.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • An Opinion

      Discussing moderation of Steam forums is against Steam forum guidelines. But I do want to point out when I wrote recently that the 1942 Online developers need to read up on certain issues, that’s not a “personal attack”. If a teacher tells a student they haven’t done the homework when the student hasn’t done the homework it’s not a personal attack.

      Especially when it’s been a few months and the student still doesn’t know what the assignment is.

      Literally, how can the developers address an issue if they don’t understand the issue, if they don’t acknowledge the issue, and if they give every sign they don’t even know the issue exists, despite it being written out time and again in short and long versions by different posters over and over again for months at a time?

      I’m just saying right? I’m sure some people feel they’re trying very hard, but it’s at the point they need to either acknowledge they’re in over their heads on some matters (which happens, it’s not their fault if they don’t have a huge budget) OR they need to seriously get some work done.

      I mean hey. I’ve always said on Steam forums things happen, limited budgets, sure. But the developers never acknowledge there’s even any possibility of there being limited functionality or limited budget or anything. They just ignore issues or play them off as being non-issues or whatever.

      Like lack of simultaneous defender decisions, casualty assignation after like-valued dice instead of end of subphase - these are changes to the game.

      And even for use of allied carriers, it was played off as a total non-issue “it’s the same for both sides” until I wrote this

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

      It’s NOT the same for both sides. But I don’t expect that I need to write fifty pages of documentation to back up each and EVERY point I make (though God knows, I’ve written a LOT on Steam forums)

      Anyways players should know - if you don’t care about a load of gameplay compromises and the developers trying to play things off with total denial games, then yeah, go ahead and get 1942 Online.

      But otherwise? TripleA has a game state editor, chat, undo, and better UI in terms of presenting information to the user in terms of how many of what are on the board. AND TripleA doesn’t have developers characterizing LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS as “personal attacks”.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?

      I’m interested in the full records. Particularly the W Rus strafe reasoning and aftermath. Was it a retreat into Karelia? If yes, no need for further explanation on that count, though I’m still curious about the exact distributions, attack roll results, and defender decisions, esp. as 42.3 is Larry Harris setup right? and Germany took the bomber as an early casualty at Ukraine it seems?

      @DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

      I’d hardly call Russia buying INF all game and turtling in Moscow “correct play” in 1942.3, but to each his own. I have no tournament experience in this version but I imagine a marginally more aggressive Russia build (at least 1 Tank bought every few rounds) would yield better results.

      Well I mean three Russian fighters seems like a super luxury to me, but as far as 8 infantry goes at least on the first turn, I’m not sure I’d really say that’s passive. The way I figure it, Russia needs casualty count and infantry are what you put out. Germany has this big logistics problem getting stuff to the front. So you build more infantry, you trade with fighters and artillery, you keep building infantry, you do strafes and stuff, more infantry keeps your unit count healthy while Germany feeds into it.

      But infantry ALL game, I don’t know. Like, I think I would stick some artillery in there if I had infantry stacks, maybe not R1 or R2 or even R3 but . . . all game, all infantry? I mean, I could see it in some games but I’d want to see a game record to see how that all played out.

      Isn’t that an exaggeration after all? I mean if you had three Russian fighters, didn’t you have to buy one? Or does patch 42.3 change that up or something? I don’t know.

      “The UK traded a stack of tanks to fend off the german ones coming out of africa” - really, German had a stack of tanks in Africa? Is that normal? I don’t think I would expect it.

      @DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

      I’m interested in seeing one of your replay files if Germany is killing your USSR by only building Tanks and Strat Bombers in 42.3. Doesn’t seem like very cost-efficient trading to me.

      Well German tanks repositioning can be really nasty. But still.

      Also I’m thinking about the effects of tournament rules, what with timers and things. So if the Axis just contain 7 VCs then they win? How do games usually go on time? To the end with 9 Axis or 10 Allied VCs?

      Because the tournament thing is pretty big imo. It’s like okay if Moscow is threatened normally maybe you pull out of India but if it’s a battle for 7 VCs before time’s called that’s less an option.

      (edit - After having played more and read some old posts by Hobbes, I agree 8 inf is not the way to go in the now-implemented LHTR setup. If you have a good successful Ukraine strafe and retreat to Caucasus and everything goes right, then 8 inf can work. But if Ukraine doesn’t go well or if Russia captures Ukraine, then Russia loses a chunk of its attack power on R1 or G1 respectively. Then Russia can’t really punish German incursion especially with Japanese fighter reinforcement.)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Have you ever done miniature wargaming?

      Board gaming and miniature wargaming aren’t really two distinct categories. You could have a board game with loads of expansions, added rules, and supplementary miniatures. Or you could have a miniature game with collectible factory-painted miniatures with one simple ruleset.

      Cost and equipment vary per game, as does ease of finding players. It’s not like if it’s generally popular nationwide you’ll be able to find a game. It tends to work in clusters - in one area one particular game will be all over the place and in the surrounding towns too, but you drive a few hours in any direction and that particular game’s nowhere to be seen.

      I don’t know that I would say there’s really differences. You get together, you do the thing, players tend not to be really strategic or tactical, it’s a casual thing. Maybe ordering takeout or watching a sports game on TV or talking or whatever.

      posted in General Discussion
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy

      @Panther: That’s very interesting. I’d been using the FAQ dated September 3, 2014 at

      http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA1942_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf

      but apparently there’s a more recent version dated November 24, 2014 at

      https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_1942_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

      You are, of course, quite correct. The software should prevent overbuying, and players should have to mobilize all units purchased.

      My statement, based on the old FAQ, was incorrect.

      @JuliusBorisovBeamdog Players are not supposed to be able to voluntarily not place units then get a refund for any non-placed units.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: 1 fighter vs 1 AAA - what happens?

      @Witt said in 1 fighter vs 1 AAA - what happens?:

      @aardvarkpepper the AAA fires first . If it hits , it survives. If it fails to roll a 1, then Combat begins and the Ft kills it automatically, as the AAA has no defence roll.

      That’s what I thought up until about a week ago when a question came up in another forum and I looked it up. A literal reading of the rules is the AAA and fighter CAN destroy each other because of the “automatically destroyed” special rule.

      What I’m asking is if anyone knows of a specific official rules reference that I missed.

      This is a 1942 2nd edition question - but the RESOLUTION affects 1942 Online, which is why I want the literal and correct rule. Julius Borosov recently wrote that the AAA gets destroyed and never even fires on the fighter.

      https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/2845669419715663297/

      Well, even if we do get a pretty strong consensus on how the 1942.2 board game works, the developers of 1942 Online may still well not change anything, but I still want to know for my own reference for when I play on TripleA or IRL or whatever.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Have you ever done miniature wargaming?

      @SniperSquad said in Have you ever done miniature wargaming?:

      Thanks for the both of you.

      That’s what I was thinking. Miniatures games are mostly tactical and board games mostly operational or strategical. I have more experience in strategic games but I am also interested to learn the tactical ones.

      Do you know if one of those types of games can be played more often as solo games?

      You can always play both sides or make custom scenarios. But I think you knew that.

      The real question is, what do you want from your game experience, specifically? You don’t have to answer that question to me or anyone else. But in your mind, you’re playing a game solo. Where are you? Do you have reliable, sporadic, or nonexistent internet connectivity? Why are you playing a physical boardgame rather than a computer game (say, Hearts of Iron IV against the AI, available on Steam?) Is the physical representation of the model important to you? If weighting historical accuracy of a model against its breaking, which do you emphasize? Are you interested in painting your own pieces? Is it the historical aspect of World War 2 you’re interested in, or miniatures? What about fantasy miniature wargames like Warmachine or Warhammer? (I don’t recommend the latter’s rules or paints but their miniatures are nice).

      posted in General Discussion
      A
      aardvarkpepper

    Latest posts made by aardvarkpepper

    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Recap: First, I looked at UK1 counter to G1, concluding it made sense to submerge the USSR sub as it isn’t needed on defense. Then, I looked at the numbers on 5 to sz7 1 to East Canada sea zone, vs 6 to sz7, and listed some of the relevant numbers.

      Which is going in reverse a bit but whatever.

      I mentioned earlier a lot comes down to things outside the realm of simple calculations. In the case of 6 or 5 to sz7, it comes down to, do you want to reduce risks and play a conservative strategy? Or do you think a conservative strategy simply doesn’t work? (Or “overly conservative strategy”, whatever.)

      What if playing the Axis well requires taking on a certain amount of risk? Aren’t “top players” recommending 6 units to sz7, yet also saying Allies are advantaged? 🤔

      “And always, he fought the temptation to choose a clear, safe course, warning 'That path leads ever down into stagnation.” - Dune, by Frank Herbert

      ==

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Woops, realized I left out the 5 to sz7 part, so added it in Discord

      ==

      I realized I didn’t get to the 5 to sz7 part. 🤔

      https://youtu.be/qofMAoY0Ts4?t=60

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=2&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-SSub-Des-Cru-Sub-Fig-JFig-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      Actually there’s this whole thing where players either do sub-cru-sub or cru-sub-sub or sub-sub-cru depending on attacker hits BUT eh.

      Anyways you see there’s about 60% one or more German subs survive. Splitting a sub off to hit the UK East Canada fleet has 1/3 chance to lose outright, 1/3 chance to destroy UK destroyer only, 1/3 chance to wipe UK destroyer and transport.

      So 5/1 split to Canada, assuming USSR fights is:

      33% Germany destroys transport so doesn’t need to put anything on France.

      30% Germany destroys destroyer at East Canada and has 1+ submarines surviving at sz7, which gives Germany fodder against UK1 fleet.

      30% isn’t the greatest, sure. But compare to 6 to sz7. There, if UK wants to wipe all sz7 survivors, it has 67% to do so while preserving 2 fighters 1 destroyer 1 bomber, if willing to lose bomber, 90% to wipe.

      But 5 to sz7 has higher chances of failure or air loss compared to 6 to sz7?

      Well, I am always saying one unit makes a difference. So let’s see how that plays out

      ==

      5 to sz7:

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=2&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=1&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Cru-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      8.86% fail, 10.68% lose a fighter. 19.54% to not do well; that’s chunky numbers there.

      6 to sz7:

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=1&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Cru-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      2.05% fail, 3.51% lose a fighter. 5.56% to not do well.

      Let’s ignore that Germany can do without a fighter (and there’s a lot of other things I’m ignoring too, typically the ones in favor of the point I’m arguing, but eh.)

      What does Germany pay for that 14% increase in odds? And how can we put that risk in perspective?

      It’s apples and oranges, but every time a bomber hits an IC, there’s 16.6% to lose a 12-IPC unit. Contrast to 14% to lose a 10-IPC fighter. (It’s not really the same, I know, losing the UK battleship fight sucks really hard. But bear with me.)

      Against that, we set the 33% of being able to leave France defenseless, the 30% of having offensive fodder against a reduced UK navy. Balance that against the 3.5 IPC expected from strat bombing.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Earlier I quoted sub fighting is 29.02% “win” for Allies, submerging is only 9.87% (and we’re completely ignoring Baltic counter options and Med hit point but whatever.)

      So if a player’s thinking “I’m a big spender and I like to roll the dice, so if Allies have to build another sub or whatever sure what’s 6 to 8 IPC” - which they shouldn’t, because every IPC has to be considered - then? MAYBE they think let’s just roll the dice and try to get a “win”.

      But if we redefine what constitutes a “win” and say Axis losing just one sub is not good, then we’re trading those Baltic options and the Med hit point to increase a 83% acceptable to 90% acceptable.

      If destroying two subs or more is what’s required (which is overkill, but increases odds of UK preserving bomber on counter), then 58% acceptable changes to 38%.

      But if UK considers 58% acceptable, then the 67% that UK keeps bomber, 2 fighters, and destroyer on the counter would be acceptable, wouldn’t it. 🤔

      “russian (sub) surviving sz7 from submerge has very little value”

      Let’s accept that as true for a moment, just for the discussion. But even then, it’s not a question of how little the value is, but how it’s best spent, isn’t it?

      Or is it?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OyrX11cMkE

      Conclusion: Let that USSR sub be destroyed, because it’s about sending a message. (That is, it’s NOT really about sending a message, so don’t do it 😛 )

      Would letting the USSR sub be destroyed be edgy and subversive and cool?

      But if it’s predictable, is that really edgy? 🤔

      And for players that say me switching it up is trying to be edgy -

      Well no, as the above demonstrates, I’m simply playing the numbers, based on my read of others’ risk and style preferences. 🤓

      And if I sometimes play to counter the 4-to-sz7-gambling-on-submerge, well 🤷

      ==

      So ends the Discord thread.

      The “4 to sz7” is the flip side. If it’s logical for the USSR sub to submerge, then Germany may assume USSR will submerge. So Germany may attack sz7 with only 3 subs 1 cruiser, freeing 2 fighters for critical attacks in Europe.

      Of course, with the live board game, if Germany attacks with 4, USSR defends in response.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Now let’s have 6 go in and USSR sub submerges

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      16.93% no loss
      45.12% lose one sub
      27.3% lose two sub
      9.87% lose more (say it’s a “win” for Allies.)

      I mentioned earlier, though, that setting these arbitrary failure points wasn’t really correct. How are we really defining this arbitrary “win” for Allies?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9PrE044sLg

      Remember all those discussions I mentioned we’re not having? Well, let’s add another one, the opportunity cost of the meta G1 bomber against the loss of 4 G1/G2 infantry. But assuming you’re in the camp that Believes in G1 Bomber, and Parking Air In Range Of London Sea Zones Yet Not Considering Building Submarines (probably sounds weird when I put it like that but whatever)

      Again, we’re assuming R1 captured Ukraine. Now let’s skip ahead and say Germany has 5 fighter 1 bomber to threaten UK’s fleet. What’s a “bad fleet” for Germany?

      2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is quite bad.

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=2&dCru=&dCar=1&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      . . . not that 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is a picnic. But 2 destroyers is right out.

      ==

      Remember how earlier I stipulated Germany doesn’t want to trade German air against UK navy? So it doesn’t hit the UK cruiser?

      Right. So UK1 can counter Germany’s sz7 survivors with up to 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 2 fighter 1 bomber. Yes, doing that means Germany’s Med fleet is safe. But then, if we’re assuming Germany went 6 to sz7, then US East fleet is safe and can drop at least 1 transport to French West Africa. And does Germany really want to hit that transport with its bomber (assuming it buys one) and land on Morocco, even if it can, in the face of a US1 Atlantic fleet plus transport build? Because that bomber will get blown up; Germany trading with UK is bad but trading with US at a loss?

      I mean, there’s bad, then there’s this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c2yvfNEqyw

      Like, even attempting it means Germany isn’t helping bleed out India, it’s so super good for Allies I get giddy just thinking about it. But let’s just have that be another discussion we’re not having. (It’s almost like we’re married isn’t it. 🙄 )

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=1&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=2&dDes=&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Cru-Bom-Des-Fig-JFig-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      So IF Germany has 2 subs 1 cruiser, if UK’s willing to drop its cruiser then bomber, then 90% destroyer and 2 fighters survive, making that unpleasant 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter fleet we just discussed.

      Oh yes, another discussion we’re not having is why do UK1 fleet at all, why not UK1 2 fighter build and fly fighters to W Rus.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Skipping over some stuff, this leads towards arguing USSR should land 2 fighters on Archangel. I claim USSR can afford to, that Archangel fighters to London increases UK’s range of answers to a G1 Baltic navy build that threatens invasion of London, that USSR in general wants an option to clean up the Baltic fleet, that Archangel fighters can hit east if Japan overextends (which actually they shouldn’t if they’re competent, but if it doesn’t hurt the Allies to check if an opponent is bad, why not.)

      . . . and IF USSR fighters are on Archangel, they STILL don’t want to hit Baltic, because USSR fighters want to trade land. So if a USSR sub is around to do that, so much the better.

      Why doesn’t UK clean up? Because UK bomber probably has Important Places To Be. UK fighters might be countering any survivors of sz7. What UK does depends in part on Germany’s turn, and since we don’t know what Germany will do on USSR’s turn, we want to keep our options open.

      . . . and if USSR doesn’t use the sub at Baltic, it goes Med as fodder, because if the Axis try to push up through Med (which they will), an additional hit point is going to help.

      This is one of these things where players say subs are sucky defenders (true), a hit point is helpful but subs are situational (true), etc. etc. BUT the fact is, either the Allies have that extra hit point in the Med, or they don’t, and if it’s blown up, then they don’t.

      Make sense?

      But now it’s time to get to the relative cost part.

      I’ll start by saying Germany has two major attacks; either 6 to sz7, or 5 to sz7 and split a submarine to either East Canada fleet or East US fleet. (Personally I like East Canada, but there’s a point to be made for East US).

      I’ll also say Germany can’t expect to hit units off French West Africa and land safely on Morocco. G2 landing Morocco eats US2 counter, unless Germany thinks US1 has no transports.

      (Which is a legitimate argument but apparently the meta doesn’t support it so eh.)

      ==

      So we have four scenarios to run for this wee look at things, and the aftermaths. 6 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 6 to sz7 and USSR fights, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges.

      Make sense?

      But first, even more stipulations. We say Germany does not want to risk air against UK navy, such as Berlin fighter vs UK cruiser. We ALSO say UK is “out for blood” and willing to trade with German air even at a loss, provided Germany does NOT have submarine fodder.

      (And you know, the last just isn’t necessarily true, if G1 buys Baltic sub(s). But that’s another story, eh? 😉 I won’t even get into me complaining about why would players even park all fighters in range of London if they have no intention of engaging especially as they didn’t do any G1 sub buy. I mean, paper tiger much, but I digress.)

      Ah, one more thing. Let’s say any “acceptable” result for Germany at sz7 is German air survives.

      Suppose 6 go in and USSR sub fights.

      https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=sea&roundCount=all&attSubmarine=3&defSubmarine=1&attFighter=2&defDestroyer=1&attCruiser=1&defBattleship=1

      87% “acceptable” for Germany. Well, that’s just too high, isn’t it, so let’s come up with some other stuff to test.

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=1&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=1&dDes=1&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=1&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      9.94% no loss
      31.55% lose one sub
      29.49% lose two sub
      29.02% lose all subs or worse, let’s say that’s a “win” for Allies. (Actually, not true but I’ll get to that later).

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      But to return to USSR1.

      Having defined some preconditions, now to define the conditions under which those preconditions may be bent.

      Why do we assume West Russia needs two AA guns to hold? We shouldn’t simply assume; the point of this all is to make mathematically informed decisions. So what we should really do is run the numbers on West Russia’s defense, and the odds of West Russia having what we think is adequate.

      But with “we think”, we come to the next conceptual barrier. It is not that there is a single best move, nor is it even simply a question of risk management and understanding probability distributions. Rather, much like a game of cards, a player should do their best to find the “tells” of other players, and when necessary, try to play to their outs.

      Suppose, for example, I’m playing against a player that I know doesn’t like to do G1 hit West Russia, because they’re just not used to it. If I do a R1 12 to W Rus / 9 to Ukr open and only have 2 inf 2 art 1 tank surviving at W Rus, they might overcome their reluctance. But what if I have 5 inf 2 art 1 tank 1 AA? Even if Germany is favored in the attack, they might not attack.

      So, what are the numbers on G’s attack on Caucasus, if USSR1 captures Ukraine? Say it’s 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 battleship vs 4 infantry.

      https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=amphibiousAssault&roundCount=all&attInfantry=1&defInfantry=4&attTank=1&attFighter=2&attBattleship=1

      22.26% attackers lose all units. Well, that’s a disaster.

      But here’s a lesson in practical calculation aid reading. If attackers are likely to lose all units, there’s probably some intermediate result where the attackers can tell they’re going to lose, then they can retreat. Germany doesn’t have to lose its expensive air.

      So, not so bad? Well, read on.

      ==

      Totting up the numbers, it’s 66% that Germany destroys everything on Caucasus, yet fails to capture. That’s reasonably likely. And if Germany does fail to capture, UK1 can hit the battleship and transport with destroyer, fighter, and bomber. Unlike other scenarios, the UK1 bomber lives, AND UK has a decent chance to lose no air, not even a fighter. And that’s not great for Axis.

      https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/graph.php?cmd=barchart&rules=1942&battleType=sea&roundCount=all&defTransport=1&attFighter=1&attDestroyer=1&attBomber=1&defBattleship=1

      We can run the numbers on if Germany gives up a fighter instead of a tank, and mention some later consequences. But let’s just say generally Germany doesn’t want to give up air, for good reason. That is, I acknowledge assumptions are being made here, but I’m saying absent evidence to challenge a particular assumption, this is what we’re going with. 🤷

      BUT?

      The core challenging assumption is, what if Germany thinks that trade is reasonable?! Because it might. But that’s where we refine the stipulation of 2 AA on West Russia to, 2 AA on West Russia because we think Germany is deterred from the target.

      And THAT closes the circle some. Because when will Germany find it profitable to trade at an IPC-value loss, considering the utility of Axis tanks and fighters? When the Axis plan to make it a battle of simple unit count. And in plain English, that pretty much means when Germany does multiple early attacks that deplete USSR’s numbers more than Germany’s own, and though Germany loses more IPC value and more units even, Germany still ends up overwhelming USSR.

      But if we believe West Russia is not attacked (or even if attacked does reasonably well), then we think that precise thing probably will not happen.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel

      Every so often I’d post on another forum or Discord then a couple months later someone would pop up asking the same question but the post would be buried.

      So I’m pasting Discord stuff in here.

      Today’s topic: Whether R1 (USSR1) should or should not submerge submarine when joining UK’s battleship.

      There was some other recent discussion on Discord about whether Germany should send 6 units to sz7 or 5 units, this touches on that.

      ==

      Every so often, players have strong differences of opinion because each side thinks they have a monopoly on the truth. As may be imagined, such arguments are difficult to resolve, especially when each side does have reason to believe their side is correct.

      . . . then an aardvark wanders in and poops a bunch of numbers and commentary all over the place then wanders off.

      . . . and sometimes players get angry because This Is Not How Civilized Aardvarks Act. There Must Be An Order To Things, And Pooping Lots Of Numbers And Detailed Commentary Is Not How Things Are Done.

      And yet, there WAS a time, a golden age of thought, when ideas were commonly exchanged for the good of the community. When the internet was newly introduced, and people still thought of civility, before they learned to hide behind anonymous handles to sling barbs at one another.

      (What, you say? No, my mum calls me aardvarkpepper, thank you very much. um yeah, totally true story there 🙄 )

      But let us now embark on a journey of exploration, into the Great Questions of Our Time. USSR sub to submerge or nah? How many fighters on Archangel and when? 6 to sz7 or 5? Probably I’ll copy this to Axis and Allies org forums or something I shouldn’t wonder.

      ==

      OVERVIEW:

      R1 4 inf 3 art, 9 to Ukr, 12 to W Rus.

      Flies 2 fighters to Archangel conditional on 1) capturing Ukr, 2) two AA guns W Rus

      The problem with any “analysis” is there are loads of unspoken suppositions. So let’s explicitly acknowledge a few. USSR wants to place infantry and/or artillery at Caucasus, up to production limit, then place excess (including any tanks) at Moscow. Such placement allows USSR maximum pressure against Ukraine.

      Why stipulate so many conditions to begin with? Because it is necessary to understand the assumptions of the model. For example, if West Russia is reasonably secure with one AA gun, then an AA gun may be added to Caucasus.

      As ever, the addition or subtraction of a single unit is important, even for large stacks.

      I quote a paper I wrote some time ago below.

      "Consider 21 infantry, 8 artillery, 10 tanks, 5 fighters, 1 bomber, versus 38 infantry 2 tanks 4 fighters (links below.) Attacker odds drop from 62% to 46% with the inclusion of a single additional defending fighter.

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=21&aArt=8&aArm=10&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=38&dArt=&dArm=2&dFig=4&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=21&aArt=8&aArm=10&aFig=5&aBom=1&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=38&dArt=&dArm=2&dFig=5&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: Japan to Alaska in KGF

      Some posters on Discord are saying how the Allies player counters Japan’s invasion of Alaska is dependent on “player level”. Sure.

      But magical abilities are being ascribed, and it should be understood there is no magic.

      For example, I read a “top level” player will supposedly “defend” Alaska. How, exactly? When, exactly? Is it magic?

      The first post is to players that already have a very good grasp of what’s going on, telling them this is the timing, the timing shift, the opportunity cost, and so on.

      This post is more basic.

      Assuming Germany doesn’t have early advantageous dice against USSR (or other disasters), assuming Germany is not in a position to dash forwards and crush Moscow before the Allies can really do anything, the game takes a slower pace. Germany and Japan build up and move towards Moscow; UK and US carry out their own development.

      But let’s give some concrete numbers. Suppose Japan decides to attack Alaska early. Why would Japan do this? If the US player was very silly, and only then. Generally at the end of J1, Japan should have made whatever opportunistic attacks to start choking USSR’s income. Every unit sent to Alaska is a unit not sent to Asia, and any units Japan dumps to Asia next turn from the Alaska transports will have to be to Buryatia or Manchuria, which is far from India; India has an existing industrial complex that UK uses to disrupt the Axis, and controlling that industrial complex is a big boost to Japan. For reasons I shall not get into at this time.

      So the only reason why Japan should hit Alaska J1 or J2 (or generally early), considering it detracts from the basic Axis strategy, considering it detracts from what is normally one of the Axis’ stronger tactical focuses - is if Japan does better to hit Alaska somehow. Which amounts to US overextension. Which shouldn’t happen.

      So Japan should not invade Alaska early, unless Allies are super unlucky or super bad. Or unless the Japan player just wants to have fun; games don’t have to be about “winning” or “losing”.

      ==

      What about late in the game? Supposing the Allies go KGF?

      We must first talk about tanks and opportunity costs. Suppose US buys tanks. A single transport can transport, say, two infantry, or an infantry and a tank. Though tanks are expensive, they can blitz (probably useless if dropped on France but whatever), and they are more efficient defenders than infantry. So should we expect that the US has lots of tanks? Probably not. Because infantry are much cheaper than tanks, and we may expect that the US will use IPCs to buy more transports and infantry.

      But there are other reasons to buy tanks, specifically, tanks on Western US defend Western US and threaten Alaska. Tanks on Eastern Canada are ready for US’s usual KGF transport routes and also threaten Alaska.

      Then there’s also certain things about timings at Finland. But suffice to say that building a heavy tank force is quite expensive, and though I expect US to build a few tanks, I don’t expect heavy investment.

      Yes, three paragraphs to go over things that veteran players already know very well. I did mention this post is more basic.

      Those things said, what can we reasonably expect of a Japan to Alaska invasion? Let’s say reasonable worst case.

      REASONABLE WORST CASE, JAPAN TO ALASKA

      1. In KGF (if KJF, then Japan hitting Alaska is opportunistic / “best chance”.
      2. After Japan takes India (before capturing India, Japan needs its transports to speed attacks on India. Even afterwards, one or two transports may be used for Africa and/or Australia.)
      3. US has a few tanks East Canada.

      All makes sense? This is as bad as it gets for Japan hitting Alaska. But let’s throw in a few more things that we also know, if we think about it.

      1. Japan isn’t making good progress supporting Germany in Europe. (If Japan were doing great with Germany, who cares about Alaska, just smash Moscow and win).
      2. Germany’s position isn’t hopeless, or near hopeless. It just needs a “little more”.

      Okay. Now let’s say Japan dumps 2 units to Alaska, 4 units, basically a distraction. This is not the supposed “hard counter” that a lot of players are talking about on Discord. It’s just Japan saying “hi”, now Japan is +2, US is -2.

      Now what is the magical defense?

      Obviously if US has a pile of infantry on West Canada, then US smashes Japan in Alaska and sits there, and Japan can’t really do much about it. (Remember, we expect Japan to have 8-12 ground on the followup, plus up to six fighters, a bomber, two battleship and a cruiser support shots, plus maybe some more air power, who knows.)

      Well, if US was sitting on a huge chunk of infantry on West Canada, then let’s really think on it. Somehow, the Axis are not doing particularly well, despite the US holding back a huge chunk of income on a threat that Japan never even needed to commit to? Then why are the Axis generally doing not so hot in Europe?

      You see the magic? Where did this perfect defense materialize from? It comes from the assumption that somehow the Allies are basically already winning.

      But let’s make it a little less magical, you say? Let’s say there is a small infantry reserve on West Canada? Well, that infantry reserve will get blown up by Japan’s counter. So really, US needs a lot on West Canada. That’s just how it is.

      But US can use fighters against Alaska? Most of US fighters are in or near Europe. They simply haven’t the range.

      Bombers? Again, out of range.

      But the US fighters and bombers are NOT out of range, one claims, if they are held back? True, but then we again have the situation where US is pre-emptively holding back counter forces, and considerable forces at that, against a potential Japanese invasion.

      We need more magic!

      Then let’s say US responds late to Japan’s attack. That is, Japan secures Alaska on the initial or the followup.

      Then everything I wrote in the initial post is true; Japan threatens multiple locations with a single stack of units; US must pull multiple defenses or come out the loser, Axis units that would not be really relevant until a few turns in suddenly become immediately relevant.

      This is just the numbers. The situation. The timing. The logistics. No magic involved.

      Japan to Alaska isn’t about some poorly considered premature invasion that pulls away from Axis strategic and tactical goals.

      Nor is Japan to Alaska about some late game Hail Mary, trying to brute-force some solution. This is what some posters are saying on Discord, but it’s not about that at all. It’s about pulling a US response, where US wants to invest more in the defense than Japan needs to on the offense, because US wants local superiority of force, Japan gains income from invasion while US is merely reclaiming, and US cannot really afford to lose, given the multiple threat development of Japan.

      If US does not respond to the threat with sufficient force (including taking reasonable chances and getting unlucky), then Japan captures Western US. That shouldn’t happen, but Japan may still fuel its invasion with traded territory income. But those are both actually silly scenarios. What probably happens is, US responds “late” (if not, then US was paying an opportunity cost for a threat that never needed to materialize), then US has to keep shoveling resources into repelling the threat, then after Japan switches back to Asia, US’s logistics chains are inefficient for some time while US readjusts, and the majority Allied stack holder may be severely disrupted at least.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • Japan to Alaska in KGF

      Did a writeup on Japan to Alaska a few times I think on Steam, came up again on Discord. Putting an outline here so it won’t get lost.

      Used to be a paper “Trans-Siberian Express” or something like that from Revised. Japan to Alaska in KGF isn’t new, some of the details are different between Revised and 1942 Online but whatever.

      Why Japan to Alaska? Not because US builds a fleet to counter (too expensive). Not because US has to build in W US. It’s a timing shift.

      Say Japan dumps to Buryatia, which then goes to Yakut, Evenki, Archangel, Karelia. Every space with infantry is “wasted” in that they’re on their way somewhere important, rather than being important of themselves. Getting into details about Evenki, or Yunnan-Szechwan-Kazakh or through India, I’ll leave off.

      What about the necessary infrastructure? By that time Japan should be running 6+ transports, what with Africa, Australia, etc, but none of that is real pressure, and excess transports don’t really help Japan’s infantry stream timing against Moscow. Japan built transports early, but now they’re not being used much, so what to do with them?

      Probably Allies are beginning to pressure Germany. What does Japan do to pile on pressure? Depends on the game, maybe tanks through Asia hits a timing, but I won’t get into that here.

      But let’s say Japan dumps to Alaska. What then?

      1. You can get alternate transports between Japan and Alaska, feeding 6-8 units into Alaska a turn. (I won’t discuss the tradeoffs except to say it’s not great for Japan, but it does mean Japan’s Alaska push has to be taken seriously.)

      2. Grab Hawaii. Shouldn’t be a VC victory because Allies should have pressed into Europe by now, but it’s something.

      3. Threaten West USA. There’s this thing where Japan builds carriers and lands fighters on to secure W USA under some conditions.

      The above happen, but no real threats there with normal dice against competent players. But they’re the “obvious” answers to address before dismissing.

      ==

      When Japan lands bombers on Alaska, both East Canada sea zones are threatened, which means Allies need to split defensive fleet (as opposed to having undefended empty transports off East Canada). But Japan’s air also has range to France / NW Europe, as well as Finland.

      Then there’s the things that happen when Japan can push into Western Canada and land fighters, develop a threat against Eastern Canada, blitz into Central United States.

      One stack of Japanese bombers threatens multiple RELEVANT sea zones in the Atlantic, can be used in CONJUNCTION with German ground, SIMULTANEOUSLY West US is threatened, US’s troops on East Canada are threatened, Japan has economic pressure if West Canada is left undefended with blitzing into Central US.

      None of that is game-ending, especially since US Pacific survivors should be arriving in Atlantic right about then. But at the very least, US will probably have to let up on pressure in Europe.

      And what does Japan give up? 8 infantry on Alaska is a lot nastier immediate pressure than 8 infantry on Buryatia. Or Yunnan. Or moved from Burma to wherever, probably. This is the “timing shift”. What would be irrelevant until three turns down the line is instead immediately relevant, with Japan’s shift.

      What if the Allies overbuild on navy to prevent Japan from doing this? In RESPONSE to Japan building bombers, say? Then Allies are slower to reinforce in Europe in the first place, also acceptable.

      What if invading Alaska “fails”? By then Japan should have Africa and Australia (maybe running around with a skeleton fleet for cleanup, but the bulk of Japan’s transports no longer urgently needed to develop timings or pressure). So Japan really doesn’t have much use for excess transports. So how does it use them? Japan heads towards Hawaiian Islands anyways. Japan wants more income (Alaska). It’s just sort of the natural development.

      And if Japan had a winning game pushing stacks into Asia in the first place, then Japan doesn’t invade Alaska. Capture Moscow, consolidate, push Allies out of Europe, win.

      Japan to Alaska in KGF is one of the timing shifts used in an air-heavy Japan, just another tool in the toolbox. Japanese bombers on Alaska is the easy spot, there’s some variants I won’t get into but the general idea is the same.

      If a player is building (probably Manchuria IC) and trying to push major Japanese stacks then that’s an entirely different strategy. There, it’s like the Axis are locked into trying to build Japanese-majority-stack in Asia, so that’s the Axis game plan. Japan to Alaska in those games can still happen but probably shouldn’t.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 Online
      A
      aardvarkpepper
    • RE: More Announcements from Renegade

      Speculation, you say? 🤔

      I’m guessing Renegade researched the license and the market before acquiring the license, and that we may see India and China. I don’t expect either to be selected, but a poll would introduce the idea of having games about events in those theaters.

      I predict we will not see the First Soviet-Finnish War. It’s an important part of history, not just of itself, but how action and thought around it shaped how things unfolded in Europe. But I think it’s too political in the current climate.

      My guess is Renegade may not have the licenses to the particular versions of some Axis and Allies games, like D-Day, and they may try to publish new editions with entirely new rules, to capture whatever proceeds, while capitalizing on name value of the theater.

      But for various reasons, I’m guessing Operation Barbarossa / Battle of Stalingrad.

      posted in News
      A
      aardvarkpepper