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.

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

@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.

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”.

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.)

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.

@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.

@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.

@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).

@djensen said in Feature suggestion: dice rage quit prevention:

Or a calming quote might work too.

==

I find that quote very calming.

VERY CALMING.

==

No, the quote was more a joke on how after the computer screws you with bad dice, it asks you condescendingly if you’re sure you want to quit.

Yes I want to quit you **** computer, why do you think I am pressing this button with a mad gleam in my eye?

==

But jokes aside - I think saying directly to the player that the program is sorry for bad dice is counter-intuitive, because it’s the program that gave the bad dice in the first place. If the program were REALLY sorry it would give better dice, or maybe have a Low-Luck option or something right?

Maybe some quotes from history would prove apt.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/luck

“I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it”
― Thomas Jefferson

“You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don’t help.”
― Bill Watterson

“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
― Terry Pratchett, Mort

“Oh, I am fortune’s fool!”
― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

etc. etc.

@ubernaut ooooo flowcharts, you got a link?

Reckon I’ll head over to TripleA’s forum.

@megatron said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:

I understand that without a destroyer any attacking air units cannot hit submarines. Which also means as a defender I cannot assign hits from air units to submarines.
Isn’t this a huge drawback if I, for example, use submarines to soak up damage in sea combat but would be unable to do so if the opponent doesn’t have any destroyers and therefor I would have to assign hits to more valuable units?

The destroyers ability to make my subs visible should be a drawback. Why can’t the defender just order the subs to surface? From a tactical point of view this just makes no sense to me.

Imagine two carriers four fighters are attacked by four submarines two fighters. Submarines fight best by submerging to avoid enemy attacks. It would not make sense that the submarines leap out of the ocean into the path of enemy guns.

It’s not great that submarines are invincible either, but if one has to pick and choose, I’d say it’s not that bad.

In the above scenario, instead of attacking with four submarines two fighters, the attacker could just go in with four submarines against two carriers, ignoring the defending fighters.

But there’s any number of different situations, which may involve the defender deliberately taking destroyers as casualties early to manipulate how hits must be later allocated? Or attack/defense compositions could be given that are quite different to my example?

Yes, absolutely. But again, we’re looking at submarines submerging, or submarines sort of leaping out of the ocean, and if a simple rule is to be made universal, which should be chosen? Or what other simple solution should there be?

@vodot said in Submarine/Air Unit rule actually a drawback?:

Escort/Torp Boat 5c/1a/1d ; cancel sub @1:1
Submarine 5c/2a/1d ; submerge etc.
Transport 6c/0a/0d ; transport 1unit + 1inf
Destroyer 7c/2a/2d ; transport 1inf ; cancel subs @1:3
Cruiser 10c/3a/3d ; bombard ;
Carrier 12c/1a/2d ; 2-hit
Battleship 14c/4a/4d ; bombard ; 2-hit

Or forget the “Escort” unit completely, and just drop the destroyer stat line to 5c/1a/1d ; 1:1 sub cancel.

I feel those suggested changes may have come out of discussion for another version of Axis and Allies. The changes are just way too good for Allies in 1942 2nd edition.

I’m not saying 20 IPC battleships are a GOOD thing either. But I expect 14 is too much of a good thing.

@Raply112

Before getting into strategy and tactics, consider that your group may have read the rulebook differently to other groups. The rulebook (at least in English) is poorly organized and written.

How do the Germans effectively take Moscow? How do the Japanese manage to defend themselves against the Americans? What of losing appeal because the games are always quite the same? Those are not simple questions.

1. Re: games always the same. The map is static; the same territories always in the same positions relative to one another. You can spice this up by using technological advance rules (look up other editions of Axis and Allies, like Revised), or using house rules (look up some of the national advantages in Axis and Allies Global, which is the combination of Europe and Pacific, for inspiration.)

2. The Axis should not overextend. It’s very easy for new players especially to attack in force, get wiped out by the opponent’s counter, then a couple turns later wonder what went wrong. The “logic”, so I understand, is a unit is “fighting”, so it must be “doing something”, and the more one “fights”, the harder one makes it for an opponent. But that is very much not the case.

I recommend getting TripleA (it’s free) so we can play a game over the computer, and perhaps you could get some friends in on a Discord call so we could all have live chat while playing out a game.

You might ask questions like “If overextension really is a problem, why doesn’t it affect the Allies? Shouldn’t it balance out?” or “Could you give an example?”

Consider G1 (Germany’s first turn) following a USSR1 West Russia/Ukraine open. Suppose USSR captured Ukraine and West Russia, and Germany sends all the ground forces that can reach into Ukraine, the rest hitting Karelia. Then what?

Germany has, I forget, something like 9 tanks starting in Europe. Those cost 6 IPCs each. It is VERY IMPORTANT to NOT think of things only in terms of IPC outcomes. Position, mobility, and unit density, and other things I won’t get into here are better ways to measure which side is winning. But for beginners, raw IPC count is a useful measure, and one I’ll use here.

So let’s say Germany sends 5 of those tanks into USSR’s reach at Ukraine. On USSR’s turn, it could place up to 4 units on Caucasus, and had whatever forces survived at West Russia (probably considerable). So on USSR2, USSR smashes 30 IPCs of German tanks, which cost the same as 10 German infantry, and Germany can hardly counter as unless Germany had done very accurate moves it just wouldn’t be in any position to do so.

Let’s say Germany loses some infantry on G1’s attack, and some more infantry on USSR2’s counter. That’s okay. USSR will lose some infantry on the defense against G1, and more during its USSR2 counter. But that 30 IPCs of tanks that Germany lost is NOT okay. If Germany loses 6 or 12 IPCs worth of tanks in exchange for destroying a chunk of USSR tanks, it’s not great but it’s acceptable. But 30 IPCs of tanks is overpayment by 24 IPCs, which is more than half of an entire turn of Germany’s income. So imagine what happens if Germany tries to jump down USSR’s throat, gets smashed down, then has no reply. Germany’s going to lose.

The same thing can happen with Japan, in other ways.

3. How does Germany effectively take Moscow?

Almost the whole point of the game design is to make sure this question CANNOT be answered simply. If there were a simple answer it wouldn’t be much of a game.

Also, remember the comment about overextension above. (Or there could be inefficient use of Axis IPCs, or something else). Plainly, if the Axis player is sabotaging themselves so they’re effectively at half strength (or worse), then they will lose.

Effectively, Germany does NOT take Moscow, because it’s very improbable/impossible unless the Allies screw up. Moscow has to be bled out, and this is how it’s done.

WITHOUT losing too much of its forces, and concentrating heavily on production of ground units - no navy, no air, just ground, Germany pushes into Karelia. Local production of 2 units improves German logistics, this is NOT trivial. Axis-controlled Karelia also cuts off easy UK/US reinforcements coming from Finland/Norway into Karelia. Moscow is cut off.

If Germany can get income from Africa, it should do so. Wherever Germany can get income it should, and Japan should help, PROVIDED AGAIN, THAT THE COST IS NOT TOO HIGH (and the cost can be subtly too high but I won’t get into detail here.)

Japan presses into Asia and captures India, USSR is bled out through attrition, trading with Germany in the west and Japan in the east. If USSR chooses not to trade, great, Germany/Japan sit on more income unchallenged and reinforce their central stacks.

How does Germany pry apart the Allied position? An Axis stack (can be German ground with Japanese fighters) on Ukraine pressures the Allies to defend TWO key territories; West Russia AND Caucasus. The Allies should only be able to defend ONE territory, then Germany moves into whichever territory was NOT heavily defended. Now look at the map and follow along.

If Germany moves into Caucasus, it gains 4 local production, which is amazing. But if USSR prevents Germany from moving into Caucasus by fortifying, then Germany moves into West Russia.

If Germany is at West Russia, then USSR must defend Moscow and Caucasus. As important as Caucasus is, the capital is more important, so Moscow is defended and Caucasus lost.

Once Germany has control of Caucasus, it gains 4 local production, and (long complicated explanation omitted. I will say sometimes Japan should control Caucasus, not Germany, and there’s a lot to this that I’m not getting into here.)

That gives you some idea of how to pry apart the Allied position, but if you’re asking “well how does Germany defend Karelia, push to Ukraine, and prevent the Allies from establishing a beachhead at France all the while protecting Berlin?” - a valid question, which I will answer briefly by stating the Axis do NOT try to prevent EVERYTHING, they only try to control the TIMING of WHEN certain things happen.

4. How does Japan effectively defend against US?

Uff, just throw this question out. There’s a load of 1942 Online players that think they know the answer, then there’s some GenCon players that think they have the answer, but I suspect none of them REALLY have the answer. 1942 Online has lots of rules changes that cripple how the game is properly played, and GenCon has real-time constraints and games there are played with heavily modified rules.

The REAL answer? In 1942 Online, I’d say there’s two branches of play. Either UK successfully does a UK1 attack against the Japanese East Indies fleet, if successful Japan may want to buy a J1 carrier. Otherwise Japan typically buys 3 transports and cheap ground on its first turn, and if US buys a Pacific fleet on US’s first turn, Japan starts buying 2 submarines a turn starting Japan’s second turn (provided Japan correctly prevented US interdiction of Japan’s sea zones), then Japan continues dropping ground into Asia, captures India, uses India as a fallback naval base, switches to fighter production on Tokyo when Japan’s sea zones get interdicted, Moscow falls, Germany comes in to save the day. BUT all that is under allied fighters NOT being able to land on carriers, which is one of 1942 Online’s rules changes (along with those awful defensive profiles, which are another whole nightmare.)

I asked about GenCon, and a couple surprising things to me (and a couple less surprising.) First, because of adjudication by victory city depending on real time spent which also limits the number of turns, it’s not surprising to me KJF was used. Also not a surprise to me was the fact UK uses a submarine to stabilize the dangerous UK1 attack against East Indies. But what WAS a surprise to me was when I commented on the inability of allied fighters landing on carriers and was told apparently that wasn’t a thing at GenCon. But really, the projections are super simple, you can readily see how UK fighter range extension and change to key Allied fleet Pacific timings change. I mean, really. I mean, think on it, you can effectively apply a full 140 IPCs worth of UK/US against Japan’s navy in Pacific by the second turn, which is a huge difference compared to 80 some.

ANYWAYS -

The core of the answer is

A) Japan can’t let itself be pushed out of Asia easily. In fact, Japan should bring huge pressure against India, pressuring the Allies either into heavy defense of India (which collapses Allies’ defense in Europe as the Allies have to bring all that power from somewhere), OR Japan captures India and uses it as a rear naval base which stretches US logistics horribly.

B) Japan can’t let itself be pushed out of the Pacific easily. If Japan loses control of the sea, Japan has no flexibility in terms of repositioning ground units using its transports, which means Japan loses position in Asia (see previous point)

C) As with Germany, Japan can NOT pull off a perfect or eternal defense, Japan’s defenses WILL crumble. The question is HOW, WHEN, and WHERE Japan CHOOSES to let WHICH PARTS go.

Once Moscow falls, PROVIDED THE AXIS HAVE NOT GIVEN UP / PAID TOO MUCH ELSEWHERE, the Axis reverse course from Moscow, push the Allies off the coasts, then consolidate control to win.

@bob-loblaw

Re: “ussr will have 2 aa guns, 3 tanks, 2 art, 5 inf normally in west russia (sometimes 6 or 4 inf)”, “attack Baltic states, belorussia, and West Russia”, “ussr Baltic opener . . . two of them have >90% chance of victory (3 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter vs 3 inf) and (8 inf, 3 tanks, 2 artillery vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank).”

. . . and 1 inf 1 art 1 fig vs 1 inf 1 tank at Baltic States, I assume.

Superficially, the numbers seem to check out. But take a good hard look at the numbers, and not just the net IPC changes, but the resulting positions, counters, and followups remembering dice variance.

Saying you’ll have 5 infantry at West Russia? Reasonable, but not something to depend on. Sometimes 6? If you get lucky. Sometimes 4? Perhaps, but also you might see 3, 2, or less.

And what happens in case of cascade failure? Suppose you do a bit badly at West Russia. You’re prepared for that? But suppose you also do badly at Belorussia. Now Germany has more to counter with, and there’s nothing USSR can do about it once the triple has been committed to.

Nothing can counter super bad dice, but a Ukr/W Rus open is slightly less vulnerable.

"I doubt a smart player would . . . "

You really think Germany would hesitate to destroy both USSR’s AA guns, three tanks, and two artillery, and cut off UK fighters flying from London to West Russia, along with a possible G1 tank build for quick early pressure and possibly even a J1 Manchuria IC to pump tanks on the timing - along with G2 starting with control of Karelia?

“a retreat after round 1”

Instead of assuming Germany stupidly overcommits tanks and loses them to an easy counter that can’t be punished, or assuming Germany needlessly exposes air to AA guns, how about assuming Germany correctly calculates the balance of ground and air that has about a 85%+ probability to capture West Russia and destroy all USSR’s valuable ground units? Not overkill, not underkill, but just about right, and if the attack on West Russia isn’t favorable then of course Germany doesn’t hit that and goes to Caucasus - but again, Germany doesn’t overcommit.

You’re assuming Germany does a 1-turn attack into West Russia then retreats after exposing German air to AA fire, without Germany even attempting to blow up USSR’s valuable tanks. What was it you were just saying about smart players? So it won’t just be a 1-turn attack, right?

“so you prefer Germany can put 5 tanks and 9 inf in Karelia”

Let’s not get sidetracked. There’s a lot that could be said about R1, G1, builds, attacks, counters, contingencies, percentages - but suffice to say I don’t say Ukr/W Rus is SAFE (in fact, I don’t think it IS, and that’s one of the reasons I push for preplaced bid which the developers won’t do but eh whatever).

But I do think Ukr / W Rus open has better outcomes than a triple open.

As to “you prefer Germany can put 5 tanks and 9 inf in Karelia”, do you think there’s a perfect answer? What would that be?

You do R1 tank build and retreat tanks from Ukraine for a heavy R1 counter to Karelia? Even then, how do you answer G1 tanks mobilized on Berlin? I don’t say G1 super heavy tank build, but just say Germany sticks two tanks on Berlin. Pretty good odds that means G2 captures and secures Karelia, especially if Japanese fighters are in range, which they may well be. But then you do an attack/retreat into Karelia to strain German logistics? Very well, then on G1 Germany sees USSR lined up with that mighty counter and instead just doesn’t do a heavy push to Karelia, then Germany captures and holds Karelia on G2.

Plainly, I’m saying if the Axis player is competent, Allies won’t have easy answers. Won’t matter if it’s USSR triple open or Ukr/West Russia, it won’t be easy. If it were, wouldn’t be much of a game.

If you want to go into R1 W Rus/Ukr open and the Karelia game, let’s have that discussion, but that’s a thread of itself.

“med fleet . . . allows uk fleet in India to . . . nearly impossible to take Egypt in (g2)”

I believe this is another topic better covered in another thread.

But I will say, before starting another thread, think on it a moment. If Germany’s about to smash the **** out of Europe, it doesn’t need to push in Africa, and there’s a decent chance something like that gets lined up after a USSR triple open. Also, you’re not considering what happens if Germany lands a chunk of air in Africa, and of course why would you because you probably don’t see it much. And maybe you’ll pull the ‘UK builds an Atlantic fleet if Germany puts fighters in Africa’ and I’ll shrug and say I don’t care because if UK dropped a carrier and a fighter I’ll reposition air on G2 (even better if I have the bomber) and blow up UK’s fleet at low cost to German air if they dare to drop, and if they stand off then I’ll just continue shenanigans in Europe. Then you can come back and say something else and I’ll say something else and that’s how it goes. But on balance, the question is what is gained and what is lost?

“not destroying the fighter in egypt . . . sz 37”

You want to roll the dice on UK1 vs Japan’s East Indies fleet, go for it. I think it’s a bad deal. Which is another thread.

Yes yes, you have ideas and you won’t be dissuaded, and that’s fine. Either you’ll try it over and over and fail when you come up against decent competition and you’ll change your mind, or you’ll try it against decent competition and win and maybe do a writeup and I’ll change my mind. But either way we’re not there right now.

But before you get into future writeups:

1. I don’t worry too much about IPC swings. I tend to think about things in terms of unit counts, positions opening up, and other less-tangibles. Yes, keeping an eye on IPC changes is important, but it’s definitely not the only thing to keep an eye on by far.

2. Don’t just think about 95% or whatever. Think about the resulting position. Think about the opportunity costs. Think about dice swings. Cascade failure. Concentration of force versus spreading out.

3. It is not safe to assume an opponent will not attack because of negative IPC expectation. No, really.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=&aArm=1&aFig=1&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&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=

At Belorussia you look at 3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf, see 95% win, looks super good, right? But actually it’s not that hot, as the above link and some thinking shows.

4.58% no attackers survive (disaster)
5.56% attacking fighter survives (lost 15 IPCs of units for 9 IPCs of units and didn’t gain any income from capturing territory. Unless you want to lose the fighter, which is amazesauce for Germany so I assume you don’t do that.)

(Calculation aids state 5% loss. But there are different degrees of loss; here there’s at least a 10% of a strictly unfavorable outcome. That’s one thing players using aids often may miss.)

15.1% attacking tank and fighter survive. Which is where the situation becomes barely tolerable; at least you capture the territory and trade off 9 IPCs of attackers for 9 IPCs of defenders. But the tank is lost on the counter.

But what happens after the German counter? Pretty good chance that 6 IPC tank dies in exchange for perhaps a German infantry. Let’s say the tank has 2/3 chance to destroy a 3 IPC infantry (I know tanks hit 1/2 the time, but let’s just use 2/3 for Reasons), so USSR expects to gain 2 IPC from possibly destroying a German infantry, 2 IPC from the territory, meaning net gain 4 IPC in exchange for a 6 IPC tank.

Yes, USSR does have positional considerations that offset the 2 IPC difference, but the positional pressure isn’t all that great. Germany has much better options when USSR is spread thin, and if as already mentioned there’s some level of cascade failure then USSR will be in big trouble.

Now let’s look at West Russia.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=8&aArt=2&aArm=3&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=1&dArm=1&dFig=&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=

Let’s say 20.22% for 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 2 AA or less. Reasonably likely, and I’ll use 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 2 AA as the baseline. Germany’s counter is up to 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 4 fighter 1 bomber, without giving up attacking the UK battleship/destroyer.

https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/?rules=1942&battleType=land&roundCount=all&attInfantry=3&attArtillery=1&attTank=3&attFighter=4&attBomber=1&defInfantry=4&defArtillery=2&defTank=3&defAAGun=2

But also G1 capture of West Russia prevents Allied fighters from landing on, keeping it in play.

If you’re thinking “nah, Germany needs to maintain its air force to threaten Atlantic shipping” - as I’ve written in other threads, I use Japanese air for that when going anti-KGF. Germany still does well to have some air, the more the better, but smashing all USSR’s tanks and preventing fortification of West Russia? Maybe that’s only 20% to have favorable odds of all that following a USSR triple open as was described, but that’s still more than the odds Germany has against a Ukr/W Rus open.

For readers catching up, this is for LHTR setup regular dice.

@bob-loblaw

Re: “G2 4 inf 4 tank 6 fighter 1 bomber vs London”

How does that happen, exactly?

Suppose we assume the German Mediterranean fleet is blocked or destroyed. Suppose we also assume USSR destroyed Germany’s bomber and possibly a fighter on Ukraine. To invade with the listed forces Germany must buy three transports, a carrier, bomber, and fighter, which is 16 more IPCs than it has to spend.

But even with those assumptions made, Baltic fleet defense is minimal; the Allies may destroy the Baltic fleet outright, with UK then USSR followup as I described earlier.

==

Re: “uk fleet re-building in round 1 is pretty much off the table”

It’s nice to have an early UK fleet, but not essential. But Germany dumping a load of IPCs into Baltic fleet that can be cut off then destroyed is a real issue for the Axis. Germany needs ground units. The German position at Karelia collapses, then the Allies pile in.

There’s some cute things Germany can pull off with improved logistics to Norway and Finland, and improved logistics to Karelia helps some too. Axis Sealion can be a fun line to play, but if the Allied player is competent, games of Sealion should lose.

Remember, where you mentioned pulling a USSR triple attack open, I said use 9 Ukr remaining to W Rus open. I don’t like a static boring meta, but if you’re playing to win, you have to acknowledge the strengths of the line. Destroying the German bomber removes a lot of options, that’s why USSR should do it.

==

Re: “you can add 3 more infantry to uk, and the odds go down to 12%”

As I mentioned, I believe those numbers are quite optimistic as I believe the underlying premises behind those numbers are not sound.

But what happens when UK does add infantry to London? Not much. UK wants to get to the point where it’s dropping 6-8 units from London to Europe every turn. London gets emptied out anyways; if UK is pressured to build ground on London on turn 1 it just means it builds less ground somewhere down the line. Meanwhile Germany’s stuck with a big fleet it can’t defend - especially in 1942 Online with its rules changes forcing players to allocate hits automatically and not being able to respond appropriately, inability to use allied carriers, etc.

==

Re: “but…in order for it to work, you would need to kamikaze the uk planes into Baltic fleet in round 1”

That’s not an issue.

Re: “expensive, and pretty much offsets the cost Germany spent”

Also not an issue.

The problem for both Axis and Allies is how to break the major enemy stack. For Axis early game, this is the combined Allied stack on West Russia. For Allies early game, this is the combined Axis stack on Karelia.

Germany’s Baltic navy, including German fighters, is vulnerable to destruction. Normally UK cannot pick off Germany’s fighters, as German fighters on territories are protected by a stack of German infantry. German air is difficult to deal with; they threaten Atlantic shipping, they threaten territories in Europe.

But now UK has an opportunity to blow up things that could threaten the Atlantic navy, that also threaten territories in Europe.

How would UK normally try to break apart Germany’s major stacks? It normally can’t. German fighters are protected, loads of German infantry are running around. But by dropping a load of IPCs on transports that don’t fight, and tying defense to a sea zone that has no good escape zones, Germany invests heavily in a war it shouldn’t be fighting and cannot win. There are compensations to Germany for building a Baltic fleet, but I say they’re not enough.

I say the cost to UK is not an issue because German Baltic fleet gives UK an opportunity to directly attack valuable German units relevant to Europe. The cost to UK is well worth it.

==

Re: “the ussr fighters are not being used in r2 to attack eastern Europe”

Well identified. But apply that level of thinking to what happens with a German Sealion build.

If we’re building optimistic scenarios (which I think is the case if viable Sealion is being claimed), then I could say R2 hard counter into Karelia is still an option.

==

“the simulator I use doesn’t account for cruiser bombardment”

https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/

==

“3 fighters is something you might consider for a kjf strategy”

I wouldn’t say 3 UK1 fighters on India is a good move. Yes, I know there’s a video, and I expect that video was based off advice given by veterans in the community, but I don’t think that line of play properly considers how much 1942 Online’s changes damage KJF.

Without going into the details much, changes, and restrict UK so its best options are usually to put out max ground on India and fighters on London, flying to West Russia then India. UK can switch out builds later but that’s how it starts.

==

Re: “If ussr doesn’t (take Ukraine and land its 2 fighters in Archangel) then sea lion might make some sense.”

There’s a few other things USSR can do, but essentially, yes.

==

Re: “regarding (triple open into Baltic States, Belorussia, West Russia) . … prevent Germany (stacking Karelia, so possibility of R2 counter into Karelia”, “>90%”

The question is not only USSR’s initial odds of success, but the resulting position and Germany’s counters.

1. German stack on Karelia, two things to consider. A) Germany captures Karelia and Baltic States, then moves tanks into Karelia during noncombat. B) Germany builds tanks on Berlin and counters any USSR push into Karelia. USSR will have lost a lot of units on the R1 open so will be very hard pressed to do a R3 counter against the G2 capture.

2. Germany doesn’t have to no-brainer all-in on Caucasus. Germany has a couple juicy options, attacking West Russia with intent to retreat, trying to blow up those pesky AA guns. Or Germany can use its Med fleet to help capture Caucasus; successful capture means Germany almost certainly keeps its Med fleet for the start of G2, which gives Germany a lot of good options to keep that fleet alive for long-term control of African income and/or improved logistics against southeast Europe. Or some combination, depending on dice outcomes.

In this post I address only some of why I disagree with “as UK fortifies London, it leaves India weak”, in context of a Germany first round Baltic buy threatening invasion of London, using the LHTR setup, regular dice, and playing to win.

What is a reasonable R1 open? I say 9 Ukr, remainder W Rus, intending to destroy the German bomber on Ukraine, then either retreating to Caucasus if USSR has a lot of units remaining, or capturing or clearing Ukraine if USSR has few units remaining.

(bob-loblaw mentioned hitting Baltic States, Belorussia, and West Russia, which I disagree with. Any USSR triple attack risks bad dice leaving an opening for Germany. Leaving Ukraine in particular gives Germany attacks into both West Russia and Caucasus.)

Noncombat moves an infantry to join the US fighter in China, moves units in northeast Asia towards Karelia, lands fighters in Archangel.

Investment of a USSR infantry may either preserve a valuable US fighter or pose some risk to Japan’s air. The odds of destroying Japanese air are not great, but considering opportunity costs and the risk, Japan may choose not to hit that territory at all.

Units in northeast Asia push towards Karelia. They’re needed to threaten/reduce the Axis defensive stack that will build up on Karelia.

Fighters land in Archangel because there’s no other good place for them to go. First, assuming capture of Ukraine, which is reasonably likely:

If we assume Germany builds a Med carrier to join its Med fleet and properly carries out other Med clearing attacks so UK can’t clear with good odds, even both USSR fighters on Caucasus would be of little use.

Assuming instead the German Med fleet is used to capture Trans-Jordan (and destroy the UK destroyer), 2 UK fighters and 1 UK bomber have less than 3% to mutual wipe with the German battleship, followed by a USSR fighter on Caucasus picking up the undefended German transport before G2.

There is some chance Germany may attempt to capture Caucasus even with USSR capturing Ukraine, but that has bad outcomes for Germany if capture of Caucasus fails. The UK destroyer in the Mediterranean can be used as fodder, reducing the cost to UK air. Without German ground reinforcements in Africa, Germany in Africa is much easier to control.

Assuming USSR does not capture Ukraine, that could break down into either bad dice (which happens, there’s no great outcomes for Allies in that event but oh well), or neutral-good dice in which USSR destroyed the bomber and retreated a chunk of units to safety. Depending on W Rus outcomes, maybe USSR will want to land 1-2 fighters on Caucasus for “safety”, but there is reason for USSR to calculate things out and NOT land fighters on Caucasus.

Why land USSR fighters on Archangel? USSR doesn’t know what Germany will do exactly, or what openings UK may carry out, and in 1942 Online can’t even know whether the USSR submarine will submerge as it’s submergence is controlled by the UK player, and unlike the board game the Allies can’t even respond appropriately and select casualties after seeing dice rolls which is ridiculous but I digress. Anyways for the first few reasons is enough; it may be that the German Baltic transport survives, and a single USSR fighter (at least) should be left to pick the transport off, as that means 2 less units can be moved from Berlin to Karelia next turn. Yes, it’s that important.

But also, the USSR fighters and USSR submarine can pose a threat to German Baltic navy builds, and USSR fighters on Archangel can reinforce London in case of a German Baltic build. (There’s also the possibility of countering Buryatia if Japan plays very badly, like bad enough to win awards for being bad.)

The takeaway here is two USSR fighters on Archangel is very reasonable, and should even be expected. Even if there aren’t two fighters on, there should certainly be one. If there aren’t any fighters on Archangel, it amounts to either assuming the Allies had middling-lousy dice so both USSR fighters had to land on Caucasus - yet not COMPLETELY lousy dice or landing USSR fighters on Caucasus would just see the territory overrun by Germany anyways, destroying both USSR fighters - OR assuming the Allies player is completely incompetent.

The assertion we’re looking at claims the Germany player builds a Baltic fleet, and that threatens London enough that India is left underdefended. But let’s think about what, exactly, that means. What the risks are.

Let’s say Gemany does not hit the UK battleship/destroyer. That would leave UK with battleship, destroyer, two fighters, and bomber to hit Germany’s Baltic fleet. How does that play out?

1. Germany uses cruiser to block, buys carrier for Baltic sea zone, buys mass transports to “force” UK defense of London. This leaves UK with a free shot, with a USSR followup, and thanks to 1942 Online’s rules changes Japanese fighters can’t land on a German carrier, not that they would have range, but whatever. Also notice how in the board game the player could see a G1 carrier/mass transport buy, see the Sealion incoming, then just choose to submerge the USSR submarine for an odds-on attack against Germany’s very expensive Baltic fleet. Yes, 1942 Online rules changes and defensive profiles are lame, but oh well. Anyways, with both UK and USSR having pretty decent shots at the Baltic sea zone, probably it ends badly for Germany.

2. Germany buys carrier and destroyer for Baltic sea zone, then as above, and with both UK and USSR threatening the sea zone that doesn’t necessarily end up well for Germany either. Veterans of the board game will probably roll their eyes as they lament how stupid it is that Germany can’t assign casualties after seeing roll outcomes, so preserve that destroyer against a possible USSR threat, nor can Germany fine-tune matters so a single fighter is lost first instead of BOTH fighters then the carrier, and there’s a lot of defensive profile lousiness that shows up here but again oh well. Anyways what with 1942 Online rules changes and defensive profile limits, Germany’s chances still aren’t great.

3. Germany buys even more defensive fleet, which means it buys less transports, then the threat on London is less, and what with up to two USSR fighters and the US bomber landing on London and the German Med fleet being cut off, the threat against London is not so great, certainly to the point that UK can afford to buy three ground units for India.

. . . and at some point Germany has to think about the UK East Canada fleet, the US East US fleet, and how it will allocate its attacks against the UK battleship/destroyer/transport/USSR submarine fleet. Whatever isn’t hit has to be dealt with, and that affects both the G2 threat to London and any potential G2 build that may want to double down to hit London.

What this all means is, players can look at the board and play against players that don’t play correctly, and think it works out so a Sealion threat must be over-reacted to, forcing early Japanese capture of India. But it doesn’t work out that way at all.

One of the nastier things I haven’t gotten into is what happens if UK doesn’t even need to buy ground for London (or at least, can split between ground and air). Fighters are pretty potent defenders for London, but those fighters also threaten any German navy.

The worst-case scenario, and what I think can pretty much be forced, is Germany spends a lot of resources on transports that can’t fight. Granted those transports improve logistics to Finland and Norway, and some nice things come out of that, and there’s improvement of timing to Karelia. But a German Baltic fleet also has to be protected against an ever-increasing threat from the Allies, and if Germany doesn’t escape in the first couple rounds, there’s not much Germany can do except cower in the Baltic waiting to be sunk. They can’t escape from the Baltic as they run right into US naval/air buys mobilized on US’s East Coast sea zone, and US ramps up pretty quick.

In the meantime, sure, Allied naval transport timings in Atlantic suffer, and there are other small compensations. But most of those compensations are lost in the end; Germany just doesn’t have the mass of ground units it needs to protect key locations, and UK/US air assets that were used to threaten/destroy Germany’s Baltic fleet can be used to defend territories in Europe/protect the Allied Atlantic fleet.

==

Besides USSR being able to defend London, USSR may also protect India. I’m not saying it’s a great thing for USSR, but if Japan does too much rushing, USSR can stick a wrench in the works. If Germany had a solid ground game then maybe Germany could pry an opening in Europe while the Allies are committing to India. But if Germany built a load of Baltic navy, then things may not work out so well for Axis. The Allies control too much of the timing, and the Allied counter for one transposes into the Allied counter for the other.

@bob-loblaw
I did not see enough in your post to change my mind about how it plays out. I’m open to the possibility Sealion works (hence the ambiguous title), but as far as I see, the evidence is against.

“As UK fortifies London, it leaves India weak.” Rather than starting with unsubstantiated assertion, start with positions, numbers, and walk through the options.

But it’s not “unsubstantiated assertion”? Well, let’s flip it. Say I claim UK can fortify London and NOT leave India weak. We wouldn’t be having a discussion, we’d just be bouncing unsubstantiated assertions off one another, you know?

Other things that we could look at - landing all air in Thailand or adjacent sea zone, J2 capturing India, acceptable odds for Germany capturing London on G2+, USSR not hitting Ukraine on R1 and instead doing a USSR triple open, timing on Allied counters into Berlin.

If you’re up for working the numbers, let’s have that discussion. I’ll post later with some numbers on the India situation. I’m not saying I’m going to break it all down, but I’ll put some stuff out there for discussion.

Thanks to moderators for certain recent action.

I mentioned earlier going into detail would derail the thread, but reading through this thread can give incorrect impressions. So some comments (though brief) are appropriate.

1. Even if imbalance only applies to new players before they get used to certain strategy and tactics, it’s still an issue.

2. I believe there is mathematical imbalance favoring the Axis, not limited to new players. Roughly, the argument:

A. If either side has a fairly “safe” move that offers good chance of advantage, that action should be taken.

B. The Axis have a higher chance of such occurring than the Allies (after player action, dice outcomes, and contingencies). Particular conditions include Germany’s counter to USSR1’s West Russia capture, contrasted to Germany’s failing the UK battleship fight / UK destroyer at Mediterranean fights. For both Axis cases the chance of failure is lower, and Axis ability to recover from bad dice is higher, compared to the Allied position.

Readers should understand B is not an argument that should be undertaken lightly. I make an especial point, as on several past instances some readers would take some parts of what I’d write, and try to twist the argument to support their diametrically opposite positions. But the proof is not in some grandiose “concept” or whatever flim-flam trickery. The proof is in pages and pages of reasoning, mathematics, explanations of contingencies &c, and if you don’t have that, you will fall on your face.

I think posters in search of an absolute truth won’t have a problem with falling on their face sometimes. But for posters that just want to prop up bad arguments with “impressive sounding” phrases, best not.

==

There are a few points that ought be brought up regarding panzer666’s posts.

First, the question of versions. EricB’s second post referenced ranking, which uses the LHTR setup. Snoil’s eighth post referenced his initially referencing the OOB setup and later using the LHTR setup. MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s second post questioned whether LHTR was being used - and for all posters and posts, I think generally the thought was that the LHTR was being used, for 1942 Online in particular.

Then panzer666 posts, and you see where he talks about 12 to West Russia / 9 to Ukraine being soft. (Reference MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s first post / panzer666’s first post).

Panzer666 is right about that in the OOB setup because OOB Germany’s bomber won’t be destroyed at Ukraine, so Germany has a better counter to West Russia. It’s only in LHTR that USSR1 12 WRussia / 9 Ukr becomes more viable.

(But as I read it, everyone else, including myself, was referencing the LHTR setup by that point. Well, these things are easily missed).

Second, though

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke

Doubling down on advice without knowing the version under discussion (at least, that’s how I read the situation), plus calling something a “funny joke” on top of that, plus being wrong on the actual points why something is supposedly a “funny joke”.

Wrong on the actual points? Well, I think so.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke .first of all Germany targets the allies first round except Russia which should be on the defensive anyway unless you think russia can just walk on into Berlin .just look at the facts Germany starts at the gates of Moscow ,real good way of targeting Germany.so Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.

Let’s assume it is OOB setup (which again I’ll point out isn’t how I see any other participating poster in this thread commenting.)

First, about victory cities. Axis control Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Philippine Islands, Kwangtung. Allies control Eastern US, Western US, Hawaiian Islands, United Kingdom, India, Russia, and Karelia.

The assertion is Axis win on victory cities, but that’s not really the focus in games between skilled players. Chess games are not won by the actual capture of an opponent’s king, but by material, by position, by pressure. Similarly, victory cities are a pressure condition skilled players work with and around. A game may end with Axis victory city condition, but with competent players it’s far less about raw power and some forced scripted inevitable victory, and far more about pressure and best chances.

Practically, the Axis need three out of four of the usually-contested territories of Karelia, India, Hawaiian Islands, and Russia to win. Capturing East US, West US, or United Kingdom is not possible with normal dice with reasonably skilled players. I trust I need not go into detail.

The obvious response is the Axis can capture Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands, so “the Axis get a victory city win”. But by the time that happens the Allied player should be able to contest Kwangtung, Philippines, Karelia, France, and/or Italy. I do not say the Allies can always contest one of those victory cities, what with dice and player actions - but understand the definition of a competent Allied player is one with a plan with some reasonable expectation of preventing loss by victory city.

Second, about the Allied navy. “Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.”

There’s a lot to unpack there, but none of it is necessarily correct. There’s just a bit too much “magical thinking”.

“good luck rebuilding the navy”? On the contrary. Even if Germany positions its air west, there are reasonable scenarios that have UK opening with a fleet buy - which you can reasonably say Germany may be able to sink. But if Germany does expend its air on UK targets, that means less that can hit at the Allies in land territories in Europe. To be clear, even if German air has decent odds on a favorable-odds battle against a UK navy, that can still be a strategic mistake. The Axis still need to break the combined Allied stack on land, and if Germany is losing fighters in other battles - you see.

Then too, there’s the question of US1 navy build into US2 air build into US3 noncombat movement and air unifying off UK after a UK3 fleet drop. The Allies don’t want to do things that slowly if it can be helped, but even so it’s moderately quick and there’s almost nothing the Axis can do to stop it, short of measures that end up costing the Axis so much that the investment is questionable.

Finally (for the second point regarding Allied navy anyways), there’s the question of what, precisely, you’re recommending. What, precisely, you think the Allied naval situation is and should be. You dismissively say the Allied navy is blown up, but is it really? If the two US transports off East US survive, for example, they can make a drop to French West Africa, then both UK and US have counterplay against German income in Africa. If that covers Africa, what of Asia? Well, what would you recommend, that the Allies try to fight Japan in the Indian and Pacific Oceans? I’ve written quite a lot elsewhere about how I don’t think that works well at all. So if you’re going to say the Allies go Atlantic, and if the Allies can go Atlantic, and if the Allies have reasonable chances elsewhere, then perhaps the Allied position isn’t that bad.

Unless you’re saying Germany destroyed everything in the Atlantic, which with OOB setup it has some reasonable chances at. But destroying everything requires some extraordinary luck, even in OOB. If you disagree, go ahead and post the OOB Germany1 turn moves and probability distributions that demonstrates otherwise.

The third point is claiming Russia should be on the “defensive”. Actually USSR needs to produce some offensive units to prevent Germany from early gains. I’m not saying USSR should go bombers, but pure infantry isn’t great for USSR either.

If you want to recast that in the context that you’re talking about West Russia being broken, remember. As I read it most others in the thread are assuming LHTR setup, which means far weaker Germany in Atlantic, plus Germany’s bomber almost certainly being destroyed. It’s still quite possible that West Russia gets broken, but it’s not near as likely as in OOB, nor is the position nearly as bad even if it does happen.

The fourth point is the general pessimism and dismissiveness of panzer666’s view of the Allies. If someone’s a bit vague, or even pessimistic, fair enough. But an argument consisting of saying UK is reduced to “tugboats” and Allies “abandon” the Pacific and claiming the Axis win by VC, well, some of that can happen, but what of Allied pressure at Karelia? What if Allies open up early trading at France/Italy? These possibilities are not considered, and even dismissed as a “joke”. There’s good points in what panzer666 writes, especially if you’re thinking about the OOB, but even for OOB, it’s a bit much.

Suppose it’s KGF. Why don’t the Allies develop pressure at Karelia? Obviously the Allies do that; once the Allies can shuttle stacks of cost-effective ground units to reinforce Russia then if the Allies haven’t fought any severely losing stack battles the Allies have real chances (even if down on economy). Besides that, as I wrote, the Allies must have a plan that prevents loss by victory city. It is accepted Axis will have a strong hold on Karelia, will capture India, and Hawaiian Islands. By the time that happens, Allies must contest another victory city. That’s just how it is.

But what if the Allies don’t develop pressure at Karelia? But as I wrote, a competent Allied player will play to prevent VC loss. So the only reason Karelia doesn’t open up is if Allies managed to open up trading at France/Italy instead.

So no matter how you slice it, you see the Allies are preventing loss by victory city condition - provided Russia doesn’t fall. (I’m not getting into KJF/antiKJF here as I’m just illustrating general points).

But you want to say that Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands all fall before that happens? How, exactly? Karelia, sure, but if you send towards Hawaiian Islands early then you’re not pushing to Asia or India early. If you push India early you’re not pushing Hawaiian Islands early. There’s going to be a delay one way or another if the Allies player is competent.

As usual I’m not trying to establish any sort of comprehensive argument. At the open, I usually start by saying look at least at the few things I’m pointing out, think about how things really happen, think about the validity of the counterargument.

If there’s still disagreement that’s fine, but at least there should be a framework of logical argument, of points that can be proved or disproved. When an argument is based on a logical framework, there can be progression in the discussion.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@marineiguana attack Ukrainian territory not a good idea .you can lose that battle still and you risk heavy losses WR.then Germany can walk right through.you should think more about giving yourself at least a chance with every game of winning .

That reads like attacking Ukraine doesn’t have a chance of winning.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke .first of all Germany targets the allies first round except Russia which should be on the defensive anyway unless you think russia can just walk on into Berlin .just look at the facts Germany starts at the gates of Moscow ,real good way of targeting Germany.so Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.

As I see it you’d need aberrant dice, bad play on both sides, very particular Allied risk aversion preferences, and even then what’s stated and implied above still doesn’t quite happen with competent players.

Extended discussion of the point would derail the thread. Could start another thread though.

KJF, anti-KJF, the overview.

1. KJF in 1942 Online is trash compared to 1942 Second Edition. Less powerful by far, less interesting to play.

2. I don’t think KJF in 1942 Online is even viable. (Note I don’t hesitate to personally play bad lines. I just don’t recommend anyone else do the same unless they don’t care about “winning”.)

3. For those that read my comments elsewhere, I’ve said if UK1 hits East Indies there’s a probability distribution worth looking at. But when you look at the percentages on the “failure” outcomes and consider all the drawbacks, it’s just too much.

Yes, you can put in preconditions. But if you stipulate Germany gets a 6% result on German battleship vs UK destroyer (and German battleship being sunk) and USSR having a fighter on Caucasus to pick up the German Med transport, or if you stipulate Germany doesn’t hit Egypt or Trans-Jordan and builds a Med carrier, in the first case perhaps German income can be contained, in the second case even though the German line transposes to only slightly inferior to G1 11 inf 2 art buy off KJF - but even then it’s not enough. UK still can’t effectively add to US’s speed of progress in the Pacific what with 1942 Online’s rules changes; going south around Australia is just too slow.

I think for KJF in 1942 Online to work you also have to stipulate multiple lucksacks and/or the Axis play badly. That’s a bit much for me.

==

For execution:

1. You can ignore or overlook the details but the details still matter.

2. Pick your battles. You have limited resources, think about how your choices will change projected outcomes over time. Not in a vague way, but in very specific ways.

3. Japan can’t afford to skimp on ground to Asia. Especially in KJF.

4. Japan needs subs against KJF, but it doesn’t need them early or all at once. The Allies threat in the Pacific only develops over time, and Japan only needs enough subs to make any early hard Allied push expensive. If the Allies push early light then Japan smashes.

5. If Allies go KJF, UK should hit Japan’s fleet off East Indies. It’s not a “good” battle, there’s decent chance of failure, no good contingencies in case of failure, no alternate plan for even partial failure. But considering 1942 Online’s rules changes, UK can’t land fighters on US carriers to speed US’s progress in Pacific, and Japan can too easily cut off UK navy built at India trying to unite early with US fleet in Pacific. So it’s East Indies or bust.

There’s a load of second-string options, ranging from UK1 India naval build with UK doing attack/retreat into Japan’s East Indies fleet, UK capturing East Indies, UK capturing Borneo, UK threatening early IC on Borneo / East Indies, UK positioning transports south where they can hit Burma and French Indochina Thailand, UK building 3 India ground and 2 London fighters, blah blah. But it all comes down to you’re going to roll the dice at East Indies and there being no real option because there’s just no way Allies can deal with a full-strength Japanese fleet and air force threatening India and pushing off any US naval threat. If UK wants to make a contribution to the Pacific it’s going to involve dice at East Indies, there’s just no way around it.

6. There’s a bunch of KJF so-called threats ranging from US dumping units into Asia from a protected fleet off Soviet Far East (too close to Japan’s logistics at Tokyo, and too late to help Russia), US grabbing Japan’s money islands (Japan can see US coming a mile away, can build in response to US’s builds, and still be in position for cheap punishment, plus Japan transitioning to bomber is expected anyways for when Japan breaks India and Japan decides when to go for India or not; if US wants to sacrifice its whole fleet for cheapo subs and delay Japan capturing India a turn fantastic), US pushing Japan off the coast (only reason Japan lets US push it off the coast is if Japan is using the time to help Germany secure the position against Russia without serious Axis losses so the expectation is Germany crushes Russia and/or chases Allies away, then between income and production at Russia, Axis income at Africa it simply becomes an Axis win off position, stack size, economy, and attrition), US going mass subs to try to blow up Japan’s fleet (doesn’t work, massed US subs are vulnerable to destruction, splitting means sacrificing a few and it takes too long for US to mass a serious threat against a decent Japan), US going transports and air to island hop (doesn’t work, Japan either reclaims in force which it can afford to do with four transports and two carriers, battleship, plus, or possibly Japan just sacrifices a transport, again sacrifices only happening if the Axis are pretty well crushing it on the rest of the board so again Axis victory). Then there’s UK building fleet at India (gets cut off too easily from US’s forces in Pacific, Japan can just pick them both off unless UK goes south around Australia and that takes too long), UK going bombers (not the worst but you can imagine what happens when you’re trying to mass 12 IPC bombers against 8 IPC destroyers and Japan having that huge navy stack advantage). Any of those Allied plans works eventually but I expect each to be a bit too late.

==

You can legitimately play KJF against players if you think their reactions might not be correct. But against a prepared opponent you just need too much luck.