Posts made by GCar

OK, I’ll start by saying this strategy is played very commonly by one of the top players of the AA42 ladder of GTO (4 times winner). Games are played with UK6 bid that is places in Persia and Trans-Jordania (league rules)

For Germany, he builds a aircraft carrier and a destroyer that he puts in the baltic. The idea is to force UK to build 3 fighters (to counter the fleet and not to lose London on G2). Then assuming UK builds 3 fighters, he’ll remove the Figs and leave the 3 boats in 3 different SZ. The other idea behind that is to send units in Africa while UK is busy killing your boats. This way UK killing the battleship in Med is not happening before UK3 which lets Germany send 8 units in Africa, enough to take many IPC in Africa easily.
On the following turns he’ll build 1 Bom a turn to prevent landings for quite a while with the UK1 turn spent on planes.

Obviously Russia will come pretty deep in Germany stacking even Ukraine or Karelia if they want but they will have to go back because with Japan he build 2 IC on turn 1 followed by all tanks (and Bombers in Tokyo with the extra IPC).

Obviously, I’m summarizing. Going Pacific with US (I’m meaning with no IC in Asia here) as no chance to work (I tried once and got absolutely destroyed). Japan can just ignore US boats and Moscow will fall before they even get near Asia.

If you go Pacific with the US and build an IC in India, Russia falls on turn 6 against any good axis players pretty much all the time (Russia would need quite incredible luck to stop that).

@Mr.Biggg:

@GCar:

Low luck was perfectly described. The idea is that in normal dice games, many times a huge fight (around 70-100 IPC on each side, sometimes more) happens and the luck potential of those fights is huge in comparison to the normal smaller fights. For exemple if both sides average hit number would be 10 hits, variance makes it quite likely to make it different then that, but even a small difference on turn 1 of attack (like 12 hits against 6 lets say) keeps affecting the following turn of attacks (more units left = more probable hits), therefore increasing the final effect (for exemple a 6 units variance early could end as a 12 units difference in the end, making for around 30-50 IPC depending of the planes in the fight (and if battleships are involved it can get ugly !). In a smaller fight, a lucky roll is unlikely to win you more then 10 direct IPC (usually quite less)  and maybe a couple more of circonstancial IPC due to the fact that a territory is not traded.

Oddly enough, the odds work in exactly the opposite way you are describing. The larger the battle is, the more closely it will follow low luck. Variations in hit results will follow the central limit theorem (an interesting google if you have the time). It’s small battles that will be most effected, and actually somewhat break the system.

Think about 2 tanks vs. 1 tank

2 Tank hits:
Low luck 1 hit 100% of the time
With Luck 0 hits 25%, 1 hits 50%, 2 hits, 25%, Thus the expected value is 0*.25+1*.5+2*.25= 1 hit. BUT, you can’t really hit twice against 1 tank, so the actual expected value is .75. So low luck gives an unintended boost in hits.

What I mean is that in a huge fight that is let’s say 75 % winning (we talk about 30+ units on each side) will be quite close to 100 % winning in low luck. And since those huge fights are usually game breakers, the person which planned is game better as better chance to win because of those big fights.

@Herr:

In response to a US fleet building program aimed at the conquest of the “money islands”, I’m considering that maybe Japan should place its fleet in SZ 49. The US will then, in most cases, need two separate blocking ships to separate its fleet from the Japanese. Also, with so much US money being spent on ships in the Pacific, Germany may be able to afford a bomber in FIC, provided that Japan securely holds that area. The presence of that bomber would make any blocking attempt very risky because the blocking ship may be destroyed on the German turn.

Very good idea indeed that bomber. I’ll definitely give it a try when I’ll face a KJF.

@Advosan:

But is it worth the trouble? Japan will have taken India by now, making up for the IPC losses.

Exactly, if USA as no support in Asia it will be easy for Japan to gain early IPC there. And just taking Borneo is not enough, USA needs a long term plan. Only when USA finally matches Japan naval power, usually Japan as pretty much as many IPC then USA and a stalemate happens. During this time UK will have a very hard time building a fleet alone to be able to send boots in Europe and to prevent Germany from taking Africa and getting to 50+ IPC (which Russia would not be able to handle). To beat this, Germany builds Infantry for 2-3 turns then switches to tanks and usually Moscow will fall around round 7-8. The Pacific should still be stalemate at that point (with Borneo taken by USA at worst with no threat on Tokyo)

On the other hand, if Russia sends help in Asia or UK builds an Industrial Complex in India, Japan won’t get those IPC in Asia. Moscow is weakly protected in this strategy though and a blitz (with a previous 1-2 turn of Infantry) as a very high chance of taking Moscow by turn 6.

KJF is not a viable strategy against an axis players who knows when to press with Germany and how to balance naval builds with Japan with Asia pressure.

USA is too much behind in the Pacific to be able to threaten Japan fast enough so that Germany doesn’t take Moscow way before USA begins to be really threatening.

I never fully attack SZ52 and I often don’t attack it. The most I am ready to sen there is Sub+Cru+Bom+Fig, and sending everything you can in SZ52 is a mistake (because US going after Japan in the Pacific is a mistake by itself, even if Japan doesn’t go Pearl).

If Russia stacks 6 Inf in Bur I don’t attack SZ52 at all and take the extra Cru to bombard Bur.

Sadly any player (Japan or US) starting to beef up navy in the Pacific to attack the other one is making a huge mistake in AA42 since there is just not enough to win there (in comparison to going Atlantic with US and Asia with Japan). Also it is always cheaper to defend against a sea attack then to be the one attacking when you defend by building air (because planes are cheaper then boats).

The way you did it, your odds in Ukraine are around 62%. Add the odds in Norway (which are not call a gambit for nothing !) and the higher odds to lose more units in west russia and you really took a very risky turn 1.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I would think 10 subs attacking 3 battleships would provide a better attacking outcome than 5 bombers.  I think if you expect the US fleet to move within 2 spaces of Japan a build of 2 subs to add to the attacking force would be a better use of IPC than 1 bomber.

The problem with the sub build is that the side with the battleships in this exemple would build some destroyers, one that is sacrificed to block the subs (right between the subs and the battleships + the remaining destroyers), and some more to attack with the battleships on the next turn (or used as a second sacrifice if needed). Subs defending at 1 would then need to retreat.

Also, your remaining bombers after the attack (or is US decide not to go forward with his fleet) are still usefull for the fight in asia while the subs will be likely useless.

Just my 2 cents, but as zhukov stated, in aa42 you really want to fight boats with planes.

I have a lot of good comparisons coming to my mind for this situation but I’ll keep it clean and say this: Anyone that doesn’t even know what fortress europe is, is not a good player. Just like someone not knowing what a slap shot is, is for sure not a good hockey player, or someone not knowing what a curveball is, is definitely not a good baseball player.

I have to say that “I accept the challenge only I am really busy for the next month, yeah I also was too busy last month.” is and will always be a classic excuse :)

Low luck was perfectly described. The idea is that in normal dice games, many times a huge fight (around 70-100 IPC on each side, sometimes more) happens and the luck potential of those fights is huge in comparison to the normal smaller fights. For exemple if both sides average hit number would be 10 hits, variance makes it quite likely to make it different then that, but even a small difference on turn 1 of attack (like 12 hits against 6 lets say) keeps affecting the following turn of attacks (more units left = more probable hits), therefore increasing the final effect (for exemple a 6 units variance early could end as a 12 units difference in the end, making for around 30-50 IPC depending of the planes in the fight (and if battleships are involved it can get ugly !). In a smaller fight, a lucky roll is unlikely to win you more then 10 direct IPC (usually quite less)  and maybe a couple more of circonstancial IPC due to the fact that a territory is not traded.

That loss is only a formality :)
You can also play PBEM if you want no obligation to play live. You could play at your own pace.

Fighting sea units is always more efficient with planes (IPC wise). Usually you build sea units if you plan to attack/disembark.
If you do not plan on attacking the US with Japan, don’t build sea units, build planes instead. For exemple, 5 bombers against 3 battleships (same IPC cost) is favorite by about 56% against 34 % (with 10 % draw). And the more units, the bigger the advantage gets, for exemple 10 bombers against 6 battleships is 63% vs 32 % with 5 % draw.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Ok so what’s going on in Asia this whole time? Japan has three areas of approach they have to deal with. And I don’t see how a stale mate in Persia is to the axis advantage. And how do they build 3 trans on round 1? What are they using to defend it? Because UK can get a Carrier, a plane and a bomber in striking range before they even build.

Watch the games Hobbes took the time to post, try the strategy and honestly, until then, please stop telling everyone that what they say is bad when you are not even trying to understand. Building 3 Transports on turn 1 is VERY easy and just by watching the board it should be obvious. This is a strategy game and you need to put the time needed to understand, not just reading posts in forums. There as been many high level players taking their time here to answer your questions and you are really just arguing for the fun of it, having no intention to actually try the strategy (seriously this post has been going forever).

Definitely :)

@Col.Stauffenberg:

That’s usually how every game goes if the Axis wins. Germany hangs in and waits for relatively unopposed Japan to become montrously huge but as far as them taking Africa, why is the US letting that happen? I get the UK has to worry about the Japanese planes but the US doesn’t. They can build up a big enough navy to move out as early as round 2. From there they can drop off in Africa round after round. It’s the safest, albiet slowest and most boring way for the allies to win. Just a massive march through africa.

I just don’t get how Japan is supposed to donate planes early and still spread globally with no problems. What do they do against Pearl? If New Guinea is taken? If French Indo is taken (meaning they lost a plane), what do they do against the Russian stack in Bury, the American forces in China? With only the resources we have on round one, we can do a good job of stalling Japan. I still see this as causing a greater delay for the axis then it does the allies.

For your first question, yes it is a possible and viable plan for US against Fortress Europe. Against that, Japan will forget Africa and go to Moscow while Germany (facing no disembark at all beside WesEur and SouEur, that last one being mostly a trap for US) will slowly try to get to have a small stack going froward to create a 1-2 punch against Moscow. US as the risk to be too late (the infantries takes too long to walk through Africa) but if US starts putting Infantries in Persia and Moscow is not fallen, well they are winning. The upside of this plan (in comparison to sending US in Europe by Norway, Karelia or Archangel) is the you save a lot of IPC on the navy and that you cover the 3 important fronts in a more split way then usual. The downside is that UK as trouble getting involved and that US help in Russia comes about 2 turns later then usual, giving 2 more turns for Japan to build units for the attack.

For your second question, we already mentionned that Fortress Europe is a plan against KGF (kill Germany first), it doesn’t beat every single ally strategy. If US goes after Japan instead of going after Germany this is not KGF anymore and obviously you keep the planes in Japan viscinity since you don’t need them in Europe anymore (Germany can handle UK + Russia alone) and you really need those in the Pacific to slow down the US attack. It is a bit like chess. 1…e7-e5 is a very fine move against 1.e2-e4 but it is quite bad against 1.d2-d4 :)

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway.

It’s exactly the point, axis doesn’t really want to kill allies fleet (although it will if they have the opportunity) axis might buy 1-2 planes early with Germany but after that they won’t buy any more planes. The main objective for axis is to force allies to sink 3 rounds of IPC in building a fleet and even there they might need to buy a bid more on turn 4. During that time Japan goes forwards and by the time allies actually starts getting boots in Norway, Karelia of Archangel, axis already as almost the same IPC production then allies (around 78-80 IPC). At that point there are three fronts:
-Germany vs allies on the karelia-bielorussia-ukraine line (WesEur is impossible to attack for allies as Hobbes explained since it is Germany #1 priority), it’s the only front where allies are actually attacking, they need a lot of units since Germany built essentially infantries and have huge amounts of grounds units now.
-Japan vs allies, Russia needs help there, they have been trading with Germany for a while and even though they likely built a small stack, they can’t hold alone against Japan much higher IPC production in that area (the IPC drain for both Russia and Germany on the previously mentionned line should be around 15-21 IPC/turn, this leaves somewhere between 7-15 IPC for Russia against Japan)
-Japan vs Africa, this is were the was is usually won: if Japan takes Africa they will get over 50 IPC/turn and axis will win because they have an higher IPC production and that they should already have numeric advantage of ground units on the main land (allies having less IPC they will never recover from losing Africa if they are not in a situation where they actually went through already on the Germany vs allies front. Let’s note also that if allies defends that front, Japan will attack Moscow instead.

The winner of the war will usually be the side winning one of those 3 fronts. The problem is that when Japan will have a unit stack in Persia they will be having a way too strong double threat on Moscow/Africa and that with all the IPC drained early for UK/US to build fleets, they won’t be able to protect those 2 fronts. So basically it’s all about Germany holding their front while the inevitable happens on one of the other 2 fronts, hence the huge infantries spending for Germany.

I think axis is favorite but giving 3 inf to allies would be too much (1 more inf in Egy would be easily give advantage to allies).

It forces allies to build more navy because usually UK doesn’t need to buy anything at all. UK can build planes early (to secure Africa and to already have a high attack force ready when they build their transports) while US builds the fleet and then build transports in SZ8 while US just bring their huge fleet to protect them. The problem is that if there are Japan fleets around this fleet of US navy + UK transports will not be able to move, so UK needs a fleet that can survive ALONE 5 fighters + 1 bomber and that means a lot of fleet ! (for exemple AC+2Fig+2DD as only 11% chances against those 6 planes)

So UK actually needs 2 destroyer + 2 loaded aircraft carrier (can use US planes though) so 44 IPC, that is 1.5 turn production !!!

Also, for any tentative of double disembarkments from UK ans US (typical plan to create a weakness in Germany coast) which is usually hard for Germany to defend since it requires having a lot of infantries everywhere, now Germany can have 5 fighters reinforcement between the 2 waves of attack ! This will allow Germany to defend territories with about 5 infantry less then it would usually need on every single territory he needs to defend (WesEur, Ger and EasEur), plus the 5 fighters will seriously help defending one of those permenently since the planes will be sitting there. In total effect, because of their mobility between UK and US turns, those 5 fighters will have the defense power of around 15-20 infantries, that is another 45 IPC !!!

So not only the planes will force UK spending 44 IPC on fleets that they would not usually need. It also makes the chance of allies never being able to land in WesEur, Ger and EasEur much higher then usual, forcing them to target lowers IPC countries in the north.

In a nutshell, those planes (actually having a “real” value of 62 IPC), have a practical worth of about 90 IPC (and I am being conservative there). With allies going KGF, there is no way you could have that kind of value with those Japanease planes in Asia/Pacific. Obviously, if allies goes KJF those planes are better in Asia/Pacific but KJF is not a losing strategy.