Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I haven't put out the third guide in the series that would address all your questions. But here's a few things you should think about to be getting on with.
1. Re-frame Japan pressuring US in terms of opportunity cost to both sides and timing.
2. Germany probably should not be pushing 3/1 infantry/artillery. I don't know why/how you're using that fixed ratio, but it's fundamentally wrong *for Germany*. It may be correct *situationally* but it's still probably wrong. Think about that, really think.
3. Building a mix of bombers/fighters with who? What timing?
4. Pushing Africa/Australia with Japan instead of India early is usually fundamentally wrong. It *can* be correct situationally, but you need to rethink things.
5. You need to understand the concept of Japanese fighters to Germany. Properly you're pushing a *specific timing*; the exact timing may vary due to dice results and player actions, but it's still a very specific timing with specific objectives nonetheless.
A wild punch is not a "strategy."
Yes, you had some vague idea that Japanese fighters in Europe would help. Correct, and better than much of the meta last I checked. But what is the *specific* usage, the *specific* timing, the *specific* objectives? KNOWING these is the difference between a carefully planned and executed strategy and a wild punch.
Try to answer each of the points above, being as *specific* as possible.
I'd like to point out that telling someone that has a problem to think about it is not really helpful.
Also you keep talking about timings and situations and this again doesn't help much. Unless you bring to the table concrete facts and situations, nobody will understand anything from what you are trying to say. Nobody that asks these kind of questions, that is.
To OP, my answer to KGF is to take India ASAP and then Hawaii, while keeping Karelia and Paris. In doing so, I find it extremely helpful to buy a CV first turn and save the BB and the transport. This will help Germany conquer Africa and deny UK precious resources, at least for a while. Frankly, with KGF all in and zero pressure to Japan, I find it easy to win.
Regarding Germany building order, I prefer to maximize the available factories and go for as many units as possible. Unless I spot a weakness. For instance when the ally keeps undefended transports, perhaps it's worth to buy a bomber.
That's always something I keep in mind.
It's respectful to assume someone else *is* thinking, and it's reasonable to assume they *don't* have the context to arrive at the same conclusions *another* has reached. Otherwise there wouldn't be any disagreement in the first place!
That's why I *didn't just* tell the OP to think about it. That's why I provided *context*.
I don't expect the OP to come up with the "right" answer as I consider it. But the *process of seeking answers methodically* is going to help the OP a lot more than out-of-context answers that I think don't address the fundamental issue.
Which is *exactly* why I'm writing the third guide in my basics series.
Let's look at the OP, my response, and your response.
I assert that the OP's *foundation* needs work. I say players can be taught to mindlessly mimic what others do, and get *some* fast results and limited success, but I assert there's *already* a meta issue with players dogmatically insisting that "X is THE correct way to play!". So bad habits that are picked up are then encouraged, and eventually that leads to unquestioning adherence to a single line, and frustration and anger when that line is not successful.
If my read on the OP were different, I would give very specific advice, if I thought a nudge was all that was needed. But I think here more is needed.
As to your response - let's agree it has the advantages of being short and that it covers most game situations, but you must also understand that your excellent reply DOES leave some matters unaddressed.
Based on that writing, I assert the OP's foundation is weak. Why? Every single point the OP makes seems to make sense! I'd even say *I* would agree with MOST of what is written!
The PROBLEM is with what is NOT written - and those things are CRUCIAL.
1. "With Germany I build a roughly 3/1 ratio of infantry and artillery" - this is the most obvious warning that the OP's foundation is weak. NO POWER should be producing ANYTHING in ANY sort of ratio, and though artillery are great, they're usually WRONG for Germany. Yes, you could say a 3/1 mix is correct for a *particular* situation but USUALLY NOT.
Suppose that UK and US have considerable navy in Atlantic around UK6+. Say US is offloading from East Canada to Finland/Norway each turn and sending empty transports back to East Canada. Sound familiar? The optimal US transport route to Europe that only requires one defensive fleet (on early rounds, mind!)
The "usual suspects" are - UK can offload to Norway, Finland, Karelia, Baltic States, Germany, Northwest Europe, and France. US can ONLY push from Finland to Karelia normally, but US can ALSO threaten a double landing on France or NW Europe by pulling the units it dropped from Finland last turn and its East Canada transports this turn to make a drop. If UK dropped to France/NW Europe, then US can also land fighters, which sets up a possible UK lock on additional income and Allies being able to trade Italy (though the UK income is most problematic for Axis).
. . . and there's a lot I'm not getting into, like how ideally you want US to take and hold France so a US IC can ease US's logistics issues into France, but how that's unlikely . . . I'm just trying to hit up the raw basics here okay?
Anyways the problem for Germany there is - following 1baddude's advice (which I think is good for most games) - Germany needs to defend France, Germany, and Karelia. And *IF* Germany wants to defend Karelia, to maintain an infantry chain it must also protect Baltic States.
(And yes, 1baddude, I'm sure you almost *certainly* know all this, but I'm saying this is to the *OP*.)
Now suppose you have German tanks and infantry on Baltic States. The infantry provide fodder against attack. The tanks threaten any Allied landing on France, as well as Archangel, West Russia, and Ukraine.
CONTRAST to German ARTILLERY and infantry on Baltic States. The artillery threaten Karelia, Belorussia, Poland, and Germany. Well, you don't want to drop Germany or Karelia anyways; dropping Karelia means you can't land Japanese fighters on to reinforce; once Karelia goes it often *stays* gone. Belorussia and Poland are just . . . not that great when it compares to threatening France AND Archangel AND West Russia AND Ukraine.
So why would Germany build a 3/1 infantry/artillery ratio, ever? (Technically you never use a fixed ratio, you always *calculate* the ideal composition). But even if we take for granted that 3/1 is only an INFORMAL ratio, that still falls under Germany having to undertake major stack battles, and we know from the OP that it's not a question of Germany *pressing the aggression* with artillery builds after securing Caucasus.
No, it's *much* more likely, in context, that the OP is talking about 3/1 infantry/artillery EITHER because they don't really understand the Axis timing, OR because the player's fighting on the defensive. And though we could say for the latter case the player MIGHT still have a good grasp of fundamentals, remember the OP's talking about *consistently* having trouble with anti-KGF.
. . . which comes down to, again, the player MUST be missing *fundamentals* somewhere. My conclusion is the *likely* case, therefore, is the OP either is missing the fundamentals on timing, OR they are missing the fundamentals on execution, OR they are missing BOTH.
So when I say "think about it" - and "be as specific as possible", what I'm getting at is the OP needs to *think about the process*. It's not just that they're building stuff and shoving it at the opposing side, they should have a *plan*, a *specific plan*, with *specific timing*.
. . . and sure, I COULD have made the points above in my original response. But just giving out the answers would NOT get the player THINKING about WHY.
Sure, I could be less mysterious about the process. But if the OP had posted a WRONG answer that showed nevertheless that they were THINKING about the process, I'd simply have made a followup comment then. I save time on writing things out, they get used to thinking about things in terms of specifics, win all around regardless. If the OP had posted a RIGHT answer, then that would be VERY interesting, major wins all around. And if the OP couldn't follow along, or didn't care to? Then I just saved myself the time of writing an explanation that wouldn't have helped anyways.
2. "I like pushing Japan hard towards Moscow, but this takes several rounds to build up. By the time the pressure is taken off Germany it is too late. And I think a run at the West Coast US with Japan is a waste.
. . .
In some games I bypass India, taking Africa and Australia with Japan. This reduces the UK, but then Russia is able to send more resources towards Germany."
Look. I know when I chop things up, it makes players look like they don't know what they're doing, then sometimes they take offense. How DARE I say that someone might not know what they're doing! So then they go off and attack me whatever. And for whatever reason in this community a lot of times it's thought acceptable to attack someone that's taking THEIR PERSONAL TIME to point out, in GREAT DETAIL, EXACTLY WHAT and WHY they think, with lame pejoratives like "tldr!" or "you're arrogant!" or whatever.
Shrug. I'd be the first to agree I don't care much what others think (given the appropriate context; if I were in customer service I WOULD care what others thought, it would be my job to care, but here I'm just a poster). As to "arrogant" I've always said Bernard and some others could whup me in any game if they put their minds to it, unlike others, *I'm* not repeatedly claiming to be the "best in the world" or whatever.
ANYWAYS what do we see in that quote? The OP doesn't have a specific goal in mind for Japan. A player SHOULD adapt to changing board conditions, but if you look at what the OP wrote, again there isn't a concept of the timing and logistics. It's really very vague, and that's disturbing, along with what was already written about Germany's 3/1 infantry/artillery ratio.
"Pushing Japan hard towards Moscow" is . . . what is that? That isn't a plan. A propaganda piece maybe. Notice how any reference to any specific troop movements is nonexistent? Very "loose lips sink ships". But when it comes to the actual plan, you do need those specific troop movements, and just shoving stuff at Moscow is not going to cut it.
Why? Let's assume Russia's income is at 12, UK at 20, US at 36 and *GERMANY CANNOT CONTROL ATLANTIC AND IS NOT REALLY PRESSURING RUSSIA*. Isn't this what the OP is talking about, they're having trouble against KGF, they're thinking Japan's going to relieve pressure on Germany or something?
Well then we know that scenario is VERY optimistic for the Axis and why? Because it pretty well assumes that for some weird reason, despite having uncontexted control of the Atlantic, UK is not supplementing its income by capturing/trading Norway, Finland, Baltic States, Northwest Europe, and France, nor does UK have Morocco, Algeria, or Libya, or most of Africa. And how does UK not have most of Africa? Because India was lost and Japan pushed Africa after, or Japan leapfrogged India to hit Africa, anyways this should only be happening perhaps UK4+, by which time Atlantic fleets are established so exactly why the Allies income is so low is very questionable.
BUT we're saying HYPOTHETICALLY so let's just go with these weird numbers. Anyways Allies have transport infrastructure set up, and that's running perhaps 20 Allied units every turn, given the provided numbers, yes? Even leaving some aside for artillery mixed in with infantry, it's a lot.
Well, the problem is Japan doesn't start with stacks in Asia and Europe, and Russia does. Then even after Japan captures India, Japan is STILL only producing 11 units a turn.
11 against 20. Does this sound good to you? Odds get worse every turn.
So again, you think about the OP saying they're having trouble with KGF. Well, if they're trying to race 11 against 20 when the odds weren't even there for them to BEGIN with, you can see why they would be losing!
Which indicates, again, that fundamentals are lacking. The player needs to THINK about WHY things are as they are, about the SPECIFICS, about the TIMING. And frankly at this point one REALLY has to start thinking the EXECUTION is probably not correct either, because the *repeated* implication is the Axis are on the *defensive*.
If the Axis are missing their *offensive* timings only - then maybe it's just a question of tightening up play. But if the Axis are missing *defensive* timings and being pushed back, then there's a major issue somewhere, like the Axis are repeatedly overextending or something. That's the only thing that explains *consistent* Axis loss (well that, or opponents cheating but let's not go there.)
3. "I've tried taking on fleets by building some mix of bombers/fighters, but eventually the combined US/UK fleet is too strong and if you lose a single battle your air is done and can't be used to repel the waves of troops landing."
Again, VAGUE, and this is troublesome. The OP has GOT to understand there is a HUGE difference between trying to push air with GERMANY and air with JAPAN, and yet ANOTHER HUGE DIFFERENCE between applying that air EFFECTIVELY and INEFFECTIVELY.
Imagine if you're building air with Germany. Germany already has production of 15 units a turn between Germany, Italy, and Karelia; if you're building air with Germany against a KGF, your ground defenses WILL be soft. There is just no way to avoid it! If you're seriously trying to build a "MIX" of bombers/fighters, that means MULTIPLE air units, which means ground defenses are SUPER soft. Of COURSE Germany will be pushed back! Unless the board situation means the Axis can do Dark Skies, which they must not be because the OP specified the Axis are consistently in trouble!
Contrast with a well executed timed air push by Japan that forces Allies to build a second and/or third defensive fleet for their East Canada fleet and perhaps to lock the UK / US fleets to Finland / Norway. I'm not getting into details here, but that's TOTALLY different!
. . . and then there's Japan hitting Alaska and the West Coast threat which isn't anything to scoff at either - PROVIDED proper execution.
4. "Another strategy I have tried is building fighters with Japan and shuttling them to Germany as I take ground from Russia. Does anyone else have success with this?"
Again, the vagueness is troublesome. Properly, the OP should not be asking IF others have success with this. If they knew the proper execution, they wouldn't be asking at all, they would KNOW it is successful, they would know WHY it was successful, they would know the major variations because they understood the theory, the timing, etc.!
So again, you look through the OP, you try to think of what answer would be most appropriate. I referenced the Steam "basics" guides I've written; the first in the series is *very short and simple* - don't overextend (which I think is probably what's killing the OP), build infantry, don't waste money. Then I put on a few additional comments for context that the OP might have been able to use together with my first and second guides.
@1baddude - Should I have posted one of my famous multi-post replies to the OP? Perhaps. But with my response here, perhaps you understand *why* I didn't. And I'll point out the original poster didn't respond, and prior to your post there wasn't conversation in this thread that I thought appropriate *to* posting the details.
Before I start chopping things up, let's first admire that response. It's short. It has a fair amount of detail, Properly executed, the advice is good. But I assert the advice given is ALSO *too vague*. (More on that later.)
(BTW let's mention "BB" means battleship, "CV" means carrier. You know this, I know this, others may not.)
The key difficulty is "properly executed". For reasons I wrote in my previous post, I think that won't happen. And that changes everything.
My assumption is the OP is making *mistakes*, and it is *those mistakes* that need first be addressed.
So let's say G1 you're saying Germany keeps its battleship and transport, builds a Med carrier to protect. But that leaves a LOT unaddressed.
Where, exactly, do the German battleship / transport go? THINK about all the ways it can go, and the CONSEQUENCES of each.
First, we know Germany's 4 ground units down for its G3-G4 push into Ukraine. I've commented elsewhere Germany can "catch up" by using its Med transport, but that requires committing the German fleet. That MIGHT not be a problem - or it might be. Germany can compensate for the *timing* but it can never really compensate for the *number count*, contrast to a ground-only German push that leaves 4 more units in Germany to defend on that timing.
For a veteran, handling that might not be an issue. But for a new player?
Then just what does Germany's battleship / transport do, exactly? Does Germany hit Egypt? It's a coinflip battle, and if Germany loses and the UK fighter survives then UK can go 2 fighters 1 bomber, and the Med carrier ends up serving little purpose. If Germany pushes Trans-Jordan then again UK has an air attack lined up.
But Germany bulking at Libya isn't straightforward either. Sure, it makes AFRICA very simple. But then, there's the risk of German battleship/carrier/2 fighters being hit by UK destroyer/cruiser/2 fighters/bomber. Sure, it's a coinflippy battle, but that assumes the battle is fought to its end and a particular order of loss. Then there's a question of what follows.
Assume the Germans drop fighters before carrier. Then the odds turn against them. (And I'll comment in passing this is another reason why 1942 Online's defensive profiles *just are not the same* as live defender decisions; with live defender decisions you can see dice results THEN decide on casualty allocation, which means you can respond APPROPRIATELY.)
Assume the Germans drop carrier before fighter. Then maybe UK manages to whack an expensive German carrier for a cheap cost of destroyer / cruiser.
So EITHER WAY the Germans might not come out smelling like roses.
Of course there's complications. UK can push its India fleet through the Suez but that opens up Japan's Turbo Burma line. Germany can have air in place to counter any UK push through Suez, but that likely means those air are NOT in place to punish any UK Atlantic builds. And of course if it's claimed that Germany's buying air on top of its G1 carrier, then of course Germany's ground game is going to be pretty soft, no way to get around that.
Then there's complications even if Germany tries to avoid some of the above complications. Like say Germany tries to mess with a potential UK counter to a German carrier build at Italy (and German battleship/transport staying there too). Does Germany REALLY want to risk its air against cruiser and/or destroyer? And if Germany risks air against the UK cruiser, then there's a case for Germany fortifying MOROCCO instead of Libya. And if Germany uses one of its Atlantic subs against the UK cruiser, that means the UK destroyer/transport off East Canada are free to hunt German submarine survivors, plus potential invasion of France, Norway, or Finland, then there's also the question of Germany's attack on the UK battleship / destroyer / transport (and likely Russian submarine). Also the question of if Russia left a fighter on Caucasus, which in turn is affected by R1/G1 counters - I could be here all day listing complications.
It's not that I think ANY of that is really an issue *to a veteran player that knows what they're doing*. But for the OP that's having consistent trouble against KGF, well.
How can we really expect the OP to resolve such complications if their tactics *fundamentals* are unsound? Advising someone on how to bake a cake is all very well, but if they can't tell the difference between flour and sugar, you need to start there.
Suppose I say G1 build is 11 infantry 2 artillery, followed by G2 infantry at Germany/Karelia, with excess income going to tanks on Italy, followed by a G3 push to Poland, then a G4 push to Ukraine, ASSUMING that France and Karelia BOTH hold with NO ISSUES. Then suppose I say Japan's timing depends on Allied action, but we expect anywhere from J2 to J4 capture of India (and that is not a VAGUE reference, EVERY TURN makes a REAL difference). Then suppose I say that if USSR does the right builds, then G4 push to Ukraine is "no way" if Germany operates by itself, because Russia just does a vicious counter that wipes out Germany's infantry reserves. Then I say the G4 push WILL typically hold, as will France, as will Karelia, because by that point German fighters can land on Karelia, German tanks as needed can push Ukraine, you have the G1-G2 infantry builds pushing to Poland on G3 then Ukraine on G4, THEN Japan can land fighters on Ukraine on J4 so there's just NO WAY USSR can normally crack Ukraine (and though UK could theoretically break the timing, functionally that shouldn't happen either). And in this golden world, sadly the Germans don't have Africa income, but *Japan* certainly does, and Japan's production limit of 11 between Japan and India means Japan really can't challenge USSR's fat stacks, but Japan's *air* can quickly catch up to the front, then Japanese fighters based on Karelia along with German fighters threaten a 1-2 punch along with Germany that locks the UK/US fleets to Finland/Norway, and if UK/US want to break out of that, they need to build another defensive fleet but they probably can't do that easily because USSR's being horribly pressured.
But there's more. Suppose then I say as part of Japan's timing push on India, Japan builds bombers prior to the turn India looks ready to fall. Then you're looking at a base Japanese air fleet of 3 bombers. The problem with this is (for the Allies) is right about then in a dedicated KGF US is ramping up to 8-10 transports, alternating 4/4 or 5/5 between Eastern Canada and Finland/Norway - *and those Japanese bombers threaten the Eastern Canada waters* - there's variations involving Japan invading Alaska.
Oh, btw that Japan invading Alaska thing, I know some players do it but have no idea of what they're doing, that's why it doesn't work. In a dedicated KGF, if the US has pushed its Pac navy to Atlantic, it reaches right around US4. By then, Japan can have considerable naval and air assets in the Pacific, particularly destroyers and air. And this is a problem why? Because if Japan pushes and holds Western Canada then Japan can trade Central US which is a chunk of additional income; US MUST deal with it at some point (best BEFORE it gets to that point), and if Japan holds Western Canada then also the sea zones off Eastern Canada are threatened by a HUGE Japanese air force. Then the UK/US drops to Europe are threatened by Germany's air, and the East Canada sea zone is threatened by Japanese air, which means what? Two Allied fleets. There is no way for the US to maintain reinforcements to Europe without *severe* disruption, particularly with UK, and note Japan can reposition bombers from its push on US to Europe in *one turn*.
US's options to a Japanese invasion of Alaska are build a fleet (crazy, no way, then US is trying to do a late-game catchup in Pacific against super-Japan and all its Atlantic stuff is in the wrong place). OR US builds ground on West US, which is *expensive* - it's the best US response, but there's no way to avoid the fact that US now has to devote an up-front cost of maybe 30-ish IPCs to defense then maybe 20 more on followup turns. And that creates a *timing* issue; normally US *would* be ramping up its attack in the Atlantic, and it would if unopposed, but the timing means US's timings are all disrupted, from having to defend its West Coast to stopping Japan from *holding* West Canada, to having to build a second defensive fleet for East Canada (likely costing at least 1 destroyer and 1 carrier and 2 dedicated fighters - consider the prize is 5-6 US transports on top which means US misses dropping 10-12 ground units to Europe, then consider Japan excess income off its 11 production limit can be funneled into bombers, then the East Canada defensive fleet starts to have to be really big . . .
Then suppose I say Japan's other options include posting a fat Japanese fighter force on Karelia (along with maybe bombers). So what happens then is you have pretty fair-sized German and Japanese air forces - Germany's MOSTLY concentrating on ground, sure. Anyways what happens is, you have this fat Axis air threat, then what happens to US/UK transport drops? UK/US can maintain a fleet off Finland/Norway, but if UK breaks off to drop to Karelia/Baltic States/NW Europe/France, then Japan obliterates UK. If US tries to break off a small force to reinforce future UK reinforcement, *Germany* can obliterate the split-off fleet before UK can move. So this means (depending on the board situation of course) that sometimes UK/US get locked into dropping ONLY to Finland/Norway - then sometimes you get an ever-increasing Japanese air threat - so UK/US can't really just STAY where they are either, and if US wants to reinforce then they have to route via East Canad which takes a long time, and of course if UK reinforces their builds are vulnerable to German air . . .
Then suppose I mention the Axis Finland push, which normally isn't great, but if the Allies pushed transports quickly, say they have 10-12 US transports, then typically they are NOT going to have a second defensive fleet for East Canada's sea zone. So imagine what happens when you have a fat load of Axis bombers on Finland, you see they're in range of East Canada, and what does that mean? Means Allies need a *second* defensive fleet to maintain infantry flows to Europe.
So you understand, that's sort of the stuff I can think of offhand on Japanese fighter timings to Germany against KGF. The real question is not DOES anyone have success with it - the question is why you do NOT have success with it.
Suppose I frame the whole question differently. SUPPOSE I assume that instead of Germany pumping out loads of ground each turn and Japan doing timing pushes, suppose I assume Germany's overextending or building extra navy and/or air against a good Allied player (which means German air/navy probably won't do much good). Then Germany's ground game is quite weak. So then I have to retreat with Germany. So then I'm trying to use Japanese fighters in some sort of last-ditch defense at Karelia or France, and maybe I'm not *even* holding Karelia and France. Maybe the Allies are rolling me up. Maybe USSR's getting fat income from loads of territories in Europe (and perhaps Finland/Norway besides), and Germany is just holding on by its fingernails. NOW I'll ask if players have any success using Japanese fighters to defend Germany. But that's REALLY a completely different question, see?
In the one case, if you're doing timing pushes and not overextending and if all your fundamentals are in a row - maybe dice are really weird and you do NOT get a solid G4 push to Ukraine. Or maybe the Allies did some bad-odds attacks and got lucky, or SOMETHING, but even if MOST of what I wrote is out the window, still you should be able to pull SOME semblance of an Axis timing attack out of the wreckage, in which Germany chokes off USSR's income, Germany's major stack weakens Russia's major stack, then German tanks reverse out of Russia and Germany/Japan just sit on their superior income and out-value the Allies in time (which who knows how the exact balance goes but it should be something of a game).
In the other case, everything's falling apart and really it's just a question of WHEN Germany dies (unless super fantastic luck intervenes).
If your fundamentals are weak, you WILL end up in the latter position more often, then it really wont' matter Japanese fighters or whatever so much. If your fundamnetals are strong, you will end up in the former position more often, then you can make a game of it.
Pacific shouldn't work at all off KGF.
India doesn't quite work as implied. It's not that the Allies are "forced" to push resources to India in "response" to Axis VC win condition. The Allies want to protect India *anyways*, but they're on a deadline. If Allies haven't been able to contest Karelia/France by the time India falls in the KGF then Allies were losing. If the Allies try to hold India past the German timing against West Russia, the Allies end up trading Moscow for Calcutta then Calcutta falls after Axis consolidate anyways.
So strong Allied players are messing up because they're abandoning India needlessly? Is that what you're saying?
Or are you saying that the Allies *should* be abandoning India because strong Allied players abandon India?
. . . provided the players are competent, and that *doesn't* depend on "many other conditions."
When I write there's other conditions, I mean a player's optimal line should account for dice outcomes and player decisions (and as I'm not writing ALL the details they need to figure things out on their own to some degree though of course they can ask questions.)
But for the above quote, those matters are *already decided*. There's already enough information that all the major variations play out the way I said. If you want to argue an exception, sure - but then you must *argue the exception*.
Why would you say that the Allies DO need to defend India, yet assert that strong players ABANDON India? I say it's because you know that competent Allied players DO abandon India. (At least you say they're competent, and as I think competent Allied players normally abandon India in the KGF I'm not going to argue that point).
I assert that you understand India SHOULD be abandoned, because you've seen what you say are strong players do it. But I say you do not understand why. I say that why you incorrectly say the Allies should divert resources to Hawaiian Islands and/or India as a *response*.
And my assertion also is that the Allies should do NEITHER normally in the KGF, that the Allies should instead push their Finland/Norway and East Canada transport chains.
I'll go from premise to reasoning. You can disagree with any step, just call it out.
First, I say for offense and defense, *ground* units are better for cost than air on both offense and defense, *provided the infrastructure to transport those ground units and provided the ground gets there on time*.
Second, I say India cannot sustain a defense in the KGF (Kill Germany First) scenario. You probably disagree so I'll revisit this later.
Third, I say US should establish transport chains from East Canada to Finland/Norway. I also say UK should threatening France, NW Europe, and Baltic States *if the Axis allow it*. And I say if the Axis do NOT allow it, that costs the Axis elsewhere, and if the Axis DO allow it, that means the Axis are doing Something Pretty Nasty somewhere else.
Then I have a load of assertions that I'll back with observations, we'll get to those later.
Okay, so - I say India cannot sustain a defense against KGF because I say Japan's unleashed. Perhaps you disagree.
I've said right along that Japan's J1 build ends Japan's turn with 4 transports. If Kwangtung's transport was lost Japan builds 3 transports, if not Japan builds 2. Maybe 3 even then. I forget. I've said there's an exception if UK hits the Japanese fleet off East Indies, but I assert we don't need to address that as it isn't a KGF line. We could discuss that point if you wanted though, I'm not opposed. We could discuss the 4 Japanese transports too. We can discuss anything. No problem. Just specify what you want to inquire about *and mention why, specifically, you think something different happens*, I don't need someone just asking "why" to everything, players like that can wait for the third part of my basics guide. Whenever I get around to it.
After US1 Atlantic fleet drop and US moving units out of Pacific - which *you* said, and which I also happen to think happens - then Japan knows it's KGF. So right then we're looking at Japan's income ballooning from 31 to a projected 40+, hasn't happened yet but that's the expectation.
Some variations. If Russia tried to defend Buryatia, that either means Russia screwed up or Russia pulled out of Europe. If Russia screwed up, Japan punishes Buryatia then consolidates and redirects J2 push to Yunnan / Soviet Far East (the last to choke off Russia's income), then pushes Burma then India. This means Japan's push on India is later than normal, but Germany's push on Russia is earlier - but Japan can compensate for early timing deficits by Germany repositioning its fighters to Burma to help hold the position, after which Japanese fighters landing on can defend, and Japan's attack timings on India can catch up with Japanese bomber builds.
If Russia didn't try to defend Buryatia, Japan can grab Soviet Far East immediately *and* push Yunnan.
If the Allies left Japan with NO good normal targets for Japanese air, Japan can hit Szechwan. If Allies pushed USSR infantry AND UK fighter to Szechwan then not.
Details of variations aside, it's not that "everything evens out in the end" - there's specific adaptations everyone makes to hit their optimal timings, and sometimes there *is* no normal timing left. But in the KGF scenario, Japan should certainly be dropping 8 ground units to Yunnan a turn starting J2, the Allies are pushing KGF so what's going to stop Japan? Nothing really, unless you're arguing Russia's abandoning Europe, which just means Axis have an easier time of it overall, so let's not discuss that straw man argument right?
So once that happens, what? We said it's a dedicated KGF, what does that work out to? If the Axis have some sort of major timing going on off bad R1 dice, then maybe Axis are tank dashing and all the normal timings go out the window. But that's what . . . say 12% at the outside? I forget. It's not super high. It HAPPENS, but it's DEFINITELY the minority of games. So we'll say NOT an Axis tank dash, it's "normal" KGF/anti-KGF.
Anyways, UK/US can do fighter builds to defend Moscow. But look at the numbers. It's just not sustainable. Say Germany's hovering at 40 IPCs, that's twelve infantry at Germany/Karelia, a little left over for the odd artillery (in case Germany wants to use its air for another target on a given turn) and the rest saved for tanks. Japan's going to push 40 IPCs soon, that's another eleven units (Restricted by production limits between Japan and India; Japan could push another IC but it needs timing anyways so it pushes excess into tanks/air). Plus Germany has what, at least eight tanks, five fighters? Japan six fighters and a bomber, plus later air catching up with earlier builds (more on that later). Meanwhile Axis are trying to choke Russia out and are restricting its income to perhaps 14 a turn. Twenty-three Axis units a turn racing four Allies units a turn. That isn't great. You add six fighters a turn between UK and US, that's 24 against 10. Unsustainable!
For similar reasons, India falls. Japan's dumping 8 cheap ground units a turn, India only 3. Again, you can supplement India with fighters, perhaps flown in from UK/US. But if you bulk at India, you WILL pull out of somewhere else. If Europe collapses, Germany pushes, it's inevitable.
So we see Allied air is unsustainable. We can make some assumptions and play with the numbers, but if it's 24 against 11 or 24 against 12, it's STILL never going to be a great deal for the Allies. This is what brings the third assertion, that KGF should push UK and US transports.
Well okay, let's say we ARE doing UK/US transports in Atlantic. That gives a higher unit count, MUCH higher once the Allied transport and escort infrastructure are set, and yes the Axis do have counters, but in the end the Axis have to fight a *combined* Allied transport/escort fleet with *separate* Axis air power. There's things the Axis can do, and 1942 Online's changes to 1942 Second Edition makes everything easier for the Axis, but there *is* still a limit to Axis' ability to effectively counter. Though that limit's pretty high in 1942 Online.
That's the core.
Now I'll go into some assertions that I won't back up as thoroughly. I say Japan pushes Hawaiian Islands at earliest three turns after capturing India. I say this is because BEFORE that, Japan needs to push transports and ground to pressure India, IMMEDIATELY before Japan of course can't push transports/ground at Japan (those would be useless against the immediately oncoming India battle) but then Japan should push BOMBERS so it can't push ground/transports anyways. So it's the turn AFTER India falls that Japan can redirect its fleet and/or build new fleet to push Hawaii, and that means a three turn delay.
I could mention a bunch of whatever things about Austalia, New Zealand, Madagascar, Alaska - but I'm saying Japan does NOT just pop over to Hawaiian Islands and grab it casually. The US can see it coming from a long way off, and both UK and US can have left lone submarines to harass any undefended Japanese navy that DOES push.
So when Japan DOES push Hawaiian Islands, typically it needs to bring some air and/or capital ships. If the capital ships push Pacific, they are NOT pushing through Suez, Germany can NOT build transports for late Africa push, if Japan splits that leaves Allies with less to worry about when facing Mediterranean (stuff pushing Hawaiian Islands is WAY distant from Mediterranean) - Japan DOES pay for the timing.
Probably the cheapest Japan can get on timing is pushing its bombers towards Alaska, and some serious stuff can happen there, but ANYWAYS you can see Japan cannot just pop over to Hawaii. It IS something of a commitment, and it should come fairly late in the game.
I wrote the Allies should NOT push Pacific and/or India, especially if the Germans have the West Russia timing.
Well just think about it. We know that UK/US air *only* to Europe is unsustainable. UK/US MUST build transports and escorts. But if you're running Atlantic transports, those ground units will NOT be able to reinforce India with anything like a good timing.
You said that Germany should defend France, Germany, and Karelia. All right, I agree. But what does that mean? If Germany IS defending Karelia, then *given transports and infrastructure* which we DO have, then should Allies be pushing air more, or transports/ground more, if the battle is at all in question?
If the battle is NOT in question and the Allies are easily going to win, then the Allies can AFFORD to push air; they crack Karelia then they can establish a ground chain to Russia. That's winning.
But if the battle IS in question - and I say it should be, because I say Japan has a CHUNK of Japanese fighters on Europe - then Allies need a CHUNK of ground.
Now think, what exactly happens if Germany holds France, Germany, Italy, Karelia, Japan holds Japan, Kwangtung, Philippines, India, and Hawaii? 9 VCs game over!
Which is WHY THE ALLIES MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. The Allies can see the entire Axis game plan a mile away (maybe a hundred miles away), if the Allies simply have NO recourse ANYWHERE, then the Allies ARE LOSING.
And if the Allies push Pacific and/or India?
Well I just covered India didn't I? Japan pushes eight, India pushes three, Germany's also pushing from the west, it's just not sustainable. If USSR sends stuff to Persia that's just not able to threaten the German stack at Karelia (maybe big oops there), if USSR pushes to *India* then it's WAY out of position to counter Germany, and static defense of India that goes nowhere while Germany's carving up Europe, not bad.
And what happens if Germany's West Russia timing hits before India is abandoned? You figure it out. Allies decide to defend India, drop West Russia, Germany captures West Russia, say UK *immediately* pushes its UK India stack to Persia, next turn Germany captures Caucasus (otherwise Germany captures Russia, let's not set up THAT straw man), and what does UK do? Fight an odds-off major stack battle against Caucasus? Ugly, let's not. Push to Kazakh. Germany gets a major strafe off, or possibly just captures Kazakh in force then Japan reinforces, and again it's an odds-off major stack battle. Again, not good. And if you want to summon a phantom UK/US push in Karelia, that's not great either, if that UK/US push happened after Germany's shift to West Russia, then Germany has a big counter lined up, if the UK/US push waited until Germany committed to Caucasus then Germany can push from Caucasus to West Russia then UK/US has to retreat from Karelia or be smashed - or they can push Archangel and give Germany an odds-off major stack battle. And ANY of those scenarios involves at LEAST one odds-off major stack battle for the Allies. That's bad.
Sure there's variations. Like maybe Germany just captures Russia outright, then UK gets an odds-off major stack battle and after UK probably loses, Japan reinforces with fighters then it's REALLY over.
Now think about what happens if India has a stack that retreats BEFORE Germany's West Russia timing. The UK India stack *escapes* to Russia, that can hardly be stopped. Depending on the situation, MAYBE the UK India stack makes it to West Russia, then THAT just maybe gets ugly for Axis. (Maybe not too. But the outcomes are WAY better with India being abandoned *on time* as opposed to India being abandoned *late*).
So what other "conditions" change this? Either Allies push for the optimal composition and timing in which case it plays out like this, or the Allies do NOT push for the optimal composition and timing in which case . . . it plays out like this anyways!
If you want to argue the counter, sure. But it takes a LOT to say that the Allies need to devote resources to Hawaiian Islands and India *at the expense of the West Russia defense timing* because normally that's just an Axis win. If you stipulate that the Axis attack with 98% win odds and get INSANELY bad luck (well worse than the 2% on the initial rolls) and can't recover - sure. Or if you say Axis just get kinda bad dice and the Axis player has a brain fart and doesn't retreat when they SHOULD have - sure. But if you want to say the NORMAL expectation involves reinforcing Hawaiian Islands and India past Germany's West Russia timing, well no. Then you're saying it's a good idea for the Allies to push an odds-off major stack battle, and that's a stretch. But more, you're saying that's *preferred* to having an odds-on major stack battle, which is what you get when the UK India stack escapes into Russia (which it *should* if India is abandoned on time) and *that* pushes it out of "it depends on many conditions" into "this is just how it is" territory.
A few points.
JP can take Hawaii next turn after India, because it can divert at least 1 transport to SZ51 instead of moving troops to Yunnan.
Japan should have at least 1 DD, if not more, that can be used to protect the transport on SZ51. And also prevent a US counter on Hawaii on US next turn, unless US spends a lot on a Pacific fleet, which they should not be doing at this point.
JP should be buying ships in JP1 because if not, a KJF will be harder to defend. I know, we talk about a KGF scenario here, but things are not clear yet in JP1, so IMO JP is forced to buy transports and ships. Especially if UK attacked SZ61, buying a new DD is a must.
So in most cases, if Japan gets Hawaii, US is forced to attack a GE VP in that turn, most likely on even odds at best. Because, obviously, if JP won India, and Hawaii is in reach, GE will retreat from West Russia and use all its units to reinforce Karelia and France.
I think UK should attack JP shipping in UK1, because that will delay a JP push on India by 1 turn.
Further more, if UK/US retreats with everything but subs from Pacific, this opens the possibility of a Factory on Borneo, that can allow an attack on Australia on turn 2 and a devastating turn 3 attack on India.
Most good allied players I've played against will use UK fighters to reinforce India and delay a retreat for as long as possible.
On my personal choice of building a CV in GE1, destroying all UK ships is a must, even if this costs some fighters. This will buy GE an extra turn before the allies will mount an attack, plus will prevent a US1 drop on Morocco. Unless they want to lose 2 transports and a DD for 1 ISP.
And last, I know that on paper an attack on Eastern Canada DD sounds good, but this will reduce the odds of a successful attack on the UK BB, and if that BB survives, it will extremely reduce the chances at victory. And btw, a loss both on SZ10 and SZ7 is not that uncommon and is kind of game over for me.
I assert Japan *shouldn't*.
Let's say that UK blew up the Kwangtung destroyer/transport, which is not a super safe assumption but reasonable. We know Japan's lone surviving transport has a lot of work to do. Depending on the board, it has to recapture Borneo, capture Soviet Far East, drop to Buryatia, or push to Yunnan. Japan's forces in Asia are stretched thin at end of J1.
Contrast to India, which at end of UK1 under LHTR setup has 10 ground units.
There's variations. I won't discuss here KJF variations like UK hitting East Indies fleet and/or capturing East Indies and/or posting loaded transports off Southeast Asia threatening a load of territories.
UK could hit Borneo, then UK India has less (but then *Japan* also ends with less pressure in continental Asia as it should usually recapture Borneo.) Szechwan's US fighter might or might not have survived. Etc.
If Japan pushes to Burma prematurely, UK just smacks the heck out of it UK2+ with its fat India stack then later on UK has air in position. That can leave UK's stack on Burma, vulnerable to destruction, but if Japan pushes light then UK can use air trades, if Japan pushes medium-heavy then UK lines up a big strafe.
There's compensations for Axis, sure. If UK is fighting over Burma, UK is NOT feeding units into Persia and helping Russia, and that's pretty nice. But regardless, Axis have to pay a cost to pressure India *somewhere*. Even if Germany sends fighters to reinforce Burma, that can leave temporary openings for Allies in Atlantic and can leave Germany's air out of position for optimal ground trades as well. (Usually Germany can just send *some* fighters so it's maybe not so much an issue).
Anyways, say end of UK1, we say India has a base of 10 ground units, then 3 more ground units on top. Then let's say the Allies can send up to 6 fighters without significantly screwing up West Russia. PROBABLY less, but if USSR holds West Russia past G1, USSR can land its fighters on West Russia.
So what's Japan's timing on India? We know Japan doesn't crack India on J1. On J2, Japan is just dropping units to Yunnan - perhaps eight, but we could reasonably say six if Japan's consolidating control elsewhere. J3's invasion threat say is 9 ground 6 fighters 3 bombers, but by then say India's defense is 16 ground, AA gun, 4 fighters. And where did these fighters come from? UK has 4 fighters, let's say one of them died (and the UK bomber too), US has a fighter (let's say it survived), USSR has two fighters (let's say the Allies do NOT want to use USSR fighters at India but if it can wreck Japan's timing then it's worth considering), then if UK1 *built* fighters on UK and flew them to West Russia on UK2, by UK3 they end up on India.
Again there's complications, if UK is building air then it has less saved for navy, etc. But you can see India's defense is robust even *without* making too many assumptions on behalf of the Allies.
I say Japan overwhelms India, which is true, but the *timing* is in question. And that leads us to opportunity costs.
==
Let's say Japan captures India. Then a lot of things happen. Every turn that's another 3 Japanese units, 3 less UK units. Japan also has the second-best logistics against the African coast in the game (Germany has top, but usually the German battleship/transport are destroyed and Germany shouldn't replace them, the German Med carrier is another story).
What happens in major stack battles when you start dropping one or two units? Theoretically major stack battles are going to run up four plus turns, and during those turns those "one or two units" end up getting four to eight attacks, and every attack that connects means a dead opponent's unit that in turn *won't* get to fight back in the next combat sub-phase (because it's dead and removed).
So what happens when you dedicate a Japanese transport to Hawaii early? Exactly that. And considering the Allies *can* have a robust defense at India, you should figure every unit you don't send to India even for an *odds-on* major stack battle means TWO Japanese units lost - the first unit simply from opportunity cost, the second because Japan took a casualty it could have avoided because the odds weren't as in favor of Japan as they could have been.
But it isn't JUST two Japanese units lost under that reasoning. A single Japanese transport carries TWO Japanese ground units. A Japanese transport sent to Hawaiian Islands requires TWO turns to reach, as well as destroyer and air/capital ship escort. If you're moving air away from India, that's even less hitting India, even moving the capital ships off means less bombardment, and the rule of thumb for major stack battles is you hit with *everything*, if for no other reason because you want to inflict more casualties so the enemy ends with less units to inflict casualties on *you*.
So just what is the opportunity cost against India? Depending on the timing, you're talking up to eight Japanese ground units (Japanese transport requires two turns to reach Hawaii and two turns to RETURN, four turns multiplied by two units equals eight). We're also talking a high-dice bombard and perhaps fighters, and let's say that's the equivalent of 2 Japanese high-dice (rolling at 3) attacks. (Sure Japan wants Hawaiian Islands if we're arguing this line, but let's not say Japan is going CRAZY).
Using our rule of thumb, say that's another ten Japanese units dead at India. Wow, that's just so bad.
I'll be the first to agree that "rule of thumb" doesn't QUITE work out that way, and I'd also say Japan's timing is going to hit pretty hard once you start getting around J5. Very possibly J4 because of *simultaneous* Axis pressure on West Russia and India. But you can still see there is a *good reason* Japan should not muck about with Hawaiian Islands until AFTER India falls. When you go in on a major stack battle, you really go for it. If you don't, you WILL take extra losses, we could say it's five extra Japanese units dead instead of ten, but it IS going to be a chunk.
And what happens after the Japanese timing on India? You have a load of Japanese transports out of position to maintain drops from Japan to Yunnan, sure it's not the prettiest thing in the world for Japan. But Japan now has India's industrial complex, the transports at India can hit the entire west coast of Africa, there's Australia and New Zealand to work on, Japan can redirect its transports east to pick up infantry off islands - Japan's whole game breaks wide open *after India falls*.
So far so good. But let's also look at what I said happens, if UK withdraws from India to Persia.
I said Japan hits India with 6 fighters 3 bombers and sundry (can be less, depends on how hard Allies push defense of India). But let's say, anyways, that Japan's numerical advantage against India consists largely of air *that can't hold the territory*. *German* air can reinforce India, but that likely leaves German air out of position and as mentioned, UK can have a CHUNK of units there.
So if Japan doesn't really have a solid ground presence, you can get a pretty vicious UK counter into India that reclaims it. Problem is, if Japan did a major timing into India with no followup, Japan simply can't recapture India. Every turn Japan doesn't recapture India, UK pumps out 3, Japan doesn't pump out 3.
I'm not saying UK recapture of India is a *major* factor. Probably shouldn't happen, German fighters should be in range to reinforce Burma and/or India at need. But again, when major stacks are concerned, Japan can't really take it too easy. And though UK CAN evacuate Persia to push Caucasus or Kazakh, if Japan abandons India to start hitting Africa and Australia or wherever, Japan's hold on India is far less secure.
What happens to "excess Japanese troops" at India, if you were to say there could be such a thing? But there isn't such a thing. Japan bleeds out its India attack force post India invasion to hit Africa and Australia to make inroads on UK's economy, and anything else Japan pushes to Persia, then Japan's trying to establish a stack on Kazakh to simultaneously pressure Russia and Caucasus. The less Japan can bring, the less USSR has to deal with, the more USSR has to fight Germany, and even if you assume Japan pushed through USSR at northeast, through China, and claimed Persia, there's a very real chance there's only 4-5 Japanese units in all of Asia that are offering any sort of pressure against USSR.
I'll point out that though this *sounds* like theorycrafting, it's actually based on a load of games played, thinking about the theory in application, and running the numbers. That's why it's so internally consistent. I said Japan presses Yunnan towards India starting J2, that means Japan *doesn't* have a big force pressing in from Soviet Far East and Buryatia in the north, Japan *doesn't* have a chunk of units pushing through Szechwan to pressure Russia in the center, I said Japan pushes a chunk of units to Yunnan towards India, and *that's where they are*. When I say the Axis *will* pay if they try to grab Hawaiian Islands prematurely, that's exactly what happens.
If the Allies players are bad, then SURE, Axis grab Hawaiian Islands early AND India, and Axis don't end up paying a nasty price. But if the Allies player is competent, then why wouldn't the Allies player respond as I described?
To wrap this part up I'll talk Japan's mid-late game plan against the KGF line.
So I said Japan has to commit *so much* to Hawaiian Islands, I said it doesn't happen *before* India, I said UK and US should have lone submarines in Pacific "keeping Japan honest" so to speak. Or wait, I think I was writing that post then I deleted it because I realized it wasn't necessarily part of the discussion, but it sure is now.
Okay, so why does Japan hit Hawaiian Islands *later*? Roughly speaking, because the "major stack battle" (India) IS over. And though Japan should certainly be harassing Russia with trades, it doesn't need ALL its air to do that, though Japan should probably be reinforcing German positions in Europe, again Japan very well may not need ALL its forces for that either.
Yes, every single Japanese unit that's present reduces Germany's burden. But capturing Hawaiian Islands DOES create that 9 VC threat, and if nothing else reduces US's income.
I've said elsewhere of all the Allies, USSR income is most important, then UK, then US by a long mile. I also just finished some rant posts about how 9 VCs isn't even a real threat. So why is it that I'm saying Japan hits Hawaiian Islands?
Well you'll remember my first post in this thread mentioned the OP should rethink the Alaska attack. And really, Hawaiian Islands just ends up being a part of that entire operation. It's not that Japan GOES AFTER Hawaiian Islands, understand? It goes for a timing disruption against US's timing and Hawaiian Islands are on the way and taking it fulfills a tactical objective for Japan. It really is incidental - but it also really does happen.
Well I 'll get into that later.
Next post, more response to 1badddude's previous post.
Except it isn't. Not in 1942 Online. In 1942 Second Edition . . . maybe. That's another whole discussion, suffice to say UK fighters landing on US carriers is just this huge ginormous thing.
Anyways for 1942 Online I just wrote that big ol' rant post about how you don't just send a Japanese transport off towards Hawaiian Islands because that carries severe opportunity costs.
So what happens if you do a J1 destroyer build, assuming Kwangtung destroyer/transport are dead? You must build at least one less transport. That's two less ground units in Asia on J2. Japan can NEVER recover that timing, and the Japanese destroyer build doesn't even have any great application to compensate.
I did write that Japan wants a destroyer near home to repulse UK/US submarines (and I mentioned UK/US submarines only recently in *this* thread anyways). And I did write that Japan can use a destroyer in the Mediterranean. And I did write that there's a *timing* issue, if Japan builds a destroyer *late*, moving that destroyer into Mediterranean takes quite a while, the Allies can execute submarine pressure from build to execution before the destroyer arrives (and even then, the destroyer is probably late so ends up as fodder that can't fill the preventative "sub hunting" role a destroyer ideally fills).
But Japan, properly played, needs to have a really parsimonious attitude. Actually EVERY power needs to be horribly stingy and grasping. As you see even ONE IPC leave your clawed and grasping hands, you need to be scheming and scheming and scheming to pump maximum value out of that IPC. If you're doing one less transport, you know what I think about unit count and major stack battles already. If you're doing one more destroyer, you had better have some REAL benefit.
What does Japan get out of a J1 destroyer, REALLY?
Let's make a bunch of assumptions. Let's say UK did some things, let's say Japan invested a battleship off Burma or Borneo, let's say Japan did not hit US's Hawaiian Islands fleet, let's say Japan is down a fighter. These are not GREAT assumptions, but as usual I'm trying to assume AGAINST the case I'm arguing; if I can make a strong case in spite of such assumptions then that ends the line.
Why do we make *those* assumptions? Because I'm projecting a US1 combined fleet push to Iwo Jima, reinforced by UK sub/cruiser (another assumption). Battleship, carrier, cruiser (UK) destroyer, 2 submarines (one UK), two fighters, that's the defense. Pretty hefty. The threat is interdiction; US can use battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, six fighters against Japan's waters east or west. Something like that. Maybe a bomber? Anyways, a lot. Plus US has invasion threats against Japan, Manchuria, Philippines, probably some others but that'll do to be getting on with.
So the argument for J1 destroyer is that it's a *preventative* measure. But you can already see where that argument's a little weird. If Japan wants to line up a counter to US1 to Iwo Jima, a submarine would be better than a destroyer for attack. Japan already *has* a surviving destroyer so a sub build would act as fodder, and after first round casualties if Japan ends up with no destroyers, that happens in just the same way whether J1 builds destroyer or sub.
But let's say clearly that argument is wrong, so we're not seriously straw man arguing J1 destroyer as part of a hard counter to Iwo Jima anyways.
But then what does the J1 destroyer do? Again, we KNOW the J1 destroyer carries an opportunity cost to Japan, Japan will never recover those two ground units on Asia on J2 that it would have off a transport build.
Let's look at mid-late KJF. Once Japan's waters are interdicted, Japan can no longer build submarines (otherwise US just comes in with a destroyer and mass air and flattens the build). If Japan captures India (which I say it should even against KJF), then Japan has a backup base, but there can be an awkward period in which Japan can't build naval reinforcements at Japan yet Japan *has not yet* captured India.
But that's submarines? What about destroyers? All right, what about them? If US wants to shift its fleet (and that DOES happen in KJF), then Japanese submarines MIGHT be able to be built. But US's air will almost ALWAYS be in range of Japan's waters. That means any new Japan destroyer or carrier (or whatever surface ship) build can get flattened at little risk and likely little cost to US.
So the J1 destroyer build is to establish a defense that US can't crack. OR the J1 destroyer is intended that Japan can have a sub hunter / blocker AND retain a SECOND destroyer for its main fleet.
Now that starts to make sense. But does it *really* make sense?
We know US is gaining a timing in Pacific if it pushes fast to Iwo Jima. But it isn't free, not in the KGF, because US *air* must also commit, and US just doesn't have any fodder ground other than its starting units in China which are probably out of range of US Pacific air for the most part anyways. And here we're arguing the projected KJF lines because as 1baddude wrote, you *shouldn't* assume that the Allies are going KGF, you DO need to prepare against KJF (if you do need to prepare, which I'm arguing you don't).
Look at that projection again. US battleship, carrier, destroyer, submarine, six fighters, threatening Japan's waters *and* waters off Kwangtung where Japan would like to offload to Yunnan. But when you REALLY start looking closely at it, it starts to come apart. In 1942 Second Edition there's some things Allies can do to keep it together, but in 1942 Online not so much.
First, we ASSUMED that Japan's fleet is out of position to counter Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima's Allied forces, again, are battleship, cruiser, destroyer, carrier, two fighters, two submarines. If Japan IS in position to counter, Japan's counter is two battleships, two carriers, destroyer, submarine, six fighters, one bomber. That's not great for Allies.
So WHY is Japan out of position, considering Japan KNOWS US1 push to Iwo Jima is a danger? The answer *has* to be Allies left openings elsewhere. They might not be GREAT openings, but there must be a reason Japan *allowed* US to come in range.
I'm not saying Axis have some great wonderful timing. They probably don't as we're assuming the players are competent so Allies won't leave some big stupid opening. But if the Axis do not have a J2 counter to Iwo Jima, as we ARE assuming the players are competent, we know Axis has SOMETHING SOMEWHERE nice to compensate.
Second, we ASSUME Japan can't defend against US attack of battleship, destroyer, submarine, carrier, six fighters, bomber. But we're assuming UK did NOT hit Japan's East Indies fleet. We know that because we're already stipulating UK blew up the Kwangtung destroyer/transport, and we assume UK doesn't like bad-odds battles so won't have hit East Indies. And though we're arguing Allies *CAN* take the KJF line, we're really starting to push into thin ice as we're assuming NOT Japan's PRE-EMPTIVE PREVENTATIVE measures against a potential US1 push to Iwo Jima. If we're talking serious Japan fleet defense, we're talking about US1 COMMITMENT to Iwo Jima, and the *dedicated* KJF.
So US battleship, destroyer, submarine, carrier, six fighters, bomber against Japan's two battleships, cruiser, two carriers, destroyer, submarine, four fighters. That does sound pretty good for Allies.
Except that never happens. Because that assumes after the US1 push to Iwo Jima (and US committing all its air to the theater) that Japan does *literally nothing*, Japan doesn't counter Iwo Jima (maybe), but also Japan builds ZERO defense AND leaves its main fleet in range for an odds-off major stack naval defense. We ARE assuming the players are competent, so we know that doesn't happen.
==
Well, you see the box I'm building. I'm saying J1 destroyer build isn't good for countering US1 push to Iwo Jima. I'm saying J1 destroyer is unneeded for defending against a US1 Iwo Jima navy/air based threat, because J2 hits the timing anyways (and I'm not even getting into destroyer blocking or fleet splitting with Japan, that's just kind of costly and premature).
Then I'm also claiming the J1 destroyer build doesn't push the Mediterranean because even if you *do* build it, it's sort of overkill, do Allies REALLY want to cut their early transport infrastructure to build submarines? Okay, Germany has less pressure at Karelia/France, and though I said 9 Axis VC isn't a thing, it BECOMES a thing if the Allies play into it. Japanese capital ships can hold the Med just fine for a *little* while, that allows Germany to build a transport or even ride Japanese transports, then that opens up German income in Africa even if it's *just a little* that does make a difference in the whole income / logistics optimization battle.
Then I'm saying J1 destroyer build has an opportunity cost of two Japanese ground units in Asia, and I'm saying Japan can never recover that timing. Which is true.
So is J1 destroyer REALLY solid? Sure, I do miss things. But what did I miss in there?
That assumes Germany controls West Russia.
I've been jumping around a lot addressing hypotheticals. And a lot of the supporting points that would apply I've written in *other* threads, not this one.
But my argument in this thread right along (actually my argument for more than a year) is Allies should preserve West Russia AT THE EXPENSE of India.
So where you're saying Japan won India and Germany retreats from West Russia, I'm saying Japan won India but Germany *doesn't* retreat from West Russia because Germany *isn't there yet*.
If we assume competent players, I'm willing to agree Germany will have some sort of timing attack against West Russia, and that it can get very very ugly for Allies.
But I am NOT going to agree that Germany taking West Russia is a GIVEN. That area should be a real fight. I'm not talking about actual close stack battles, maybe one side or the other retreats instead of staying to fight, but the area should certainly be contested.
Assume Allies have been doing what I've been saying they should do, build transports and ground and pushing Finland/Norway. Let's also assume the Allies have *some* degree of UK/US air cover in Atlantic, for fleet escorts if nothing else.
There's a bunch of branches.
First, again if Japan pushes Hawaiian Islands early, the Axis WILL pay at India. It's not "just one transport", it's one transport for four turns, Japan's economy is quite tight, UK and US may well have a submarine each in the area, diverting Japan capital ships pulls bombardment off, diverting Japanese air leaves it out of range of India. There is no way to compensate.
You could argue Japan can develop a timing against India AND Hawaiian Islands, that you can overwhelm both at the same time, then you can say that Japan pushing Hawaiian Islands early *in spite* of the opportunity cost *create* a key VC timing threat that can't easily be addressed (or maybe you'd say it *can't* be addressed)
But I reply again the Axis will pay at India. It doesn't have to be AT India really, maybe it's in Africa, maybe at Persia, maybe at Caucasus, maybe it's at Ukraine/Bulgaria-Romania/Poland, but reduced Japanese pressure on India means UK has more freedom to push to Persia then to help USSR in Europe.
I'll agree it's not obvious, and for some players it's quite a shift to think about proper Axis and Allied control over France, Germany, and Karelia (and depending, perhaps Italy) to prevent the 9 VC condition, as opposed to preventing Axis capture of Moscow.
But that's just how it is. The Allies need to understand if they're not developing that pressure in the KGF, they're playing to lose.
There's the seemingly contradictory line that isn't REALLY contradictory - that Germany wants to reduce the USSR stack, but USSR also wants to reduce the Germany stack. A lot of players never reconcile that internally and they end up following dogmatic ideas like "I must not initiate major stack battles with USSR" or "I can't take a coinflip major stack battle with USSR, I can only do major stack battles to punish stupid Axis players".
But if you think about it, if the Allies want to contest Karelia, then the German Karelia stack defense MUST be reduced. The longer Germany builds and builds on Karelia, the harder it is for USSR, UK, and/or US to mount *separate* attacks against such a stack, even sequential Allied attacks end up ugly.
And if the Axis want to break Russia, then the USSR stack MUST be reduced (and by Germany). There's just no way that Japan builds up enough of a stack with any kind of timing to contest Russia's starting stacks PLUS its build PLUS UK/US air reinforcements, unless we're talking . . . whatever, J17 or something ridiculous and Axis control Africa and Allies let Axis control Africa, and Allies let Axis just build up and build up and now Axis are just comfortably throttling Allies to death. Normally, you need to have a German-USSR clash, BOTH sides want it. Maybe Germany tries to make a serious run on Russia, maybe Germany only tries to weaken Russia enough that Japan can conquer it, but there should be a major stack battle between Germany and USSR regardless.
But the fight is over WHERE that USSR-Germany stack battle happens and WHEN and WHAT the results are.
USSR wants to screw up Germany's stack defense on Karelia, allowing UK and US to break through in time.
Germany wants to screw up Germany's stack defense on West Russia, Caucasus, or Russia.
If USSR's stack gets pushed back so it can't contest Germany's Karelia stack defense *then the Allies probably lost right there*. The Allies player should KNOW that, so NOT let the Axis push them back, EVEN IF it means a stack battle is slightly unfavorable, they just have to suck it up and take the chance. Because if USSR retreats, the Allies WILL lose, because the Axis will EXACTLY just sit on Karelia, Hawaiian Islands, and India, and win right there. (And even if the Axis didn't win on VCs immediately, if Axis choke off Allied reinforcements at Finland by fortifying Karelia, what do YOU think happens when Germany's stack shifts to West Russia and the Finland stack just can't catch up in time to defend Moscow? Right, Allies lose anyways.
So that's where you start to see the line I'm pushing. I'm saying something like in SOME games, USSR should strafe Karelia even if it's a pretty coinflippy attack. The Allies should have contingencies for USSR to *safely* retreat to West Russia (i.e. Germany can't just blow up West Russia with a vicious counter, which can happen if the Allies didn't take deliberate action to stop it). That reduction in Germany's defense opens the door for a later UK/US push, and though USSR IS reduced, the purpose of the attack is less the *immediate* change in position (probably Germany *still* holds Karelia), but the LATER projected balance of UK/US pressure against Germany, and Germany's reduced ability to counter that pressure as a result of losses to USSR's attack.
Does USSR want to fight a coinflippy stack battle? Of course not. If at all CONVENIENT, USSR should never fight a coinflippy stack battle, nobody really should, even if USSR has a pretty safe retreat, you STILL don't just want to take on coinflippy stuff if you don't have to. If you can just reduce the Axis by safer means, then you do exactly that, just squeeze Axis to death without ever having to take any major chances.
. . . problem is Axis don't want you to do that.
Returning to the point, I've asserted and called out Japanese capturing Hawaiian Islands requires investment and is telegraphed. And to this point I made the "raw forces" argument that's relatively obvious, if Japan has capital ships and air near Hawaiian Islands, of COURSE that's Japanese land and air not near India, of COURSE there's less Japanese air in Europe, of COURSE Allies have a slightly easier time of it.
. . . but that's not convincing? You've already thought of that? Sure. I don't doubt it.
But I think my idea of "competence" might be different. Because as well as what I'd call the blatantly obvious response is also the LESS obvious. That when the Allies see Japan popping off towards Hawaiian Islands, that IMMEDIATELY signals Russia to start looking for a Karelia strafe.
And will that strafe come off? Well it was stipulated that Japan's pushing Hawaiian Islands early, Japan *doesn't* have India yet. We'll say Germany's timing in Europe hasn't *quite* developed crucial pressure on West Russia either. We're going to assert firmly that West Russia DOES hold.
So you see where I'm going with this. I'm saying sure, some USSR players are not going to hit the Karelia stack because - I don't know, mental blocks, whatever. On the other hand, I'm saying probably I will hit Karelia. Maybe not. Depends on the board situation. But you can see I'll be THINKING about it, because I *know* USSR wants to force a major stack battle with Germany sometime in the KGF. And I've said USSR wants that to be at Karelia. So . . .?
Now think about every post I've ever written on these Steam forums. I've said right along that Russia sends its Asia units west towards Archangel. I've always said the battle against Germany is close. You see how much I ranted about stack battles in other posts when I was talking about Japan preparing for a stack battle at India, you saw how horribly cheap and grasping I was denying a J1 destroyer saying "wow, two less land units in Asia on J2", never mind the whole Hawaiian Islands rants.
So when I say Russia is preparing for a major stack battle - that's just consistent with everything I've written. My claiming Russia should often go 4 infantry 3 artillery build is consistent with R2 positioning to West Russia preparing for R3 against Karelia. I've written the "plum" for the West Russia / Ukraine open is if Russia *retreats its tanks* not least because it preserves Russia's tanks for, among other things, pressure against Karelia.
So let's say Japan pushes towards Hawaiian Islands. I say USSR pushes tanks at Moscow. Now think about how this all breaks down.
We just said Japan doesn't control India yet. Right? So where are Japanese fighters? Yunnan, Burma, or Ukraine. Those are the usual suspects. Yunnan is kind of generic defense against KJF, Burma and Ukraine are in range of India and also defend Axis timing pushes. We could say Japan's fighters are elsewhere, but the one place we know they are NOT is Karelia.
Why? Because Karelia is four spaces from India. West Russia, Caucasus, Persia, India. That means Japanese fighters on Karelia CANNOT threaten India.
So we know that the Axis are developing a timing attack on India right? Okay. But Japan's main air isn't in range? Also again, we're saying some of Japan's air and capital ships may have split to the Pacific.
So JUST HOW STRONG is the Karelia defense, exactly? JUST HOW STRONG is the Axis push on India?
I'm perfectly willing to agree the Axis can have this, this, and that. But how much do the Axis have? We're assuming competent players, with reasonable dice, just how are the Axis breaking all these positions open?
The pretty obvious counterargument is you can't count on USSR having tanks surviving off Ukraine (okay), USSR building tanks is EXPENSIVE and reduces USSR's eventual stack defense (agreed), maybe Japan does fortify Karelia with fighters then shifts off later, or maybe Japan doesn't even *need* its air to hit India. Sure, and more besides.
But the counter is if Allies do NOT mess up Germany SOMEWHERE, then how do Allies deal with Germany's stack defenses? If Allies keep retreating, where is the reversal? Where is the Allies' best chance? And what, EXACTLY, is the Axis timing, and what openings did that leave? Because the Axis MUST have left SOMETHING.
I'm not saying Axis left something because Axis are *stupid*. I"m just saying there's dice results, there's probability distributions, there's actual outcomes, and this is *not* all some abstraction. I just described how you *can't* get Japan fighters defending Karelia AND pressuring India, something really DOES have to give SOMEWHERE.
I remember Japan ICs were used in Global. I forget if those were good lines or not, been years since I've done Global, but I'll say in 1942 Second Edition / 1942 Online, Japan ICs are right out.
First, the exception. If you have R1-G1 dice breaks into Germany breaking West Russia and pure German tank build, you have a slight logistic advantage by going J1 Manchuria IC for three tank placement on J2. It works out to Japan gets ONE more unit in on the timing compared to transport builds, and Japan loses a load of flexibility . . . but with tank dash, that one unit could be crucial, in a very real mathematical sense.
But otherwise? No.
Say J1 IC on Borneo. You need 2 transports to offload 4 units, then those transports are *locked* to Borneo. Otherwise there's no point in having a Borneo IC.
You get a timing advantage in being able to offload to Burma every turn. Sure. But your J1 IC build followed by J2 placement means Borneo land units don't push to Burma until J3.
But Japan catches up on the timing? It doesn't. Even at 45 IPCs, Japan is a miser desperately digging through the couch for loose change.
Let's say J1 build is 3 transports and ground. I know, this contradicts what you said about a J1 destroyer, but I consider assuming a J1 destroyer works against the point you're making so I assume otherwise. And let's say the Kwangtung destroyer/transport are dead.
J1 does whatever, then perhaps J2 requires committing a transport somewhere other than Yunnan. But let's say the J2 drop is six units to Yunnan.
By J2, Japan's seen the US1 Atlantic fleet drop. I assume the KGF, because that's the assumption of the thread, but the J1 3 transport build has applications against the KJF too. (Summing up a few thousand words, Japan has to push land AND sea, if Japan ONLY pushes sea then UK-controlled India crowds Japan out, if Japan ONLY pushes land then Japan loses control of the sea then loses its economy then it's just awkward).
Anyways J2 sees the US1 fleet drop, then what? Japan needs four transports JUST to offload Japan's production capacity from Japan. But there's all those Japanese infantry on those islands, particularly Philippines and East indies. So you can easily see how a FIFTH Japanese transport would be nice to have.
So let's say the J2 buy is a transport, five infantry, two artillery. That's 30 IPC right there. But that leaves some IPC unspent? That's okay, I did say Japan is a horrible miser.
What happens with Japan's tank? It's really useful; Japan can drop it to northeast Asia then redirect to India for the timing. Japan can push to Yunnan and threaten. Can blitz through unopposed areas if there's no defense. And of course, it's nice to have another high dice at India. That's probably where it ends up. We won't say the tank just SITS at Burma waiting to invade, let's say it has lots of exciting adventures all over Asia or something, then it joins up late just before the India invasion's about to kick off.
But then? Problem is, we just don't know what openings the Allies will leave. We're not saying the Allies are stupid. But if the Allies push in one area, the Axis don't have to beat their head against that defense, they can (and should) often just redirect.
So we don't KNOW that the Japan tank ends up at India. Maybe instead it's used to push Axis timings in Europe. And what does THAT mean?
One nice thing about Japanese tanks in India is, you drop them to Africa, then Japan scoops up a lot of income pretty fast. But the problem is usually you want TWO tanks. There's that UK infantry on Union of South Africa that probably headed north looking for trouble along with some UK air cover. Then maybe US dropped something to French West Africa. And even if not, probably there's some sort of Allied air around that will snipe off an isolated Japanese tank given half a chance.
So Japan probably wants ANOTHER two tanks. If you consider Japan's "core build" against KGF as four infantry two artillery to hit its timing against India, that's twenty IPC right there. It goes up to twenty-six if you add two more infantry to fill Japan to capacity, and if you're pushing two Japanese tanks it goes to thirty-two.
So we've accounted for the J1 build, the J2 build, and the J3 build. Problem is it's still not near enough. No no.
If Japan holds Burma, that gives bombers on Japan a landing zone. What happens when Japanese transports shift off Yunnan to hit India? Those transports can't be used to offload from Japan to Yunnan that turn or the next as they're out of position. Sure. But what can Japan do to maybe help the India attack along? Bombers. Bombers produced on Japan can hit India and land in Burma (assuming Japan DOES hold Burma), and though air builds are not the greatest, I mentioned Japan has various uses for air against the KGF, and I mean REAL CONCRETE TIMING APPLICATIONS, Japanese air is really nice, oh yes, and the fact Japanese logistics and production kind of sucks against Russia, oh well.
So imagine you're holding for bomber builds. Eight bombers cost ninety-six IPCs. There's JUST NO WAY Japan hits that mark. And again, you notice I talk TIMINGS. I don't talk about ATTACKS. Vaguely shoving units at an opponent is an "attack". Careful planning so you hit optimal probability distributions is a "timing".
Okay so *no matter what* Japan built, we have this crazy 96 IPC wall that Japan can certainly never hope to reach. But what about AFTER India is taken?
Well, Japan's still digging through the couch for change. Even at 45 IPC or whatever.
First, I say Germany's production and logistics are best directed to push land against Russia. I wrote earlier that Germany does need to try to force a major stack battle against USSR, and USSR also wants to force a stack battle with Germany; I'm saying *how* that happens (even if the actual battle is avoided what happens as a consequence) sets the stage for how the game is won or lost.
So if Germany's pushing land, what about the Allied Atlantic fleet? What about defense? UK/US can direct their forces all along the coast, how can Germany defend EVERYWHERE?
I wrote in SOME games, I agree Japan ends up needing to build up to break a major USSR stack. Then Japan needs to build ICs. At that point, you start looking at something like Japan having transports just sitting around (maybe), then you want to push, say, twelve Japanese units a turn, fifteen units a turn, that fills out Japan's income of 45+. But I say you do NOT push Japanese ICs UNTIL it becomes apparent they REALLY ARE needed. Until then, you try to do . . . shenanigans, I'd say, shenanigans with Japanese air.
Okay so say you have Manchuria and Borneo ICs, you're pumping Japanese infantry whatever, blah blah unit count. You still can't break USSR's stack unless Germany got a major hit in, but whatever.
I've written right along, not just in this thread, that Allies should be building pressure at Karelia, that's where the real fight is in KGF. There were some posts in this thread that talked about 9 VCs, I kept beating on that Allied pressure at Karelia, because I said India falls anyways (provided players are competent and it's a KGF), and I said Allies MUST push Karelia.
I just described all the J1-J3 builds, I projected a J4+ build of pure bombers for a timing push . . . and I've said elsewhere and say here now that I say Japan pushes AIR after capturing India. Japan's limited to 11 units between Japan and India, but air units easily suck up all the income.
Now, you can see how Japanese fighters can help defend Karelia and can threaten Finland/Norway landings. Sure. Japanese bombers on Finland or Alaska or Karelia, trading points in Asia along with those Japanese fighters and Japan's forward land units. Sure okay, you see all that.
The more Japan pushes air, the more the Allies have issues. Karelia's harder to break, maybe UK/US fleet has to be locked to Finland/Norway instead of UK having the freedom to split off, etc.
BUT what happens if instead Japan starts pushing ICs?
Well you just don't get all these nice things, sure you can maybe still get UK/US fleet locking with Japan and Germany's *existing* air force. But you're far less likely to get anything approaching an odds-on battle. Your options WILL be limited, you're just chaining infantry towards Russia. And what does that accomplish, for a long while? Was USSR pushing Japan in Asia, fighting for 1-IPC territories instead of 2-IPC territories in Europe? No. Can Japan break USSR's stack defense? No. Can Japan even reach the contested area of Karelia? No! It's all well and good that Japan is building up unit count in Asia *but it doesn't matter* if Germany's being rolled up.
If you want to hold Karelia, look at JUST how long it takes Japan to reinforce Karelia with infantry. Sick, right? Then compare to fighters. Then think about how long it'll take the Allied timing to hit. If the Allied player was on the ball at all, the Axis JUST CAN'T AFFORD THE DELAY in Karelia, I wrote there's a UK3/US3 fleet timing in Atlantic, but that's LATE, the Allies CAN hit earlier and they WILL if there's any sort of opening.
I write about TIMINGS. Not "attacks". Attacks are kinda like you hopefully shove a mass of units at your opponent and hope they screw up. Timings, you look all around the board for any sort of opening, you stick a wedge in the smallest opening and start prying away to try to create some sort of gap, it's the difference between swimming in a lake (a lot of water that's not GOING anywhere) and a hydraulic jet that literally cuts rock (a lot less water but a lot more direction).
If you want to say Japan pushes tanks to Karelia instead of infantry, all right. But you can still see where Japan's digging through the couch for change. You drop an IC at Borneo, you dedicate 29 IPC (15 IPC IC and 14 IPCs of transports) to offload two infantry and two other ground units a turn to Burma. That's IPCs you're NOT spending on tanks. Or IPCs you're not spending on air. Anyways that cost is going to come from somewhere.
Sure, if you say Borneo IC is good, I can believe it in some situations. But really look at the timings, the numbers. My expectation is normally a Japanese Borneo IC *isn't* good. In SOME games, sure, like imagine UK and US are going crazy on Atlantic fleet escorts, and they're just not pressuring Germany at all . . . no wait, in that case they didn't contest Karelia and France so after Japan captured Hawaiian Islands the Axis got 9 VCs and won. So Borneo IC not good after all.
Just my little joke there, but seriously, I wouldn't be building a Borneo IC early, and even late I'd REALLY be thinking about that opportunity cost.
I don't know that I'd say 1 turn, fixed. But it WILL slow Japan.
yep
responding to my inquiry about UK's Med ships; the Allied counters aren't under discussion so sure, agreed, everything going according to plan for both Axis and Allies, good chances for both I'd say, and if Allies don't have a good response to German income from Africa that's winning for Axis
Right now I'm reading your proposed G1 as something like 9 infantry for Germany, 1 carrier for Italy, Bulgaria-Romania fighter hits UK destroyer off Egypt, Germany fighter and 1 Atlantic sub hit UK cruiser off Morocco, other Atlantic sub, Baltic sub and cruiser, and NW Europe and Norway fighters hit UK battleship/destroyer/transport and USSR sub. USSR held West Russia. Sound about right?
We don't know where Germany's Poland fighter went. But Norway/NW Europe fighter land . . . where? France? Norway? Finland? The Germany fighter's on Morocco, the Bulgaria-Romania fighter is dead or on the German carrier.
Now I start chopping stuff up. I'm saying Germany hits UK's cruiser with sub and fighter because I'm assuming you said US would send a destroyer to Morocco *because the German submarine is alive*. If the German submarine is alive, if US wants to invade Morocco, transports can't ignore enemy submarines when offloading unless they have a warship along, so you have to bring the US destroyer. If the German submarine wasn't alive - well, that might have happened, but the German submarine must have been *sent*, as we're assuming the players are competent and US won't be suicide a destroyer for no reason.
What I'm working towards is you've said the UK battleship fight is important. I agree. But the question is what you're thinking on that attack, what the costs are, what the probability distributions are, what the potential benefits are.
Suppose you said US sends a destroyer to Morocco because (brain fart). Suppose you REALLY want a safe battle at UK battleship, then you send all the submarines, the cruiser, and Germany's two fighters. Even if you get pretty good dice, UK's destroyer at East Canada along with UK air has a good chance of wiping the German fleet. If UK fighters commit then they can't make West Russia, but UK can split. Anyways odds are Axis have no submarines in Atlantic at start of G1. Which is okay, but I assume that's NOT what you're talking about so I won't address it unless you say that IS what you're talking about.
Suppose you said US sends a destroyer to Morocco because you really *do* want to send a German submarine and German fighter to the cruiser. I wouldn't assume that so much, but you wrote "destroying UK ships is a must" (and I assume you're not talking about the UK destroyer/transport off East Canada as you said as much, I assume you're referencing the UK cruiser and destroyer near Med that can threaten Germany's fleet). Then you're trading that submarine for the chance Allies won't blow it up (reasonable but NOT COMPLETELY safe) but mostly to preserve the German fighter. Also okay.
But contrast to the outcomes if you send a German submarine to the East Canada destroyer/transport. If you don't do that, then I question the whole game plan.
If you push Atlantic sub to UK cruiser, you make a German fighter safer. But Germany's *already* risking its Bulgaria-Romania fighter against the UK destroyer off Egypt. So it must be that you're willing to take risks with German air to preserve German navy, but what's the plan? Compare to the benefits you get off attacking UK destroyer/transport off East Canada.
If you preserve a German fighter at Morocco, what does that really do? Eventually maybe you can use it against USSR. It's way out of position, but EVENTUALLY you can do something. Maybe you can push Africa with it. Sure. You already have a load of German air in the area what with the carrier, but anyways you can do SOMETHING with it. BUT . . . probably later, right? It's not that you have an immediate tactical use, it's more just like Germany saying" yep, I like keeping air, let's do that".
Contrast to Germany pushing East Canada.
. . . no?
But seriously. 1/3 chance German submarine lives
Let's say you do this battle BEFORE the UK battleship attack.
Suppose UK destroyer / transport live. Aw. 2/3 chance that didn't happen, but it DOES happen. What did you give up? Probably not much. You increased your risk against the UK battleship, but if you were willing to split off an Atlantic sub for the UK cruiser, you were already comfortable going in with reduced odds, here you're just redistributing where that German sub went.
Suppose UK destroyer dies. Interesting!
You don't want to build more German submarines, I've said Germany wants to push land against Russia. But if you have a couple surviving, you don't throw them away either.
Off medium to bad results the German submarines vs UK battleship die. Oh well.
Suppose the German submarine lives. FASCINATING!
So you look at those real, and really big, benefits. They're not "in the bank" safe, certainly not nearly as safe as using a German submarine to protect the German fighter off hitting the UK cruiser. But they're BIG payoffs.
. . . but Germany's air is also big?
But is it?
With the German Med carrier plan you're already risking German air. Sure. And you want to preserve air. Sure. But instead of pushing a move that though chancy leaves you with some chance at really strong options, instead you push a move that *preserves* German air that you already risked.
So what's the plan? You're pushing a German Med fleet . . . why? Sure you want to feed Germany's income. But with what end? You push infantry, a couple artillery perhaps, maybe try to bankroll some tanks for a timing . . . when does it make such a big difference that you preserved German air?
. . . I can see how it works out if you're also saying Japan is building ICs. You push Japan's air to Europe, you preserved German air, you have some sort of Axis threat to Atlantic shipping, sure, I get that.
But I just finished a bunch of rants about Germany pushing *ground* and *Japan* pushing air (and timings, always timings).
If you build a box in which Germany doesn't have much air, and Japan doesn't have much air, and you're building Japan ICs and Axis are kinda ballooning slowly, if you totally throw all the timing attacks I described out the window, if (maybe) you're NOT really trying to threaten a 9 VC win condition then . . . okay, THEN I see how the game plan involves using the Atlantic submarine for odds of preserving that German fighter.
But why use a game plan that increases the odds the Axis *won't* hit their key timings on offense or defense, that eliminates even *possibilities* of Axis being able to legitimately press early timings, giving the Allies more time to find a counter?
If the argument is something like the Axis timings aren't "safe" - they're not "safe", that's true. If the argument is a slow Axis push is more certain - I'd disagree. If the argument is going for Axis "timings" wrecks the Axis plan for attrition, I'd disagree.
This is where we're just disagreeing. I'm saying compare that to J1 three transports (with Kwangtung destroyer/transport dead), J2 one transport and infantry/artillery, J3 infantry/artillery/tank mix, J4+? bombers. My last post, I described the timings, and though you can say there's variations, you can see *just about* how what I'm writing hits.
Contrast with talk of a J1 destroyer and a J1 Borneo IC. What, exactly, is the timing there? If you're placing a J1 IC, then how *exactly* does that support a J2 attack on Australia? You can't mobilize units on Borneo on J1, you can only mobilize at end of J2. And even then, how is the Borneo timing a "devastating" attack on India on J3, compared to a J1 transport buy, J2 drop to Yunnan, and (if the Allies DID leave an opening) and a J2 bomber buy hitting for a J3 India timing? I don't think it's better. And for sustained drops, needing to commit two transports to Borneo is . . . tight. You could MAYBE make a case for Borneo IC if you say Japan has "excess" transports (which if Japan was doing a timing disruption attack against Alaska wouldn't be the case, if Japan was pushing Australia and Africa again not the case) . . . but I digress.
PERHAPS there was a bit of theorycrafting going on there talking about the Borneo IC? Well, a bit of theorycrafting never hurt anyone, I noticed I edited an earlier post to correct Axis' threat against Moscow from 24 units a turn to 23 units a turn, but didn't correct later quotes. So like, whatever, didn't dot every i, cross every t, not like I'm being super careful either.
But if we DO clear things up, what IS the intent? If I say Axis are 23 units against 4 in the mid-late game against Russia, then it's not 24 against 4, but the general point still holds. If Borneo doesn't have a superior timing early, though - mmm, well, if you clear up typos and think it over, maybe the point that was being made with Borneo just doesn't apply, right?
After all, if Borneo isn't better early or mid - then it shouldn't *be* built early or mid, if you don't have a superior line or a transposition into superior line, then it's just not superior, right?
Japanese ICs for tank dash after G1 West Russia break and German tank build - sure. Let's do that. But any other Japanese IC, I'd have to be convinced. If this were GLOBAL then Japanese ICs, very interesting! But in 1942 Second Edition and 1942 Online then *how, exactly* are they better?
And for the timings I describe - it's not that I'm JUST theorycrafting. I'm giving numbers, specifics, timings. Does it work how I wrote or not? If UK and US do nothing but fly fighters to Russia, should Allies expect to win? Or in the KGF, should UK and US build transports as I say they should? If I'm correct that UK/US need to build pressure on Karelia, how is that best accomplished to hit the key timing? We don't have to dogmatically insist that UK/US should ONLY build transports. If UK builds a transport and infantry, that's 10 IPCs that projects 1 attack, contrast to building a fighter that's 10 IPC that projects 3 attacks. Transports have a sunk cost, it's only over time that superior numbers of infantry begin to tell, so there IS a tradeoff.
But we're not debating the finer point of timings and counter-timings now. The subtext of questions is "do timings even EXIST?" That's exactly the sort of question that's implied off talking about J1 destroyers, J1 ICs, saying the UK destroyer/transport off East Canada isn't really worth it at all (maybe not! but you can see how I think there's a *question*), then there's me saying Hawaiian Islands falls AFTER India (some exceptions but I'd say normally), that being questioned, me claiming 9 Axis VCs isn't a thing (I mean if the Allies PLAY INTO it it BECOMES a thing, I'm just saying PLAYING INTO it is so far from what I think competent players do I frankly never seriously considered it) etc.
So DO TIMINGS EXIST?
I wrote a load of stuff on timings and mechanics to say yes, they do exist, so instead of popping up a load of text walls maybe see what responses are (if any) and go from there.