G1 11 inf 2 art VERSUS 6 tank + discretionary, failure states discussed
Any plan has a “failure state”, beyond which failure is almost certain. It should make sense that instead of not discussing what that how that is most likely to happen, not defining what transitional states are likely to occur en route to that failure state, not discussing how to convert a transitional state back into a likely winning state, well, that’s just not thinking.
WARNING
You have been warned.
Of what? That would ruin the surprise. Turn back, or don’t.
ONE FAILURE STATE
If R “stabilizes” then the Axis plan failed. G have to leverage quick pressure into a win.
NUH UH
. . . because a CLEVER G player will make use of tanks DEFENSIVELY, so ACKTUALLLY G1 6 tanks is ALWAYS GOOD
YUH HUH
Someone trying to “acktually” on above doesn’t understand G needs multiple infantry stacks against KGF. Failure state is fail. If G didn’t need quick tanks, don’t build quick tanks. Make sense?
TRANSITION TO FAILURE STATE
Hope y’all kids are ready, because this is where it sort of hits the fan.
The line specifies G1 Ukraine stack, doesn’t it. Without even specifying bleeding out Africa, I’ll mention, at least not that I’ve ever heard or read, and if I didn’t see it, it’s not because I wasn’t looking for it.
So you see that R2 can strafe a G1 Ukraine stack and why not, especially as J fighters can’t reinforce on J1. I wrote a post on these forums about G2 to Ukraine by the way, just saying.
What of G1 Ukr stack pressuring W Rus / Caucasus? If Allies fly in fighters, G ability to take on a combined Allied stack becomes questionable. At the very least, it should be understood G1 Ukr hold with G1 tank buy is not a line that should be played regardless of board state, because of the possibility of R2 strafe.
This is where it all starts to burn. Players claiming to be top meta say R2 strafe into G1 Ukr is nothing to worry about. Well, I believe those claims about being top meta. I just don’t think top meta is by any means something that lends weight to an argument. Even were the meta far far stronger, it does not follow that a top ranked player will necessarily correctly identify why they win. In this case, as in others where top meta players made claims, I have very specific reasons for finding presented arguments questionable.
(Note: My personal opinion about meta and meta discussion level aside, the points I make about G1 Ukr hold with G1 6+ tank buy are largely about the numbers.)
So let’s say R1 had good W Rus and Ukr strafe. You can see where this sets the stage for a bad G1 hold potentially.
That’s not even off perfect R1 W Rus, which is worse for G.
So you can see where it makes sense, G looking to G1 Ukr hold with G1 6+ tank build should be looking at the R1 W Rus battle results. You can also see where R2 has line on a decent strafe into Ukr, which robs G of forward infantry, making it difficult for G to maintain pressure - this, in the face of Allied fighters to W Rus making it difficult for G to press the Allied stack.
NOT THINKING: THE FIRST SIN
This is a fundamental weakness of the line. You can see where the mathematics supports consideration of R1’s outcomes before committing to G1 6 tanks purchase. Not merely because I say so, no. Look at the above, that is simply the fact.
It is not the supposed author of the line that brings it up (I say “supposed” as there were a lot of G tank writeups in Revised, and the 1942 Online board is similar enough in that theater that a lot of the same applies) It is not the author that raises specific issues with the line, it is aardvark bringing up the details, as ever.
But wait, as Sam Gamgee (of “The Lord of the Rings”) might say. There’s more.
Suppose we say that R1 strafes Ukraine. Remember again, I am saying G1 should play conditional to board state. It is other players that argue against and attack this thinking, they that say just go ahead and play blind into the board. That is top platinum strategy for you ladies and gentlemen, as it’s commonly used in meta discussion. Don’t think! Positive anathema.
Well, what does that R1 strafe into Ukraine mean? It means that maybe R has another 3 tanks and and an artillery. Maybe more!
That is really bad for G. Tweaking the numbers on the attack refining for two round can make it even nastier. You can at least see where a G player should be specifying clearly every infantry towards Ukraine, if there’s to be any possibility of a “bad” R strafe (say a capture) to be countered.
But wait, someone chimes in. If R strafed Ukraine, then Ukraine wasn’t captured, so G can land fighters. And what about the G bomber?
INATTENTION TO DETAIL: THE SECOND SIN
Remember. It is me that is saying these details are important, it is me that is bringing these up at all. Other “top players” argue to just ignore board state, just play the line, never mind the details. But you should see, the closer you look, the more the details matter. For someone to claim the details do not matter, is that still something that you can seriously entertain in light of the facts?
Besides, what if G1 does land fighters on Ukraine after a fairly successful R1 strafe?
I didn’t even add in as many R units as I could have. Instead of just thinking “4 fighters, that’s GOT to be good”, actually look!
But there’s a less obvious yet still deadly issue.
Where exactly are the G fighters?
See, there was a line of argument that G fighters are good because . . . .one assumes, because they can threaten sea zones. But what exactly do G fighters accomplish towards that end when parked on Ukraine at end of G1? Nothing!
But no, other posters may equivocate, G air is good against Allied Atlantic shipping, “top platinum” or such, supposedly it is I that does not understand?
Well, let’s get on that a bit. Suppose G fighters are to pressure sz3 (Norway/Finland). What is the Axis plan exactly? Are those G fighters on Karelia? NW Europe? Perhaps they may land on Iceland (never mind the Allied counter, or maybe do.) How exactly is G maintaining a Karelia stack without having produced G infantry earlier, and G tanks being at Ukraine/West Russia/Caucasus? When exactly do the G fighters hit? What specifically do they hit?
I say a lot of times you’ll see things in 1942 Online screenshots like an opponent buying battleships. Veteran players know, battleships are very specialist units, not generally good for cost. If a G player wipes a late poorly played battleship fleet, that’s quite a different matter to a G player wiping an optimal pressuring carrier/destroyer/fighter mix that takes advantage of already extant Allied fighters to quickly place a fairly powerful defensive fleet. A poorly executed Allied plan isn’t the same as a well executed one, even things like German fighter landing can be a real issue against a skilled opponent.
So why, then, do “top meta” players claim a line work, yet often do not produce any real useful details of note, why when looking at the number does there seem to be some sort of “magic” needed to make the numbers add up? I say observing that would be consistent with claims of a weak meta
I’m not even talking opportunity costs or timing, which are also things that should be considered. Just look at a proposed G1 hold, what do the numbers say, should players really ignore board state? I say clearly not.
What of explanations? Should players just buy air because it’s going to be useful against Allied shipping in some vague sense? Doesn’t it make sense that someone should be thinking about where that air is going to park?
IGNORING OPPORTUNITY COSTS AND TIMING: THE THIRD SIN
Well, none of that really matters, surely top platinum players have figured it out. Surely!
But think on it. Suppose G is in a transitional state where it’s weak near Karelia on G5. There’s every reason to think this; if G1 and G2 tanks as I’ve seen argued, and protecting France perhaps, or not, whatever, then suppose we say G3 infantry marched to Baltic States on G4, then Karelia G5 joined by tanks.
Well that sounds . . . pretty good!
But that’s because we’re not looking at things like Allied pressure against France. The G denial of income near Ukraine is assumed to have collapsed. So what exactly does G have to show for its denial of some USSR income? 2 IPC a turn is good, but exactly how much utility may G lose by having tanks instead of infantry?
Exactly how can all that be true?
This is where one really needs to think, not only what was gained, what was paid, but also what could have been paid?
Suppose I said G1 11 inf 2 art instead of G1 6 tanks +. There we don’t see that early denial to R of Ukr income, and there were other things G gained by pressure and aggression. But what were G’s proposed gains, exactly? Notice how supposed proponents of the line are silent on the matter. If these matters are important, which they are, then they should be mentioned. G loses a lot of units by buying tanks instead of infantry, especially if it’s two rounds, especially especially if it’s buying air as well. Something is going to be soft somewhere, and that needs accounting for. A wee surge in denied income just isn’t enough; there should be some specific major pressure in compensation for the opportunity cost in G infantry.
There’s also a question of what particularly Axis has to gain by G1 Ukr hold that wouldn’t be accomplished, by, say, G2 Ukr hold with J fighter reinforcements.
In short, instead of just accepting arguments by whoever at face value, which is “this can be used for this” (I blame the state of modern American football commentating, it just hasn’t been the same since Madden retired) - instead, look for arguments that say “this is what could have been done instead, here are the specific points of comparison, here is why this is better, here is why it is worse.”
WRAPPING UP FOR NOW
G1 Ukr hold with G1 6 tank + build, ignoring board state, look at R2 counter into G1 Ukraine, look at what G really has to gain by G1 Ukr hold, ask yourself if G2 Ukr is too late. Really ask. You really think G1 Ukr was going to lead to G2 W Rus / Cauc stack where R has no vicious counter? (Especially ignoring board state).
Think about speculative recommendations of G air in the G tank build. The Allies know you’re not going to want to send air at fleet which bleeds the G stack. There’s also a question of Axis landing zones.
I haven’t even mentioned what happens if Allies abandon India, how that plays out. Why should I? I’m not even arguing in favor of the G1 Ukr with G1 6 tank + buy line. I’m just saying some things that should be addressed, but which aren’t in meta discussions.
There’s also no talk of transition into J pressure. Plenty of other things.
