I replied to Sgt privately, but for the thread I can say that we still want to release at least one other patch. However, we’ve been stuck in contract negotiations with Hasbro for a few years, so no news yet. We’re also a small team and there are other projects that need (probably quicker) attention, such as our Infinity Engine games.
kjf no good in 1942 online
-
What should KJF/anti-KJF generally look like? There will be differences depending on dice results and player action, but assuming player competency I expect games to go something like this -
First, how I think it looks under 1942 Second Edition at GenCon (with bid). US pushes carriers to Solomons, UK flies fighters onto carriers, the combination is soon too much for Japan to get a good-odds battle, especially as Japan’s East Indies battleship, carrier, and two fighters are destroyed (and likely UK maintained some fleet on top of that). UK and US contest the money-islands and push Japan off the coast. UK and US have no very cost-efficient way of dealing with units Japan may have pushed into USSR’s interior, but it doesn’t matter so much at GenCon because drawn-out games are adjudicated anyways. If the game were to continue, though, UK fighters can reposition to defend Russia while US handles containing Japan and lends support.
1942 Online doesn’t look like that at all. Japan is far more likely to have its East Indies fleet, if UK even attempted an attack, UK fighters can’t land on US carriers, and if Japan is competently played, UK and US can’t effectively reinforce one another. Why? Japan offloads ground units to Yunnan that push Burma. This has to happen regardless; if Japan only produces navy and air then it gets rolled up in Asia then has no income to fight, and Germany has a much harder time aiding the recovery. Besides that, Japan only producing navy/air leaves the Allies a lot more flexibility as they don’t have nearly as many cost-efficient Japanese ground units to deal with.
In 1942 Online, then, what happens with Japan’s fleet off Yunnan? (Japan’s fleet might not go there immediately, but certainly by J3 that’s the expectation - and the only major exceptions are if there’s some sort of opening due to dice or player blunder that Japan is exploiting, so those lines don’t play out any better for Allies).
Note Yunnan’s sea zone is in striking range of India’s sea zone. Any new fleet UK places at India can immediately be punished. Then look at Asia’s coast. What happens if Japan temporarily loses position? Nothing. It’s not great, especially if USSR gets Manchuria and/or other territories that give USSR a nice bit of income. But it’s not a disastrous position for Japan or the Axis in general just so long as Japan doesn’t fight a major losing battle. Japan should threaten the Allies off as long as convenient and withdraw when the pressure becomes too much.
Put those together, and see how the game should play out in 1942 Online. Japan can cut off any UK attempt to build a Pacific fleet. It’s possible that UK might be able to establish some naval presence even with accurate Axis play, but in all likelihood the best-case scenario is still Japan destroying any UK fleet at some cost to Japan. From there the Axis position isn’t fantastic but any money UK put in to fight Japan is less Germany ever has to deal with, and even though US can grab all the money islands and southeast Asia, meanwhile Japan can have captured India, still be pressuring USSR, and be taking African income on top. Japan simply doesn’t care about temporary losses in the Pacific and Asian coast; once Russia and Caucasus fall to Axis, India follows, then it’s 15 Axis units being produced in the region to fight off any US aggression.
Yes, there’s variations, but variations aren’t really better for the Allies in 1942 Online. If UK does manage to keep some sort of UK fleet alive in Indian/Pacific, it still has to get those units to reinforce US. But with Japan posted off Yunnan, the only safe route for UK to travel is towards Australia. It’s a costly delay that the Allies can’t afford; by the time UK (if UK even has a fleet) unites with US, it’s very late, and Germany and Japan have made inroads on Asia.
Even all that assumes Japan simply loses in Asia, but that is not at all a safe assumption. Because of all the ways 1942 Online cripples KJF, I believe Japan is fairly safe building so it ends its turn with four transports barring aggression plus lucksack. The scenarios are 1) UK hits East Indies fleet, in which case the Kwangtung transport and Japan transport are alive; then Japan can build 1 carrier 2 transports and end with 4 transports. 2) UK hits Kwangtung destroyer/transport then Japan can likely destroy any UK navy lurking in the Indian/southwest Pacific (especially as it has its battleship, carrier, and fighters still), and builds three transports and ground. The exception is 3) if UK hits Kwangtung’s destroyer/transport and Japan’s East Indies fleet, and against odds wins at both regions.
So far I’ve addressed why 1942 Online KJF variations involving UK surface navy are horribly awkward. I have yet to address subs/air, air only, and ground push.
-
Last post I mentioned in 1942 Online, Japan can often safely end its turn with four transports. If the Allies decide to team up on Germany instead of Japan, Japan builds even more transports to alter its timings, then switches to air, particularly bombers on the turn before Japan anticipates India will fall (if the Allies try to defend India, Japanese bombers produced last turn add to Japan’s hitting power, and Japan’s transports are shifting off Yunnan to drop to India anyways so Japan’s going to be missing two main-transport-fleet drops anyways). If Allies decide to push Japan, Japan sees the US build fleet in Pacific, then Japan can start building two submarines a turn until US interdicts Japan’s waters, by which time Japan has a big attack lined up on India - which the Allies could hold but likely only by abandoning territory in Europe, allowing Germany to push harder and faster which isn’t great for the Allies anyways.
Anyways, Japan’s going to be dropping up to eight ground units into Yunnan that push to Burma for a while, then when the odds are good take the units it dropped into Yunnan last turn, pick up with transports to drop directly into India, along with bombers produced last turn. Meanwhile UK’s only boosting India at about five units a turn (assuming three ground and two fighters flying over from London.) Considering Japan’s large starting forces in the area, UK is quickly outmatched.
This is where KJF subs/air and air only run into issues. Japan’s pushing a big block of cost-effective infantry and artillery that’s backed up by Japan’s existing airforce and naval bombards - and though bombards are no longer as great as they were in earlier editions, they do still change the probability distributions on major battles. The more UK invests in navy/air, the harder it is for UK to fight that cost-efficient block, and in any event it’s very difficult (even impossible) for UK and US to really pin Japan’s navy down. It really doesn’t matter where Japan’s navy goes, so long as Japan’s navy isn’t destroyed it preserves the possibility of a comeback - and once Japan’s waters are interdicted (or in the KGF late game) Japan’s pushing loads of air anyways. So the Allies really have a horrible time trying to fend Japan’s ever-growing power off, India probably falls, then Japan has a fallback industrial complex from which it can produce ground, push India, reinforce its navy, and all the meantime fighters from Japan can be built up.
What of KJF ground-emphasis push? The problem is Germany. The more power UK and USSR push towards Japan, the less there is to deal with Germany, there’s just no way around it. Further, UK and USSR logistics are horribly telegraphed. If UK is building a chunk of units at India, either that chunk is going to push Persia then Kazakh/Caucasus to support USSR, or it’s going to push Burma. There’s just no place else to go. USSR units in northeast Asia are stuck where they are, those USSR units can’t just get back to reinforce Europe in any sort of good time, and as to USSR trying to contest Japan’s push through China, USSR fighters are awkwardly placed to even attempt supporting against Germany in Europe and Japan in China/Asia. Meanwhile, Japan can redirect masses of units with transports, plus Japan has its mighty air force. What will Allies do to defend India? Send masses of USSR units? Even a few means USSR can’t threaten Germany off its doorstep, then Germany will push and hold, choking off USSR income. Send blocks of units through China and northeast Asia? Any gains will be temporary unless USSR sends massive numbers of units, and any committed units will be far out of position to do anything in Europe - plus USSR can’t get artillery to the eastern front easily, and even USSR’s air isn’t going to be in range to threaten both Germany and Japan’s pushes until USSR is backed up to near Russia anyways.
Next post: summary.
-
Successful KJF relies on Allied timing. In 1942 Second Edition at GenCon this is accomplished by a bid that drastically changes the probability distributions on the opening, and Allied coordination that quickly pushes to contain Japan. Speed is essential; once Japan is contained, UK can switch its fighters from defending US’s fleets to defending Russia where defense will by then be badly needed.
1942 Online has no bid and makes a load of rules changes that take any semblance of fine control away from competent players. The Allies can try any number of variations, but there is no way to fix the timings. Even if allied use of carriers were implemented, other changes in 1942 Online turn what should be a coordinated attack into a ham-fisted tragedy.
To directly answer the question posed about KJF / anti-KJF -
If you are running KJF you need to find a way to slow Germany’s progress in Europe while pushing Pacific. Barring extraordinary dice, this should not happen if the Axis player is sharp.
If you are running anti-KJF you need to prevent UK and US from combining surface fleets in the Pacific for as long as convenient, particularly any UK carrier. You must not cower building only navy/air trying to “defend” Japan’s islands, that just forces Japan into a corner in which once it loses (as it inevitably will), there is no fallback. Rather, push ground, capture India, then Japan has a second territory far removed from Japan to build its navy (if it so chooses) or to serve as a springboard to push harassing units to Europe/Asia and/or Africa. Whatever losses you take on the Pacific coast will be regained once Germany captures Russia, then Germany’s ground masses head into Africa and Asia and Japan uses its massive navy and air force to push the Allies off the coast.
Edit - “push ground” doesn’t mean pure ground. After seeing US1 Pacific fleet drop, Japan tries to push six ground two submarines until US interdicts Japan’s waters (making any submarine builds unsafe unless Japan commits its fleet to defense which it often doesn’t want to do.) Japan switches to bomber production before the turn it plans to shift its transports from the Japan-Yunnan drops to a Yunnan-India drop (the transports won’t be in position next turn to pick up from Japan anyways and bombers help threaten India provided Japan managed to hold Burma to give an eligible landing zone). Later Japan switches to fighters that help deal with a growing US invasion threat but that can also fly inwards towards Asia/Europe to help pressure USSR and/or push off any UK fleet (if UK built an Atlantic fleet). It’s quite easy for Japan to get into situations in which it’s producing only three ground a turn at India and fighters on Japan - then might switch even that into naval production at India and nothing on Japan.
This thread is lengthy, but is not meant to be a comprehensive address. Some of the stuff not mentioned - the basic theoretical foundation including stack building/bleeding anticipating single attacker against multiple defenders, income, production, logistics, and their application to the aforementioned, starting position, KJF variations including Alaska tanks, US to southwest Pacific, UK IC on Egypt, USSR1 West Russia only open, Germany’s Med fleet, more detailed projections - quite a lot left out. Regardless, the points I made apply across the board; in 1942 Online the Allies can’t coordinate properly at all, so KJF is not good.
-
I agree with parts of your post, best J1 is getting up to 4 transports. UK india navy isnt a thing. And that KJF is generally weaker.
The J approach you mentioned though I think is among the weaker choices for J in KJF. Back in april when I made #2 allies doing only KJF the my main strategy was to trade Russia for the money islands and the coast of asia, then grind axis out in an endgame with a 10-20 income lead. Also important was denying J any IC’s on the mainland, so their income could not be spent efficiently.
The 2 sub / ground hybrid plays into this plan, as US will get naval superiority and get the money islands. You suggest a push on india, and you’re right that this can only be held by giving ground to germany. But giving ground to germany to hold india is fine for the goal of tranding J’s important land for Russia. Germany will inevitably make progress no matter what you do as allies in KJF. The games I’ve played where J went for this they ended up bottled up in burma and lost china income. G gets russia around G8, US gets borneo IC US6 or US7 if you’re only doing 2 subs a turn and then the endgame is favorable for allies.
The methods I’d suggest instead is either a pure sub one or a pure ground one. The pure ground you pressure Russia as much as possible as J with the aim to accelerate the G timing on russia to G6 or G7. Get a J IC on kazakh or in manchuria or both and try to win the income grind in the endgame. I call this an accelerated KJF.
The pure sub one puts the stack in yuunan and only pushes lightly for income against russia and trades burma every round. Navy is placed either outside yuunan, or outside burma if US goes to w-aus. Early turns J can match US pretty well, but if UK keeps pushing and Russia abandons russia to push J US will eventually get naval superiority. The goal is to keep this from happening until after round 9 or 10 assuming a normal G8 russia timing, as the endgame is axis favored with G being 2 tempi ahead. When US gets close to getting superiority J mixes in some destroyers, and will bleed these off to escape. Either to europe to contest a UK navy, or back to hawaii to do VC pressure.
Pure sub route can also end with allies just never achieving naval parity if they dont pressure with UK or Russia on land. Especially as the most common KJF route seems to be the weak alaska route, which doesnt even contest any valuable income.
Its a bit of a shame that KJF is weaker since the endgames it produces are very interesting and skill intensive. Both sides have VC snipes they can go for, G has sealion pressure after Russia falls and the himalayas make for some interesting stack maneuvering between US shuffling into burma and G producing from Cauc/Russia. Not to mention all the G naval options in the med. Once allied carriers gets implemented it may open up a brute force timing on borneo, with UK fighters and US carriers, but we’ll have to wait and see.
-
I’ve often seen players make the point they’re #1 rank or #2 rank or top ranked platinum, citing lopsided records like 19-0, 50-0, 48-3. I’m not saying experience should be discounted. But I think lopsided records are indicative of a weak meta, and I think basing projections on personal experience against a weak meta misses the best lines of play.
@Quintin said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
The J approach you mentioned though I think is among the weaker choices for J in KJF. Back in april when I made #2 allies doing only KJF the my main strategy was to trade Russia for the money islands and the coast of asia, then grind axis out in an endgame with a 10-20 income lead. Also important was denying J any IC’s on the mainland, so their income could not be spent efficiently.
The 2 sub / ground hybrid plays into this plan, as US will get naval superiority and get the money islands. You suggest a push on india, and you’re right that this can only be held by giving ground to germany. But giving ground to germany to hold india is fine for the goal of tranding J’s important land for Russia. Germany will inevitably make progress no matter what you do as allies in KJF. The games I’ve played where J went for this they ended up bottled up in burma and lost china income. G gets russia around G8, US gets borneo IC US6 or US7 if you’re only doing 2 subs a turn and then the endgame is favorable for allies.
I’m perfectly willing to believe in your experience that’s exactly what happens. But I think that is not what should happen. I’d originally written a lot more detail on how I saw KJF / anti-KJF developing, but didn’t post those details as I only wanted to make some general points. But as you want to take a closer look, I think it’s reasonable enough to go off topic a bit and develop the discussion. Though I expect you probably won’t answer on most of these points.
You wrote US will get naval superiority and get the money islands, that Allies giving ground to Germany in Europe to hold India is fine, that US gets Borneo US6 or US7, then endgame favorable to Allies.
That US gets naval superiority is not in dispute. The question is when it gets it, and what, specifically, it does with it. The question is not whether the Allies give ground to Germany in Europe to hold India, but the consequences - which I think perhaps are not “fine”. That US gets Borneo US6/US7 or even earlier, why not. But the question again is how the position develops from there, and I think it by no means a sure thing that US even holds those islands.
If I remember your previous posts elsewhere correctly @Quintin, you advise J1 attacking US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet. But I will assume this does not happen - why? Because I’m arguing the weakest-case scenario for the anti-KJF line I’m describing. Also, I assume UK does not try the coinflippy attack against Japan’s East Indies fleet, for reasons already mentioned in previous posts in this thread.
So let’s also say that Japan’s Kwangtung destroyer and transport are destroyed, and the German Mediterranean battleship and transport are destroyed, and that by the end of Japan’s first turn, Japan has destroyed whatever remained of UK’s India fleet, and though UK has options with its Australia fleet, those options aren’t great. And pretty much all of those assumptions I think are reasonable and also go against the anti-KJF line that I’m arguing.
. . . no? Those assumptions are unreasonable and/or wrong? Perhaps. But if German’s Mediterranean battleship and transport survive until Germany’s second turn, then Germany has a line on Africa income. There’s drawbacks - Germany bleeds out Europe to feed Africa - but when Germany sees KJF develop, Germany knows it has time to play the longer game.
So we assume Germany’s battleship and transport were destroyed. But how? If UK1 attack of one fighter one bomber, that’s rather coinflippy, and if UK loses its air, then UK doesn’t have a good followthrough. Then Germany can do what it wants in the Mediterranean for quite a while. The numbers -
61.4% attacker, 38.6% defender doesn’t sound bad. But if attackers win, it’s not GREAT for the defenders but it’s not awful either - Germany simply pushes Europe and uses tanks for its timings, and that’s no picnic scenario for Allies either. But if attackers lose, I don’t see any good attacker recovery. True, it’s not as bad as it might sound. 38.6% defender includes if only the German transport survives, but USSR can clean up an undefended transport before it becomes a problem if USSR starts R2 with a fighter on Caucasus (otherwise in range), not fantastic as it does have opportunity costs but at least brings it to 18.3% defender instead of 38.6%.
So I assume that UK hits with two fighters and a bomber (which can still fail, but the odds are better). Which in turn assumes that the UK fighter on Egypt was alive at the start of UK’s turn.
So if UK is attacking with two fighters and a bomber, that leaves carrier and cruiser to hit Kwangtung’s destroyer/transport. It’s not as great as cruiser/fighter, but it’s all UK has left.
But UK can attack with cruiser only? Sure. But that’s yet another coinflippy attack.
I’m not saying any of the things I’m saying happen do necessarily happen. I’m simply saying there’s reasons they may happen, and again, it’s not that I’m assuming these hypotheticals to make my case - I’m assuming the hypotheticals as they work against my case.
Do those assumptions work against the case I’m making? KJF with Germany-fueled income in Africa, or KJF with Japan’s Kwangtung transport surviving, those don’t look like great scenarios for Allies to me.
Then there’s the scenarios I’m not discussing but that bear mentioning. UK could mess with its odds against the German battleship/transport or the Japanese destroyer/transport to be greedy and try to preserve the UK carrier. Or US1 pushes its combined fleet to Iwo Jima’s sea zone to immediately interdict the waters around Japan, meaning Japan either has to not buy submarines on J2, or needs to move its fleet off what’s likely to be ideal placement at Yunnan. (But note Japan can get scenarios that have Japan leaving undefended transports at Yunnan, which leaves the main Japan fleet free to go wherever it likes, it’s a very real possibility).
But neither of those are likely to be issues. If the UK player has a preference for high risk high stakes battles, eventually they will likely blow themselves up on a fail, then Axis just walk in. Further, even if UK only tried preserving its UK India carrier as a one-time-let’s-try-this bet, it’s very difficult for the UK player to move that carrier in position to support US pushing Pacific especially as Japan knows exactly what the UK player is trying to do. As to US pushing to Iwo Jima, that can be an issue - but if the Japan player is competent, the Japan player knows US1 to Iwo Jima restricts their options so they take preventative measures by leaving their air in range. US1 to Iwo Jima can still happen as a gamble or after bad J1 opening dice, but it’s not normal.
. . . and so far I haven’t written why 2 subs a turn (transposing into air) is good or why Japanese ICs against the KJF are bad. But understand, I’m not trying to drown the reader in unnecessary detail. It’s simply that we need a minimal level of detail to even have any sort of reasonable discussion. Otherwise everyone’s pulling phantom armies out of nowhere, opponents are retreating for no good reason, and so on. And if I’m correct that the meta is weak, then readers can see the issue where a player that argues how a game develops based on their experience against a weak meta won’t necessarily find the right moves and countermoves against a strong meta.
So now that the stage has been set, I write how I expect the game to develop. Yes, things might be different here or there, and players can be clever here or there, and dice are going to turn out one way or another. But some general points hold true and need be considered.
Using the projection I describe, Japan loses its Kwangtung destroyer/transport, the German Med fleet is destroyed, Japan cleans up UK’s navy in the Indian Ocean, and though UK can have units off Australia, well, that’s another level of detail I won’t get into. But I’ll say Japan buys 3 transports and ground for its first turn. Then if Japan sees US1 drop a Pacific fleet, then if US hasn’t posted off Iwo Jima in strength (which it probably didn’t especially if Japan was competent), only then does Japan start building 2 submarines a turn.
Under Quintin’s projection, Japan does some sort of all-out naval battle with US using mass subs, or does some sort of all-out ground on Asia. Then he characterizes “normal G8 russia timing” though I say Germany’s normal development is G7, not G8 if not earlier than G7. But is that what we should expect? G1 infantry build, G2 sees no UK Atlantic fleet and goes infantry at Berlin / Karelia (if held) and excess tanks on Italy if any excess income. G3 tanks (with infantry/art at Karelia), G4 tanks (again with slow units at Karelia), by G4 the G1-2 infantry build pushes and holds Ukraine, forcing USSR to choose between defending West Russia and Caucasus. USSR chooses to hold Caucasus (as if it surrenders it then Germany just holds it and gets a wonderful logistics advantage). G5 Germany pushes West Russia, then USSR must choose between Moscow and Caucasus. USSR chooses Caucasus. G6 Germany pushes Caucasus and holds, builds tanks at Karelia and bombers at Berlin. So you have G1 and G2 infantry-heavy builds, G3-G5 tank-heavy builds, then G6 tank/bomber, all in range to hit Moscow on G7.
“The pure ground you pressure Russia as much as possible as J with the aim to accelerate the G timing on russia to G6 or G7.”
Which makes no sense to me at all. If USSR is bleeding out its Europe stack to fight for 1 IPC territories with Japan, I can’t even. Sure, once Japan gets up close, then maybe USSR finds it to its advantage to trade Kazakh or whatever. But accelerating Germany’s timing? How? That shouldn’t remotely be the case with ground. If you use AIR power to reinforce Germany’s pushes, THEN USSR can’t counter Germany’s fast pushes. But Japan GROUND power won’t be in position to reinforce Germany’s pushes.
In a weak meta, I can totally see some players bleeding out USSR’s Europe stacks and engaging in all sort of self-destructive play, sure. It DOES happen. But it should not happen.
Then, Quintin’s recommendations are pure subs or pure ground. And why? My opinion is he gets away with it (though he shouldn’t). So if it works for him, why not? I’m saying it shouldn’t work though.
Think about what happens if Japan builds mass subs. Say Germany wants some help against USSR. Why? Because if Germany just sits on its butt all day against USSR, then US builds and builds then eventually steamrolls Japan. Speed is an issue. (And as I mentioned, I don’t think the timetable is necessarily as Quintin describes). Well then, are those Japanese subs going to just roll up on land and start fighting for ground? No. And again, I’m sure Quintin’s getting away with it, but you really have to think about it. J1-2 aren’t really worse as most of Japan’s planned ground presence units in Asia depends on what already existed at the start of the game between Tokyo, Philippines, and East Indies. But once Japan’s early reserves are bled out, Russia and UK can push. And it is really very bad if UK and USSR have income, plus if Japan’s being starved out.
But what if Japan goes mass ground? Then when US pushes its navy, Japan gets pushed off position early - and why? Because Japan has no teeth to threaten US with. So US just walks right up to Japan and starts grabbing stuff. Then Japan’s pure ground build gets choked off.
But the lines transpose; Japan can go mass ground early then build subs late? But the lines don’t transpose. If Japan doesn’t have submarines in position to punish a US advance, then it’s down to Japan needing to commit capital ships - and whether it’s an all-out attack or a strafe, Japan then needs to worry a lot about the US counter. But if Japan has subs then US’s options get cut pretty badly. Cheap Japanese subs absorb hits and lend attacking power, then Japan consolidates with almost no real losses to its defensive power, then US doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If Japan tries to put off building mass subs until late, they just won’t be in good position.
@Quintin said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
Get a J IC on kazakh or in manchuria or both and try to win the income grind in the endgame. I call this an accelerated KJF.
Well it would be the accelerated “anti-KJF” really?
I wrote part of the reason effective KJF is so hard is the Allies need to find an effective timing. And part of the problem is Japan has retreat options. So long as Japan’s hasn’t gotten crazy bad dice or made a major screwup, Japan can retreat then come back. If Japan drops 15 IPCs on an industrial complex, that’s 15 IPCs that can’t fight, that ties Japan down to defending that location, and if the Allies do capture it then the Allies get a free IC that can immediately produce if the Allies hold for just one turn. Japan-built ICs are a gift to the Allies if the Allies are going KJF.
Again, I expect Quintin gets away with Japan ICs against KJF in what I say is a weak meta. But again, that’s different to what I expect is the strongest play / counter-play.
Every time I post details, Quintin never answers on specifics. Well, people are busy. But I am saying a lot of times, I think the timings he gives are quite optimistic. Which is entirely in line if he’s speaking experientially and if I’m correct that the meta in general is weak.
I went from specifics to generalities, and I know the argument’s hard to track. But take my word on it that the various other KJF lines that develop off other assumptions are not, as far as I’ve seen, superior unless one of those assumptions is lucky dice and/or a bad opponent. More on that later.
But if you DO accept the assumptions I started with, then look at the projection. Japan starts with two battleships, cruiser, destroyer, submarine, two carriers, six fighters, and a bomber. US starts with battleship, cruiser, 2 destroyer, submarine, carrier, four fighters, bomber. (We’ll leave off US’s East US destroyer/transports and China fighter for now). We say Japan builds no real fleet (transports don’t count) on J1. So by end of US1 we have Japan with 166 IPCs worth of naval/air, and US with 162 (assuming US spends on nothing but fleet - and that means no transports, no nothing, JUST fleet). Something like that. Make sense? And again, we could accept another set of assumptions, I have no objection to that, but I’m making the assumptions I think worst against KJF as if I can establish the anti-KJF works despite negative assumptions, well, there you go.
So you look at it and maybe you think things like “well battleships aren’t really great for cost, cost doesn’t equate to utility, looks like US is going to have more IPCs worth of fleet really quick if Japan’s only adding 12 and US 38-40” . . . all true. Especially the cost and utility bit. But think about how it actually develops.
The US “trick”, as it were, to improving its KJF timings, is to keep a carrier off Western US to mobilize fighters on. Then those newly mobilized fighters have range to both Japan’s sea zones, Philippines’ sea zone, Borneo’s sea zone - it’s really nice. But you have to realize that costs 14 IPCs. Look at the map, think about different builds and timings. No matter what you build, you have to think about when US gets where it wants to be.
Okay, so let’s say US has a big fleet. Where does it put it? I mentioned US1 off Iwo Jima, so let’s start with that. If Japan was SMART about its move, then Japan KNEW US1 off Iwo Jima was a possibility so Japan can have just about its entire navy and air in range. US just produced 42 IPCs of units, but that’s not at Iwo Jima, it’s on West Coast / West Coast sea zone (and the US cruiser that I counted isn’t even there. Nor does US have a second carrier to land its fighters on, nor does the US bomber participate). So it’s 166 IPC of Japan units flattening 76 IPC of US units or whatever.
. . . so? The timings, you see? The US1 build is on the West Coast at the end of the US turn. And/or off Solomon Islands, but whatever. On paper US catches up, but in practice, US may need four turns to get any naval builds to relevancy - one turn to build, next turn to Solomons, third turn to moving into position (because US won’t have the brute strength to just walk up for a while), fourth turn push. So US progress is very slow. On the other hand, Japan’s builds come into play very quickly. One turn to build, the next turn immediately subs are relevant against the surrounding waters, and though that’s probably not great, on the turn after that, Japanese subs can definitely be in position.
Then throw in that Japan doesn’t have to push. Japan can just sit there loading units onto Asia all day while Germany builds up against Russia. It’s US that has to come in range, Japan that can decide whether or not Japan wants to fight, if Japan does want to fight then Japan has a load of cheap 6-IPC subs that are wonderfully efficient on attack. Then if Japan doesn’t want to fight, if US wants to push, US needs not only to have the defensive naval power to have pushed Japan off in the first place, US needs attacking naval power if it wants to drive Japan’s navy off position. And in all this, you notice how nothing was said about US’s investment on transports and ground. Yes, US can certainly take territory, but it can’t necessarily hold it.
. . . and? Let’s say US 6 to Borneo or whatever, which I say is way too late and perhaps a bit optimistic in terms of timing, but whatever. Look at the assumptions, look at Japan’s options.
If Japan captured India, then we can take it as a given that Japan was forced off position to defend Borneo and East Indies. Oh, all right, India’s sea zone is in striking distance and Germany can blow up any US destroyer block and UK probably won’t even have blockers considering 1942 Online’s changed mechanics, but let’s just hand-wave all that - and again, as I’ve been doing, I’m saying we make assumptions that don’t work for the case I’m arguing but against the case. (Like, if you want to say Japan can crush India AND defend Borneo and East Indies, fantastic, I don’t have a problem with that, and in fact I expect something like that - though I wouldn’t say a “hard defense”, more like if US tries to get all grabby then Japan whacks 'em on the nose). Since Japan hit India, we know what? That Japan built bombers on Japan last turn to help with the India invasion, at least that’s what I say should be expected as Japan ought to have held Burma particularly with German fighter help and I’d say Germany wants to have something around to blow up blockers anyways.
What does Japan’s fleet look like by then? Say it’s been dropping two subs a turn on J2, 3, and 4, have them in position (and why not) as it’s J6 (before US6), two turns of movement off Japan, is that unreasonable? Then let’s say that Japan transitioned to fighters, then bombers, which is exactly as I described they ought. Then with Japan’s fleet at India, with 36 IPC (which Japan should have available as it’s been fighting ground battles and increasing its income if anything - and again, I’m fine with assuming that doesn’t happen because if you say USSR bled off a big stack to fight Japan, great, then Germany’s timeline against USSR really moved up) - anyways, at that point Japan’s navy is two battleships, four carriers, eight fighters, cruiser, two destroyers, eight submarines, plus it has three bombers though those won’t defend at sea. That’s what Japan has at India’s sea zone; US’s newly produced units at West Coast US won’t reach. Nor will US naval units that were produced prevoius to the last three turns. So if US is going to threaten that, it’s the US starting forces plus its US1-3 builds, something like 240 IPCs? Against Japan’s 250? Japan has loads of fodder and high-defense fighters?
But even that’s not the end of the story. What exactly did US bring? If US cheaped out on transports and ground, then US doesn’t have any robust answer to Japan simply taking back anything Japan lost unless US defends the sea zone. If US defends the sea zone, though, that sharply limits US’s options, and Japan has two turns to respond - the first turn while a US IC is built, the second turn to capture the territory before the US IC can produce. Even if Japan misses the capture on both turns, US IC isn’t the end of the world - it’s an improvement in US logistics for sure, but it did cost US time.
But Japan doesn’t capture India? Why and how, exactly, does that not happen?
Let’s say you pile USSR and UK units onto India. Okay, then India holds. But then how is Germany deterred from pressing early and hard into Europe? There’s just no way. Units on India don’t threaten most points in Europe, and if you want to say it’s Allied tanks threatening Caucasus then that’s fine for Axis too, though Allied tanks certainly have their uses, that’s going to cut into unit count one way or another. I don’t say it’ll be easy for Axis, but I don’t see a good way for the Allies to stop Germany from capturing Caucasus then Japan reinforcing (if even necessary considering how much was bled off to split). And where does Japan’s position break down? Germany even has the option of pushing hard to Persia, it’s not great for Europe, but if Germany just wants to crack India, well, there it is.
And if Japan can’t capture India, why would Japan just sit around? Japan has options. Leapfrog to Africa, push to Szechwan. So what is really accomplished by late Allied defense of India? The Allies have split stacks, one on Moscow, another on India, they’re cut off by Germany’s stack on Caucasus. So then what does UK do? Pull out to Persia and get its stack flattened? That’s if Germany doesn’t just capture Moscow and Japan reinforces. Push towards southeast Asia and get some income but then the stack really becomes irrelevant to Russia, then Germany captures Russia and pushes its stack to Persia, preparatory to capturing India?
Which leads me back to my point about logistics. If you assume US does NOTHING but build fighting fleet, you could say US progresses in Pacific. But if US didn’t build transports and ground, how can it expect to fight off Germany’s stack? UK’s producing how many units a turn, where, and advancing or retreating how, exactly? Mysteriously, US has a powerful navy and a powerful ground force in position - but how does that happen?
It makes sense if Axis botch the response - Japan gets blown up by the US navy, Germany doesn’t pressure Europe properly, then Allies just stomp all over Axis while laughing heartily. But if Axis don’t botch the response, I don’t know that I would call it a winning game for Allies.
As to “once allied carriers get implemented” - eh. If it happens, there’s still all the other gameplay changes, and it’s not just a matter of shaving 10-15% here and there because the defender can’t respond appropriately (though that’s bad enough). I expect if it happens the meta will switch up so that’s something, but it’s still not going to change that you just can’t play KJF properly in 1942 Online.
(edit - fixed some bad phrasing)
-
The thing is my record with KJF was a bit of a mixed bag. The strats I have best records against are the low navy / no navy J setups. The conclusion I came to was that it was hard to make progress against sub spam in any reasonable timeframe, which is why I would recommend for J to do this.
-
@aardvarkpepper said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
- Inability to use allied carriers/transports
- Inability to use live defender decisions (i.e. defensive profiles)
- Assignation of casualties after each group of like-valued dice instead of end of sub-phase
- Player having to assign “friendly/hostile” in combat movement phase instead of deciding which applies during combat phase
Perhaps others that I forget but that’ll do to be getting on with.
On Steam forums and Discord I went into the details of how, exactly each of the first three applied and gave examples. By the time the fourth came about I wasn’t playing the game much any more, but if it works the way I think it does, it’s not right.
Those just make 1942 Online generally weird for me. I think they generally hurt KJF more than KGF, but even with KGF there were games where I’d just grit my teeth.
Inability to use allied carriers AND TRANSPORTS - look. There’s this big emphasis on carriers, I wrote a page on allied carrier use in the KGF in an open Google document, veterans cite using Allied fighters to reinforce Russia. I guess I could say that’s pretty obvious stuff? But use of allied transports are where a sharp player pries for advantage.
KGF - UK can have trouble getting its Canada units into play, but with use of allied transports there are options. UK1 to East US, US1 build transport, UK2 board, US2 move transport off Morocco, UK3 capture Morocco. Or it can play out where UK boards a US transport that was at East Canada, US moves the transport, then UK offloads to Finland/Norway, or perhaps Morocco or French West Africa.
. . . not important? Which is exactly the response I received when I even said allied carriers are important, which is exactly why I ended up writing a gigantic Google document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing
Forty-five pages, mind that it could easily have stretched to over two hundred, but I decided why put in the effort before seeing what the developers did with what I wrote. You’ll find a section on allied carrier use on page 31.
Even if I had written nothing, it should have been understood - if you make changes to a game, they are changes. I could accept if it were said that changes were made for budgetary reasons but that’s just how it was going to be. But time and again, it was said changes didn’t matter, what changes, nobody thinks there’s an issue - just dismissal, really. But I don’t accept dismissal because I know there are changes that do matter. Especially as the 1942 Online page on Steam markets it as based on 1942 Second Edition and does not make a point that you CANNOT play 1942 Online the way you play 1942 Second Edition.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/898920/Axis__Allies_1942_Online/
Go on, have a look. If they’d differentiated the product, I would have shrugged, but they didn’t.
For the following - I’m fine if a player says it doesn’t matter to them. That’s a personal choice. But for players to claim there isn’t a difference, well!
Back on UK at Morocco. I mentioned in the fourth post in this thread that some of the stuff I didn’t mention “including stack building/bleeding . . . income, production, logistics”. Well, let’s look at that stuff.
Suppose one power wants to attack another power’s territory. Only one power can attack at a time. But multiple powers can defend together. Consider the opening position. Which Allied power starts with the most units in Europe, at a location central to the conflict? USSR. Which Allied power starts with the next most units anywhere near the central conflict? UK. Which Allied power is way the heck over there somewhere? US.
So you should be able to see why Allies should prioritize USSR income then UK income then US a far distant third. There’s pages of details I could write about UK production and income levels and - oh, well, why not write that part out a bit.
UK starts at 31 IPC was it, can produce 3 units on India, 8 units on UK. If you’re going for sheer unit count, you see where UK’s income isn’t anywhere near enough. 11 production multiplied by 3 for infantry is 33 IPC, UK already doesn’t have enough income. If you want to get some sort of decent artillery mix, mix in tanks or air for timings, never mind a navy, UK is absolutely starved for income. (Mind, UK’s 33 IPC for 11 production isn’t as bad as USSR’s 20ish IPC for 12 production).
Then think about US’s optimal route to Europe versus UK. US infantry starts on East US, marches to East Canada, board an empty transport at West Canada and offloads to Finland/Norway or France/NW Europe, and that now-empty transport now has to waste a turn returning to East Canada. US is just not efficient; its units waste time in East Canada, then the drop zone is sharply limited. You could include points in French West Africa, but I won’t get into taht here.
Now consider UK’s drops to Europe. Four transports a turn can pick up and offload to any of Finland, Norway, Karelia, Baltic States, Germany, France/NW Europe. That’s not even the limit. UK can even drop to Archangel, granted it will have to drop to Norway on the turn after that which isn’t great, but UK has the option. Anyways, UK has way better options in terms of ability to put power where it wants it.
So when you start putting all these things together - starting forces, income, the board, the rules - you start to understand. New players are confused by all the units and just buy whatever seems fun, intermediate players have some idea of what’s what, but think one or two more units here or there won’t matter, it’s only when you start playing really sharp players that break you with a difference of one extra fighter here or there, or even having an artillery in place instead of an infantry, only then do you really see sharp gameplay’s about clawing for every small advantage.
So you look at Morocco and it’s what? In the abstract, it’s desperately needed UK income. It would be nice to give it to USSR but that’s just not feasible. US could grab it, but the Allies would much rather have UK capture if at all possible, then ideally UK progresses to Libya and points east while US reinforces.
So let’s look at what actually happens. UK starts with a destroyer and transport off East Canada but if Germany sends a lone submarine to attack there’s a 33% chance the UK transport dies (and even if it doesn’t, most places UK can send the transport are at risk). So UK can’t really count on the UK1 transport, especially as UK’s fighters might want to fly to West Russia to help defend (so can’t help hit any target), UK can only load/unload a transport unless it wants to hit France/NW Europe, UK bomber’s may well be heading towards Germany’s Mediterranean fleet. If there’s German submarine(s) in the Atlantic and/or German air, a lone UK transport just won’t cut it. Depending on German movement, sometimes the Allies can capture Finland and Norway and cut off eligible German landing zones from fighters and get safety for transports that way, but UK only has one transport, and it would need two to take both Finland and Norway. So UK’s really stuck. So even if UK’s transport does survive, probably it goes to East US’s sea zone for safety.
If it’s a KGF and the Allies are developing with US1 naval build into US2 air (or other) build if necessary, then US3 uniting US1 naval and US2 air build in a defensive fleet off London, reinforcing a UK3 naval build - then think about the timing and Axis action. UK1 moves transport off East US, US1 builds fleet, UK2 moves transport off Morocco? Perhaps Japan isn’t in position to punish UK before US can move to reinforce, but if UK’s fighters are on West Russia and its bomber died against Germany’s battleship (even if UK bomber survived, German counter probably wipes it out as UK bomber didn’t have any great landing spaces left), that means that UK can only invade with one tank. If Germany left a lone infantry on Libya it’s a literal coinflip for control of North Africa. And if UK fails? What then? Does it go back to pick up the UK infantry that started in West Canada? No. That’s simply inefficient. For most purposes it’s like UK simply started with one less unit.
If you have use of allied transports, though, there’s plenty of followup turns in which US is moving its transports to East Canada because that’s where they have to be for best logistics anyways, UK can mount, and there’s an “extra” unit. Sure, US loses out on transport capacity, but on the whole it’s just better for the Allies.
Again, if you’re not looking at or don’t care about the details, it might not seem to make a difference. But really, you get additional UK income in the hands of a capable player, an extra UK unit, and players will make it a difference.
But that only applies in KGF? Not so. If you look at KJF, even if you’re leaving off looking at allied carrier use, allied transport use is also important. There are UK units stranded on Australia and possibly elsewhere, Japan can quickly neutralize most of UK’s surface fleet so those UK units become non-issues, then there’s the whole issue of UK trying to build surface fleet at India being vulnerable to being hit from a Japan fleet posted off Yunnan. What it comes down to is, if US manages to get land a UK force on a pricey island, then KJF breaks open. Think about what happens if US puts an IC down on a 4 IPC island. Say US has 42 income (lost territories in China, gained high IPC island), that’s a carrier, destroyer, and two fighters right there. US is out of income and production capacity, if US grabs another island it’s just raw income. Again, if UK is trying to defend India that’s problematic for reasons. But if UK grabs a 4 IPC island for any period of time - say having boarded a US transport at Australia - then things are quite different. If the Pacific battle was at all close to begin with, India was stretching just a bit far for US’s logistics. But if it’s Borneo, say, that cuts a turn off in terms of how far US can reach, and it’s not just 4 IPCs - an IC on a 4-IPC island allows UK to mobilize a whole 30-40 IPCs worth of units.
Then there’s things like Germany boarding Japanese transports for late-game Africa income. Absence of allied transports use is a big change - again, I’m sure not to casual players and that’s fine for them, but the change is a change, and it’s not to the better in terms of making the gameplay more interesting or more balanced.
Later posts I’ll get into some of that other stuff I was writing about earlier.
-
On defensive profiles -
I’ve already made the points I’m making below elsewhere. But they bear repeating.
Some players say things like “what else are you going to do if you want asynchronous play? there’s no other options!” I played loads of TripleA, and generally if you have a competent opponent and you give them general guidelines they will correctly make decisions for you - which power’s units to keep in a multinational defense, where fighters should land, and of course with TripleA if something isn’t the way you want it there’s an editor function and you can call MARTI for new dice so there you go. So yes, there are options. Just not ones that 1942 Online implemented.
But let’s say - just for the sake of argument - that you don’t want to implement live play. Shouldn’t a point have been made of that in the description of the product? It should have been, but it wasn’t.
But if you do ignore what shouldn’t be ignored, insist on asynchronous play, and say compromises are necessary - what of the implementation?
I believe it’s not feasible to have a fully automated asynchronous implementation based on player inputs. I think the input is just too tedious.
Suppose Germany has a Baltic fleet threatening invasion of London. Suppose UK hits the fleet, say US has no followup but USSR has a followup of one fighter, say UK’s opening dice aren’t great, say UK could have hit with more but didn’t, say Japan can fly a fighter to reinforce (I know, allied carriers aren’t implemented, I just wrote a whole bunch on that, but say theoretically, since apparently non-developers are now saying it’s going to be a thing, so sure.). The Germany player’s input would be something like “If UK attacks with a certain number of units with a particular composition and gets a certain number of hits, order of loss should be destroyer, fighter, fighter, carrier, as we want to preserve the German carrier (because a Japanese fighter can reinforce before the USSR turn). Surviving fighters should land on Norway to be in range of London. But if UK attacks with a different number of units and a different composition and gets a different number of hits, it’s likely that UK will try to outright destroy Germany’s fleet, then to increase casualties Germany inflicts on UK, Germany should lose its carrier first then fighters, and though Germany’s transports will be destroyed by a USSR fighter even if UK’s attack doesn’t go off quite as well as expected, that’s the best that can be done.” Now imagine the Germany player dictating all these contingencies, not just for that one battle, but for every territory, for every battle. Sure, most battles may not require complex instructions, but enough do that fine control would be a pain.
So the “solution” is - just take the fine control away!
Then there’s the stack building/bleeding balanced against available ground fodder for air.
Only a single power can attack at a time, but multiple powers defend together. So what happens if Germany attacks a combined USSR/US/UK stack? What units get removed? I wrote earlier about stack building/bleeding, starting stack sizes, income, etc. Following that it would seem best to preserve USSR, UK, then US units in that order. But actually there are other considerations.
Suppose US has two fighters and a bomber in an area but no ground. Does US want to attack an Axis-controlled territory defended by a few infantry? Well, that’s Dark Skies for you (only run by Allies). But given a choice US would much rather have some infantry to absorb casualties. But what if US’s infantry was all destroyed by a Germany attack/retreat option? Even more, what if Germany knew how 1942 Online assigns casualty order and deliberately attacked to strip UK and US of its fodder infantry? With live defender decisions, the defender sees the attacker’s buy, all the attacker’s combat moves, the order the attacker carries out combats, and the results of all attacker rolls in the first sub-phase of combat before allocating casualties. With live defender decisions, the defender could make the choice to leave no US infantry alive, one, or two, depending on their projection of whether or not it was appropriate to bleed out US’s forces to leave USSR’s main stack intact so USSR could perhaps do a counter. And if USSR wasn’t projected to be able to pull off a counter anytime soon, then US ground units could be preserved - US ground units that are very hard to get to a central location, US ground units that act as fodder for US’s air. But none of that is possible absent live defender decisions - unless, again, you have a very cumbersome control system.
I don’t feel I need to discuss the merits of an asynchronous system, or the implementation in particular. If you’re targeting a casual market and willing to compromise gameplay to that end, that’s a product decision, fair enough. But at least don’t claim the changes didn’t make a difference, and acknowledge the changes in the product’s description rather than having an incomplete list buried in a pdf in a forum link somewhere.
If players aren’t personally bothered by gameplay changes, fair enough, I’m certainly not trying to change anyone’s mind on that point. If players enjoy 1942 Online that’s good for them. But I am saying there are changes, and those changes pile up to make 1942 Online gameplay very awkward compared to the board game.
Even stuff like - if your opponent doesn’t have destroyers in position to hunt your submarine reinforcements (probably because you fought hard to make it that way), then what happens in the board game if you have lone submarines at various tactical positions or as a matter of needing to be there as they’re moving to your main fleet - and say your opponent couldn’t chase off those submarines in the first place because their destroyers are concentrated at one position for a push - then what happens if yet other submarines of yours are lending weight to your main fleet’s defense as fodder? You set your submarines to submerge and your opponent hits your main fleet and you’re toast. You set your submarines to fight and your opponent can pick off your submarine reinforcement fleets. This has happened to me in both Atlantic and Pacific.
Defensive profiles just won’t ever match live defender decisions. A simple system robs a player of discretion, a complex system is cumbersome to use.
-
On defensive profiles (again), assignation of hits after like-valued dice, friendly/hostile sea zone designation:
Imagine you’re playing LHTR setup, the USSR sub has joined the UK battleship, G1 attacks with 2 subs 2 fighters 1 cruiser against 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 battleship 1 transport. If aacalc is correct, without counting the transport there’s a little better than 11% chance Germany sinks the entire Allied fleet in one round of fire. If the USSR sub does not submerge there’s a 16% chance it hits something. Put the two together, in 1942 Second Edition, the Allies player may want to have the defending submarine fight for the first round of combat, see how many hits the defender scores in total, then allocate hits and decide whether the submarine will submerge or not on the second round. If the defenders did well the submarine may fight on, if the defenders did poorly (but weren’t entirely destroyed) the submarine may submerge. But you can’t do this in 1942 Online.
Or consider J1 sends 1 submarine 1 cruiser 2 fighters 1 bomber against US’s 1 submarine 1 destroyer 1 carrier 1 fighter. Again, hits ought to be totaled at the end of a sub-phase (here surprise strike is one sub-phase and the remainder of units another) but 1942 Online doesn’t do things that way. Japan wants the fighter that came from Japan to be destroyed, or a nearby Japanese carrier will have to be sent for the fighter to land on, then US can wipe both carrier and fighter out on the US turn. But Japan also doesn’t want to lose its fighter easily as Japan wants to win the current battle the fighter is engaged in with otherwise minimal losses. Say Japan the US destroyer and carrier score one hit. Does Japan assign the hit to its submarine or fighter? If the submarine is chosen then the US fighter misses, the Japan carrier may have to be committed. But if the fighter is chosen then the surviving Japanese submarine can’t hit the US fighter and has a lower attack value besides, so won’t be able to contribute as well to the ongoing battle. Again, in the board game, Japan can roll the dice, see what happens, then make the appropriate decision. But in 1942 Online, not so.
Players need to have the right information to make the right choices, and 1942 Online changing the game so hits need be allocated after each group of like-valued dice instead of end of sub-phase takes that away from them.
Then on friendly/hostile implementation. There used to be issues with 1942 Online (still are, I think) in that if you start a turn with enemy units in a sea zone you command units in, your units couldn’t move out (at first), then you could move all but one out (for a while) and now I think there’s something going on with submarine interactions so you’re not able to do what you ought to be able to do. But even if they do get it working without bugs, if they’re relying on “friendly/hostile” designation, if it works the way I think it does it’s not proper. I don’t just mean it’s an added cumbersome step that you don’t need to do in the board game, I mean the change removes player ability to exercise discretion.
In the board game, if I understand correctly, the decision on whether or not to ignore enemy submarines/transports is done in the combat phase. You do your combat moves, and can even resolve some combats, then decide for a particular sea zone whether you wish to fight or ignore. But in 1942 Online, you designate zones as “friendly” or “hostile” in the combat movement phase.
Suppose you move a single submarine into a sea zone with two enemy submarines and transport. If the defending submarines fight, the odds of attacker winning are 27.1% or so, not the best odds, but if you had reason to fight, you could chance the attack. Now suppose you fight another combat and see your opponent has set their defensive profile to have submarines submerge. Since you now know the defending submarines will not fight, if you perform combat in the aforementioned situation, you have 100% to destroy the transport, not 27.1%. But if you have to designate zones as friendly or hostile during combat movement, you can’t decide after getting the information as you could normally, you have to decide before. So it’s really awkward. And by the way returning to defensive profiles again, your opponent won’t like that they have to submerge in both contested sea zones, they’d rather submerge in the other area but fight here, but that’s as it goes.
These are just examples; the same rules changes impact the game in any number of other situations.
Again - I don’t like that changes were made, but I can understand that some changes were made to accommodate casual players, other changes were made so fiddly bits of programming wouldn’t have to be worked out. Sure. But the changes ought to have been openly acknowledged.
Here, as of 5 January 2021
https://store.steampowered.com/app/898920/Axis__Allies_1942_Online/
Axis & Allies 1942 Online is an official adaptation of the classic board game! Strategize your way to victory as the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, United States, Germany, and Japan vie for world domination at the height of the second World War.
No mention of rules changes. Official adaptation of the “classic” board game. Though really 1942 Second Edition was the last of a rather lengthy series (not counting Zombies, which I think Larry Harris wasn’t the designer on?)
Why Early Access?
“For years, fans of Axis & Allies have been asking for an online option for their favorite board game. We want to ensure that Axis & Allies 1942 Online is a satisfying experience for veteran fans and new players alike.”Veteran fans. Players that would notice changes to gameplay?
Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access?
“We expect to stay in Early Access for a few months with regular updates.”
How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version?
“Right now, Axis & Allies 1942 Online is fully playable against human opponents, AI, or a mix of the two. As we work towards launch, we’ll be adding new features, making user interface changes, fixing bugs, and incorporating feedback from Early Access players.We’re working towards a number of Steam features such as friends list, trading cards, and achievements as a part of launch.”
What is the current state of the Early Access version?
“Axis & Allies 1942 Online in Early Access is fully playable as a single player experience against AI, local hotseat play, or online multiplayer.”
Will the game be priced differently during and after Early Access?
“No, Axis & Allies 1942 Online will be priced the same during and after Early Access.”
How are you planning on involving the Community in your development process?
“We’ll be actively reading and responding to comments and reviews posted here on Steam and in our Beamdog forums. We’re interested in player feedback and bug reports.”Nothing about rules changes
About This Game
German tanks mobilize in the west, blitzing into France and pushing back the Soviet Union in eastern Europe. The United States rises in response to Japanese aggression in the Pacific. The United Kingdom rallies allies as bombers menace the skies. The year is 1942, and the world is at war!Axis & Allies 1942 Online is an official adaptation of the beloved strategic board game, Axis & Allies, and includes the 1942 Second Edition game board and rules.
Official adaptation, includes 1942 Second Edition game board (well actually it’s changed isn’t it, looks all different, you know?) and rules (but it doesn’t really, it really doesn’t!)
Axis & Allies 1942 Online accommodates 1-5 players, each controlling one or more of the Axis or Allied powers in Online Multiplayer, Hot Seat, or Single Player mode against the computer AI. Players command both their country’s military forces and its war-time economy.
Victory goes to the side that conquers its opponents on the field of battle and occupies the greatest cities of the world. Will the Axis continue to spread across the globe unchecked, or will the Allies rally to push back against imperialistic tyranny? Challenge your friends and change the course of history!
Many ways to play!Hotseat play for 2 to 5 players Online multiplayer allows you play with allies and enemies across the world Challenge yourself against AIFeatures
The complete Axis & Allies 1942 Second Edition experienceNot really.
Play online with your friends Optional computer AI players Learn to play with introductory tutorials Asynchronous gameplay with custom defense profilesYou would think of this as an optional feature that allows some degree of fine control. Not as a limited feature that horribly limits player discretion that can’t be turned off that negatively impacts gameplay.
Selectable victory conditions Keep informed with the action log and war diary Over 20 minutes of all-new period appropriate musicSo there we are. It says 1942 Second Edition, emphasizes it’s an official adaptation of the board game, says it’s meant to be for veteran and new players alike, says it’s the complete experience. But really? No.
The text never makes the point that 1942 Online changes the rules. If you say that’s implied from reading that there’s defensive profiles, look at the context. With repeated phrases like “for veterans and new players” and “complete experience”, one reasonably expects changes to be optional, and perhaps more fully fleshed out rather than extremely limiting non-optional “features” that negatively impact gameplay.
And more, what is the “complete experience”, really? Ever play a live game? If someone messes up on a technicality, does everyone stand around and say “nuh uh, you messed up, no takebacks?” Possibly, but even in formal settings, opponents may well shrug and say “sure, do the thing”. Or say someone wants to use house rules. Even GenCon uses a bid. But 1942 Online has no editor function to allow for any sort of house rules (not even a bid), it doesn’t even have a chat. There’s a note system that’s a bit cumbersome but it’s limited to players on your side, you can’t even say “hi” to opponents. Is that really the complete experience?
Then too, if you want details on defensive profiles, inability to use allied carriers/transports, or any of the other stuff I mentioned, you have to dig - and I mean dig. For stuff like incorrect casualty assignation, I’ve never seen the developers even acknowledge there’s a difference (though I have brought it up a few times). I understand being selective with details for marketing purposes, but 1942 Online has rather a distance between what it’s marketed as and what it actually is.
If some - or even many - players enjoy 1942 Online that’s good. But it’s not good to simply dismiss differences between 1942 Second Edition, 1942 Second Edition at GenCon, and 1942 Online. There are definitely differences that impact the gameplay in real ways.
-
@aardvarkpepper said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
Keep informed with the action log and war diary
I re-read my last post (usually do to clean up a bit), and this bit from 1942 Online’s Steam store page description popped out at me. Keep informed, sounds nice, right?
But actually, 1942 Online’s war diary doesn’t give you proper information. Last I saw, you check the record, you see what went in, you see what came out, but you don’t see what the attacker hit allocation decisions were, you don’t see what happened in each round of combat, it’s just boop, win or lose. I don’t think the war diary even accurately reflects the order of combats.
TripleA gives all the details right down to the dice rolls. You REALLY know what happened, you get the hit allocations, the attack/retreat decisions, you see it all. It’s not fair to compare TripleA, which has been in development for years, with 1942 Online. But still, things are what they are.
When is having that information important? This is one of those things - if a player doesn’t already understand then even when it’s pointed out to them exactly why it makes a huge difference they still may not understand. It’s just words on a page. But I’ll try to explain.
When an opponent initiates any attack, you can look at the attackers, the defenders, the probability distribution of outcomes, the strategic and tactical situation, and what your opponent could have done differently (could have done other attacks entirely, could have allocated different units to different combats, etc.) This gives you insight as to your opponent’s read on the board position and risk preferences.
What does it say if a USSR player tries a triple attack, a Baltic Sea attack, or Baltic States/West Russia, or Ukraine/West Russia? Each of those attacks says something different about the player. A triple attack player is not afraid of risk. They are going to hit out, if you have a close stack battle in the offing, you’d better watch out because your opponent might be coming at you (and with the two-peak model, things could turn out real ugly). A Baltic Sea attack says your opponent is very confident in their own ability, others say Baltic attack is bad but your opponent doesn’t care and your opponent might be good or bad, but they’re going to generally do things that aren’t “meta” plays. Baltic States/West Russia is another unconventional play though less so, and Ukraine/West Russia is pretty meta. You can’t assemble a complete opponent profile based off one move - maybe an opponent decided to do something “different” this game, or maybe they use conventional openings but then don’t know the “meta” for following turns so they’ll change things up - but you have some idea.
Even things like composition of attack makes a difference. A R1 West Russia / Ukraine open is different depending on whether you send two tanks or three tanks.
Then sometimes opponents make moves that might seem irrational but aren’t. Like if an opponent hits West Russia only but holds some units back, that might be thought a mistake if you’re going with the “conventional” reasoning that West Russia is simply a territory that USSR conquers first turn. But if you know about the West Russia strafe / retreat into Karelia line, well, there you go. You hold back units because you want at least one German unit to survive so you can retreat the masses to Karelia. Not that I’m saying I think that’s a solid line, but I’ll leave off discussing that.
Returning to getting information off your opponent. If you can tell all that information from an opponent just from what they attack with, then how much more information can you get from an opponent by knowing what casualties they assign to what units and when, when they decide to attack or retreat, and so on? Again, it’s not that each decision is isolated. Each decision is made in context of the board position as a whole, even knowing the order an opponent resolved combats is important.
Before continuing, to address that last. Suppose in the LHTR setup, Germany attacks UK’s destroyer/transport off East Canada with one submarine and attacks UK’s battleship/destroyer (and likely USSR sub) with two submarines, cruiser, and two fighters. The battle off East Canada should be conducted first. Why? If the UK destroyer is destroyed, the Allies can’t hunt any German submarine survivors of the UK battleship battle. But if the UK destroyer survives, the Allies can hunt any German submarines, and submarines are poor defenders. If a player initiates both combats but doesn’t do the East Canada battle first - well maybe it’s 1942 Online’s UI (I think you have to right click or something to determine order of battles and that isn’t in the documentation, but whatever). But maybe also an opponent doesn’t know what they’re doing. Watching out for these sorts of things clues you in as to your opponent’s abilities.
Returning to information-gathering. You get a lot of information off an opponent’s combat movement and order of resolution during the combat phase, but within each combat your opponent also gives information. Information you should have includes opponent hit allocation which can give you insight into your opponent’s plans, opponent decisions to press or retreat in the face of changing probability distributions, and that in turn gives you a read on whether your opponent can properly reassess combats from sub-phase to sub-phase and act appropriately. All such information is lost in 1942 Online.
All this doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy 1942 Online. There are players that can and do. But if you’re a sharp player that pays attention to detail, you will feel the differences between 1942 Online and actual board game play.
-
@aardvarkpepper said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
All this doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy 1942 Online. There are players that can and do. But if you’re a sharp player that pays attention to detail, you will feel the differences between 1942 Online and actual board game play.
Great details on things that are indeed super bothersome about A&A Online (and that are unrelated to the UI itself, which also kind of blows). It’s not at all the same game as the boardgame, so at best it should be marketed as “inspired by the boardgame”.
I find the boardgame compares to the online inspired game in similar ways to how deep stack NL Texas Hold’em cash games compare to short stack NL Texas Hold’em tournament play.
-
Your UK1 east indies navy battle math is wrong. That site’s calc is assuming the casualty order for UK is sub, ftr, cruiser, ac, in order of ascending ipc cost. You need to use https://www.aatoolkit.com/conflict and toggle sub, cruiser, and ftr to be taken last, so that the AC gets taken first. % goes from a coin flip to over 90%.
-
@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
Your UK1 east indies navy battle math is wrong. That site’s calc is assuming the casualty order for UK is sub, ftr, cruiser, ac, in order of ascending ipc cost. You need to use https://www.aatoolkit.com/conflict and toggle sub, cruiser, and ftr to be taken last, so that the AC gets taken first. % goes from a coin flip to over 90%.
Thanks for the correction; I edited the original post. But a few things came up.
For the edit, I used AACalc again but changed the order of loss.
It gives 64.1% for attacker, using 10,000 runs.
I do use aatoolkit sometimes, though it uses 1,000 runs. Setting the OOLs as I thought proper, a few runs did consistently come in at over 90%, as you wrote. (Note - I used “1942” for aatoolkit for all runs in this post.)
I know AACalc has aggregate rounding errors. But a 26% spread seemed weird to me, so I looked around a bit.
In aatoolkit I kept “take unit last” on attacking sub, cruisers, and fighters, but turned “take unit last” off defenders completely. Attacker odds dropped from 90% plus to around 85%.
If the defending fighters die before the defending carrier, the attacker odds drop? That doesn’t sound right does it? I changed order of loss on AACalc; there taking defending fighters before defending carrier saw attacker odds rise by about 6%.
I know the attacking submarine changes things. But it does look to me like aatoolkit’s implementation might be incorrect, even though your point about order of loss was correct.
==
Besides that is another point that I didn’t mention in the first few posts. One of the big things about the East Indies attack and the bid is the projected UK survivors. There’s some complications, but it’s possible for UK to end up with a defensive fleet that includes a carrier and fighters (and possibly cruiser(s) against Japan’s counter of destroyer, two fighters, and bomber. It’s not the worst battle for Japan, but even trying it will reduce Japan’s options against other targets first turn, may well make further inroads into Japan’s airpower, and even the best-case scenario for Japan probably sees the UK fleet (including that expensive carrier) being able to slip out to the east next turn to safety, after which it can later shadow the US fleet.
Projected UK survivors is also an issue for any projected attack on East Indies. I took the liberty of running 4 attacking infantry against 2 defending infantry on aatoolkit and aacalc; aatoolkit returned 92%+, aacalc returned around 77%. Anyways, if you consider UK1-controlled East Indies, a UK carrier pressuring Japan into a more defensive position, order-of-loss for defending UK carrier being able to take fighters last (though if a cruiser survives I’d say even fighters before carriers would be all right in view of risks to Japan’s resulting position), again, the bid is important.
==
. . . so is aatoolkit functionally incorrect? Well, let’s look at a simple calculation; 2 attacking infantry versus 1 defending infantry. aatoolkit reports 91%+ attacker win with 6%ish defender win, aacalc reports 67.5% attacker with 27.5% defender win.
1 infantry vs 1 infantry, both hit 1/18; attacker only hits 2/18, defender only hits 5/18, both miss 10/18. We change the numbers as “both miss” results in another round of combat; result is 1/8 tie (all destroyed) 2/8 attacker win, 5/8 defender win.
2 infantry vs 1 infantry, both hit 11/108, attacker only hits 22/108, defender only hits 25/108, both miss 50/108. Again, we change the numbers as “both miss” results in another round of combat; result is 11/58 attacker win (with 1 infantry), 22/58 attacker win (with 2 infantry), 25/58 changes to 1 infantry vs 1 infantry.
We multiply 25/58 by the aforementioned results to get 25/464 tie (all destroyed), 50/464 attacker win (1 infantry), 125/464 defender win.
Attacker win with 2 infantry: 22/58, about 37.93%.
Attacker win with 1 infantry: 11/58 + 50/464, about 18.97% + 10.77% = 29.75% (Aggregate for 2 or 1 infantry winning = 67.68%)
Tie: 25/464 = 5.39%
Defender win: 125/464 = 26.94%.So we should be looking for 67.68% attacker win, 5.39% tie, 26.94% defender win. Again, aatoolkit reports 91%+ attacker win with 6%ish defender win, aacalc reports 67.5% attacker with 27.5% defender win.
So is aatoolkit functionally incorrect? Well, if it just so happens that aatoolkit’s PRNG implementation is identical to 1942 Online’s implementation, then aatoolkit would be functionally correct. But if PRNG implementation in 1942 Online puts out functionally random numbers then it does look like aacalc is functionally correct.
-
I have no idea what you could’ve done to make aatoolkit show 2 inf v 1 inf as over 90% odds. It shows around 68% for me every time
-
Also, thanks for pointing out that Japan is actually better off taking off fighters before AC in that battle. I’m assuming it’s because if the AC survives the 1st round, a 2nd round sub hit can be assigned to it instead of the battleship, preventing it from dying before it can fire in the 2nd round.
-
You may find that with the corrected order of loss that “coinflip” no longer applies. But I left the term in deliberately.
With the original quoted statistics, the odds were near 54.3% for attacker, after the correction 63.9% (though the points I made about UK survivors and the subsequent position, versus simply trying to “win” the immediate battle apply). You could say, with fairness, that 63.9% isn’t really a coinflip.
But when I write “coinflip” I mean “an unnecessary attack with no good contingencies in case of bad dice.”. In the case of a UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet, I can see how that attack could be considered “necessary” in terms of desired objectives, and you could even say that if the attack went somewhat bad that there would be some gain. But is it “necessary” in terms of winning or losing? Rather than playing conservatively and looking for an opening from dice results or opponent action, might not the UK1 attack absent bid itself possibly create an opening for an opponent off bad dice results?
That is how I think about the UK1 East Indies attack without a bid. If it goes fantastically, obviously great. If it goes off all right but not spectacularly, then Germany still keeps its Mediterranean fleet and that can be a problem if the Axis player is competent. If the UK1 attack goes badly you just shot yourself in the foot.
So what is not a coinflip attack? Suppose Germany has a stack on Ukraine and plans to capture Karelia this turn. Suppose USSR has a stack on West Russia that threatens Karelia, and that Japan isn’t in position to reinforce German-controlled Karelia with fighters. Now suppose Germany has an attack of 54% or so on West Russia, and that Germany does not expect to be able to defend Karelia well. Say also that Germany can move infantry up to reinforce on following turns. Now, Germany can’t use its fighters to defend Karelia, but Germany can use its fighters to *attack West Russia. It’s possible that the projections will be that even with bad dice that an attack into West Russia will weaken USSR’s stack enough that Germany will be projected to hold Karelia, which will mean two additional German units on the front. That is, in case of good dice Germany can break the game open, in case of neutral dice Germany expects to hold Karelia and after retreating moving infantry reinforcements up means Germany’s precious tanks won’t be at risk, and even in case of bad dice, Germany still expects to hold Karelia and protect its tanks after infantry reinforcements are moved up. Even with the German West Russia attack nominally having coinflip odds, the board position means Germany is likely to gain regardless, so the attack is not what I call “coinflippy”.
Contrast to UK1 East Indies attack. If it fails, it really is a bad position, right? For battles that don’t have some sort of contingency against bad dice, I prefer at least 85% to not think of an attack as “coinflippy” and even then if I’m playing accurately I still won’t do 85% if I think I can increase the odds to above that on later turns.
With all of this, I don’t mean to say the UK1 attack on Japan’s East Indies fleet without bid is bad. Different players have different risk preferences, and even absent that, if one thinks that an opponent outclasses them, they could try for a line that their opponent might not be ready to handle. But returning to the original post, I’d still certainly say that I thought KJF in 1942 Online was rather an uncertain prospect, certainly worse than at GenCon in any event.
-
@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
I have no idea what you could’ve done to make aatoolkit show 2 inf v 1 inf as over 90% odds. It shows around 68% for me every time
I opened up aatoolkit again and ran 2 inf vs 1 inf and got 68.3%. But I originally got the 90%+ figure off aatoolkit that I mentioned after running the naval projections. Maybe that impacted it? You can see below that you do get consistent 90%+ for whatever reason sometimes; I spammed the “Calculate” button to get a few outputs so you’d see it’s not just a one-time thing.
(I turned charts off so there’s less clutter, but the charts showed the same thing as summed in those screenshots). Could it be aatoolkit has some bit of code somewhere that doesn’t get cleaned up properly that means improper results get returned?
@kakarrot1138 said in kjf no good in 1942 online:
Also, thanks for pointing out that Japan is actually better off taking off fighters before AC in that battle. I’m assuming it’s because if the AC survives the 1st round, a 2nd round sub hit can be assigned to it instead of the battleship, preventing it from dying before it can fire in the 2nd round.
That would explain it in theory, but in practice (and this is what aacalc indicates as well), I expect it not to work that way. I’ve run a load of projections on combats involving submarines; generally the odds of a submarine hitting are low, and though there especially with low unit count battles that counts for something, I don’t expect the odds of the sub hit in this case to increase the odds, when you’re looking at the low chance a carrier hits, preventing the low chance of a sub hit, balanced against the high chance a fighter hits. (Yes, the fighter won’t hit the sub, but the overall chances of battle drop if the fighter is selected as a casualty* before* the carrier? Weird? Anyways aacalc below:)
Attacking carrier first, defender carrier-fighter-battleship, attacker overall 64%
Attacking carrier first, defender fighter-carrier-battleship, attacker overall 68%
That is, if defender drops fighter before carrier, then attacker chances go up, not down. That’s what I expect - not from actually calculating it out, mind! - but just informally my expectation off “eyeballing” it.
In science, it’s always important to remember the dangers of researchers interpreting data to fit a projected result.
Of course, I haven’t actually calculated out this case (it’s a bit more involved), and even if the calculations did indicate something, there is the question that I mentioned earlier of whether PRNG outputs functionally approximate actual random numbers. So I’m certainly interpreting data to fit a projected result myself, and if it’s a matter of selecting a dataset that fits a projection, I’m doing that too.
But informally speaking, don’t you think it a little weird? If you’re preserving the carrier and losing a fighter instead, you’re dropping a 4 to preserve a 2. For that 2 to make a difference, the 2 has to connect, which in turn is preventing an opponent’s 2 from taking a shot. But the probability of all that, contrasted to a good solid 4? Attacker composition 1 carrier 1 sub 2 cruiser 2 fighter, defender composition 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 battleship? Doesn’t it even look like maybe a defending 4 that couldn’t connect on an attacking 2 and would instead start chopping away at attacking 3’s, would offset a defending 2, even if that defending 2 could possibly negate a submarine surprise attack? Especially if both fighters are set to expire before the carrier. If the attacker had a composition that mostly couldn’t be hit by fighters, then I could see more a case for it, but it’s just that one submarine.
I don’t expect a UK1 attack against East Indies (with no bid and with 2 UK fighters) has over 90% to win. I think aatoolkit may be wrong. Well, maybe not. Be nice if someone calculated it out.
-
Ok so after testing some more with both sites, toolkit for some reason can’t handle it when you set everything to be taken last, even though it should be irrelevant. It was giving almost 100% odds to 1 sub 1 CA 2 FTR vs 1 dBB and 2 FTR. I can’t find a way to rectify the disrepancy between it and aacalc when it comes to this sz 37 battle.
-
btw
UK carrier submarine 2 cruiser 2 fighter vs Japan 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 battleship
https://aacalc.freezingblue.com/b/s5nnfm
comes in around 63%
Suggested Topics
