Japanese Missed Bombers

Ps. Couple thoughts on the Polar Express concept as an endgame play rather than an opener…

A version of this strat can be made to work in the final rounds, provided that Japan is no longer needed at the center, and has sufficiently outpaced the Americans on income. It’s also helpful if the Allied player is a good sport, or just wants to play out a few more rounds before calling it a night.  :-D

An example might be, if Germany is poised to take Moscow alone, such that Japan has a free hand to redirect early against North America, instead of Africa. Or if it seems like the Allies might be able to trade Moscow for Berlin in the same round, and Japan wants to keep going.

It requires that you have a large number ground units at the ready preferably in Yakut and Munchuria. The basic idea is to spam transports at the last minute before the planned invasion. So say you have 5 or 6 transports with 12 or more units ready to transport out of sz 60 to Alaska, and several more ground units in Yakut or Manchuria, that can move to Bury at the same time so that they can be shucked the following round. Then you spam 5 more transports to set up the double shuck, from Japan and Manchuria to Buryatia with one transport group, and from Buryatia  to Alaska with the other transport group.

To pull this off, you have to be able to match US production a full round ahead of their ability to equal your forces from their production centers, and this with already existing Japanese units, which is why you need the Yakut stack at the ready. If you can rapidly amass a large stack of ground in Alaska by using existing Japanese units, it may be possible to walk them to Western Canada without fear of a crushing counter attack from the US, and then you can use your transports to threaten W. US on amphibious, while you attempt to can open Central or Eastern Canada with German bombers for a blitz on DC. Although not a particularly likely deep endgame, it can sometimes be a more direct route to the ultimate Axis smackdown, than taking London.

Again, I don’t think its something that you can really plan for from the outset, but more of a redirect at the last possible second, where you make as if to threaten Moscow from Yakut, but then rapidly double back for the Alaskan crossing. It’s also pretty simple for the US to cover against this play, if they see it coming, so you really have to catch them with their guard down.

I think there are only two times I’ve seen it work. Once was in a KGF game, where the Russian player made a strategic withdrawal from Moscow in an attempt to triple team G. And another game where Germany got lucky on their tank drive and smoked Moscow earlier than anyone expected. In both instances the Allies were playing a masochist’s game, fighting on rather than conceding haha

Excellent read with bullet points made! Thumbs up

@GiddyXray:

I’m not so familiar with calculations, but i did some simulation for this case. I found that on average the damage is about equal to the cost. That means that it is not a very strong strategy. You do need some luck for it to be effective. However, if you have average luck, you’ll be cutting germany’s income quite a bit. If at the same time you are able to kick him out of africa, you will give Rusia a much easier time to hold off Germany, until you are able to start a second front in Europe.

You are helping me thinking deeper on that issue.
This question rise in my mind:
what is the average TUV change in a fruitful combat with a combined attacking forces with ground and air units?

It is easier to calculate what is the average TUV (Total Unit Value) change per SBR with 1 Strategic Bomber without any interception.

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor / with special HR bonus damage (+1 /+2/+3) to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPCs damage/SBR  / (1 damage pt if StB is killed) +1.084 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +3.750 - 2 = +1.750 IPCs damage/SBR / (1 damage pt… ) +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / (2 damage pt…) +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / (3 damage pt… ) +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR  / (3 damage pt… ) +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

But what is the usual TUV change an attacker can hope for in a not so risky battle, on average?
Is it far better or not than +2.583?

Great post Black Elk. Here are my usual US buys for the first 3 rounds.

1st 3 bombers. Save 6
2nd 3 bombers, Transport, infantry
3rd 2 bombers, Transport, 2 infantry
4th turn on can change based on bomber losses, German plane buys, and what Japan is doing.

The point with this build is to merge allied fleets off sea zone 13 on turn 3.

@Black_Elk:

Tactical Bombers, or Mech inf units could maybe be accommodated, but I would think that introducing the G40 factory mechanics into 1942.2 would probably break the game. Just a few things to consider…

Major factory in UK allowing for a 10 unit drop on KGF, or in Japan a 10 + drop to defeat any real chance of KJF taking Tokyo.

Major factory purchase in Manchuria, allowing Japan to push wildly across Asia.

India, Caucasus, or Italy upgraded to Major dropping 10+ units a round.

Eastern US restricted to 10, preventing an effective Atlantic crossing.

I suppose its possible some of these might balance out against each other, but at a glance I think it would bust the set up. I’ve never tried though, so this is just conjecture not the result of any experiments. Could be I’m in the minority, but I find the G40 rules concerning factories unnecessarily confusing. The prohibition of factories on islands, when starting factories are on islands (UK, Japan), while at the same time basically shutting down any chance of a pacific minor factory, which would probably have been the most interesting use for them anyway. The necessity to build new factories in “original” territories, when these don’t necessarily correspond to the “starting” territories. The fact that minors only require a territory at 2 ipcs to drop, but can produce 3 units, while majors only need a territory at 3 but can drop 10 units.

To me the execution just complicates an aspect of the game that should be relatively straight forward. It took a cool idea (that you might separate unit deployment from an attachment to the printed ipc values on the map, or build minor factories in territories without a restriction on IPC value cap) and then watered it down to something that just seems annoying. I see the whole Major/Minor factory dynamic in G40 as yet another example of stubbornness and inflexibility regarding the games overall production distribution. The desire to maintain territories at zero or 1 ipc is so strong, that rather than adjusting IPC values up directly, you split the factory unit class in two? Introducing confusion into a part of the game that used to be easy to explain and teach. And then nerf it such that it is basically useless in the one area of the map where it might prove interesting (valueless pacific islands!) hehe. Its the sort of thing that makes me knock my head on the wall.  :-D

I think there is something elegant and intuitive about capping production at the printed ipc value 1:1 the way it is handled under normal 1942.2 rules. Its easier to keep track of, since the numbers are written directly on the board. I’d rather have more territories just raised to a value of 2 ipcs directly on the board (so they are viable for normal factories) rather than creating a whole new mechanic for factories, or multiple different factory unit types. Another paragraph of rules, another thing to keep track of in an already complex game. Alas

Here is an idea about how to use those same Major and Minor Factory units in 1942.2…
Ditch the global rules about them altogether, and then use the pieces in some new way! :)

For example, retain the Majors as your normal factory unit, and use the Minors as some kind of forward deployment base that has nothing to do with the printed IPC values. As a side note, the most interesting rules I have found for 1942.2 regarding factories, is to allow ICs to be destroyed… whether optionally, by the withdrawing defender, or automatically as soon as it is captured by the opponent.

Well said Black Elk. I like the concept of lowering the cost of the factory unit. Allow them to be built anywhere. Limit their production to a set amount of units produced per turn. The caveat is that they can be destroyed just like any other unit. The stats would obviously need to be factored, but allowing factories to simply be destroyed or built as needed would make the game a lot better IMO.

@ossel:

The conclusion the other thread reached was that the best solution was to permanently award whatever Victory City was bombed to the attacker, and maybe damage production. This reflects what the use of these weapons in WWII was trying to accomplish.

I read and that does make sense. I will just have to experiment some time when I have the chance.

Thanks again for showing me that thread.

@Baron:

The Triple A 1942.2 SBR rule is each plane get Att or Def @1 and StB get 1D6 damage.

However, the math also shows that it is not better to bring along Fg as escort than throwing only StBs.
Almost the same odds: 0.825 IPC/ SBR run (with 1 StB 1 Fg) vs 0.861 IPC/ SBR run (with 2 StBs).

The only difference is with 2 Bombers there is much risk (of loosing more IPCs) but also much reward (more damage against the defender).

From this, my analysis will be that there is no need to escort 2 bombers or more with Fighters as long as you get a 1:1 ratio against defending interceptors. Better to put your Fgs on other missions.

Below there is the maths.

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1

Sum: +8.195 - 7.334 = + 0.861 IPCs damage/StB

I can also add that it is even more the case with G40 SBR, no need to throw a Fg on an escort mission if you have at least 2 StBs and a 1:1 ratio against defending interceptors.

According to the maths of G40 OOB SBR rules, the odds to inflict damage to the defender are clearly increasing keeping 1:1 ratio, from 1 StB, 1 StB+1Fg and, finally 2 StBs.
The odds are even better than a single bomber against an undefended Industrial Complex ! ( +2.583 vs + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run)

G1940 SBR: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor/ damage 1D6+2
Sum: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1 / damage 1D6+2
Sum: + 4.845 - 3.666 = + 1.179 IPC. damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 4.85 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 damage: 1D6+2
Sum: +7.775 - 5.33 = + 2.445 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 damage: 1D6+2/StB
Sum: +10.973 - 7.334 = + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 3.667 = + 3.972 IPCs damage/SBR run

G40: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +11.459 - 5.666 = + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor (A1 vs D1, damage 1D6)
Sum: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D1
Sum: +3.69 - 3.667 = + 0.023 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2 : 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1 / damage 1D6
Sum: + 2.025 - 5.056 = - 3.031 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +6.155 - 5.33 = + 0.825 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +8.195 - 7.334 = + 0.861 IPC damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: + 5.973 - 3.667 = + 2.306 IPCs damage/SBR run

Triple A SBR 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: +8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/StB

OOB SBR rules for 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor damage: 1D6
Sum: + 2.917 - 2 = +.917 IPC damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB A1 first strike vs 1 Fg D2
Sum: + 3.8 - 4.8 = - 1 IPC damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2 / damage 1D6
Sum: + 3.071 - 7.185 = - 4.114 IPC. damage/SBR

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Sum: + 6.018 - 7.555 = - 1.537 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 first strike doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
Sum: +7.547 - 9.556 = - 2.009 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Sum: + 5.973 - 5.159 = + 0.814 IPCs damage/SBR run

OOB 1942.2: 2 StBs A1 first strike doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Sum: + 8.214 - 6.315 = + 1.899 IPCs damage/SBR run

So the only case for advocating Fg escort is within OOB SBR rules from 1942.2, the odds are less worse for the attacker if it keeps pairing 1 StB with 1 Fg.

Playing 1942.2 online with Triple A SBR rules however, it is a different story. As in G40, 2 StBs has almost the same odds of doing damage as a single StB raid against an undefended IC.
(.861 vs .917 IPC/SBR run)

So, based on these comparative stats, we can say that the actual OOB 1942.2 SBR rules is more historical than the 2 others, since the game mechanics give less risks for bombers when paired to Fg but it is at the expense of making SBR strategies much less appealing for attacker, and for Allies in particular.

Here is the link to HR forum for what I think is a more historical and balance SBR rules:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34118.msg1311386#msg1311386

J2 conquest would mean UK messed up big time and china did not attack or japan let them take over some 2 IPC territories.