Starting to lose my mind with this game

@Naqataro If you still want the game removed, please message me your Commander Name, ID, and the game title.

hey Someguy

This is just me commiserating more then helping, :)

but i can add sending 3 subs, 1 cruiser, 2 planes against a rus sub, 1 destroyer and 1 battleship and transport. and Britain keeps the battleship and transport.

Generally though if your opponent takes stupid risks they will keep taking stupid risks with all nations they are playing. it might pay off once against Germany but fail catastrophically against Japan.

I would recommend hanging around a few turns, underdog come back wins might be rare but they are the most satisfying by far.

Thanks to moderators for certain recent action.

I mentioned earlier going into detail would derail the thread, but reading through this thread can give incorrect impressions. So some comments (though brief) are appropriate.

Even if imbalance only applies to new players before they get used to certain strategy and tactics, it’s still an issue.

I believe there is mathematical imbalance favoring the Axis, not limited to new players. Roughly, the argument:

A. If either side has a fairly “safe” move that offers good chance of advantage, that action should be taken.

B. The Axis have a higher chance of such occurring than the Allies (after player action, dice outcomes, and contingencies). Particular conditions include Germany’s counter to USSR1’s West Russia capture, contrasted to Germany’s failing the UK battleship fight / UK destroyer at Mediterranean fights. For both Axis cases the chance of failure is lower, and Axis ability to recover from bad dice is higher, compared to the Allied position.

Readers should understand B is not an argument that should be undertaken lightly. I make an especial point, as on several past instances some readers would take some parts of what I’d write, and try to twist the argument to support their diametrically opposite positions. But the proof is not in some grandiose “concept” or whatever flim-flam trickery. The proof is in pages and pages of reasoning, mathematics, explanations of contingencies &c, and if you don’t have that, you will fall on your face.

I think posters in search of an absolute truth won’t have a problem with falling on their face sometimes. But for posters that just want to prop up bad arguments with “impressive sounding” phrases, best not.

==

There are a few points that ought be brought up regarding panzer666’s posts.

First, the question of versions. EricB’s second post referenced ranking, which uses the LHTR setup. Snoil’s eighth post referenced his initially referencing the OOB setup and later using the LHTR setup. MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s second post questioned whether LHTR was being used - and for all posters and posts, I think generally the thought was that the LHTR was being used, for 1942 Online in particular.

Then panzer666 posts, and you see where he talks about 12 to West Russia / 9 to Ukraine being soft. (Reference MarineIguana/BostonNWO’s first post / panzer666’s first post).

Panzer666 is right about that in the OOB setup because OOB Germany’s bomber won’t be destroyed at Ukraine, so Germany has a better counter to West Russia. It’s only in LHTR that USSR1 12 WRussia / 9 Ukr becomes more viable.

(But as I read it, everyone else, including myself, was referencing the LHTR setup by that point. Well, these things are easily missed).

Second, though

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke

Doubling down on advice without knowing the version under discussion (at least, that’s how I read the situation), plus calling something a “funny joke” on top of that, plus being wrong on the actual points why something is supposedly a “funny joke”.

Wrong on the actual points? Well, I think so.

@panzer666 said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@ericb you say Germany is in a lot of trouble if allies target her .that’s a funny joke .first of all Germany targets the allies first round except Russia which should be on the defensive anyway unless you think russia can just walk on into Berlin .just look at the facts Germany starts at the gates of Moscow ,real good way of targeting Germany.so Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.

Let’s assume it is OOB setup (which again I’ll point out isn’t how I see any other participating poster in this thread commenting.)

First, about victory cities. Axis control Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Philippine Islands, Kwangtung. Allies control Eastern US, Western US, Hawaiian Islands, United Kingdom, India, Russia, and Karelia.

The assertion is Axis win on victory cities, but that’s not really the focus in games between skilled players. Chess games are not won by the actual capture of an opponent’s king, but by material, by position, by pressure. Similarly, victory cities are a pressure condition skilled players work with and around. A game may end with Axis victory city condition, but with competent players it’s far less about raw power and some forced scripted inevitable victory, and far more about pressure and best chances.

Practically, the Axis need three out of four of the usually-contested territories of Karelia, India, Hawaiian Islands, and Russia to win. Capturing East US, West US, or United Kingdom is not possible with normal dice with reasonably skilled players. I trust I need not go into detail.

The obvious response is the Axis can capture Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands, so “the Axis get a victory city win”. But by the time that happens the Allied player should be able to contest Kwangtung, Philippines, Karelia, France, and/or Italy. I do not say the Allies can always contest one of those victory cities, what with dice and player actions - but understand the definition of a competent Allied player is one with a plan with some reasonable expectation of preventing loss by victory city.

Second, about the Allied navy. “Germany can all but sink the allied week indefensible navy because that’s realistic to ww2 ,British Navy is nothing but tug boats .apparently.then good luck rebuilding the navy having to abandon the pacific to Japan ,leaving you wide open for a victory city loss.”

There’s a lot to unpack there, but none of it is necessarily correct. There’s just a bit too much “magical thinking”.

“good luck rebuilding the navy”? On the contrary. Even if Germany positions its air west, there are reasonable scenarios that have UK opening with a fleet buy - which you can reasonably say Germany may be able to sink. But if Germany does expend its air on UK targets, that means less that can hit at the Allies in land territories in Europe. To be clear, even if German air has decent odds on a favorable-odds battle against a UK navy, that can still be a strategic mistake. The Axis still need to break the combined Allied stack on land, and if Germany is losing fighters in other battles - you see.

Then too, there’s the question of US1 navy build into US2 air build into US3 noncombat movement and air unifying off UK after a UK3 fleet drop. The Allies don’t want to do things that slowly if it can be helped, but even so it’s moderately quick and there’s almost nothing the Axis can do to stop it, short of measures that end up costing the Axis so much that the investment is questionable.

Finally (for the second point regarding Allied navy anyways), there’s the question of what, precisely, you’re recommending. What, precisely, you think the Allied naval situation is and should be. You dismissively say the Allied navy is blown up, but is it really? If the two US transports off East US survive, for example, they can make a drop to French West Africa, then both UK and US have counterplay against German income in Africa. If that covers Africa, what of Asia? Well, what would you recommend, that the Allies try to fight Japan in the Indian and Pacific Oceans? I’ve written quite a lot elsewhere about how I don’t think that works well at all. So if you’re going to say the Allies go Atlantic, and if the Allies can go Atlantic, and if the Allies have reasonable chances elsewhere, then perhaps the Allied position isn’t that bad.

Unless you’re saying Germany destroyed everything in the Atlantic, which with OOB setup it has some reasonable chances at. But destroying everything requires some extraordinary luck, even in OOB. If you disagree, go ahead and post the OOB Germany1 turn moves and probability distributions that demonstrates otherwise.

The third point is claiming Russia should be on the “defensive”. Actually USSR needs to produce some offensive units to prevent Germany from early gains. I’m not saying USSR should go bombers, but pure infantry isn’t great for USSR either.

If you want to recast that in the context that you’re talking about West Russia being broken, remember. As I read it most others in the thread are assuming LHTR setup, which means far weaker Germany in Atlantic, plus Germany’s bomber almost certainly being destroyed. It’s still quite possible that West Russia gets broken, but it’s not near as likely as in OOB, nor is the position nearly as bad even if it does happen.

The fourth point is the general pessimism and dismissiveness of panzer666’s view of the Allies. If someone’s a bit vague, or even pessimistic, fair enough. But an argument consisting of saying UK is reduced to “tugboats” and Allies “abandon” the Pacific and claiming the Axis win by VC, well, some of that can happen, but what of Allied pressure at Karelia? What if Allies open up early trading at France/Italy? These possibilities are not considered, and even dismissed as a “joke”. There’s good points in what panzer666 writes, especially if you’re thinking about the OOB, but even for OOB, it’s a bit much.

Suppose it’s KGF. Why don’t the Allies develop pressure at Karelia? Obviously the Allies do that; once the Allies can shuttle stacks of cost-effective ground units to reinforce Russia then if the Allies haven’t fought any severely losing stack battles the Allies have real chances (even if down on economy). Besides that, as I wrote, the Allies must have a plan that prevents loss by victory city. It is accepted Axis will have a strong hold on Karelia, will capture India, and Hawaiian Islands. By the time that happens, Allies must contest another victory city. That’s just how it is.

But what if the Allies don’t develop pressure at Karelia? But as I wrote, a competent Allied player will play to prevent VC loss. So the only reason Karelia doesn’t open up is if Allies managed to open up trading at France/Italy instead.

So no matter how you slice it, you see the Allies are preventing loss by victory city condition - provided Russia doesn’t fall. (I’m not getting into KJF/antiKJF here as I’m just illustrating general points).

But you want to say that Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands all fall before that happens? How, exactly? Karelia, sure, but if you send towards Hawaiian Islands early then you’re not pushing to Asia or India early. If you push India early you’re not pushing Hawaiian Islands early. There’s going to be a delay one way or another if the Allies player is competent.

As usual I’m not trying to establish any sort of comprehensive argument. At the open, I usually start by saying look at least at the few things I’m pointing out, think about how things really happen, think about the validity of the counterargument.

If there’s still disagreement that’s fine, but at least there should be a framework of logical argument, of points that can be proved or disproved. When an argument is based on a logical framework, there can be progression in the discussion.

It never ends

https://imgur.com/a/AQG3QBC

2 Bombers shot down, 1 left and it does 1 damage.

I find this new thing which is steadily increasing…which is i open the list of potential games in multiplayer ( not ranked) and lets say the list shows 6 games…I can only enter 2 of them, the other 4 are “blocked in a sense” you click and nothing happens…is their some new thing we need to do like update the game? And i cant believe for a second that only 6 games in total around the earth are being played…what gives?

@Brian-Cannon I’m a bit late getting to this but as @aardvarkpepper suggested, the battle calculator (hosted by this very site at http://calc.axisandallies.org/) is your friend here. Basically, before committing to your moves, take a look at what your opponent’s possible moves are going to be and run battle calculations on what would happen if your opponent played a certain way (IMPORTANT NOTE: Remember to set the “rounds of combat” setting to “all” and “10,000X” (more simulated battles = more accurate prediction) and to also set the “luck” setting to “1942” and “Pure Luck” to be accurate to AAO.

I’m not going to speak to your specific game example because that’s not what this thread was about, but I’ll give you the same advice other people gave when faced faced the “Dark Skies” strategy. Basically, a large intimidating air stack can only attack one large stack (be it a land stack of ~10 INF or greater or a naval stack of ~5 Destroyers or greater) in one round. Because of this, you need to be a bit greedy and push forward with all of your large stacks simultaneously, creating potentially-game-winning threats in multiple regions of the board. This puts the Allies in a bad spot because they’ll be forced to choose between solidly destroying one of your threats (and letting the other ones get off scott-free to accomplish its objective) and taking multiple risky fights trying to stop all of your threats (which will probably result in the air stack getting severely reduced/destroyed, making it your victory). I’ve been talking in abstracts here but I can give a rough-ish approximation based on your game. Don’t take this as a one-to-one guide on what you should’ve done in that game, I have no idea what the board looked like:

Scenario: USA is ferrying air stacks from W. USA -> Yakut -> Center Map (Moscow). USA is using said stack to wipe out anything that moves (i.e. Japanese navy, Germany trading attempts in Russia, etc.).

Threat #1 - Get Germany’s entire army (or at least a good chunk of it) in Caucasus, threatening Moscow and demanding that USA keep the air stack in or around Moscow.

Threat #2 - Move out with Japan’s fleet and either threaten taking Hawaii+India for the last VCs (you said you had Karelia earlier and I’m assuming with a strategy like this the Allies weren’t taking Philippines/Rome/Paris anytime soon) OR threaten challenging/destroying the US fleet off of Alaska. If taking the first option here you’d just need to spend a turn or two spamming land units on Japan proper to avoid a landing in Japan. Japan is really easy to defend because of it’s 8 production.

With a large-enough Japanese Navy threatening game-over in one part of the board (by either sinking the USN (thus shutting off the stream of air units into Russia) and the German Army threatening game-over in another (Moscow), the USA in this hypothetical scenario is forced to use their air stack to either sink the IJN or wipe out the German Army. If they sink the IJN the Nazis grab Moscow and win the game, and if they wipe out the Caucasus stack the IJN accomplishes its objective and you win the game. If the USA tries for both they’ll probably fail unless the AAO RNG screws you, in which case you do what the rest of us good folks do and make a thread/post complaining about it.

tl;dr Use the Battle Calculator. Make multiple threats so the Allies need to pick one to deal with and the other(s) can prevail without issue. Don’t fear the reaper, as the song goes.

Hope this helps at least somewhat.

Yeah, I want this too.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog Thanks for your response! Okay, I will send future bug reports (if any) to the link you provided.