Perfect !!! Pretty much had it right then.
Thanks very much
USSR1 submerging submarine or nah, G1 6 to sz7 or 5, 2 fighters to Archangel
-
Every so often I’d post on another forum or Discord then a couple months later someone would pop up asking the same question but the post would be buried.
So I’m pasting Discord stuff in here.
Today’s topic: Whether R1 (USSR1) should or should not submerge submarine when joining UK’s battleship.
There was some other recent discussion on Discord about whether Germany should send 6 units to sz7 or 5 units, this touches on that.
==
Every so often, players have strong differences of opinion because each side thinks they have a monopoly on the truth. As may be imagined, such arguments are difficult to resolve, especially when each side does have reason to believe their side is correct.
. . . then an aardvark wanders in and poops a bunch of numbers and commentary all over the place then wanders off.
. . . and sometimes players get angry because This Is Not How Civilized Aardvarks Act. There Must Be An Order To Things, And Pooping Lots Of Numbers And Detailed Commentary Is Not How Things Are Done.
And yet, there WAS a time, a golden age of thought, when ideas were commonly exchanged for the good of the community. When the internet was newly introduced, and people still thought of civility, before they learned to hide behind anonymous handles to sling barbs at one another.
(What, you say? No, my mum calls me aardvarkpepper, thank you very much. um yeah, totally true story there 🙄 )
But let us now embark on a journey of exploration, into the Great Questions of Our Time. USSR sub to submerge or nah? How many fighters on Archangel and when? 6 to sz7 or 5? Probably I’ll copy this to Axis and Allies org forums or something I shouldn’t wonder.
==
OVERVIEW:
R1 4 inf 3 art, 9 to Ukr, 12 to W Rus.
Flies 2 fighters to Archangel conditional on 1) capturing Ukr, 2) two AA guns W Rus
The problem with any “analysis” is there are loads of unspoken suppositions. So let’s explicitly acknowledge a few. USSR wants to place infantry and/or artillery at Caucasus, up to production limit, then place excess (including any tanks) at Moscow. Such placement allows USSR maximum pressure against Ukraine.
Why stipulate so many conditions to begin with? Because it is necessary to understand the assumptions of the model. For example, if West Russia is reasonably secure with one AA gun, then an AA gun may be added to Caucasus.
As ever, the addition or subtraction of a single unit is important, even for large stacks.
I quote a paper I wrote some time ago below.
"Consider 21 infantry, 8 artillery, 10 tanks, 5 fighters, 1 bomber, versus 38 infantry 2 tanks 4 fighters (links below.) Attacker odds drop from 62% to 46% with the inclusion of a single additional defending fighter.
-
But to return to USSR1.
Having defined some preconditions, now to define the conditions under which those preconditions may be bent.
Why do we assume West Russia needs two AA guns to hold? We shouldn’t simply assume; the point of this all is to make mathematically informed decisions. So what we should really do is run the numbers on West Russia’s defense, and the odds of West Russia having what we think is adequate.
But with “we think”, we come to the next conceptual barrier. It is not that there is a single best move, nor is it even simply a question of risk management and understanding probability distributions. Rather, much like a game of cards, a player should do their best to find the “tells” of other players, and when necessary, try to play to their outs.
Suppose, for example, I’m playing against a player that I know doesn’t like to do G1 hit West Russia, because they’re just not used to it. If I do a R1 12 to W Rus / 9 to Ukr open and only have 2 inf 2 art 1 tank surviving at W Rus, they might overcome their reluctance. But what if I have 5 inf 2 art 1 tank 1 AA? Even if Germany is favored in the attack, they might not attack.
So, what are the numbers on G’s attack on Caucasus, if USSR1 captures Ukraine? Say it’s 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 battleship vs 4 infantry.
22.26% attackers lose all units. Well, that’s a disaster.
But here’s a lesson in practical calculation aid reading. If attackers are likely to lose all units, there’s probably some intermediate result where the attackers can tell they’re going to lose, then they can retreat. Germany doesn’t have to lose its expensive air.
So, not so bad? Well, read on.
==
Totting up the numbers, it’s 66% that Germany destroys everything on Caucasus, yet fails to capture. That’s reasonably likely. And if Germany does fail to capture, UK1 can hit the battleship and transport with destroyer, fighter, and bomber. Unlike other scenarios, the UK1 bomber lives, AND UK has a decent chance to lose no air, not even a fighter. And that’s not great for Axis.
We can run the numbers on if Germany gives up a fighter instead of a tank, and mention some later consequences. But let’s just say generally Germany doesn’t want to give up air, for good reason. That is, I acknowledge assumptions are being made here, but I’m saying absent evidence to challenge a particular assumption, this is what we’re going with. 🤷
BUT?
The core challenging assumption is, what if Germany thinks that trade is reasonable?! Because it might. But that’s where we refine the stipulation of 2 AA on West Russia to, 2 AA on West Russia because we think Germany is deterred from the target.
And THAT closes the circle some. Because when will Germany find it profitable to trade at an IPC-value loss, considering the utility of Axis tanks and fighters? When the Axis plan to make it a battle of simple unit count. And in plain English, that pretty much means when Germany does multiple early attacks that deplete USSR’s numbers more than Germany’s own, and though Germany loses more IPC value and more units even, Germany still ends up overwhelming USSR.
But if we believe West Russia is not attacked (or even if attacked does reasonably well), then we think that precise thing probably will not happen.
-
Skipping over some stuff, this leads towards arguing USSR should land 2 fighters on Archangel. I claim USSR can afford to, that Archangel fighters to London increases UK’s range of answers to a G1 Baltic navy build that threatens invasion of London, that USSR in general wants an option to clean up the Baltic fleet, that Archangel fighters can hit east if Japan overextends (which actually they shouldn’t if they’re competent, but if it doesn’t hurt the Allies to check if an opponent is bad, why not.)
. . . and IF USSR fighters are on Archangel, they STILL don’t want to hit Baltic, because USSR fighters want to trade land. So if a USSR sub is around to do that, so much the better.
Why doesn’t UK clean up? Because UK bomber probably has Important Places To Be. UK fighters might be countering any survivors of sz7. What UK does depends in part on Germany’s turn, and since we don’t know what Germany will do on USSR’s turn, we want to keep our options open.
. . . and if USSR doesn’t use the sub at Baltic, it goes Med as fodder, because if the Axis try to push up through Med (which they will), an additional hit point is going to help.
This is one of these things where players say subs are sucky defenders (true), a hit point is helpful but subs are situational (true), etc. etc. BUT the fact is, either the Allies have that extra hit point in the Med, or they don’t, and if it’s blown up, then they don’t.
Make sense?
But now it’s time to get to the relative cost part.
I’ll start by saying Germany has two major attacks; either 6 to sz7, or 5 to sz7 and split a submarine to either East Canada fleet or East US fleet. (Personally I like East Canada, but there’s a point to be made for East US).
I’ll also say Germany can’t expect to hit units off French West Africa and land safely on Morocco. G2 landing Morocco eats US2 counter, unless Germany thinks US1 has no transports.
(Which is a legitimate argument but apparently the meta doesn’t support it so eh.)
==
So we have four scenarios to run for this wee look at things, and the aftermaths. 6 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 6 to sz7 and USSR fights, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges, 5 to sz7 and USSR submerges.
Make sense?
But first, even more stipulations. We say Germany does not want to risk air against UK navy, such as Berlin fighter vs UK cruiser. We ALSO say UK is “out for blood” and willing to trade with German air even at a loss, provided Germany does NOT have submarine fodder.
(And you know, the last just isn’t necessarily true, if G1 buys Baltic sub(s). But that’s another story, eh? 😉 I won’t even get into me complaining about why would players even park all fighters in range of London if they have no intention of engaging especially as they didn’t do any G1 sub buy. I mean, paper tiger much, but I digress.)
Ah, one more thing. Let’s say any “acceptable” result for Germany at sz7 is German air survives.
Suppose 6 go in and USSR sub fights.
87% “acceptable” for Germany. Well, that’s just too high, isn’t it, so let’s come up with some other stuff to test.
9.94% no loss
31.55% lose one sub
29.49% lose two sub
29.02% lose all subs or worse, let’s say that’s a “win” for Allies. (Actually, not true but I’ll get to that later). -
Now let’s have 6 go in and USSR sub submerges
16.93% no loss
45.12% lose one sub
27.3% lose two sub
9.87% lose more (say it’s a “win” for Allies.)I mentioned earlier, though, that setting these arbitrary failure points wasn’t really correct. How are we really defining this arbitrary “win” for Allies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9PrE044sLg
Remember all those discussions I mentioned we’re not having? Well, let’s add another one, the opportunity cost of the meta G1 bomber against the loss of 4 G1/G2 infantry. But assuming you’re in the camp that Believes in G1 Bomber, and Parking Air In Range Of London Sea Zones Yet Not Considering Building Submarines (probably sounds weird when I put it like that but whatever)
Again, we’re assuming R1 captured Ukraine. Now let’s skip ahead and say Germany has 5 fighter 1 bomber to threaten UK’s fleet. What’s a “bad fleet” for Germany?
2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is quite bad.
. . . not that 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter is a picnic. But 2 destroyers is right out.
==
Remember how earlier I stipulated Germany doesn’t want to trade German air against UK navy? So it doesn’t hit the UK cruiser?
Right. So UK1 can counter Germany’s sz7 survivors with up to 1 destroyer 1 cruiser 2 fighter 1 bomber. Yes, doing that means Germany’s Med fleet is safe. But then, if we’re assuming Germany went 6 to sz7, then US East fleet is safe and can drop at least 1 transport to French West Africa. And does Germany really want to hit that transport with its bomber (assuming it buys one) and land on Morocco, even if it can, in the face of a US1 Atlantic fleet plus transport build? Because that bomber will get blown up; Germany trading with UK is bad but trading with US at a loss?
I mean, there’s bad, then there’s this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c2yvfNEqyw
Like, even attempting it means Germany isn’t helping bleed out India, it’s so super good for Allies I get giddy just thinking about it. But let’s just have that be another discussion we’re not having. (It’s almost like we’re married isn’t it. 🙄 )
So IF Germany has 2 subs 1 cruiser, if UK’s willing to drop its cruiser then bomber, then 90% destroyer and 2 fighters survive, making that unpleasant 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter fleet we just discussed.
Oh yes, another discussion we’re not having is why do UK1 fleet at all, why not UK1 2 fighter build and fly fighters to W Rus.
-
Earlier I quoted sub fighting is 29.02% “win” for Allies, submerging is only 9.87% (and we’re completely ignoring Baltic counter options and Med hit point but whatever.)
So if a player’s thinking “I’m a big spender and I like to roll the dice, so if Allies have to build another sub or whatever sure what’s 6 to 8 IPC” - which they shouldn’t, because every IPC has to be considered - then? MAYBE they think let’s just roll the dice and try to get a “win”.
But if we redefine what constitutes a “win” and say Axis losing just one sub is not good, then we’re trading those Baltic options and the Med hit point to increase a 83% acceptable to 90% acceptable.
If destroying two subs or more is what’s required (which is overkill, but increases odds of UK preserving bomber on counter), then 58% acceptable changes to 38%.
But if UK considers 58% acceptable, then the 67% that UK keeps bomber, 2 fighters, and destroyer on the counter would be acceptable, wouldn’t it. 🤔
“russian (sub) surviving sz7 from submerge has very little value”
Let’s accept that as true for a moment, just for the discussion. But even then, it’s not a question of how little the value is, but how it’s best spent, isn’t it?
Or is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OyrX11cMkE
Conclusion: Let that USSR sub be destroyed, because it’s about sending a message. (That is, it’s NOT really about sending a message, so don’t do it :p )
Would letting the USSR sub be destroyed be edgy and subversive and cool?
But if it’s predictable, is that really edgy? 🤔
And for players that say me switching it up is trying to be edgy -
Well no, as the above demonstrates, I’m simply playing the numbers, based on my read of others’ risk and style preferences. 🤓
And if I sometimes play to counter the 4-to-sz7-gambling-on-submerge, well 🤷
==
So ends the Discord thread.
The “4 to sz7” is the flip side. If it’s logical for the USSR sub to submerge, then Germany may assume USSR will submerge. So Germany may attack sz7 with only 3 subs 1 cruiser, freeing 2 fighters for critical attacks in Europe.
Of course, with the live board game, if Germany attacks with 4, USSR defends in response.
-
Woops, realized I left out the 5 to sz7 part, so added it in Discord
==
I realized I didn’t get to the 5 to sz7 part. 🤔
https://youtu.be/qofMAoY0Ts4?t=60
Actually there’s this whole thing where players either do sub-cru-sub or cru-sub-sub or sub-sub-cru depending on attacker hits BUT eh.
Anyways you see there’s about 60% one or more German subs survive. Splitting a sub off to hit the UK East Canada fleet has 1/3 chance to lose outright, 1/3 chance to destroy UK destroyer only, 1/3 chance to wipe UK destroyer and transport.
So 5/1 split to Canada, assuming USSR fights is:
33% Germany destroys transport so doesn’t need to put anything on France.
30% Germany destroys destroyer at East Canada and has 1+ submarines surviving at sz7, which gives Germany fodder against UK1 fleet.
30% isn’t the greatest, sure. But compare to 6 to sz7. There, if UK wants to wipe all sz7 survivors, it has 67% to do so while preserving 2 fighters 1 destroyer 1 bomber, if willing to lose bomber, 90% to wipe.
But 5 to sz7 has higher chances of failure or air loss compared to 6 to sz7?
Well, I am always saying one unit makes a difference. So let’s see how that plays out
==
5 to sz7:
8.86% fail, 10.68% lose a fighter. 19.54% to not do well; that’s chunky numbers there.
6 to sz7:
2.05% fail, 3.51% lose a fighter. 5.56% to not do well.
Let’s ignore that Germany can do without a fighter (and there’s a lot of other things I’m ignoring too, typically the ones in favor of the point I’m arguing, but eh.)
What does Germany pay for that 14% increase in odds? And how can we put that risk in perspective?
It’s apples and oranges, but every time a bomber hits an IC, there’s 16.6% to lose a 12-IPC unit. Contrast to 14% to lose a 10-IPC fighter. (It’s not really the same, I know, losing the UK battleship fight sucks really hard. But bear with me.)
Against that, we set the 33% of being able to leave France defenseless, the 30% of having offensive fodder against a reduced UK navy. Balance that against the 3.5 IPC expected from strat bombing.
-
Recap: First, I looked at UK1 counter to G1, concluding it made sense to submerge the USSR sub as it isn’t needed on defense. Then, I looked at the numbers on 5 to sz7 1 to East Canada sea zone, vs 6 to sz7, and listed some of the relevant numbers.
Which is going in reverse a bit but whatever.
I mentioned earlier a lot comes down to things outside the realm of simple calculations. In the case of 6 or 5 to sz7, it comes down to, do you want to reduce risks and play a conservative strategy? Or do you think a conservative strategy simply doesn’t work? (Or “overly conservative strategy”, whatever.)
What if playing the Axis well requires taking on a certain amount of risk? Aren’t “top players” recommending 6 units to sz7, yet also saying Allies are advantaged? 🤔
“And always, he fought the temptation to choose a clear, safe course, warning 'That path leads ever down into stagnation.” - Dune, by Frank Herbert
==
-
Thanks for posting this here. Discord is miserable for actually maintaining/archiving information to the point where I have no idea how it’s become top dog over the years.
Suggested Topics
