Unstoppable strategy: 1942 scenario

@U-505:

For the record, if anyone want’s to try this strategy out I’m willing to take the Allies here. We can play best out of 3, best out of 5, Low luck to eliminate the wild dice swings, or whatever you think it would take to prove or disprove this strategy.

On what program?

I prefer Abattlemap but I have been known to play with tripleA

@U-505:

I prefer Abattlemap but I have been known to play with tripleA

Is AA50 out for triple A?

edit:  Yes, it is

If Germany is going so brutally after Moskow, can’t the UK threaten and take Berlin, grabbing all the precious German income?

The UK would easily have a +40 income (+50 with NO) when they aren’t attacked for two or three turns. Their transports, battleships and troops all over the world would hand it to them really quickly.

You’re saying France would fall to the UK, which seems correct. But if the axis don’t retake it for two turns, and they don’t even took out the UKfleet, these British troops would soon become dangerously numerous. I guess these groundforces, combined with the UKfleet, troops in England and maybe even the UKfighters defending Russia, might be capable to attack Berlin.

@U-505:

For the record, if anyone want’s to try this strategy out I’m willing to take the Allies here. We can play best out of 3, best out of 5, Low luck to eliminate the wild dice swings, or whatever you think it would take to prove or disprove this strategy.

Yeah, I think it is kind of a gimmick – at least it’ll be over quick. If the Allies see this one coming, and start pumping fighters into Russia I don’t think the Axis can pull it off.

Once they blunt the attack the game is over for Japan and Germany will be reeling.

One of the problems with the tactic/strategy is that Italy is wide open. Germany failed to retake France on G2 and UK drove a tank with airplanes into Italy. Stalls them right out.

So, you just can’t ignore the Western Front.

It bears some more analysis but I don’t think the Axis can pull it off if the Allies are wise to the possibility.

Looks great on paper though.

@Rakeman:

@U-505:

I prefer Abattlemap but I have been known to play with tripleA

Is AA50 out for triple A?

edit:  Yes, it is

Not quite, or it must’ve happened yesterday.

Tech and NO’s are not implemented yet, SBR isn’t either.
The map is though, and it requires some editing to get China and the transport-losses right, but to say that that makes teh game playable as if it were the real game…no :(

But to stay on topic: As stated above, a strategy like this is exposed to the Allies in turn 1 immeditaly. There’s enough they can pull off to make it fail.
As long as USSR stacks enough troops to delay the upcoming german tanks, the british and americans can do enough to make a threat to Berlin and/or Tokyo.

@halbower:

2. Leningrad is a FREE factory for the Germans. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for the Russian player to defend all three ICs on turn one. There are just too many Germans units to worry about so he has to give up one of them. Leningrad is the least valuable and hardest to defend.

this is far from true. the russian player can defend this if they move enough forces there, or they can just push outwards and create a buffer between this factory and germany (which i have done before, and it works quite well)

i think this strategy is really relying on the dice too much. if germany gets some terrible rolls, then that’s it. and if germany leaves its defence spread too thin, then uk and usa walk right in

@halbower:

This strategy does not use the national objectives. When testing this strategy, keep that in mind.

Well, that’s even better because the Axis usually rely on the NO’s more than the Allies do. Without the extra $15 from NO’s for Germany an Allied SBR campaign would reduce them to roughly 5 or 6 inf or even fewer armor every turn.

And don’t forget that because the Russian IC’s produce fewer units, when they are damaged, it also costs less to get them back to the point of producing units than the IC in Germany.

1. Japan moves first. What was Larry thinking!!! Allowing Japan go first allows one to pre-emptively position 6 Japanese fighters in Burma and 1 bomber in French Indo China so that they are ready to land in East Ukraine on turn 2.

Someone didn’t check if the moves are possible first: you can only land 5 fighters in Burma on J1. The fighter in Japan can’t reach Burma (5 moves required).

EDIT: Nevermind, wasn’t counting with the fighter on the Carolines.

I don’t believe there is such a thing as an unbeatable strategy.  Every strategy can be beaten.  That is one of the things I like most about this game, is trying to defeat unbeatable strategies.

@Hobbes:

1. Japan moves first. What was Larry thinking!!! Allowing Japan go first allows one to pre-emptively position 6 Japanese fighters in Burma and 1 bomber in French Indo China so that they are ready to land in East Ukraine on turn 2.

Someone didn’t check if the moves are possible first: you can only land 5 fighters in Burma on J1. The fighter in Japan can’t reach Burma (5 moves required).

I used the exact same strategy last Saturday; admittedly taken right from the original thread.  I saw that post a couple of weeks ago on the BGG site.  We were starting our 2nd game at 2:00 am, so I figured “what the hell.”

Japan can still make several opening attacks.  I still hit the Pearl fleet, but used the fighter from Japan.  The one on the Solomon fleet went to Burma.  I hit the UK fleet off of India (at work-no map and dont recall sea zones; sorry).  That attack didnt go too well.  I ended up having to lose the carrier and retreat both fighters to Burma.  Hit Buryatin too…used the bomber for support before landing FIC.

@cond1024:

I don’t believe there is such a thing as an unbeatable strategy.  Every strategy can be beaten.  That is one of the things I like most about this game, is trying to defeat unbeatable strategies.

I would have to agree.  For a long time building an IC in India was the way to go for the Allied “Asian wall strat.”  After a wile that method of play fell by the way-side as Japan seems to out produce the allies even with a second IC by the US.

Give it time it to will fall.

LT

I don’t believe there is such a thing as an unbeatable strategy.  Every strategy can be beaten.  That is one of the things I like most about this game, is trying to defeat unbeatable strategies.

I agree, i played Michael Tan three times 2 against him and 1 where he was Germany and i was Japan. I beat him twice and won the third time with him on my team. He has alot of bravado, but the results don’t demonstrate the reality of his claim. He latter posted his remarks on BGG, but he practical experience in playing this method is lacking. But he is a clever guy and i am sure his contention was the result of home study.

He has used the same strategy in Revised and my many variants with mixed results. I don’t think the Buy just tanks thing works against every player and every game.

@halbower:

@Mach:

@Hobbes:

1. Japan moves first. What was Larry thinking!!! Allowing Japan go first allows one to pre-emptively position 6 Japanese fighters in Burma and 1 bomber in French Indo China so that they are ready to land in East Ukraine on turn 2.

Someone didn’t check if the moves are possible first: you can only land 5 fighters in Burma on J1. The fighter in Japan can’t reach Burma (5 moves required).

I used the exact same strategy last Saturday; admittedly taken right from the original thread.  I saw that post a couple of weeks ago on the BGG site.  We were starting our 2nd game at 2:00 am, so I figured “what the hell.”

Japan can still make several opening attacks.  I still hit the Pearl fleet, but used the fighter from Japan.  The one on the Solomon fleet went to Burma.  I hit the UK fleet off of India (at work-no map and dont recall sea zones; sorry).  That attack didnt go too well.  I ended up having to lose the carrier and retreat both fighters to Burma.  Hit Buryatin too…used the bomber for support before landing FIC.

What were the results? Was the opening move good, bad or…?

umm……I can tell you about the first two rounds.  This was our groups first time playing 42, so I’m sure there were things overlooked.  I sat out the first game (drew the short straw in a 7 player group)…watched ball games and drank vodka tonics for 4 hours.  When we started the 2nd game at 2am, there wasnt a whole lot of interest, so I went for it.  Kinda funny too, because we didnt bother with our usual pre-game strategy session.  My German partner had no idea.

Anyway, I hit the Pacific with what I could and still be able to land Burma:  The Caroline fleet to Pearl along with the Japan fighter (the one that cant reach Burma)  Basically nothing left in the Pacific except the US sz56.  They countered of course on US1, landed the bomber in Hawaii.  I remember US2, they used the bomber and tansport to take back the Solomans which either took away a Japanese NO, or gave one to Allies…sorry, cant remember which).  The fighers used to take out UK India fleet, land Burma.  Built a couple of bombers in J1 to land FIC on J2.  J2 hit the Moscow factory with the one already in FIC.

I’d heard the Allies were a bit better off in 42, but havent played enough yet to really weigh in.  I didnt see it in this game though.  Japan isnt quite as strong.  Russia turtled on R1.  If I remember, I think they prety much brought all units West and stacked Moscow.  Somehow Germany took both Karlelia AND Caucaus on G1!  Hit Caucus with a couple of fighters and everthing else that would reach.  Hit Karelia with Finland, transport, fighter, and bombardment as near as I can recall.  Hit sz2 with subs, bomber and fighter.  Maybe there was a blunder on R1, dont recall and not famiar enough with 42 to say, but I just remember thinking it amazing that Karelia and Caucaus were taken in G1.  East Ukraine was supported on noncombat with East Poland units and fighters.  I ended up landing the Burmese fighters in Caucaus instead of East Ukraine.

After that, we had a couple players lose interest and abandon…it was late.  We blundered by hitting Russia too early.  Hit Moscow factory and then hit G2 with severl fighters, armor and infantry with the purpose of wearing them down and then retreat the armor and fighters.  Russia pulled 1’s and 2’s out of her @ss and we ended up losing some precious armor.  I lost interest and passed out shortly after that, but two players continued.  I believe the game would have been shorter if we had waited a turn or two.  Italy was landing in Caucuas every turn.

Anway, the game lasted longer than it should have in my opinion.  I woke up on the couch every 30 minutes or so to the sound of:  “do you concede yet?  do you concede yet?  do you concede yet?”  Moscow finally fell, but US had a sizeable Pacific force by this time and UK had been landing Europe.

Like I said, this was our groups first time at 42 and hadnt really looked at it until then.  So…dunno?

@Imperious:

He has alot of bravado, but the results don’t demonstrate the reality of his claim. He latter posted his remarks on BGG, but he practical experience in playing this method is lacking. But he is a clever guy and i am sure his contention was the result of home study.

He has used the same strategy in Revised and my many variants with mixed results. I don’t think the Buy just tanks thing works against every player and every game.

Ah, I see. One of those strategies that depends on the opponent being intimidated by it, like the all tank buy for G. Of course, things start going the wrong way when the opponent isn’t intimidated at all  :-D

I have been trying to find time to post a detailed counter to the Japanese Fighter Gambit (as I call this strategy), but I ran into Christmas and haven’t had time to go over the details like I want. I still hope to post this at some point, but I thought I would offer my thoughts based on what I have done so far, which is to play a couple of solo games trying to implement Michael Tan’s strategy as best I could while defending against it as best I could. I would go back and change things if I later realized they were sub-optimal, so this was not a “game” at all. I also tended to use “low luck” rules for resolving battles. My conclusions are:

(1) The strategy is not “unstoppable.” Michael himself admitted as much, noting that luck can ruin even the best plans. I do believe that the strategy is not beyond the reach of Lady Luck, as poor dice rolls early could easily turn the tide and allow Moscow to hold on (given an expert Allied defense of course).

(2) The strategy is a very good one. Japan’s sacrifices in giving up her fighters and her bomber(s) do not cripple the Rising Sun and these fighters give Germany a great advantage in securing forward ground against Russia (and later, if they survive, in making it hard for the Allies to take France or Rome or Berlin or Warsaw).

(3) The optimal Allied counter to the Japanese fighter gambit seems to mix offense and defense. Sending Allied units to Moscow, especially fighters, is probably critical to saving Moscow, but if the Allies only worry about defense, they won’t be in a position to take advantage if Moscow does indeed survive Germany’s push. Allied bombing raids and amphibious assaults targeting vunerable Italy seem the best bet.

The Bottom Line: Against all but very experienced players, I would imagine that the Japanese Fighter Gambit would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union by Turn Four. Even against experienced players prepared for the strategy, I see Leningrad and Stalingrad falling very early into Axis hands. However, I do think those experienced players can save Moscow while simultaneously preparing a modest invasion of Europe. Together, this offense/defense strategic response to the Japanese Fighter Gambit seems to put the outcome of the game back up in the air. The key moment to me is Round Four. If Moscow can survive that Round, her Allies should be in position to take territories in Europe such as Rome that would minimize, though perhaps not completely make up for, the fall of Moscow on Round 5 or later. One final point is that, unlike some posters, I don’t see the failure of this strategy to lead to Axis collapse. I think the Axis players can push forward with this strategy, easily steamrolling Moscow if the Allies don’t respond just right. If the Allies do respond appropriately, the Axis aren’t doomed but have gained valuable ground and can pull back before committing suicide. So, I think this is a very viable Axis strategy even if it isn’t unstoppable.

Is a house rule needed? My feeling on this is mixed. No, a house rule is probably not needed because the game isn’t truly broken. However, I don’t like the strategy because it is ahistorical and threatens to either lead to a quick (but cheesy) Axis victory or a long drawn out game. As a fan of the five hour game, those are not good options. If it were me, I would try to use the National Objectives to limit the Japanese Fighter Gambit. In my eyes, these objectives reward strategic play that aligns with political factors. It would not have been politically viable for either Germany or Japan if the entire Japanese air force was moved to Germany. Therefore, I would favor some changes to the Axis National Objectives, perhaps adding language like that which already exists for Russia, that would penalize and hopefully deter players from using the Japanese Fighter Gambit. What exactly that language would look like, I haven’t come up with yet.

Thanks to Michael Tan for posting his strategy (on BGG). I have found learned much from exploring it and attempting to counter it.

The only problem with it is his “experience” with it was two loses at my hands and a third, where i suggested that i land my fighters in Caucasus because he would lose it to the Soviets. I knew him personally and some of those statements don’t resonate from his actual results.

He took my idea and posted it on BGG. The actual idea perfected is posted on the 1941 or 1942 strategy map thread.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yrnntzloydw

here is 42, what i played in my game with him are outlined in it. What mike should have played are also outlined.

Noting this was posted 12/22 originally, I don’t think Japan can afford to send 6 fighters to East Ukraine.  How do they deal with China, let alone America?  Or are you turtling Japan and hoping Germany can crush Russia like a cheap pop can?

Also, I find East Poland to be the key territory, not East Ukraine.  Granted, from Burma you can get fighters to East Ukraine (or Ukraine for that matter) but not East Poland, but odds are, you’re going to be standing in East Poland.  Also, what do those fighters do?  They can defend, but they don’t help you advance and they cannot be lifted out if you decide to move your forces in.