Unstoppable strategy: 1942 scenario

@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.

I think their main point is to hold it one round then you can land german fighters + maybe move in reinforcements. After that perhaps they can fly back to japan.

Perhaps, but I don’t see East Ukraine as being as valuable as the strategy contends.

East Poland is better, IMHO, and from there, moving to Karelia.  Splits Russia in twain since they now have Japan coming from the SE and Germany from the NW.

@Imperious:

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.

Would you be willing to link to said strategy map or strategy map thread?

sure can but you already done that.

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

http://www.mediafire.com/?jrfltrddwj2

I had a similar strategy than what the OP listed in Revised Edition.

It was not unstoppable but very much near it. It involved exactly that, flying japan fighters to secure the same territory: Ukraine. This made the german stack almost imposible to overcome by russians on G3 if G1 was full 8 tank gambit.

Then all there was to do is move the whole thing to menace both moscow and caucasus, leaving no choice to Russia to abandon the IC to germany. By then it was normally over a few turn laters as Russia was forced to turtle in moscow.

It was counterable as long you knew it was coming but I won so many games with it that I I had to litterrally give the counter away to my friends so they still want to play.

In this version, it looks way easier to do with Italy and territories layout. And frankly, I am unsure if I can find a counter to it. Admitedly, did only play one game so far so I did not experience it yet ( was playing allies )

Well the strategy of landing Japanese fighter on Caucasus is primarily the idea of buying mostly tanks and centralizing them so the Soviets cant protect both north and south. Latter after when Caucasus is the target you land the fighters, but thats been done since the MB days and its not a new idea. In fact the idea is the same exact idea from AAE extrapolated for AA50.

Its not even unstoppable given some of the postings on this site and the guy who posted them on BGG was on the losing end of that strategy. I played him in 3 games defeating him twice as Russia ( he was Japan once and Germany in game two) and told him id bring my fighters over on the third game when i was playing Japan. it barely worked anyway.

Then i made my maps after more reflection and he posted his “unstoppable” idea latter, but tried to take credit for everything.

If the Axis did the strategy posted on the first page I think the Allies would probably win more often than not.  Even if Moscow falls I guarantee that one of the other capitals is near check-mate herself and the loss could be mutual unless Germany and Italy are knocked out almost together.  This game has proven, in my opinion, that neither side can ignore one whole front to the game and expect to succeed cause it didn’t happen that way in the real war.  US needs to push both Pacific and Atlantic while Russia of course handles mostly the west front against Germany and coordinates with UK and China for a stonewall against Japan.  England needs to monitor worldly assests and I think put extreme pressure on Norway, Finland, Baltic, France, and Med. fleet.  If Axis ignore Africa, namely Egypt, its game over for Axis.

The problem my with the group I play AAE with is that the Allies haven’t won in our 3-4 games so far mainly because are doing very little if anything to contain Japan other than the random fleet skirmishes.  If the Allies go for Germany and Italy first you need to give Japan multiple targets to attack to spread herself thin for counterattacks.

I think the Allies have the leg up in this setup and that leg up is bombers.  You strat bomb the Axis nonstop like its going out of style fast!!!  If Russia is starting to go downhill, then put some fighters over there and hopefully you have an invasion fleet ready to rock and roll that can do the 2 to 1 pound on France.(UK, Italy, US)

If Axis go for the gusto on turn 3-4 then make them pay that same round, plain and simple.

I play AAE

The correct term for Anniversary is: AA50

AAE: is Axis and Allies Europe.

My apologies, I sometimes call it AAAE but AA50 makes more sense, i just forgot the extra A.  Thanks for pointing that out. :roll:

i have tried this, with great results.  G1, germans took karelia.  G2, they took caucasus. G3 they took moscow.  all with the help of those 6 Jap fighters that were not afraid to die.  the US player saw this and came straight to japan, which i stacked full of inf.  by the time US had enough to try to invade japan, africa belonged to italy and UK was being shelled by germany, and germany was toying with the idea of invading Washington.  allied player gave up.  sausages for everyone.

I already do this strategy and I usually win games but I lose sometimes too.

If we’re playing without NOs yeah it’s a pretty even game slightly favors the allies.

Play with NOs yeah the allies need 1d6+3 to start with. Just got to hold on to Caucasus and Moscow till usa takes balkans (bam russia +10 ipc) .

in revised the strategy sucked because of AA guns, but now it’s pretty legit because the figs go where they like.

The best part is after you get your stuff in position they can sink some naval with LRA.

just a sec
if i get it right, japanese get to fly through 2 flaks?(india and caucasus)
lol, gl with that