I have seen opening France attacks go sideways a few times. Usually Italy will come in and mop it up, so there isn’t too much value in adding units that will die anyways. And to be honest, Italy with the extra income each round plus 19 more in R2 can make for a much stronger Italy!

My bad on this one Panther. I just finished a game where I thought subs were denying the NO, but it seems even when the allied fleets left the Med, there was at least one dd or ac remaining. Sorry about that! :)

@Warhawk77 I think it comes down to early decisions. If players play the same way each time, the game may take a certain predictable path. But as soon as someone tries something new, the game can be turned on its head. For instance, a round 1 Barbarossa is very different than a late (Italy round 3) one. Japan attacking the Allies on round 1 is a different game compared to round 3. Try different approaches and you’ll see different results for sure!

@Flying-Tigerz There’s one exception to whether newly-hostile ships block enemy movement on the turn that war is declared:

From the rulebook: “During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded in those sea zones (but not in other hostile sea zones). In effect, transports may be loaded in their initial sea zones for amphibious assaults before war is declared, while the sea zone is still friendly.”

I’ve actually never seen this in play, but it’s part of the rules nonetheless.

@WindowWasher I was thinking about this recently too lol.

3 Russian tanks in siberia would definitely alter the Sino-Soviet relationship. Or how about a tank, art and fighter?

I also want to say that two fighters at Scotland should be able to disrupt G1 just enough since the possibility of scramble always forces the G1 attacker to overcompensate.

A transport at New Zealand would allow ANZAC to capture Brazil round 1 (and maybe put an IC there round 2). A little Anzac presence in the Atlantic anyone? :)

I really like the discussion around AAA, maybe in Normandy, even if only to add some anxiety to German plans to use air to help conquer the French.

That’s about as wacky as I can think of. If the whole bid doesn’t have to be spent up-front, then giving ANZAC enough to buy an IC in round 1 should be pretty advantageous too.

@windowwasher I’ve done that on occasion and it can be really effective.

My route of choice is via Greece - from there Yunnan and Kweichow are in reach.

Essentially, all players should use the same version and then the problem doesn’t occur. I’m playing two games at the moment, one using 2.2.20868 and for the other I’m using 2.1.20365 because that’s what my opponent is using.

And it’s more than just the game hanging, it also removes sub evasion and submerging, and it interferes with the subs stealth movement.

@simon33 Confirmed!

I started a game with 2.2.20868, saved it, and then loaded the file with 2.1.20365 and reproduced the problem. Same thing happened with:
2.2.20868 > 2.0.20234,
2.2.20790 > 2.1.20365, and
2.2.20790 > 2.0.20234.

But it did not happen with
2.2.20868 > 2.2.20790, or
2.1.20365 > 2.0.20234.

So it seems that the update from 2.1.20365 to 2.2.20790 is key. My guess is that, if everyone is using 2.2.x, or 2.1.x or earlier, the problem doesn’t occur. But if there is a mix of 2.2.x & 2.1.x or earlier, the problem surfaces.

Bottom line, everyone should update to the latest version.

Thanks for your help with this!

So I have a decent stats background in that I have studied & understand descriptive and inferential statistical methods. But I think you are really looking for someone who understands probability to recommend something based on a sound methodology.

I second TripleA’s calculator. I would add that it’s important to learn the default order of loss and to modify it depending on the battle you’ll run, and to understand when default loss order can be different from what people would do in real life. For instance, a sea battle where ACs are needed to land planes would disqualify them from being used as first-hit fodder. To my knowledge there is no way to tell TripleA not to assign hits to them first, so the only real way to simulate that is to run the battle without ACs.

Another example is sea battles with a DD and planes against multiple subs - once the DD is dead, the subs are safe, but I’ve seen the calculator not take that into account, overestimating the chance of success. I think submerged subs results in a victory for the attacker, but is it really?

So basically if you’re familiar with the limitations and customizations, TripleA is definitely good.

no problemo! I didn’t feel like it was a nag at all

@giallo bump

@freh triplea_12J.tsvg

@giallo you definitely got hosed by the dice. the AA fire in your Japan invasion was only a 10% probability (if I remember correctly) - really bad luck at the worst time.

saw your other game with Sovietiscat and the crap dice you got in France! Holy Cow! What on earth did you do to the dice gods to earn that kind of bad luck both in this game and in that one???

@giallo triplea_12G.tsvg

@giallo triplea_11IT.tsvg

@giallo triplea_11J.tsvg

@giallo triplea_11G.tsvg

@freh triplea_10It.tsvg

@avner Thx, you too! First time I tried a strategy of really targeting Russia, even with Japan, and it worked pretty well