I’m happy with the direction this discussion has taken, but wanted to add my input. To help you understand my perspective here’s how I would describe myself:

• OOB only player – currently no intentions of branching out
• Hyper focused – I prefer to play 1 game at a time and analyze it to death, rather than keep multiple games going, resulting in:
• Roughly 3-4 games played per year

I’ve become disinterested in the league for two main reasons:

1. The focus on BM3 and PTV would mean historically that I have to force players to play OOB in the playoffs and create resentment (last year is case in point) – so I’d rather just not play
2. The 8 game minimum to compete in the higher playoff bracket means I’ll probably never get there, even if I did make the jump to BM3

I think the idea of multiple playoffs based on game version solves the most problems. It means no one has to acquiesce to a version in the playoffs that they don’t want to play. (In regular season they already don’t have to because they can just say “no thanks”)

My one caution is to be careful how high you put the minimum game thresholds for playoff participation.

I’d like to suggest that the playoffs are the most enticing part of the league, and that the higher you set the minimum game threshold, the more casual players like myself are likely to abandon it.

I understand that it’s easier to manipulate your PPG or have an inaccurate PPG with a low number of games. In fact I’m probably a great example of this in 2020. I have the second highest PPG, but I’m certainly not the 2nd best player.

It’s definitely true that BM3 and PTV are the most popular versions here, but the pipeline of new players is primarily full of OOB and casual players, and that needs to be considered.

My perspective comes from 1940 Global, but I think the ideas would generally transfer to other versions. Sorry for the length but hope it helps.

My answer is “it depends”. It’s a difficult decision and I’m glad it is. Easy decisions don’t make for a very good game and degenerate into a scripted play-style. Here are the relevant factors that I see:

1. Straight Up Expected Economic Value -> It’s fairly easy to calculate the expected economic gain/loss in terms of replacement cost of lost bombers and IPC damage to the factory. In G40 it works out to +2.58IPCs per bombing run.

2. Inefficiencies -> Part of the value in #1 is actually ineffective. The practical economic value is less depending on the situation for reasons such as:

• Factories have a damage maximum so any expected economic value above the max just evaporates. A straight up calculation doesn’t account for that. So, if you are sending 4 bombers at a major complex, that’s potentially 32 points of damage, 12 of which are superfluous. So more complicated math or a simulator is required if you want the real value.

• Minimal damage is inconsequential. Often the first several points of damage don’t hinder your opponent at all. A good example of this is the Calcutta factory in G40 (a major complex) which needs 10 damage before it’s completely inoperative. If you only achieve 7 damage, the other player can still produce 3 units without any consequence, and that’s all they usually have the cash for anyway.

• Some production facilities are redundant and your opponent can work around the damage you put on them. For Example, Germany and Italy have enough factories that they can sometimes ignore damage done in Europe if there isn’t any immediate danger to strategic objectives.

3. Current Opportunity Cost -> If a bomber is engaged in strategic bombing raid it’s not rolling at 4’s in another battle. There are many cases where adding a bomber to a battle will help the expected TUV (total unit value) swing by far more than the 2.58 of the bombing raid and often with little risk to the bomber.

4. Turnover Cost -> Sometimes the factory you are bombing is likely to turn over to you in the near future anyway and the damage you put on it just ends up hurting you instead of your opponent.

5. Imminent Critical Battle Implications -> Probably the most important factor. The value of an additional individual unit gets amplified in a large and somewhat even battle. (think Moscow) For example, negating the production of a single extra infantry can change the expected TUV swing of a Moscow battle by far more than the 3IPC value of the infantry and likewise for the 12IPC value of the bomber.
   If you see yourself attacking Moscow on the following turn and want to do a bombing raid now, remember that the bombing raid may have a much larger impact on the upcoming battle than you realize. Go find a Moscow battle from a random league game and run the battle calculator with 1 less infantry on the Russian side, and then 1 less bomber on the German side instead. It’s not hard to find an example where the TUV swing changes by as much as 50 IPCs.

6. Win Expectations -> You need to consider where you stand in upcoming major battles and the game in general. There’s a good chance a bombing raid will improve your situation, but if you’re already in great shape, a win is a win. You don’t get bonus points for winning extra. You might be creating a risk that will snowball and let your opponent back onto the game. On the other hand, if you’re behind, you should be looking for risks with big payoffs, and bombing raids can definitely be that in some circumstances.

You mentioned Russia specifically, but I’m going to assume you’re talking about a standard league rules bid.

I think it depends significantly on the skill/experience of the players. Here’s a breakdown I would suggest as a starting point for players of equal skill:

0 -> Complete Noobs – For players with little to no experience, especially when there hasn’t been outside influence of things like YouTube strategy videos.

16-24 -> Irregular Players – For players with some experience and a reasonable handle on general strategies, but lacklustre execution and minor mistakes.

24-30 -> Strong players – For players who play regularly, know how to win, have good execution and few to no mistakes.

30+ -> Expert – Mostly for higher tier league players with tons of experience and ability. (although most of them play balance mod instead of using a bid)

If you’re talking about team games I might consider an additional premium for the allies because they take significantly more coordination, which is harder when you have teammates.

I’m definitely on board with a change to the scoring system. The current system creates a large barrier to entry for new players and fragments an already small community.

I actually brought this up about 9 months ago with one potential solution. (hopefully links work as they are mid thread)
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/314
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/319

As a potential simpler solution, my suggestion was to allow games to be scored as a Tier 1 vs Tier 1 game if the players choose to play with a standardized handicap bid. (on top of the normal bid for choosing sides)

This would allow higher tier players to maintain their tier while playing against tier 2/3 players if they maintain a high enough win rate. The handicap bid going to the lower tier player would also help shrink the skill gap and hopefully make the game more interesting for the higher tier player.

Most importantly, this could be completely ignored by anyone who wants to just stick with the way things are and only applies to people who choose to play with the handicap. We want to encourage new players but not alienate people who are enjoying the league as it is now.

I’m not attempting to compete with the ELO system as an option, I’d be fine with that if it’s easy to implement. I’m just thinking this would be a less disruptive bolt-on to the existing system.

Apologies for the length.

Observation 1:
Germany is set up for a strong G2 DOW move into E. Poland, especially with leaving the possibility of a turn 2 Yugoslavia strafe of the France mechanized units.
I don’t think it’s worth trying to hard counter this. Sure, it can be dissuaded with a 6 tank purchase, but the reaction will be to stall until G3 and get a more lucrative fight later when Moscow has 6 less infantry than it otherwise would.
In the event of the G2, the Karelia/Vyborg infantry will not be with the main group and be in danger of taking an unfavourable trade.

Observation 2:
Germany going for Moscow on turn 5 is a consideration, but his most lucrative timing window starts at turn 6 with units in Germany, Bulgaria, and potentially the Finland infantry.

Priorities:

1. For the love of Pete, don’t lose Moscow on turn 5.
2. Try to get value out of the Karelia/Vyborg group in the event of the G2.
3. If possible, be able to stand up at Bryansk on G4 to retake the Ukraine factory on R5. This will depend significantly on how many planes Germany makes available, but that will at least pull them away from other purposes.
4. Tilt the TUV swing/winning odds for a G6/7+ as much as possible. Obviously Andrew is playing as the better player, meaning risk aversion… Anything below 80%, maybe even 90-95% he will likely balk at.

My proposed changes:

1. Forget about spreading communism and save communism first. Caucasus infantry should move north and keep the mechs/tanks home. You won’t gain enough money to offset the TUV you will lose in Moscow with a weak defense.
2. Mech/tank from Moscow should go to Belarus to help dissuade the Finnish infantry from moving forward on turn 2. This would put them on a G7 Moscow timing rather than G6.
3. The sub should go to 125, also to make the G2 more costly.
4. The best defense at Bryansk may be to attack, meaning I favour Farmboy’s buy of at least 3 artillery.
5. I would also consider 1 Mech purchase for Novgorod. (but wouldn’t build other units there) This will give the opportunity to counterattack the Finnish infantry if they move forward and leave the possibility of some mechanized units remaining to run to Norway… a reasonable headache for Germany.
6. Forget about the AA gun in Novgorod, it doesn’t look necessary. Pull it to Belarus. If necessary it can join the Karelia/Vyborg infantry in Archangel next turn, if not it will be with the main group.
7. Cruiser in 114, and Sub in 115 would be standard I think.

Here are some other wrinkles that come to mind that need to be wrestled with. #3 is probably the hardest to work around.

1. Japan Air Units: For air units to hit India on J3, you need to take and hold one of Yunnan or Shan State on J1 and keep it until J2. This isn’t realistic since China can overwhelm Yunnan on C1 and UK can overwhelm Shan State on UK1. (you could bypass this with an airbase on FIC/Kwangsi on J2, but that will cost you 2 transports headed for Hawaii.)
2. India Blockers: To get the 3 transports purchased on J1 to India on J3 requires SZ37 be open and one of SZ38/SZ41 be open. It will be tricky for your stripped-down southern fleet to hold two sea zones from getting cleared and a blocker slipping in. You need to survive potentially:
   • UK -> 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 fighters, 1 tactical
   • ANZAC -> 3 fighters, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser
   • France -> 1 destroyer
3. West India UK2 Retreat: The UK player can stall by retreating to West India on UK2. Assuming the UK1 purchase was 3 infantry and 2 artillery (not uncommon) UK could easily have 12 infantry, 3 artillery, 2 fighters and 1 tactical on West India without even talking about transported units or planes from the Med. That’s more than enough to re-take India on UK3 from the 12 ground units landing there.

@simon33

Philosophically I think that everything in the turn order prior to the active player declaring their combat moves to be over should all be revisable.

During this portion there is zero new information available to the active player. By arbitrarily forcing them to decide purchases first you just force them to do their combat moves in their head for live games and in a separate Triple A file for online play. Both of which just tend to waste time rather than add any game dynamic.

I think the ideal scenario would be for the buy window to be available for revisions until the player clicks the button to lock in their combat moves. That way they can enter the purchases either before or after combat moves depending on personal preference.

I don’t really have any suggestions about closing TripleA, but I’m wondering if you know about the game history feature within TripleA?

Within TripleA go to Game -> Show History (or Ctrl+H and Ctrl+G to get back to current).

Rather than opening a new instance of TripleA for each turn of a game you can just open up the most recent file and navigate back through the entire game history to whichever point you want using the side bar.

If you want to have multiple games open, that’s another story, but I can’t think of a reason why you would need multiple instances open for a single game if you’re making use of the history feature.

I’m also in the “it depends” camp.

The math here is pretty simple. Artillery are superior to tanks in terms of pure economics. Artillery are just as good or better whether you’re talking about attack power, defense power or hits you can absorb. This is especially true if you have existing excess infantry to pair them with, which you often do at the beginning of the game. If you do have extra infantry than adding an artillery adds as much extra attack power as a tank (2/6 for the artillery and 1/6 for the infantry).

It’s safe to say that artillery are better value in any battle that they are actually present, the question is if they will be. Artillery are a bit like a superstar athlete who gets injured repeatedly. Sure, their stats per game are great, but you can’t help the team win the championship from the sideline. Tanks are more likely to be in the battle, and be in multiple battles through their life.

Tanks create value on utility and re-usability. It’s difficult to put it in numerical terms, but here are some situational examples:

1. Can-Openers -> The ability to abuse the turn order by having a friendly power clear blocking units from a territory so the second power can move through and wreck vulnerable units two spaces away.
2. Axis Timing Push -> The axis usually need rapid expansion to close the income gap with the allies. Tanks are more helpful in getting the job done before the initiative is lost and Allied help arrives. Tanks can catch up to your forward army without it having to pause.
3. Recycling Units -> Tanks can get to the next objective where artillery are often stranded for a long time. (e.g. after a Moscow battle the remaining tanks can re-task to the Middle East or Scandinavia)
4. Limited Production Slots -> If you think of production slots as a resource, then it’s one resource where tanks are cheaper. If you a starved for production tanks can get you more kick on the ground with less production used.
5. American Production on Eurasia -> Getting an American production facility on the continent where the fight is happening is quite helpful. On the periphery this can be done without a tank, but if you want to try to pick up a territory in the Middle East it can happen far sooner with a tank rolling through North Africa than an artillery.
6. Island Hopping -> When trading islands you’re sometimes less concerned with the cost efficiency and more concerned with win probability. (often sending 7IPC transports to be killed for free) Tanks can help edge the win percentage up, especially if you can’t get naval or air support because it will take your fleet out of position.
7. Blitzing Empty Territories -> Obviously.

It’s helpful to envision what the whole life of the unit or group of units might look like. If the purpose is a one-way march to a probable death, then go with the artillery if it can make it in time. If you foresee more variability than that, you might want to favor the tank.

Of course many of these principles apply to mechanized infantry, so if you’re playing G40 that’s another option. In fact, there’s good reason to favor mechanized infantry if you don’t really need additional attack strength, you just need something cheap and mobile to absorb hits.

I think that question might be a bit flawed, or at least a tad misleading for newer players. What you soon find out as you gain A&A experience is that a naval force has a high level of inter-dependency between units. Even if you could determine a unit with the highest individual value, you’ll quickly find out that spamming that unit doesn’t necessarily maximize the value of your navy as a whole. The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts, and sometimes the worst individual unit adds the most value to the group.

Take transports as an example. Transports are arguably the worst individual unit, but even a single transport changes the threat level of a navy completely. All of a sudden it’s capable of sniping a capital, taking away a national objective, or grabbing an under-defended area where a new factory can be set up and create an endless headache for your opponent.

I’m actually going to split my answer into two categories. Also, I should point out that I’m talking from a G40 perspective.

1. What’s the best value naval unit?

Subs, definitely. Subs provide some of the best utility in the game. Let’s talk about some reasons why:

• Attack Value -> Cheapest IPC cost per unit or cost per attack value in naval attacks.
• Defense Value -> Cheapest cost for absorbing an additional hit.
• Convoy Raids -> Can be spread out alone or in groups to get good value from convoy raids.
• Destroyer Trade -> Lone subs require a destroyer to kill, so if you are trading 1 for 1 on alternating turns you are getting better value than your opponent. Same for if you’re clearing out blockers.
• Precarious Placement -> It’s often difficult to build new naval units because your opponent has air coverage over your placement area. Subs are immune to the air coverage if there are no destroyers in range allowing you to squeeze them out in tense situations.
• Deny Offloading -> A single sub will deny offloading for an amphibious assault unless there’s a warship escort. This can increase your value in a situation where your opponent just wants to suicide a transport for a high value territory. Now they have to send an extra unit with the transport.
• Create Kamikaze Opportunities -> Following on the above point, this is especially important in a kamikaze zone since any surface warships accompanying a transport in order to ignore a sub are subject to kamikaze strikes. If the escort dies the amphibious assault will fail.
• Ignore Kamikaze Strikes -> Subs can’t be hit by kamikazes, so they can be utilized with air units to take out targets in kamikaze zones with immunity.

It’s still possible to over-build subs, but probably the hardest unit to over-build since you can usually find a primary or secondary use for them. Remember that subs provide no help if your opponent can strike the rest of your navy with an air-only attack. You’re still going to need some carriers, destroyers and fighters to protect those transports.

2. What’s the best strategic/game winning naval unit?

The aircraft carrier. Aircraft carrier usage in conjunction with aircraft really separate the “men from the boys” in terms of experience and skill level. This is probably worthy of its own topic/video, but understanding the barely-legal and obscure attacks that become available with aircraft carriers is where a more experienced player can exploit one with less experience.

Aircraft carriers really expand your threat projection and generate mistakes out of your opponent because they increase the number and complexity of problems to keep track of. Here are some examples of carrier plays that can change the game:

• Using newly purchased carriers as unexpected landing zones
• Deliberately failing to clear a path for your carrier so that you can suicide planes into high value targets (e.g. undefended transports)
• Using the turn order to create an unexpected landing area by parking an empty carrier for allied planes to land on
• Using the turn order to extend the range of onboard allied aircraft (carrier moves first and then allied planes move on their own turn)
• Intentionally killing off planes that require an aircraft carrier to land first so that the carrier doesn’t have to move into danger during non-combat moves
• The land/carrier switch, AKA “Yard Sale” explained below

The biggest threat I see get overlooked is what I like to call the “Yard Sale”. Where I come from we played a lot of ice hockey and called it a “yard sale” when substituting all of the active players at once. In ice hockey you can substitute players while play is ongoing. The rules on this are a bit loose, so while you’re limited to 5 (6 with goaltender) players on the ice at any time, for a fleeting moment you can have up to 10 players on the ice during the exchange. In A&A you can have a similar situation where your carrier-based aircraft can participate in a battle and land elsewhere, while land-based aircraft also participate in the same battle with intentions of landing on the now empty carriers. So, for example, if the setup is right you can send 12 aircraft into a battle when you’ve only got 3 carriers and many players will slip up and forget to account for this.

So, to make a long story short, if you want to make an incremental change to your usual navy mix, probably get more subs. If you want to up your strategic game, study how great players use their aircraft carriers. Apologies for how long this got.

I’m happy with the direction this discussion has taken, but wanted to add my input. To help you understand my perspective here’s how I would describe myself:

• OOB only player – currently no intentions of branching out
• Hyper focused – I prefer to play 1 game at a time and analyze it to death, rather than keep multiple games going, resulting in:
• Roughly 3-4 games played per year

I’ve become disinterested in the league for two main reasons:

1. The focus on BM3 and PTV would mean historically that I have to force players to play OOB in the playoffs and create resentment (last year is case in point) – so I’d rather just not play
2. The 8 game minimum to compete in the higher playoff bracket means I’ll probably never get there, even if I did make the jump to BM3

I think the idea of multiple playoffs based on game version solves the most problems. It means no one has to acquiesce to a version in the playoffs that they don’t want to play. (In regular season they already don’t have to because they can just say “no thanks”)

My one caution is to be careful how high you put the minimum game thresholds for playoff participation.

I’d like to suggest that the playoffs are the most enticing part of the league, and that the higher you set the minimum game threshold, the more casual players like myself are likely to abandon it.

I understand that it’s easier to manipulate your PPG or have an inaccurate PPG with a low number of games. In fact I’m probably a great example of this in 2020. I have the second highest PPG, but I’m certainly not the 2nd best player.

It’s definitely true that BM3 and PTV are the most popular versions here, but the pipeline of new players is primarily full of OOB and casual players, and that needs to be considered.

@BobbaRossa

Good game BobbaRossa,

I can definitely tell you have a lot of experience. If the Sea Lion opportunity hadn’t presented itself, I don’t think I would have been happy with my chances.

TripleA Turn Summary: Japanese round 6

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0

Game History

Round: 6

    Purchase Units - Japanese
        Japanese repair damage of 5x factory_minor; Remaining resources: 41 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 
        Japanese buy 2 carriers and 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 

    Politics - Japanese

    Combat Move - Japanese
        1 fighter moved from Japan to 19 Sea Zone

    Combat - Japanese
        Battle in 19 Sea Zone
            Japanese attack with 1 fighter
            Americans defend with 1 submarine and 1 transport; ANZAC defend with 1 transport
            1 submarine owned by the Americans Submerged
                Japanese roll dice for 1 fighter in 19 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                1 transport owned by the ANZAC and 1 transport owned by the Americans lost in 19 Sea Zone
            Japanese win with 1 fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 14
            Casualties for Americans: 1 transport
            Casualties for ANZAC: 1 transport

    Non Combat Move - Japanese
        1 armour, 7 artilleries and 8 infantry moved from Hunan to Yunnan
        6 infantry and 2 mech_infantrys moved from French Indo China to Yunnan
        1 transport moved from 35 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone
        2 infantry moved from Celebes to 44 Sea Zone
        2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 44 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
        2 battleships, 6 carriers, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 2 infantry, 4 submarines and 1 transport moved from 35 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
        1 submarine moved from 36 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
        1 fighter and 3 tactical_bombers moved from Manchuria to Yunnan
        3 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 35 Sea Zone to Yunnan
        2 bombers moved from French Indo China to Yunnan
        2 fighters moved from French Indo China to 37 Sea Zone
        2 fighters moved from Philippines to 37 Sea Zone
        4 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers moved from 35 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
        1 fighter moved from 19 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone
        1 fighter moved from Japan to Manchuria
        2 fighters moved from Japan to 37 Sea Zone
        1 fighter moved from Japan to Marianas

    Place Units - Japanese
        2 carriers placed in 37 Sea Zone
        3 infantry placed in French Indo China

    Turn Complete - Japanese
        Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 2
            Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 44 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,5
            Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 19 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,2
        Japanese collect 41 PUs (2 lost to blockades); end with 41 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Japanese : -0.50

Savegame

@BobbaRossa

Apologies, looks like I’m going to be late again. Should be able to play tomorrow.

TripleA Turn Summary: Germans round 6

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0

Game History

Round: 6

    Research Technology - Germans

    Purchase Units - Germans
        Germans buy 3 carriers and 10 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Germans
        1 armour moved from Rostov to Tambov
              Germans take Tambov from Russians
        1 armour moved from Tambov to Volgograd
        10 armour and 10 mech_infantrys moved from Rostov to Volgograd
        1 armour moved from Rostov to Bryansk
              Germans take Bryansk from Russians
        1 armour moved from Bryansk to Rostov
        7 transports moved from 112 Sea Zone to 113 Sea Zone
        3 artilleries moved from Western Germany to 113 Sea Zone
        4 armour moved from Germany to 113 Sea Zone
        1 infantry moved from Germany to 113 Sea Zone
        5 infantry moved from Western Germany to 113 Sea Zone
        1 infantry moved from Norway to 113 Sea Zone
        4 armour, 3 artilleries, 7 infantry and 7 transports moved from 113 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
        1 cruiser and 2 submarines moved from 112 Sea Zone to 110 Sea Zone
        4 armour, 3 artilleries and 7 infantry moved from 110 Sea Zone to United Kingdom
        1 bomber moved from Western Germany to Scotland
        3 bombers, 3 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers moved from Western Germany to United Kingdom
        1 bomber moved from France to United Kingdom
        1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to United Kingdom
        1 infantry moved from Archangel to Nenetsia
              Germans take Nenetsia from Russians

    Combat - Germans
        Battle in 110 Sea Zone
            Germans attack with 1 cruiser, 2 submarines and 7 transports
            British defend with 1 cruiser
                Germans roll dice for 2 submarines in 110 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                1 cruiser owned by the British lost in 110 Sea Zone
            Germans win with 1 cruiser, 2 submarines and 7 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 12
            Casualties for British: 1 cruiser
        Battle in Volgograd
            Germans attack with 11 armour and 10 mech_infantrys
            Russians defend with 1 factory_minor and 2 infantry
                Germans roll dice for 11 armour and 10 mech_infantrys in Volgograd, round 2 : 9/21 hits, 7.17 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 2 infantry in Volgograd, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                2 infantry owned by the Russians lost in Volgograd
            Germans win, taking Volgograd from Russians with 11 armour and 10 mech_infantrys remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6
            Casualties for Russians: 2 infantry
        Battle in United Kingdom
            Germans attack with 4 armour, 3 artilleries, 5 bombers, 3 fighters, 7 infantry and 4 tactical_bombers
            British defend with 5 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 1 artillery, 1 factory_major, 3 fighters, 1 harbour, 7 infantry and 1 mech_infantry; French defend with 2 infantry
                AA fire in United Kingdom : 1/12 hits, 2.00 expected hits
                1 tactical_bomber owned by the Germans lost in United Kingdom
                Germans roll dice for 4 armour, 3 artilleries, 5 bombers, 3 fighters, 7 infantry and 3 tactical_bombers in United Kingdom, round 2 : 10/25 hits, 11.50 expected hits
                British roll dice for 5 aaGuns, 1 artillery, 3 fighters, 9 infantry and 1 mech_infantry in United Kingdom, round 2 : 5/14 hits, 5.67 expected hits
                5 aaGuns owned by the British, 5 infantry owned by the Germans, 2 infantry owned by the French and 3 infantry owned by the British lost in United Kingdom
                Germans roll dice for 4 armour, 3 artilleries, 5 bombers, 3 fighters, 2 infantry and 3 tactical_bombers in United Kingdom, round 3 : 10/20 hits, 10.50 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 artillery, 3 fighters, 4 infantry and 1 mech_infantry in United Kingdom, round 3 : 5/9 hits, 4.00 expected hits
                1 mech_infantry owned by the British, 3 artilleries owned by the Germans, 2 infantry owned by the Germans, 1 artillery owned by the British, 4 infantry owned by the British and 3 fighters owned by the British lost in United Kingdom
            Germans captures 35PUs while taking British capital
            Germans converts factory_major into different units
            Germans win, taking United Kingdom from British with 4 armour, 5 bombers, 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 46
            Casualties for Germans: 3 artilleries, 7 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber
            Casualties for British: 5 aaGuns, 1 artillery, 3 fighters, 7 infantry and 1 mech_infantry
            Casualties for French: 2 infantry
        Battle in Scotland
            Germans attack with 1 bomber
            British defend with 1 airfield and 1 bomber
                Germans roll dice for 1 bomber in Scotland, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 bomber in Scotland, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.17 expected hits
                Germans roll dice for 1 bomber in Scotland, round 3 : 1/1 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 bomber in Scotland, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.17 expected hits
                1 bomber owned by the British lost in Scotland
            Germans win with 1 bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 12
            Casualties for British: 1 bomber
        Trigger Germans Conquer London: Setting switch to true for conditionAttachment_Axis_Capture_London_Switch attached to Germans

    Non Combat Move - Germans
        1 destroyer moved from 112 Sea Zone to 104 Sea Zone
        3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers moved from United Kingdom to 110 Sea Zone
        1 bomber moved from Scotland to Western Germany
        2 bombers moved from United Kingdom to Western Germany
        2 bombers moved from United Kingdom to France
        1 bomber moved from United Kingdom to Normandy Bordeaux
        2 mech_infantrys moved from Yugoslavia to Bessarabia
        1 armour moved from Belarus to Bessarabia
        1 aaGun, 2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Belarus to Novgorod
        4 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Ukraine to Rostov
        2 mech_infantrys moved from Ukraine to Caucasus
        1 mech_infantry moved from Rostov to Caucasus
        3 aaGuns moved from Northern Italy to Western Germany

    Place Units - Germans
        3 carriers placed in 110 Sea Zone
        3 infantry placed in Novgorod
        3 infantry placed in Ukraine
        4 infantry placed in Western Germany

    Turn Complete - Germans
        Germans collect 61 PUs; end with 96 PUs
        Trigger Germans 5 Swedish Iron Ore: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 101 PUs
        Objective Germans 3 Control Caucasus: Germans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 106 PUs
        Objective Germans 2 Control Novgorod Or Volgograd Or Russia: Germans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 116 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Germans : -0.17
British : -0.00
Russians : -0.67
AA fire in United Kingdom : : -1.00

Savegame

TripleA Turn Summary: Italians round 5

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0

Game History

Round: 5

    Purchase Units - Italians
        Italians buy 1 destroyer and 1 fighter; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Italians
        2 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Rostov to Caucasus
        2 mech_infantrys moved from Ukraine to Caucasus
        1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to United Kingdom

    Combat - Italians
        Air Battle in United Kingdom
            Italians attacks with 1 units heading to United Kingdom
            British launches 3 interceptors out of United Kingdom
                Attackers Fire,  : 0/1 hits, 0.17 expected hits
                Defenders Fire,  : 0/3 hits, 0.50 expected hits
            Air Battle is over, the remaining bombers go on to their targets
        Strategic bombing raid in United Kingdom
                AA fire in United Kingdom : 0/1 hits, 0.17 expected hits
            Bombing raid in United Kingdom rolls: 5 and causes: 5 damage to unit: airfield
            Bombing raid in United Kingdom causes 5 damage total. 
        Battle in Caucasus
            Italians attack with 2 armour and 4 mech_infantrys
            British defend with 1 mech_infantry
                Italians roll dice for 2 armour and 4 mech_infantrys in Caucasus, round 2 : 1/6 hits, 1.67 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 1 mech_infantry in Caucasus, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                1 mech_infantry owned by the British lost in Caucasus
            Italians win, taking Caucasus from Russians with 2 armour and 4 mech_infantrys remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4
            Casualties for British: 1 mech_infantry
        Cleaning up after air battles

    Non Combat Move - Italians
        2 infantry moved from Southern France to Normandy Bordeaux
        1 bomber moved from United Kingdom to Normandy Bordeaux
        1 aaGun, 2 artilleries and 3 infantry moved from Bessarabia to Ukraine
        1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Northern Italy to Southern Italy
        1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Northern Italy to France
        1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from British Somaliland to Italian Somaliland
        1 transport moved from 93 Sea Zone to 95 Sea Zone

    Place Units - Italians
        1 destroyer placed in 95 Sea Zone
        1 fighter placed in Southern Italy

    Turn Complete - Italians
        Italians collect 19 PUs; end with 20 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Defenders Fire,  : : -0.50
Italians : -0.67
Attackers Fire,  : : -0.17
Russians : -0.33
AA fire in United Kingdom : : -0.17

Savegame

@BobbaRossa
Took another look and decided against hitting Tunisia.

Intercept UK? 1 Bomber vs 3 Fighters.

TripleA Move Summary: Italians round 5

TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0

Game History

Round: 5

    Purchase Units - Italians
        Italians buy 1 destroyer and 1 fighter; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Italians
        2 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Rostov to Caucasus
        2 mech_infantrys moved from Ukraine to Caucasus
        1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to United Kingdom

Savegame

@BobbaRossa
Intercept UK? 1 Bomber vs 3 Fighters

TripleA Move Summary: Italians round 5

TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 4.0

Game History

Round: 5

    Purchase Units - Italians
        Italians buy 1 destroyer and 1 fighter; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; 

    Combat Move - Italians
        2 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Rostov to Caucasus
        2 mech_infantrys moved from Ukraine to Caucasus
        1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to United Kingdom
        1 transport moved from 93 Sea Zone to 95 Sea Zone
        1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Northern Italy to 95 Sea Zone
        1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 95 Sea Zone to 94 Sea Zone
        1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 94 Sea Zone to Tunisia

Savegame