In my games they usually failed badly and didnt make a difference, but its sure satisfying when a raid goes successful and you get some double digit damage on your opponents factory, even if chances are replacing the lost planes will end up costing more than repairing the factory

Such a funny video I really enjoyed that !!!you’re a funny guy

AAs are great because it makes attackers think twice about bringing their planes. If an attacker can’t afford to lose planes, they may choose to direct their planes elsewhere that turn. On the other hand, they may feel like they need to bring more planes to the battle (planes that could have gone elsewhere that turn) to offset any potential losses. The attacker is forced to plan around the presence of that AA gun. I find AAs most useful for both factions on the European coast. For Germany, the presence of AAs could make the Allies choose a different target for an amphibious assault. Luckily, the powers already start with plenty of AA guns, so you don’t even need to build more most of the time. The AA gun influences the decision calculus of your opponent. It gives them less options and forces them down paths you can manipulate. This is the value of the AA gun.

I added a communist China, and generals that increase unit preformance

Table Tactics made a WW1 expansion for classic A&A called Central Powers, I prefer their $5 artillery Attack 1, Defend 4 and move 1, and it looks cooler.

Optional tanks rule, whenever any tank hits on a 3, the owning player gets to assign the hit to his opponents ground units (tank, AAA, artillery) or reassign the hit of his opponent to another unit (infantry)

for being fairly new i didnt expect to get 13! good video my man

I like how theres just a regular looking rock as the Himalayas X3

Are the defender casualties based on IPC value or defence value? There were a couple of battles with defending bombers that I feel should have better odds. Battle 11 specifically. When I do my "math" the defenders have a slim lead when choosing bombers first. I could be wrong though. Battle 4 is actually a slim lead for the defenders as long as the AAA is chosen as the first casualty, instead of by IPC value, which is what I feel the majority of players will do. Same with 17. 19 is still a heavy win for the attackers even if the defenders choose AAA as casualties first. I love all of your analysis videos!

My bombers get shot down every other raid so 🤷‍♂️

I got 19 it was really fun

This is a fantastic idea, going to try it out

I always called the Cruiser the poor man’s battleship.

Captain, not bad, I'll take it. How would the % change in battle 20 if you add a destroyer to both sides?

Awesome video

TABS begins playing.

How about the convoy raiding of Japan, I just had my first G-40 game this week and played allies, we made 6 turns without a clear winner. My USA was building a 2 ocean Navy with mostly submarines in the Pacific, I had 17 USA and 3 ANZAK subs ready for convoy raiding, could you offer some insight into weather or not that is an effective war tactic for disarming Japan's maybe large income, he only had 4 destroyers, 5 subs, 4 loaded carriers and the other starting ships. I felt like another few turns and Japan's income was going to be down $20-30, but my Russia I think was not going to survive past turn 10, I made a good retreat but Italy got completely out of control with turn 5&6 both collecting well over $40, I didn't do a Toronto raid and my opponent was very effective to take full advantage. No large navy was sunk except for the opening set up for England as Germany did a fine opening game play, smashing the shipping. ANZAK even had a small carrier fleet. I'd love to see a convoy raider video

The problem with not having Cruisers in the game is that it dramatically weakens the Submarine. Without cruisers, the only "low cost" surface ship is the Destroyer, which means destroyers are everywhere, and anywhere a sub goes, there will be a destroyer waiting to neutralize all of its stealth abilities. The value of Cruisers (from a game design perspective) is that they hypothetically provide a "default" naval unit for players to build, and turns destroyers into a more specialized "anti-sub" unit. If you're enemy has lots of subs, then you counter them with destroyers; otherwise, cruisers should (in principle) be the better bang for the buck. This has always been my suspicious for why the designers added cruisers to begin with. The problem is that Cruisers *don't* actually get more bang for the buck, so players just build Destroyers anyway. At least they don't have more bang for buck in normal sea battles. IMO, Cruisers in A&A aren't actually meant to be naval warships; they are actually specialized escorts for Transports. I do think there are ways to fix/improve Cruisers, and I have a few suggestions: 1.) Reduce cost of Cruisers by 1 (from 12 to 11). This would make a big difference in the "bang for buck" calculation, since you could almost afford 2 Cruisers for the cost of a single battleship. 2.) Add a "combined arms" ability for Cruisers in which their attack and/or amphibious bombardment attack power increases from 3 to 4 if paired with a Battleship. This can make them more powerful on the offensive, and makes them even better escorts for Transports, so long as the fleet has Battleship(s). 3.) Add an "anti-air" specialization for Cruisers. a.) Maybe they act similar to an AA gun, and get 1 free shot at airplanes that fight in the zone. At start of battle, each Cruiser shoots down 1 enemy plane on a roll of 6, then battle proceeds normally. b.) Cruisers negate the "combined arms" ability of Tactical Bombers, so that tactical bomber attack values do not increase from 3 to 4 when paired with a Fighter, if there are enemy cruisers in the battle. 4.) Nerf the Destroyer so that a destroyer only neutralizes the stealth abilities of *1* submarine. If an attacker has more subs than the defender has destroyers, then the excess subs should still get their first strike, be able to pass through enemy fleets, etc. This makes it so that a single destroyer doesn't completely neutralize every enemy sub on the board. This decreases the individual value of Destroyers, but this nerf to destroyers might actually have the opposite effect of actually making players build more of them, and neglecting Cruisers even more, since you would need to effectively match every enemy sub with 1 destroyer. Tangentially, I also think that subs should be able to make an "attack of opportunity" against enemy fleets that pass through a space containing an enemy sub. They should get 1 shot off, and an opportunity to sink or damage 1 ship. The fleet could then have the option of either stopping to fight the sub, or continue moving past it.

In the case of the sub fleet vs carriers with fighters, in which the subs sink all the enemy surface ships and leave only the fighters, I would say this is absolutely a win for the subs. For one thing, if the planes have nowhere safe to land, then they are all automatically destroyed as well, and that fleet is totally wiped with no further risk to the subs. Out in the middle of the ocean, or near the opponent's coast, having no place to land is a very real possibility for those planes.

Never tell me the odds kid. -Han Solo

Never tell me the odds! -Han Solo

One battleship wont give the same as two cruisers because two cruisers have two opportunities to hit which increase it the hit opportunity from 0.5 to (0.5 x 2 opportunities to hit = 1 total hit) Two cruisers are almost certain to hit once whereas a battleship will only hit 4/6 times. Two cruisers have the ability to take hits; the battleship also has the ability to take two hits so this doesnt matter

3/6 odds is 0.5 Cost of 12 0.5 x 12 = 0.417 On paper they have the best attack and defending per money unit. >>I do agree the subs first strike is more critical

One infantry costs 3. If a bomber tried to destroy an infantry built this is what would happen: A bomber is 4/6 = .66 Infantry is has the best defense per dollar which is 2/6 or 0.333 2/6 x 3 = 1 It will take three rounds of one infantry being built to destroy a bomber. And once that bomber is destroyed, a foothold is established. Also, three rounds before the bomber is destroyed means its 9 money in infantry vs 12 infantry in bomber. In a situation where its an open factory, it would be better to raid it rather than wait for infantry to be built.

Infantry + Art 2 @ (2/6) or [2* 0.33 = .6666] Even if the defender hits, the attacker has again a third of a chance to hit. 1 @ (1/6) or [1* 0.33 = .33] .66 result from first round x .33 result from second round = 0.2178 total result If we subtract from 1 to get the % 1 - 0.2178 = 78.22% likely the attacker will hit on the first or second round. So the fact the attacker has an 80% chance of winning makes sense. Its much more unlikely the defender hits a 50% opportunity twice before the attacking odds

Infantry Cost (2) Attack 1/6 or 0.166 Defend 2/6 or 0.33 Cost / Attack = 0.0566 or 5.6% chance attack per single money unit Cost / Defense = 0.111 or 11.1% chance defend per single money unit Tanks Cost (5) Attack = 3/6 or 0.5 Defend 3/6 or 0.5 Cost / Defense = 0.1 or 10% chance per every single money unit Infantry provide and 11.11% defend opportunity per single money unit Takns provide 10% defend opportunity per single money unit. A difference of 1.1% Artillery and Mechanized Infantry are oth next with 0.833 Fighters Cost (10) Attack 3/6 or 0.5 Defend 4/6 or 0.667 Cost / 0.05 = 0.0667

Destroyers attack at 0.167 and defend at .333 The Cost (8) / attack = .0278 Destroyer Cost (8) / defend = .0417 Cruiser attack = .5 Cruiser Defend = .5 Cruiser Cost (12) / attack or defend = .0417 Battleship attack & defend = .666 Battleship Cost (20) Battleship Cost (20) / attack or defend = .033 You will see the Destroyer and Cruiser are both equally best defense per dollar at 0.0417. Cruiser is also best navy attacker at 0.0417. Cruiser beats the battleship by 0.87% I think the 0.87% difference makes it better than the other ships, especially for America to use.

I am currently playing my second game and after my first session (rn) I have watched a lot of your videos and am adapting I completely different strategy than what I originally had.

I don't get the argument that the infantry can shoot multiple times over the course of the battle. When you buy the aa gun it's allways with the purpose of having it shoot once at start then taking it as casualty. The additional infantry you would've bought instead would fare exactly the same: shoot once then you take it as casualty, but won't get the benefit of having shot preemtively at expensive "high rolling" planes. Moreso if you do get 3 rolls with the AA, that's an attack power of 3(instead of a 2 from inf). That's 50% more => justifies 4.5 of it's 5 ipc cost compared to inf by this alone, not considering the aa hits are prebattle and targeting expensive planes. Something must be wrong with the odds calculator used here. There's no way 1 aa rolling 3 dice is worse than an inf in any fight configuration(even rolling only 2 dice should still be better than 1 additional inf)

I played a game with my friends and my sub took out 5 full transports in one turn

At 4:50, you talk about Fighters Pros. You forgot to add “Can pass through enemy territory”

All else fails.... DEFAULT AGGRESSIVE

The probability of a bomber surviving 5 missions is less than 50% so I don't like that you assume that they would be able to make that many

Maj Gen

Good job giving credit to Guadalcanal in 2007

Dude this guy has his math wrong. 1 AA gun against 3 planes has a 50% chance since 3/6=.50

Great video! Thank you!

Subs all day long. Rest are too pricy to churn out. An too easy to lose.

You probaly saved me from losing a lot of pacific games knowing cruisers are for losers!

Excellent ideas! Looking forward to trying them out in my next game. Thanks for sharing!

"God favors the side with superior artillery" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Generally, Artillery should only be bought for Russia and Germany and mostly in the first few rounds. In Russia to create a threat that prevents Germany from moving too close, and In Germany before they are able to advance. If either Army has an opportunity to march on the opposing capital, then they should switch entirely to tanks because they can catch up. At 6 per tank, artillery are definitely better if advancing them isn’t an issue. At 5 per tank it is very close and very situational.

Battleship and Cruiser’s offshore bombardment definitely gives them a bump in usefulness. They can in fact attack land units so they are kinda the best when you consider that.

New video!!

I cried

AA guns feel like the ultimate gambler's piece. High risk high reward. You can take out many of the attacker's most valuable units out, but if you don't hit you will be wishing you bought the infantry instead.

I love your channel! It has really helped me improve my skill! Keep up the great work!

Please do more videos on each piece thanks

So... 2 destroyers per sub?

Clegg, I would love if you did a strategy episode for each nation just an extra idea im excited to see more videos!