Sub defending in AA42 (game 49422)

[kemal81]

Everything I am reading from your last post further proves that 1942 is further from reality then Revised is. You really didn't make your point better. According to 1942 transports are defenseless like you are saying. In reality they weren't. And revised gives them some defense. It's a very simple logic then Revised is closer to reality when it comes to defense strength of a transport. And I really don't know what point you are trying to make by saying "it's just rules of the game". It's the rules of the game that makes 1942 more unrealistic. And early in WW2, Allies were sending relatively weak convoys thru Atlantic. They were losing some of the merchant ships to submarines or aircrafts of Germany. But they weren't losing the entire convoy to an attack. This is what 1942 does, with a flip of a coin you lose the entire convoy. And i real war, subs and aircrafts many times would go straight to merchant ships and try to avoid more risky war ships. Exactly what happens in Revised. And like you said both Revised and 1942 are just games, and people have different tastes so some will like Revised and some will like 1942. In your opinion 1942 is a better game but you can't ignore that Revised is the one closer to reality. And i am going to say this, 1942 only needs to change 2 rules and it will be far closer to reality than Revised is, only 2. But those 2 rules as they stand makes the game unplayable for me. One of those 2 rules alone make 1942 where luck is a huge factor. And I like to play a strategy game where luck is minimized just enough that the game has some risks but not crazy risks. Anyways I think I made all my points and I am starting to repeat some of them so there is no reason for me to further discuss the subject. Either I am not seeing your pov or you are not seeing mine. I may respond if you bring up a different arguement. Good discussion and good luck in your games.

[lukalion]

Anyways I think I made all my points and I am starting to repeat some of them so there is no reason for me to further discuss the subject. Either I am not seeing your pov or you are not seeing mine.

I agree with this no point of discussing if we are not on the same page.

But i will never agree that revised is more realistic. First of all both games are far from that, but what i like about 42 is that there are more naval battles and there are more action in Pacific. Most of the revised players just ignore Pacific which is far from history , but again we both look at this game from different perspective so nvm.

As for the luck 20 ger tanks vs 20 russ tanks in moscow is flip of a coin same as your navy battle just here u lose the whole game and there u lose a 100 ipc value of ships. U cant say there is more luck about 42 cause its your fault u didnt protect your fleet.

[kemal81]

Both have the same rule in a 20 vs 20 land battle. It's not like Revised is the only one that has this rule and 1942 doesn't. So mathmetically these luck factors of Revised and 1942 cancel each other when they are compared. But on top of this 1942 has additional luck factor with naval battles. You can disagree with some of my opinions but you cannot disagree that 1942 is more of a luck game than Revised is as this will be equivalent of disagreeing that 2 is bigger than 1. '2' corresponds to 2 big luck factor of 1942 and '1' for the 1 big luck factor of Revised. So the only way you can disprove what I have just said if you come up with another big luck factor that Revised has but 1942 doesn't. And with this one neither of us has the luxury of saying we have difference of opinion as we are just adding numbers to find out in which version luck is a bigger factor.
And it wasn't my fault with what I did with my fleet as it was stronger than the attacking aircrafts and subs. This was a bad side effect of bad ruling of 1942. It was already enough bad luck that I had to lose my warships because of bad dice and I learned to accept bad dice, but killing the remaining 8 transports is like hanging a person because he ran a red light. It's over penalizing. Noob players will be more encouraged to do these kind of attacks as the risk is worth it and thus encouraging more of their bad strategies and thus lowering the quality of gaming.
I will agree however with your point that playing in the Pacific should be enforced in any version and I even opened a thread about it just to find out that there is an overwhelming opposition to the idea.

[lukalion]

Ofc i cant find "big luck factor for revised" cause there is no units with no defensive value ( def 0) but the point of defenseless transports is that u have to protect them better ( so it changes your strategies a lot ) like u have to protect your capitals.
I believe this rule encourage navy battles because as u say the risk is worth.

[kemal81]

So are you conceding on your point about the luck factors of two versions and accept that luck is a bigger factor in 1942 than Revised? And don't forget I said more things than this rule encouraging more navy battles. None of the units that are in the game had 0 defense in real war so why do you suggest Revised should have them?

[lukalion]

No cause u cant compare the same situation in revised and in 42 cause the navys dont have the same defensive value. If your odds to sink some navy are 60% and ipcs value of the navy is 180 and for your air+subs 70 this is very good value to go for it , while in revised for same situation your chances would be lets say 30% cause of tranny = def 1 and that move would be stupid.
Well i can understand what u are saying that players in 42 are taking more risk, but they have a good value for it cause of this rule. Ofc some times u will play noobs and they will do stupid moves and win because the luck factor just like in poker when someone calls your preflop all in with 7,2 and kick your *** cause the flop is 2,2,7:(

I think the main reason they changed this rule about trannys is because in revised trannys where protecting the warships while in 42 warships have to protect them. I believe the trannys where in the middle of the fleets and the warships around them.
So if i have to choose between 2 options
-to have normal navy battle but have trannys def = 0
-or to have bugged navy battle and have trannys def = 1
I will always go for the first option cause if i was general in that time and i have to send my air to sink the enemy fleet i would have ordered them to go first for the big ships and then for the trannys cause i think my air will suffer less damage this way ( maybe i am wrong ).

[kemal81]

No cause u cant compare the same situation in revised and in 42 cause the navys dont have the same defensive value. If your odds to sink some navy are 60% and ipcs value of the navy is 180 and for your air+subs 70 this is very good value to go for it , while in revised for same situation your chances would be lets say 30% cause of tranny = def 1 and that move would be stupid.

You know you can't debate a subject by ignoring facts. What you say here doesn't change the fact that 1942 has 2 big luck factors vs Revised has 1. If I am a noob, there are more areas than only capitals that I can flip a coin and if I win that battle I can give devestating blow to my more advanced opponent in the version 1942. That makes 1942 more of a luck game than Revised. I am just adding numbers and this is what I am getting. You can't be subjective about this. In case I am doing a miscalculation, someone else should correct me.

I never understand why is it so hard for the people to say "I concede to that point". There is nothing embarrasing about that nor it will defeat your other points. You can still have your other points intact like "1942 is a better game than Revised" or "1942 is more realistic than Revised". But by not conceding to the point about luck or bringing another fact against it, you devalue your other points. I am just saying.

[dgss1]

Since it is just a game. Not real war, why do we want it to be like real war? I think it is kewl that the game starts off like it may of been in 42 but from there it is a game.
AA50 has the same rules. It is considered by many to be the best version. The 1942 Global has the same rules(subs and navy)

I guess it is the version you prefer. Every version has variants or wishes. why didn't Larry do this or that, what the heck were they thinking?
Not everyone sees the game the same way. Kinda like the world which is why we have war-

To use numbers to say one has more luck then the other. I don't buy it.
You can use numbers to prove the Big Bang but I don't buy that either.
Shall we go to war?

dg

[kemal81]

Big Bang is just a theory and numbers so far have not proved yet that it happened for sure but so far they indicate it happened most likely. What else you don't believe? Do you also not believe that E=m*c^2 because we use numbers to prove that? Why even bother to debate anything if you are going to have your own "facts" that disagree with actual facts? I guess I am dumb because I am a physicist and try to prove things using numbers for a living. Sometimes I forget we live in a world where some people believe a psychic but not a physicist or an astrologist but not an astronomer. And numbers are nothing but hocus pocus made up by mathematicians.
And yes I can go to war anytime, as long as it's not 1942.