Nit picky German Economizer

[Guest]

The Axis does not NEED Africa, they need IPC’s.  If they can gain them in Europe and Asia, so be it.

Losing Africa though cripples UK, at least for a while until the US can liberate it.  And UK crippled weakens then Allies and makes IPC gain in Europe and Asia easier.

So Africa early, Europe and Asia after that :-D

[Hobbes]

@trihero:

The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

But I have to point out that I believe your second statement is incorrect, where you say that “you’ve just surrendered the initiative.”

When you’re in trading wars with 1-3 inf in a territory, the advantage goes to the attacker, because 1-3 defending inf don’t hit with great accuracy, while the offense containing fighters/art + inf have a great chance of killing the defending units. The offender usually comes out 1-2 units ahead.

Thus, to prostrate yourself in a defensive position in those trading territories is not good. It is, in fact, giving the attacker the initiative.

I think you misunderstood me there on who’s the attacker and the defender. What is more offensive? To blitz to and back from a territory or to move 1 INF there?
OK, the attacker can use 3 INF and 1 FTR and kill the lonely INF on that territory, but what other choice does he/she have? Leave the INF there and fall back on the IPC curve and have a hole on their front that can be used by the other player to take other territories behind? Does the attacker then have the initiative or he’s simply forced to react (and use FTR/ART/ARM that could be used in other places?) to the lonely INF moving?

If your goal is as Germany is to fully conserve your forces, then you will not start with the wrong foot by sticking an infantry where it doesn’t need to be. Let Russia start the quibble.

If you mean that G’s goal should be to conserve its forces, then I reply that when I play as G my goal is to kick Russia as hard as possible, regardless of the Allies’s strategy being KGF or KJF. And even the Allies are going for KGF you have several turns worth in advance to move towards Russia, looking for an opportunity to take and hold either WR or Caucasus. Then if the pressure gets too much its just a matter of pulling back the tank stack (10-20 tanks) to G and leave J to finish Russia. Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

[Hobbes]

Oh, and I think this tactic works better but as a Nit picky Russian Economizer against J.

[trihero]

That means that 2/3 of the time you will be net AT LEAST +2 IPC to blitz an ARM to an undefended Archangel.

What good is it to say that without looking at the whole picture? It costs you 5 IPCs to replace the tank. The 2 inf in Archangel are perfectly aligned to attack Karelia after taking Archangel, which should still be contested by Germany at round 2.

If I’m trying to make life expensive for the Russians, I’m garrisoning with 3 infantry.  That almost forces a 3 infantry attack, usually also tieing up a fighter, sometimes two fighters or even an armor.

It’s difficult to get enough infantry out to the front line early in the German game. If you try to do that, you’ll strip yourself of infantry quickly, which becomes problematic when the other two Allies jump in. I really like to see Germany sticking out 3 inf in each territory, because it wears out their stack in E. Europe extremely quickly, in a KGF of course.

• Russia on G2 may blitz Karelia as Germany did. Russia is really happy do not lose units, do not have to commit nothing, may use fig elsewhere. Moreover, Russia is focusing all its inf around Caucasus, where they have more value than if they wander in the north.

I’d be really happy to see that with Germany. I don’t care if both of us collect the money from Karelia, as long as I as Germany don’t have to spend infantry to collect that money. Japan will eventually kick the crap out of Russia; the less inf I have to spend means more defense. I’ve actually tried this against myself and Germany turned out well since it didn’t have to bleed out infantry to Karelia ever, just Belo/Ukraine with mass fighters. If your goal is KGF, you have to lure Germany out whenever you can, and putting something in Karelia is one of many ways to do that.

Now, I’ll ignore the British if I am strapped for units.  I’d rather they have the land because they have to move their units into my path.

Actually I’d prefer Russia to gain land, because it means more money for Japan once Japan kills Russia, as well as territories that become duds to the Allies since the Russian capital is gone. I’ve made many mistakes allowing Russia to gain areas like S. Europe/Balkans/East Europe, when the UK/US could have used the money much better.

And also, the British should be your number one strafing target if you have the units. Choose UK over Russia if they both appear to be valid choices in terms of cost to attack/strafe, because it is the UK that will be dealing your death blow later on; if you can trade 5-6 inf for all of the stuff in their tranports that’s great. That makes it that more impossible for them to crack your 50 infantry stack later on, especially since the Allies have to attack individually. Russia stops pushing later on which makes their money worth less against the Germans. Obviously don’t just give money to them, but remember it’s more awkward for the Allies for the Russians to nab loads IPCs close to the German capital border.

But I’m never just giving Russia land.

Well of course you have to contest Russian land. But it’s laughable to think that you can get into a winning situation against Russia with the other 2 Allies on board in a KGF, so I would say focus on economy instead of trying (futiley) to bleed Russia. Spend the least to gain the most.

Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

Not really. Maybe your definition of defensive is retreating indefinitely, and that’s how you perceive my argument. That’s not it at all. I don’t even have a defensive/offensive way to play. I just play conservatively, making sure that I’m not using a bit of effort or money that can’t be backed up. Counting on luck is the worst strategy, IMO; hoping that one infantry or tank will take out a bazillion units. Because guess what, it doesn’t just happen for your side, and just as often as not your luck could be the other way.

and nearly 4% of the time you kill both INF and the FIG.

I find it simply amazing that you think the Russians will stay when it’s one fig versus one tank.

[Guest]

Two things…

1.  Replacement Cost of the ARM was already figured into that analysis to come  up with the +2 IPC result
2.  The point of pointing out the 4% to kill the FIG also was to show that it is not a 50/50 analysis, but that it is a variable result, and that there are some very positive potential results for Germany.  (and FYI, retreating the FIG only increases the odds of a favorable result for Germany in terms of maintaining control of Archangel)

Lastly, you speak of Germany being strapped for INF on the Russian front.  But Russia is REALLY strapped for offensive units.  And putting an ARM in Archangel forces Russia to use one of their 2 FIGs, and 2 of the INF in Russia, to fight to liberate a territory that is normally theirs “free and clear”.  So now another attack that Russia does (Karelia, Ukraine, Belo…) that turn is going to be reduced in offensive power, thus giving Germany more “kills” on their defense, and on subsequent counters because the Russians took the territory with fewer remainign units alive.

The effect is CUMULATIVE.

[Romulus]

@ncscswitch:

Two things…

1.  Replacement Cost of the ARM was already figured into that analysis to come  up with the +2 IPC result
2.  The point of pointing out the 4% to kill the FIG also was to show that it is not a 50/50 analysis, but that it is a variable result, and that there are some very positive potential results for Germany.  (and FYI, retreating the FIG only increases the odds of a favorable result for Germany in terms of maintaining control of Archangel)

Lastly, you speak of Germany being strapped for INF on the Russian front.  But Russia is REALLY strapped for offensive units.  And putting an ARM in Archangel forces Russia to use one of their 2 FIGs, and 2 of the INF in Russia, to fight to liberate a territory that is normally theirs “free and clear”.  So now another attack that Russia does (Karelia, Ukraine, Belo…) that turn is going to be reduced in offensive power, thus giving Germany more “kills” on their defense, and on subsequent counters because the Russians took the territory with fewer remainign units alive.

The effect is CUMULATIVE.

Solution? The old, good principle of A&A: never leave territories free to the enemy?

I mean, this happens because usually Karelia is left without units from Russia. Leaving there a little, nice inf, will avoid to Russia al lthose problems.
If Germany want Karelia have to commit 2 inf and 1 fig, or 2 inf and 1 art.
Result? No problem of blitzinf German tanks, territory gained for free, trading without losing infantry.
German and Russia are at war… so they have to fight!

[Guest]

You’ve got it Romulus.

Leaving that 1 INF forward in Karelia…

• Preserves 2 IPC in Archangel
• Makes Germany commit forces to taking Karelia instead of it being free (forces that could be destroyed by a Russian atack from West Russia on R2)
• Can potentially kill 1 (or more) German attackers in Karelia
• Prevents the need for Russia to fight in Archangel on R2, freeing up 2 INF and 1 FIG for other duties.
• Reduces the German Build on G2 by $2, with no need for an SBR :-)

[Hobbes]

Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

Not really. Maybe your definition of defensive is retreating indefinitely, and that’s how you perceive my argument. That’s not it at all. I don’t even have a defensive/offensive way to play. I just play conservatively, making sure that I’m not using a bit of effort or money that can’t be backed up. .

I perceived it exactly as you described on your last line: playing conservatively, or waiting for backup before making a move. Perhaps I should reformulate my argument: sticking on a single strategy is the worst strategy, IMO. There’s a time to be conservative, a time to push, a time to spend INF and ARM like crazy, a time to fortify in your core territories.

Counting on luck is the worst strategy, IMO; hoping that one infantry or tank will take out a bazillion units. Because guess what, it doesn’t just happen for your side, and just as often as not your luck could be the other way.

Who said anything about me counting on luck? :) When there’s that lonely INF out there I don’t expect it to even kill 1 unit before the 2 INF + 1 FTR (or whatever the combination) gets it. But this is not even luck: it’s relying on probabilities.
Luck is something that happens when opportunity and preparation meet, not when the dice roll. And a good player makes its own luck on the choices and moves he/she makes. After 10 battles where a single INF is killed defending a territory there’s a fair chance that at least in 1 of them it will survive and give you an opening. And if you are not in position to take advantage of that result then you just missed an opportunity.

[frood]

Here’s my two cents - I’ve been thinking on very similar lines to trihero’s initial post. It comes back to my main mantra of valuing units over territory (but you still need to hold & gain territory, don’t get me wrong - it’s just easier to do if you have more units :) )

These are my considerations:
1. Will leaving an Inf add pressure to the enemy’s resources? It may be a net loss but if it gives the Allies more to do with their limited resources, I’ve just made other battles harder for them because they have to commit some air power to this one. It must be remembered that as Germany you are not only trading with Russia, but also with the UK and possibly the US. So yes Russia only has two fighters, but the UK has fighters, a bomber and a battleship.

2. Can the allies shore-bombard the territory? If yes, leaving an Inf is not as useful as normal, since it has only a 1/3 chance of even getting  to defend.

3. Can the allies tank-blitz the territory? If yes I may be more inclined to leave an Inf there, because otherwise they truly can get the territory absolutely for free. However alternate tank blitzing by each side may be better for me, if I am more in need of conserving units than the other side.

3a. Can the allies send tanks through that territory to attack something else that they couldn’t otherwise? Eg. Russia might have tanks in Karelia, and Inf in Caucasus - If belo is left empty, both forces can attack Ukraine.

4. Can I afford to trade units more than the other side? If my production is inferior, I need to save my units for big battles where I can effect a significant swing in total IPC unit value.

So, like others have said, it depends on the circumstances. I find myself leaving the Inf more often than not though.

Finally, I’ll just say that my favoured attack for trading territory is to match the number of Infantry, and add air power. So e.g. if a territory is defended with one Inf, I would attack with 1 Inf + 2 Ftrs, or maybe 1 Inf + 1 Bomber, or more air if I have it available. I will only send 2 Inf if the territory has tactical importance. If I am just trying to get the IPCs and kill the enemy unit (the unit being more valuable than the IPCs from the territory, as an active, front-line unit), I just match the infantry.

The reason is that I don’t want to get 2 Inf killed in order to kill 1 Inf - that’s bad.

Here’s how it works out:
Attack with 1 Inf 2 Ftrs v. 1 Inf:

• with total punch of 7, good chance of killing the enemy Inf - + 3 IPCs for me.
• 1/3 chance of losing my Inf - -1 IPC for me
• 2/3 chance of taking the territory - for a 3 IPC territory, that’s +2 IPCs for me, + a 1/3 chance of killing a counter-attacking Inf - another +1 IPC for me.
• I will lose the Inf to the counter-attack: -3 IPCs

Total net = +2 IPCs

If you attack with 2 Inf 1 Ftr:

• Less likely to end battle in one round. IF the enemy Inf lives another round, they get another 1/3 chance to kill an Inf. But this is a small difference, punch of 5 instead of 7.
• taking the territory is more certain, so I award the full +3 IPCs for trading a 3 IPC territory - +1 from my plan above.
• You have now got 2 Inf occupying the territory. These amount to two 1/3 chances to kill enemy Inf instead of two, so that’s another +1 IPC
• Both occupying Inf however will be lost to a counterattack: -3 IPCs compared to above

So for this attack the total net is +1 IPCs.

That one IPC difference may not seem like much, but if you trade three territories / turn like this for 10 turns, that’s 30 IPCs! Suddenly by round 11 it is as if you have had one extra free turn of producing Infantry!

However, the 2nd attack may be good if you are wanting to trade more units, which you want if your side has a unit lead on land. eg. suppose I have 80 units, and you have 60. If I can keep trading off evenly until I have 40 and you have 20, that’s good for me.

But generally I like to think that I will put my surviving units to better uses than my opponent will, so I try to keep my own units alive as a priority.

[Guest]

I am a big fan of spilling Plastic Blood, so I don;t mind units dying  :lol:

[newpaintbrush]

@ncscswitch:

I am a big fan of spilling Plastic Blood, so I don;t mind units dying  :lol:

u monster

[frood]

@ncscswitch:

I am a big fan of spilling Plastic Blood, so I don;t mind units dying  :lol:

I remember from the games we played that it was much more of a slug fest than I usually play. I usually play more conservatively but what was I going to do when you kept sticking your units where I could kill them?

[U-505]

For the most part I agree with Frood. Blocking an armor blitz or vacating a territory to prevent an infantry being smashed by a BB is smart. But, attacking a territory with only 1 inf+fig’s is risky, especially Karelia and Ukraine, because if you lose the inf and leave the territory under Allied control they can reinforce usually with a large quantity of ground units and, more importantly, land all of their combined fighters. Germany has to be careful to not let the Allies combine their forces in one territory, especially in one bordering Eastern Europe because that signals the beginning of the end of Germany’s ability to trade Kar-Belo-Ukr.

@ncscswitch:

You’ve got it Romulus.

Leaving that 1 INF forward in Karelia…

• Preserves 2 IPC in Archangel
• Makes Germany commit forces to taking Karelia instead of it being free (forces that could be destroyed by a Russian atack from West Russia on R2)
• Can potentially kill 1 (or more) German attackers in Karelia
• Prevents the need for Russia to fight in Archangel on R2, freeing up 2 INF and 1 FIG for other duties.
• Reduces the German Build on G2 by $2, with no need for an SBR :-)

In the case of leaving Karelia open to allow a German armor blitz into Archangel, the best solution for Russia is to attack Arch with 1 inf and all of their armor. The Russian armor can still threaten Belo-Kar-Ukr, you’re fighters can be used elsewhere, and at best you’ve only pushed 1 inf into Arch which still can be used in Kar next turn. It makes it a wash for Germany in IPC’s if they’re lucky and an IPC loss if they aren’t. Getting the bonus territory and killing a Russian inf in exchange for the armor is the best you can hope for there because you can’t count Karelia’s income in that equation because moving an inf or blitzing an armor up and back from Eastern gains that income anyway. I would be more than happy, as Russia, to let Germany expose an armor in that case.

[frood]

@U-505:

For the most part I agree with Frood. Blocking an armor blitz or vacating a territory to prevent an infantry being smashed by a BB is smart. But, attacking a territory with only 1 inf+fig’s is risky, especially Karelia and Ukraine, because if you lose the inf and leave the territory under Allied control they can reinforce usually with a large quantity of ground units and, more importantly, land all of their combined fighters. Germany has to be careful to not let the Allies combine their forces in one territory, especially in one bordering Eastern Europe because that signals the beginning of the end of Germany’s ability to trade Kar-Belo-Ukr.

That’s partly what I meant when I referred to the possibility that the territory may have tactical value, in which case I will use 2 Inf. So I think I totally agree with you :D

[U-505]

Ok. Yes. I forgot about that line while I was posting. But, when there are all kinds of Allied units flying around Europe it can sometimes be hard to judge whether or not a territory is of tactical importance when you have multiple territories to consider so I usually err on the side of caution and go for the take in Ukraine and Karelia.

[trihero]

That means that 2/3 of the time you will be net AT LEAST +2 IPC to blitz an ARM to an undefended Archangel.

This statement is still misleading, Switch. First, you rounded up to +2 IPCs on average, it’s something like +1.9. Just blitzing Karelia still has a greater average result.

Second, no, it’s not “at least” +2 IPCs. +2 IPCs is the AVERAGE result. The LEAST result is -1 IPC; +4 from the territories, then -5 from losing the tank without killing anything. It seems like you think the minimum result is that the tank will kill something, and also you look at the 10% result as bigger than it is. It doesn’t feel very good at all when you lose a tank without doing anything in return, which happens much more often than killing 2 inf will.

[Guest]

No Wes…

It is as I stated… TWO THIRDS of the time, the German gain is 2 IPC OR MORE

+2 for Karelia
+2 for Archangel
5.8% of the time you DON’T lose 5 for the ARM (it lives)
44.3% of the time +3 for 1 INF killed
13.4% of the time +6 for 2 INF killed

So…
The +4 for the IPC’s of Karelia and Archangel are automatic (if left vacant), I think you agree with me that far.
Then you have 5.8% that the ARM lives, 44.3% to kill 1 Russian INF, 13.4% to kill 2 Russian INF.
5.8 + 44.3 + 13.4 = 63.5

63.5% rounded to the nearest third is 2/3

So 2/3 of the time, you get the +4 from the territories, and then from +2 to +11 IPC MORE (with +11 being exceedingly rare, +2 being pretty common, assuming the Russians preserve their FIG and retreat once the INF are dead; otherwise you have a VERY small (2.1%) chance of Germany being up by as much as +21:  4 for the territories, 5 for the surviving ARM, 6 for the dead INF, 10 for the dead FIG…).

1/3 of the time you are -1 IPC (ARM dies without getting a defensive hit in Archangel).

The odds are in favor of a positive IPC and unit value exchange for Germany by sending an ARM to blitz a vacant Karelia and Archangel with the MOST COMMON result being Germany Net +2 in combined IPC and Unit Value.

And then the positional advantages of making Russia use their AF on a battle they otherwise would not have to fight at all, and sending 2 INF out of position to the north…

[Romulus]

This analysis should be a hint for meditation.

I say again one little infantry in Karelia may avoid more problems even if is for sure a loss for Russia!

I try to do an analysis similar to the one made by Switch, but considering for sure the lost of the territory:

1/3 of the time defending russian infantry should kill one attacking infantry (+3), then die(-3) and losing the territory(-2), net: -2
2/3 of the time inf die without killing nothing: 2/3 * -5

net loss for Russian: (1/3 * -2) + (2/3 * -5) = -0,66 - 3,33 = -3,99 on average -4 IPC

Am I right?

So we should retreat that inf to stack it with other inf (very likely) or move in Karelia more forces to take it (very very unlikely).

But… the possibility for German of blitzing a tank give them the following advantages:

So 2/3 of the time, you get the +4 from the territories, and then from +2 to +11 IPC MORE (with +11 being exceedingly rare, +2 being pretty common, assuming the Russians preserve their FIG and retreat once the INF are dead; otherwise you have a VERY small (2.1%) chance of Germany being up by as much as +21:  4 for the territories, 5 for the surviving ARM, 6 for the dead INF, 10 for the dead FIG…).

that usually are not taken in account!

Result?
Is it not worthy to reason in terms of economy about trading of territories?
Is it more important to reason in terms of opportunity negated to the enemy?
Is it more useful the dispersion of own forces (1 inf alone) that cause more dispersion for the enemy (2 inf and 1 fig attacking)?

I know that units are the more important asset of a nation in A&A (units are the actual power of a nation, IPC are potential power still to be concretized) but I am starting to think that dispersion of forces is useful when aimed to force a consequent dispersion of the enemy and when used to reduce options and lessening the optimal attack of the enemy.

[trihero]

That’s true switch, but the AVERAGE IPC gain is still around 2. The most common result is killing one inf and dying, that is exactly +2 IPCs gain.

Also, the correct way to look at it is this:

44% of the time you killed one inf, which is a net gain of +2 IPCs (same as blitzing Karelia)
33% of the time you killed no inf, which is a net loss of 1 IPC (3 IPCs worse than blitzing Karelia).

So 77% of the time you are doing the same OR WORSE than simply blitzing Karelia.

You look at it as 66% of the time as doing the same OR BETTER.

We are sharing the 44% in the middle, but when you look at the part we aren’t sharing, it’s 33% to do worse, and only 22% to do better. How are the odds in Germany’s favor? The 44% of the time when you kill one inf is precisely the same net gain as simply blitzing Karelia, it is neither worse nor better. You talk about positioning, but the inf leftoever in Archangel are ready to take back Karelia so it’s no loss there.

Needless to say, remember all we’re talking about here is if Russia has not defended Karelia. If I were Russia I’d defend it, but I have played people who don’t, and in that case I don’t think it’s worth the German effort to blitz to Archangel, because 77% of the time it is the same or worse.

[Guest]

You are negating the value of giving the Russians FOUR needed attacks on R2 instead of only 3… and having only 2 FIGs (MAYBE 3) available for the attacks.  That leaves Russian ART and probably some ARM hanging out on the front, against Germany’s 5 FIGs and BOM…

You start spreading Russia’s initial forces THAT thin, and Germany is going to make some substantial LONG TERM gains, especially with the increased losses of Russian forces going for 4 attacks on R2, and the smaller number of Russians for the Germans to attack in each territory on G2.

If Russia pickets Karelia on R1, Archangel never changes hands ($2 lost to German coffers)
Russia still has only 3 attacks for R2:  Karelia, Belo, Ukraine… all of which would STILL be there, PLUS a 4th Archangel attack if you let the German ARM blitz to Archangel.

Also, the picket in Karelia prevents Germany from blitzing Karelia in the first place, which negates one of your advantages above.

In short, Russia is NOT going to abandon Karelia, they SHOULD picket it with 1 INF.
If they do not, then the likely 2 IPC advantage for Germany of running up on the Russian Border with 1 ARM is indeed VERY worthwhile.