Nit picky German Economizer

[frood]

Even if Russia can’t afford it, the UK can take care of it, maybe even with a battleship, thus not suffering any return fire even.

But I think Russia can handle it, esp. if on R1 you went heavy into WRus (which I usually do, as WRus is to Russia as Eastern Europe is to Germany) then WRus will not fall in G1, meaning any Inf in Mos at the start of R2 have no other immediate use anyway. And the next turn those Inf can be used to swap Karelia, or beef up WRus - they are hardly “way out of position”.

But what am I thinking? The more people that want to blitz a tank to Archangel, the better for me. I think its a noob move (Ooh, look, free territory! I get to use my Blitzing Power! w00tz0rz!) but if you want to do it, knock yourself out. As long as you’re not on my team :-D

So by all means, yes, tank blitz > Archangel = good move!!! Do it! My Russian game plan will be a shambles after this daring exploit throws my entire army into confusion!

[trihero]

Because if Germany instead chooses to go into Ukraine for keeps (Eastern and Balkans forces, plus new ARM from Germany, plus Southern or Egypt forces via TRN), now those 2 INF ARE out of position, and USSR has 2 less fodder pieces to try to expel the Germans from Ukraine, and now have to defend Caucuses/West Russia both, with no gain in IPC’s from Ukraine, or probably Belo either.

How can Germany afford to push into Ukraine that early on G2? They just don’t have the infantry fodder necessary to stack it high enough as well as get karelia and belorussia as well.

[Guest]

Yes, they can.

Someday I’ll show you how…

[Jennifer]

I base a lot off of starting income when it comes to optimization of round 1 moves.  If Russia loses 27 IPC in equipment on Round 1, have they narrowed the gap or spread the gap?  If Germany loses 5 IPC in equipment in Round 1, have they narrowed or spread the gap?

If England goes to Archangelsk/Karelia to save Russia equipment, is Germany uncontested in Africa and laughing with a 50 IPC a round income?

This isn’t a game of brute force.  It’s a game of economics.  You want to trade less for more of your opponents stuff.  What you trade is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that you force him to trade more then you lose.

So yes, as Switch says, you can invade Ukraine hard.  Russia has to chose, blow all their offensive power killing you off and watching you spit tanks out faster then a FORD factory spitting out Focuses, or retreat?

[frood]

@Commander:

This isn’t a game of brute force.  It’s a game of economics.  You want to trade less for more of your opponents stuff.  What you trade is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that you force him to trade more then you lose.

Such as an Armor for an Infantry?

Ultimately what counts is total front-line Axis units v. total front-line Allied units. Doesn’t matter how you achieve that, that’s what counts. As the quote in my sig says, the only rules of the game are what you can do to the enemy, and what you can stop the enemy from doing to you. You need units for both.

So I guess I disagree. It’s a game of economics to the point that your economics give you more brute force (in the right place at the right time) than the other guy.

[Jennifer]

A Germany Armor for a Russian Infantry + 4 IPC for Karelia + Archangelsk.

Germany -1
Russia -3 (they’re recovering home ground, that does not add as bonus income, but failing to recover would add as negative income.)

Economics.  Especially considering that 1 IPC loss is 1/40th your home value vs 3/24ths their home value.  Doesn’t sound like much, but how fast can you build up 2 or 3 to one odds on attacking Russia’s army if you continually have those trades?

What’s the alternative?  Let him trade on your land?  That’s bad.  You net 0 for the land and lose money on the lost units.  He loses money on the lost units, but gains value on the land to off set his costs.

[trihero]

Yes, they can.

Someday I’ll show you how…

It doesn’t take a whole lot of guessing to know that you’re talking about buying a lot of tanks in order to push Ukraine, but is that optimal? Or talking about Russia losing more units than they expected to on the R1 attacks.

but gains value on the land to off set his costs.

An extra 2 IPCs to make up for 5 IPC lost doesn’t make any sense. Especially when 33% of the time you don’t even hit the Russian inf, ouch!

[Jennifer]

4 IPC for the loss of 5, dear.  You get 2 for Archangelsk but you also get 2 more for Karelia.

And your armor has a 50% defense rating, not 33%.

[trihero]

You should already get Karelia, so it’s all about what you got in addition to Karelia. +2 over just Karelia.

And your armor has a 50% defense rating, not 33%.

Again simply quoting Switch’s statistic that 33% of the time tank dies without killing anything.

[Jennifer]

I guess that really depends what’s attacking the tank and your own personal luck/karma.

But here’s what I got:

Attacker: 1 Arm. v. Defender: 1 Arm. Link to or bookmark this scenario.

Average battle duration: 1.3 rounds of combat
  avg. # units left IPC value Punch
Attacker: 0.30.7 1.73.3 12
Defender: 0.30.7 1.73.3 12

Surviving Attackers

Surviving Defenders #Casualties

Overall %*: A. survives: 33.3% D. survives: 33.9% No one survives: 32.8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red.
  Attacker results:
  Probability % # units / losses
    33.27% 1: 1 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
    66.73% 0: no units. 1 Arm. : 5 IPCs
  Defender results:
  Probability % # units / losses
    33.89% 1: 1 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
    66.11% 0: no units. 1 Arm. : 5 IPCs

Looks like 2/3rds of the time you hit something, but only 1/3rd of the time you survive the engagement.

[frood]

In a tank v. tank engagement, yes that’s true - assuming you fight to the death, you have a 33% chance of surviving, as does the other side.

The less confusing way to look at it is this:

Possible outcomes:
33%: Attacker lives, defender dies
33%: Attacker dies, defender lives
33%: Both attacker and defender die.

Your conclusion is confusing the way you wrote it - it sounds like the results are lopsided. Rather, both sides have 2/3 chance of getting killed, and a 2/3 chance of killing the other unit, and a 1/3 chance of surviving.

In effect, the results are a wash. However, this is more likely:

Attacker: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm. v. Defender: 1 Arm.

Average battle duration: 1.2 rounds of combat
  avg. # units left IPC value Punch
Attacker: 3.4 0.6 13.1 1.9 7.3 0.7
Defender: 1 5 3

Surviving Attackers

Surviving Defenders #Casualties

Overall %*: A. survives: 99.9% D. survives: 0.1% No one survives: 0.1%

In this attack, Russia comes out solidly ahead in retaking Archangel, losing 1.9 IPCs to Germany’s 5. Although I would probably have the UK kill that tank with a battleship anyway.

[Jennifer]

You are making it overly complicated, Dan.

Germany takes Archangelsk and Karelia with 1 Armor.

Germany +4

Russia attacks:  You have a 50% chance to hit your target on the first roll.  For argument’s sake, let’s presume he sent 2 infantry, 1 fighter to kill you.

Worst case scenario:

Germany is +4 for cash -5 for the armor = -1 net
Russia is +0 for cash -0 for equipment = 0 net

Most realistic scenario:

Germany is +4 for cash - 5 for the armor = -1 net
Russia is +0 for cash - 3 for equipment = -3 net

Best case scenario:
Germany is +4 for cash, 0 or -5 for the equipment = -1 or +4 net
Russia is +0 for cash - 3 or 6 for equipment = -3 or -6 net

No matter what the outcome, Russia can only expect to be +0 for cash.  Why?  Because Russia is liberating their land, not gaining any land.  That means they are not collecting anything they didn’t collect last round, thus they have no increase.

Germany, on the other hand, is at worst down 1 IPC in value and at best has caused Russia more grief then the land is worth.

[DarthMaximus]

You can’t count Kar (as +2) Germany gets that anyway.

Why not just blitz kar and move back to EE?
B/c then Russia can do the same, it is a wash.

Germany can only get 2 inf out of Nor via trn so either 1 inf is left in Nor or one moves to Kar anyway.

For Ger,
At BEST the arch Blitz is a wash, NO BETTER.
At WORST, it is -3 IPC (loss of tank + 2 ipc for arch)

• armor missed on Def -

For Russia,
At BEST, +2 (see worst for Ger)
At WORST, wash (see best for Ger)

This is b/c Russia can attack with 1 inf and 7 armor.  You trade inf for arm, it is that simple.

It doesn’t matter if it is Russian territory, it is UNHOLDABLE by Germany.  There is no other gain for Ger other than collecting 2 IPC and the 50% chance of killing 1 inf.  That is it.

Russian Armor are as much of a threat to Ukr from Arch as they would be if they were in Wrus, Cauc, or Mos.

As for the loss of fodder, what is the difference whether you lose that one if in Kar (on Rd 1 Def), or on R2 attack?

In rd 1 you only have a 33% chance of killing a German INF, but in Rd 2 you essentially have a 100% chance of killing one ARMOR for that inf b/c you can afford to bring in 5,6, even 7 tanks.  Yes you give Germany 2 more IPC, but all that does is allow them to “upgrade” 1 inf to an armor.  So Germany is trading one armor on the front lines for the ability to buy an armor in Rd 2 then move it to the front lines in Rd 3, and then it can use it to attack in Rd 4.  Not sure if that is such a great idea.

[Jennifer]

I count Kar and Archangel because that tank took both.  That’s +4.  If I lose the tank then I’m still +4 in cash for the land, but i’m -5 for equipment.

[frood]

@Cmdr:

I count Kar and Archangel because that tank took both.  That’s +4.  If I lose the tank then I’m still +4 in cash for the land, but i’m -5 for equipment.

Sorry, that’s bunk. We’re doing comparison between two alternatives: blitzing Karelia and retreating to safety, or going through to Arc.

Plan 1 gets you Karelia (+2),

plan 2 gets you Kar + Arc (+4) minus the loss of a tank (-5), so total is -1.

-1 is -3 from +2

Other way to see it is that as you can get 2 for free, that’s the baseline. The difference then is that the Arc blitz gets you an additional +2 and -5 (-3 total difference) from what some of us are saying.

Finally, as I’ve said many times, you can’t value front-line units on a straight basis with IPCs from captured territories. As DM points out, those extra IPCs don’t become “active” until several rounds later. Think of it like the “time value of money” in financial planning - a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Sorry, but putting a tank in Arc on G1 is a noob move, no matter who’s making it and how much they’ve posted on this forum  :roll:

[trihero]

You can’t count Kar (as +2) Germany gets that anyway.

Darth Maximus has it correct. If you count Kar as Germany, you would have to be fair and count Kar too as Russia. It seems like you’re leaving Kar open, which Russia can take back freely. If you didn’t leave Kar open as Germany, then you’re not counting the infantry you spent to hold it, you’re just optimistically and incompletely looking at the tank.

Germany has Kar no matter what is sent there, an inf or tank. Archangel is a separate additional territory which has to be evaluated on its own, because only the tank could reach there.

Ender beat me to it.

I wouldn’t go so far to call it a noob move because honestly it’s just one small fight out of dozens, and it’s not going to make or break your game alone. But if you want to optimize, I don’t see how blitzing Archangel is good unless Russia had some messed up dice and really can’t handle the territory trading on all fronts.

[Romulus]

It seems that everyone has its own way of evaluate territory trading!

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

[frood]

@Romulus:

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

Yes - mine!  :lol:

[axis_roll]

@Romulus:

It seems that everyone has its own way of evaluate territory trading!

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

part of that rule of thumb needs to be ‘opportunity cost’
If russia had so many other things to on top of archangel, it might be worth it to be sitting in archangel with a tank.

[Romulus]

Strategy is important in swapping of territories, not only economics, I agree with you.

What it is unclear is how to evaluate the economic of a territory trading from the economic point of view.

I am a bit confused!  :?