Nit picky German Economizer

[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!  :?

[Guest]

Again, there is also value in making Russia engage in more attacks that would otherwise be needed.

And Darth is someone who posts often of this… the risk to the Axis due to the large number of attacks that the Axis has to make early (especially G1) in order to succeed.  Each attack is a chance for dice to enter into the mix. And the more attacks, the higher the PROBABILITY of a negative result in one (or more) of those attacks.

Blitzing to Archangel increases the number of R2 attacks by a third, increasing the likelyhood of bad dice by a third as well.  4 attacks is a hell of a lot more risk than 3.

And with only 2-3 FIGs, that means ground units stranded on the front SOMEWHERE for Germany to counter with their 5 FIG/1 BOM Luftwaffe.

And again, Germany COULD Karelia Stack behind that blitz… now it is Russian ARM hanging out to dry either in West Russia or Archangel for the Germans to counter the next turn, and with the Germans just as able to move their ARM to Ukraine as Russia.

So Darth, your point applies both ways, and all that comes into play is who has more dice to roll, and with the blitz to archangel it is RUSSIA that is on the receiving end of the odds reduction by stacking several battles.  Even if they were all 75%, that means that odds are at least one fails…

THAT is the final advantage of that blitz to Archangel…

[frood]

@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.

Meh - reading this and Switch’s post, I still think the analysis is flawed because:

• Okay, maybe giving Russia one more territory to attack does stretch it a little far. Maybe it’s true that Russia can only attack a certain # of territories on R2. However, with that tank sitting in Kar, you’ve just given it one more choice, and one of those choices is now a tank without fodder. So really you’ve just increased Russia’s options in exchange for getting a few IPCs. So instead of attacking Belo, Russia leaves Belo alone and hits Karelia instead, kills a tank instead of an Inf, and leaves an Inf somewhere that it might NOT get killed right away, as opposed to in Belo, where it is dead meat.
• It’s a short-lived advantage anyway, as after UK1 and definitely after UK2, I will have some UK units in Nor/Kar/Arc that can pick up the slack on any territories that Russia can’t afford to trade.

[Jennifer]

1 German tank takes Archangelsk and Karelia.  Germany +4

Russia retakes Karelia and Archangelsk but loses 1 infantry.  Russia -3, Germany -1

Why?

Archangelsk and Karelia have to be retaken for Russia to reach zero.  Meanwhile, Germany starts at zero.

Simple arithmetic here guys.  Not that hard.

[frood]

@Cmdr:

Simple arithmetic here guys.  Not that hard.

Apparently it is… but not for me!  :lol:

Karelia = 2
Kar + Arc = 4
One lost tank: priceless!

So Russia might be down one extra 2 IPC territory for 1 round max. I’d still take that in exchange for killing a tank.

That forward tank has to be valued at more than 5 IPCs. Think of it this way: what would you pay for a tank that you could place at the front (say Ukraine) instead of in Germany at the end of G1?

[Guest]

I have never claimed this to be a “game winning move”

I have stated that ON AVERAGE the blitz to Archangel is a positive economic trade for Germany.

MOST of the time, it pans out.  I already posted the odds, and even if you disallow the karelia income, 2/3 of the time the Germans come out even OR BETTER.  And that is before you take into account the thinning of Russian Forces for other attacks on R2.

Remember, I play this game as a game of economic might and grind out my opponent once I have it (just ask Jen after our last game when my economic grind beat 8 straight rounds of favorable dice for her).

Also, giving Russian bonus income without making them pay for it is a BAD IDEA.  In my current game, we just completed R3, and Russia has FIVE FIGS because of bonus USSR income.  When Russia has to spend forces attacking 2 territories JUST to get back to even, their bonus income is minimal, or non-existent.  When they get to keep even $2 secure, then they get to go for bonus income… and do things like collect $34 on R3 with 5 FIGs on the board…

[frood]

In light of all this conversation about how limited Russia is by having just 2 Fighters, I’m starting to wonder if 2 Ftrs early one wouldn’t be a bad investment for Russia…

Interesting to see that we really do have fundamentally different approaches to the game. You go for economic might, while I see local force superiority as the critical thing to achieve. And yet I don’t think either of us is a bad player.

[Guest]

The advantage of Revised over Classic…

There is more than 1 way to win…
:mrgreen:

[trihero]

MOST of the time, it pans out.  I already posted the odds, and even if you disallow the karelia income, 2/3 of the time the Germans come out even OR BETTER.  And that is before you take into account the thinning of Russian Forces for other attacks on R2.

I already discredited this position by showing with your own statistics that the probability is higher to come out even or worse. The 44% in the middle is a wash, there is 33% to do worse and 22% to do better. Call me a bugger if relying on the minority odds isn’t optimal. You see it as 66% to do even or better, I see it as 77% as the same or worse. We’ll just have to throw out the middle 44%, and that reveals the truth - it isn’t a sound economic move. It’s like you skipped over my previous post discrediting your position and then you just come back with the old position.

I have never claimed this to be a “game winning move”

I wasn’t addressing my “it’s not a game winning move either way” specifically to you, I was just saying in general that we have to keep this a little bit light hearted because this one little battle it isn’t the principle on which we revolve victory or defeat.

[newpaintbrush]

@Ender:

In light of all this conversation about how limited Russia is by having just 2 Fighters, I’m starting to wonder if 2 Ftrs early one wouldn’t be a bad investment for Russia…

Interesting to see that we really do have fundamentally different approaches to the game. You go for economic might, while I see local force superiority as the critical thing to achieve. And yet I don’t think either of us is a bad player.

I think ur BOTH bad players!11!one!  HO HO!  Or do I?

If you buy 2 Russian fighters early on and do Ukraine/West Russia/ bulk in Burytia, Russia is going straight to hell.  Japan and Germany will just roll Russia right up.

Economic might helps local force superiority, and vice versa.

[newpaintbrush]

BTW, ncsswitch, regarding the German tank blitzing to Archangel move:

It’s given that Karelia is already claimable.  The Germans don’t need to commit any forces to Karelia to blitz a tank through it.  Correct so far?  And if this is true, then you shouldn’t count Karelia in your profit-loss calculations for blitzing Archangel, because taking Karelia is given whether or not you take Archangel.

So the ONLY benefit you gain by blitzing the German tank to Archangel is the 2 IPC income from Archangel.  The LOSS you take is if the Russians decide to whack out the German tank.  In that case, you traded your 5 IPC tank for 2 IPC in the bank, plus around 1/2-2/3 of a chance of whacking out a Russian infantry (assume the Russians attack lightly).

Am I right?  And if I am, where’s my coooookie?

[Jennifer]

You still count the taking of Karelia because you are using that tank to take it.  That means you do not need to use another piece of equipment and thus that piece of equipment can be used elsewhere.

Now, if you blitzed a tank into Archangelsk AND moved an infantry into Karelia, you’d have a point.

[newpaintbrush]

@Cmdr:

You still count the taking of Karelia because you are using that tank to take it.  That means you do not need to use another piece of equipment and thus that piece of equipment can be used elsewhere.

Now, if you blitzed a tank into Archangelsk AND moved an infantry into Karelia, you’d have a point.

Oh, so I don’t have a point?  :lol:

[Jennifer]

You would if you were also moving an infantry into Karelia.  Then the Infantry is taking Karelia and the Armor is taking Archangelsk.  But if the armor is used alone, then it’s the armor taking both and the credit should go to that armor for both.

[frood]

You think funny.

We don’t care what unit gets credit for what. We care about what gain can be achieved and at what cost. +2 IPCs can be achieved at a cost of 0, just blitzing in and out of Karelia. The additional 2 IPCs for Karelia can be achieved at the cost of leaving a tank out to dry (-5).

So the diff from the Karelia only move is +2 and -5, for a net of -3. -1.5 if you include the 50% chance of killing an Inf on the Allied counter, if a battleship is not used.

[Jennifer]

I think rationally and economically.

I spent 5 IPC to get Karelia and Archangelsk.  If that 5 IPC is destroyed, I am down 1 IPC.  If Russia liberates those territories anything they lose is negative income because those are start territories, not conquered territories.  That means they start off in the hole and have to dig themselves out before they start showing a profit.

Another way to look at it is by the round:  Size of Army at start, Size of Army afterwards.  If you have more value on the board after America’s turn then before Russia’s turn, then you are showing profit.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-D
  The only reason I would blitz all the way to Archangel would be to cause the allies to pull troops off into that territory and divert them from other more critical areas, such as Africa or the Caucuses. The - 3 or -1.5 in trade off may well be worth the movement of 3 or more times that much of allied units into a backwater position for a turn or two which may well pay off by being able to control more profitable realestate elsewhere for a longer period of time.
As the Russian player, I never leave Leningrad undefended to avoid having to retake Archangel. There are no freebies if I can help it.
That’s my 2c worth on this topic.