I was victorious. The UK’s navy was destroyed very early in the game, and my Japanese counterpart did very well. Moscow was taken!!!
Nit picky German Economizer
-
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
OR CAN YOU
DUN DUN DUN
-
@Ender:
@Cmdr:
Yea, I definately need that smiley when dealing with your defeatism.
It’s simple. You collect +4 IPC with that move. If you lose the tank, you net -1.
Strategically, you collect +4 IPC with the move, you may lose the tank -5 and you might kill an attacking infantry +3
4-5+3=2 IPC gain
Jennifer, you have to COMPARE THAT MOVE to THE OTHER MOVE to see THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOVES. We are COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT MOVES. Sorry for the shouting.
Simply blitzing Karelia also happens to net +2 IPCs, so even by your math it’s a wash between the two moves.
However, your math is flawed because you can’t count a full 3 IPCs for the chance of killing an Inf. That chance is worth 1.5 IPCs. The tank is dead meat fo shizzle though, so that is a full 5 IPC loss (plus more because it is a front-line unit.)
And you can’t count +4 for the move because +2 of that can be achieved without incurring the cost of the tank.
Let’s try it in terms of dollars and cents. I make you two different offers:
- I will give you $2 million. You don’t have to pay anything, I just give it to you.
- I will give you $4 million up front, but you have to give me $5 million back right away, and I’ll give you a 50% chance of me giving you a further $3 million.
#1 is easy - you get $2 million
#2 - half the time, you will walk away with a net gain of $2 million. The other 50% of the time, you will lose $1 million net.What’s the better deal? (I won’t explain to you which deal is analogous to which attack until after you give your answer :wink: )
Puts on his best Howie Mandel impression
“So, Cmdr. Jenninfer, DEAL or NO DEAL?”
:wink:
-
A&A’s most important factors are maths and economy.
I think we all agree on that. But that doesn’t mean that other issues are irrelevant.
If Germany blocks sz3 with sub then Russia has to take back Arch, not UK, or G have Arch for 2 rnds.
This makes it an tactical issue, not only economy.
And if Russa moves most inf to east for SJF or KJF, then G should play very aggressive against Russia.
So even if G may lose 1 ipc on the Arch blitz, to say this is a bad move is just a $imple understanding of
different style of gameplay. Instead, try to see the whole picture. -
A&A’s most important factors are maths and economy.
I think we all agree on that. But that doesn’t mean that other issues are irrelevant.
If Germany blocks sz3 with sub then Russia has to take back Arch, not UK, or G have Arch for 2 rnds.
This makes it an tactical issue, not only economy.
And if Russa moves most inf to east for SJF or KJF, then G should play very aggressive against Russia.
So even if G may lose 1 ipc on the Arch blitz, to say this is a bad move is just a $imple understanding of
different style of gameplay. Instead, try to see the whole picture.That’s called “opportunity cost” in economic terms
-
@Ender:
… but you have to give me $5 million back right away
That’s an expensive 1942 model tank…who is buying this, the US government?
:cry: :roll:
-
A&A’s most important factors are maths and economy.
I think we all agree on that. But that doesn’t mean that other issues are irrelevant.
If Germany blocks sz3 with sub then Russia has to take back Arch, not UK, or G have Arch for 2 rnds.
This makes it an tactical issue, not only economy.
And if Russa moves most inf to east for SJF or KJF, then G should play very aggressive against Russia.
So even if G may lose 1 ipc on the Arch blitz, to say this is a bad move is just a $imple understanding of
different style of gameplay. Instead, try to see the whole picture.That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make, Lucifer. Given the whole picture, German tank blitz to Archangel is a bad move, unless Russia’s doing something spectacularly dumb (like buying two destroyers on R1 and charging east with everything, making no attacks on Germany at all).
Remember my earlier post mentioning that purchased units placed in Russia can be used to recapture Archangel, as well as any units moved to Russia in noncombat. It is really quite difficult to come up with any reasonable Russian position that ends up with the German tank in Archangel successfully unbalancing the Russian position.
Try it, and you’ll see.
-
Ender:
I’ll give you $5 and you give me $4. Then we will roll 1 Die. If we get a 1, 2 or 3 you give me $3 more. Let’s do that 1000 times and see who comes out on top?
And that’s not including the real possibility that your attackers miss and my defender hits giving me a second shot at another $3 for the same $5 risk.
-
Yea, I definately need that smiley when dealing with your defeatism.
It’s simple. You collect +4 IPC with that move. If you lose the tank, you net -1.
Strategically, you collect +4 IPC with the move, you may lose the tank -5 and you might kill an attacking infantry +3
4-5+3=2 IPC gain
Ender:
I’ll give you $5 and you give me $4. Then we will roll 1 Die. If we get a 1, 2 or 3 you give me $3 more. Let’s do that 1000 times and see who comes out on top?
And that’s not including the real possibility that your attackers miss and my defender hits giving me a second shot at another $3 for the same $5 risk.
You consistently ignore that there is a better move available - simply blitz Karelia. All you do is say that blitzing Archangel is a good move economically, but there is a better move available. I don’t know why you would choose the worse over the better.
Your second scenario is incomplete, because there is the alternative - You give me 0, and I give you 2. In your scenario it ends up with you 0.5 IPCs ahead of me, but if you use the better scenario you’re always 2 IPCs ahead.
-
@Cmdr:
Ender:
I’ll give you $5 and you give me $4. Then we will roll 1 Die. If we get a 1, 2 or 3 you give me $3 more. Let’s do that 1000 times and see who comes out on top?
And that’s not including the real possibility that your attackers miss and my defender hits giving me a second shot at another $3 for the same $5 risk.
You truly amaze me with your ability to miss the point I and two or three others are trying to make to you. It’s about the comparison.
I understand perfectly well that in the scenario you describe, you will on average come out on top by 0.5 IPCs each time - with Russia / UK attacking with enough material to kill the tank in one round pretty consistently.
So yes you come out on top by 0.5 IPCs. But with just blitzing Karelia, you gain 2 IPCs, guaranteed, and preserve a front-line, non-fodder, offensive unit.
-
OK, thank you.
Yes, it is half an IPC on average, so there IS a small gain, a small EARLY gain which magnifies over time in the game.
Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…
You engineer a situation where Russia is modestly weaker on all 4 attacks, and that means that the Dice Gods are likely to intervene in 1 or more of those battles.
It is the German version of the concept behind the SZ59 heavy, SZ45 3-piece attack, and Pearl reinforce being discussed in another thread… Too many attacks and spreading too thin.
Now add 1 more element to it…
Bid units to Libya
T-J via Amphib on G1It is the Germany AT&T Opening… Reach out and Touch Someone… :mrgreen:
Russia has enemy units/threats to be dealt with in 4 territories on R2 (plus any Japan threats), and the Germans are already moving into the Middle East making Caucuses more of an issue…You really want to have to send forces to the Arctic Circle for TWO battles instead of only 1 in that scenario?
-
Switch you are right in your analysis. But I think that the point here is another.
There is an economic aspect that may be rigorously analyzed: the economic aspect and Ender and other here have make a good analysis of this. Blitzing to Kar is more convenient economically than blitzing to Arkangelsk. This is sure.
After there is another called opportunity cost by Axis_roll and strategic advantage by you. But this one may not be quantified even if it may be more important and worhty than the simple economic gain. I strongly agree with you for the question of increasing the battle that Russia have to fight.
There is one thing to add.
You have to act in a way to have advantages from it, otherwise you will not have anything in return for the sacrifice done.
So I think that there is the possibility of a strategic gain but you need to play accordingly, the player have to be aware of the action.
So it is not an automatic gain. In some case it is useful for the startegy and is a gain, in other case it is a loss.
In chess you may sacrifice a piece without having another piece in return with the objective of disorganize opponent king defense and chekmate it. But if you do not play accordingly you have only lost a piece. -
@ncscswitch:
Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…
Ncsswitch, my point is that those infantry at Moscow that would otherwise be unable to attack anyplace are now able to attack the German tank at Archangel. That isn’t GOOD for Germany. It’s BAD. Try a 2 inf 2 art 2 tank buy / Ukraine / West Russia attack, or a 8 infantry buy / Belorussia / West Russia attack, either variation leaving Karelia and Archangel open.
The tank blitz to Archangel makes Russia commit infantry and either tank, artillery, or fighter for most favorable odds. So the Russians pay the opportunity cost of moving those units against the German tank; particularly fighters, which are very valuable for trading forward positions without committing ground units. Assume, then, that the Russians use a tank (which they should have at least one of on Russia 2).
So on R2, if the Russians do capture Archangel, how does Germany profit? Russian units at Archangel can be used to trade Karelia, but are not placed at West Russia, making West Russia potentially more vulnerable. Also, as those units are not at West Russia, Russia has less to attack and hold Ukraine with.
So the question is, can Germany either attack West Russia on G2, or maintain control of Ukraine on G2 (this latter more likely after a Belorussia/West Russia attack, as German fighters can land at Ukraine)? Note that the two dovetail nicely, as German fighters used against West Russia can land in Ukraine.
But the answer, barring REALLY bad luck or bad Russian moves, should be “No” to both.
If the Germans leave enough units close enough to West Russia to attempt to crack West Russia on G2, Russia can attack and retreat on R2 before the German hammer falls, forcing the Germans to trade German fighters for Russian infantry if the Germans do follow through on the attack. If the Germans do NOT have enough units to crack West Russia, then the Russians can simply trade Karelia/Archangel as previously described, and the Germans lose the valuable tank that was used to take Archangel.
The German attack on Ukraine is similar if carried out through the Balkans; the Russians can again act similarly and deplete the German forces before the German attack. Of course, the Germans can opt to build S. Europe transports on G1, but treatment of that topic must wait for another thread, as it’s really quite a different line of play that can only be undertaken given particular Russian purchases and moves and requires a German preplaced bid in Africa (and it doesn’t include taking Trans-Jordan)
Tank blitz to Archangel baaaad.
-
I would prefer (as Germany) that Russia allocate forces to Arch, that means less strenght on the
eastern front, and if they use ftrs then Russia cannot use them in Ukr or Kalia. -
@ncscswitch:
OK, thank you.
Yes, it is half an IPC on average, so there IS a small gain, a small EARLY gain which magnifies over time in the game.
Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…
You engineer a situation where Russia is modestly weaker on all 4 attacks, and that means that the Dice Gods are likely to intervene in 1 or more of those battles.
It is the German version of the concept behind the SZ59 heavy, SZ45 3-piece attack, and Pearl reinforce being discussed in another thread… Too many attacks and spreading too thin.
Yeah, what NPB said. Arc can be taken by Moscow units that wouldn’t have anywhere else to attack anyway, so there is no thinning. But even if there were, you are making a big assumption:
Germany is not “making” Russia attack 4 territories, or indeed any territories. It is entirely up to Russia which territories she attacks. A smart Russian player will not necessarily attack all 4 territories, but the optimal combination of them. The optimal combination may be all four - I’d have to see it in an actual game situation - but my point is, Russia is not forced to attack four territories, it is free to optimize its attacks and can probably come up with something better.
I think I want to challenge ncscswitch and Cmdr Jennifer to test their mettle in an actual game on this. If they accept, and someone else wants to join the fight on my side, so be it, but I’m prepared to take them on solo too.
I realize a single game won’t prove much, but after all this hot air I think it’s time someone put their Inf chips where their mouth is.
And @Lucifer: those Russian units are only in Arch for 1 turn. And from there, they actually have a number of options, so they are hardly wasted there.
-
OOOO A CHALLANGE! (spelled “challenge”, but I like spelling it wrong . . .)
OOOOOOOOOO :-D
-
Ender:
Thank you for conceding my point that the battle on Archangelsk with an unopposed tank averages out to a better net then just blitzing Karelia. That’s all I was saying. Better for Germany = Worse for the allies. It’s why Rockets are so devastating to Russia if Germany gets them. Sure, the rocket to Russia and the rocket to Caucasus may only do 1 IPC damage each, but they might do 12 IPC damage and that’s usually worth the 20 IPC I find it takes (on average) to get a technology.
The entire game is based on economics. +.5 here and there over 10 rounds adds up to a lot!
-
Ender, you’re right about that Russia will use forces from Moscow, but those units will take one more rnd
to move to WRU, Cauc or Kalia in order to attack Belo or Ukr.
This is just a minor detail, a game will not be decided by a German tank to Arch. -
No, it won’t. But it can be one more block removed resulting in JENGA
-
@Cmdr:
Ender:
Thank you for conceding my point that the battle on Archangelsk with an unopposed tank averages out to a better net then just blitzing Karelia.
Didj00 say that, Ender? Becos I have like, no recollection of that alleged event.
-
He did when he agreed that the armor blitz to Karelia over 1000 rounds will average 0.5 IPC more then not blitzing Karelia.
Suggested Topics
