If you build an AC or 2 transports on G1, the allies can both buy air and sink you unified navy in sz7 on UK2 and US2. If you really want to mess with the Allies in the Atlantic, you might want to try one of the following strategies (though they do come at a cost):
bid a sub in sz8 and kill the sz2 navy on G1 (you can combine this with a naval purchase on G1 and foregoing Egypt, sending the sz 14 fleet to sz 13, if you have the nerve) Buy something like bomber, fig, 5 inf or bomber, 8 inf and move your navy to sz 7 (add the sub in sz 8 or a possible bid unit for added effect). Because of the extra bomber, the UK will be hard-pressed to unify in sz 8 and hitting 5+ units in sz 7 is not really attractive either.Nit picky German Economizer
-
He did when he agreed that the armor blitz to Karelia over 1000 rounds will average 0.5 IPC more then not blitzing Karelia.
-
Jennifer, it’s just time to give up the chase. He never said that blitzing Archangel is 0.5 IPCs more than just simply blitzing Karelia. He said that blitzing Archangel is +0.5 IPCs better than doing nothing at all, and that is what your math is showing. If you actually sat down and looked at the math, of which there is none at this point, just blitzing Karelia is +2 IPCs between Germany and Russia. I already calculated the +0.5 IPCs for you way at the beginning of this thread. It’s +2 IPCs for blitzing Karelia. All you keep saying is “I am right because I calculated +0.5 IPCs.” Congratulations, you reinvented the wheel. You’re way behind in this conversation, that was already discussed.
There is a better move available. +2 IPCs > +0.5 IPCs. Blitzing Karelia and back > Blitzing to Karelia and Archangel.
The only half-intelligent response is switch’s where he says it’s a positioning bonus. But that doesn’t mean much when you look at the average result over many games, which is a net loss to Germany compared to simply blitzing Karelia and back. The worst positioned tank is a dead tank.
I’m sure you will have a game where you lose 2 inf and not retake archangel and then you’ll come back here and go “haha trihero you’re wrong, Germany should always blitz Archangel if possible” but sorry my friend, we’re simply talking about average results here, not terrible ones.
-
@Ender:
@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.
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.
Jennifer, it’s just time to give up the chase. He never said that blitzing Archangel is 0.5 IPCs more than just simply blitzing Karelia. He said that blitzing Archangel is +0.5 IPCs better than doing nothing at all, and that is what your math is showing. If you actually sat down and looked at the math, of which there is none at this point, just blitzing Karelia is +2 IPCs between Germany and Russia. I already calculated the +0.5 IPCs for you way at the beginning of this thread. It’s +2 IPCs for blitzing Karelia. All you keep saying is “I am right because I calculated +0.5 IPCs.” Congratulations, you reinvented the wheel. You’re way behind in this conversation, that was already discussed.
Sorry, I do think he said that the average result comes out to .5 IPC better to blitz to Archangelsk then to just blitz Karelia.
Perhaps you are confused and misreading his statement?
7 IPC > 2 IPC is it not? 2 For Karelia, 2 for Archangelsk, 3 for the Infantryman you kill vs 2 for Karelia which is really never going to happen because if you are going that route, you are going to use a German infantry to garrison it and force Russia to attack so it’s really +2 Karelia - 3 lost Infantry for net -1 vs the tank route which is +4 territory - 5 lost Tank = -1 net.
The only major difference here is that Russia now has units in Archangelsk that it would otherwise have in W. Russia or Ukraine and that means less units to protect their flank and better chance for Germany to push into those territories and reduce the Russian army by a major score.
-
Sorry, I do think he said that the average result comes out to .5 IPC better to blitz to Archangelsk then to just blitz Karelia.
Perhaps you are confused and misreading his statement?
Sorry, he didn’t. You are indeed the confused one. I don’t see anywhere where he’s saying that it’s better to blitz to Archangel rather than just to Karelia and back. He’s simply acknowledging that there is a 0.5 IPC German lead over Russia in the one situation blitzing Karelia and Archangel. I already calculated this at the beginning of this thread for you. He and I and many others however are saying in other posts that if you just blitz Karelia, you get a +2 IPC lead. +2 > +0.5. What else do you really have to say?
Why don’t you sit down for a second and calculate the 2 different scenarios? And tell me which one on average comes out higher? Instead of misinterpreting other people’s posts, I want you to sit down and show me your math on both scenarios, then prove to me which one is higher on average.
7 IPC > 2 IPC is it not?
2 = 2, does it not? 7 IPCs - 5 for the tank you lost is 2.
So whip out your dice calculator or refer to Switch’s previous posts which have already stated the odds - it’s 44% end result for German tank to die and 1 inf to die (2 = 2, no better or worse than blitzing Karelia), 33% end result for the Germans to lose their tank and Russians to not lose anything (-1 < +2), and 22% end result for the Germans to kill 2 inf (5 IPC > 2 IPC).
There’s a 77% chance for your Archangel move to come out the same or worse than Karelia. Why would you want to take that chance, unless the Russians lost a lot of units and can’t manage the forces?
-
You love to cherry pick I know.
Okay, let me spell it out again:
2 IPC Karelia
2 IPC Archangelsk
3 IPC Dead Russian
-5 IPC Dead German Tank2+2+3 = 7 IPC
Or you could blitz Karelia (which is never going to happen, you’ll invade with 1 infantry like everyone in the world does that I have ever played) and get 2 IPC
Hmm, well, the realistic is Armor lost in Archangelsk or Infantry lost in Karelia. Either case, your worst case scenario is -1 net IPC.
Now, let’s use Frood’s calculator eh?
Most likely attack on Archangelsk:
2 Infantry, 1 Fighter vs 1 Armor
There’s a 2% chance the tank lives killing both infantry and the fighter.
There’s a 13% chance the tank kills both infantry (that’s almost 1 in 6, or the equivalent chance of shooting down a bomber with an AA Gun)
There’s a 47% chance the tank kills at least an infantry
and
There’s only a 40% chance the Russians make it unscathed and clear it without loss.60% Chance of killing 1 infantry on defense. That means you have collect 4 IPC for the land and killed a 3 IPC infantryman in 3 out of 5 combats. More then half the time you are going to gross 7 IPC in IPC shift by blitzing and only 40% of the time you will net -1.
Simple arithmetic will show you that it’s far better for Germany to risk losing the tank and netting 1 IPC loss for the superior chance to killing at least one, if not two attacking infantry and making a large capital gain on the loss of that tank.
-
Or you could blitz Karelia (which is never going to happen, you’ll invade with 1 infantry like everyone in the world does that I have ever played) and get 2 IPC
Wrong. I will not invade with one infantry. I will take +2 IPCs and forget the worse economic option, which is +0.5 IPCs as you have calculated. That is the whole point of this thread, to show that there is a better option that so many people ignore.
I asked you to compare the 2 options and prove to me which one comes out with more net IPCs for Germany. You said great I’ll repeat what I said earlier, and again ignored the second option. When does it stop?
There’s a 47% chance the tank kills at least an infantry
and
There’s only a 40% chance the Russians make it unscathed and clear it without loss.Only? And here I was thinking it was 33% based on switch. So you’re saying that switch was even more optimistic than he seemed.
Thanks for solidifying my point. There is a total of 87% you will come out the same or worse as simply blitzing Karelia (the 47% killing one infantry gives you the same net position, +2, as blitzing Karelia. The 40% not killing any infantry is worse than Karelia). Why would you want to pick a move that comes out 87% of the time worse than the other move?
Simple arithmetic will show you
Simple arithmetic will show you that blitzing Karelia and running away is the better of the 2 options. You still have been avoiding the main point, I don’t know why.
Fill in the blanks:
1. Blitzing to Archangel = + x net IPCs based on averages
2. Blitzing to Karelia = +y net IPCs based on averagesCompare x to y. If y is greater than x, you are wrong.
You already calculated x as 0.5 IPCs. That is a correct calculation. Then you give all sorts of excuses not to calculate y, which doesn’t even have any probability involved in it. I wonder why?
2+2+3 = 7 IPC
Ahem, -5 IPCs = 2 IPC. The same as blitzing Karelia. All you did was say as was said before - if it’s a trade of an inf for a tank in Archangel, it’s the same net result as simply blitzing Karelia. Not better nor worse.
-
@Cmdr:
You love to cherry pick I know.
Okay, let me spell it out again:
2 IPC Karelia
2 IPC Archangelsk
3 IPC Dead Russian
-5 IPC Dead German Tank2+2+3 = 7 IPC
Speaking of cherry-picking - how do you get away with adding all the positives, and then not accounting for the negative? It’s so blatant - you’ve got all the numbers listed, and then you go and add them up, and - oops- somehow the -5 is missing?
Secondly, you cannot claim 3 IPCs for a “dead Russian” - even in your example, 40 % (nearly half) of the time Russia will not lose an Infantry. And that’s with the minimal attack.
So really it is on average about half a dead infantry - 1.5 IPCs, not 3.
Which leaves Germany with a net gain of 0.5 IPCs. Compared to just blitzing Karelia for a net of 2 IPCs.
Which is what I have been saying all along. I love how you said that I said this, but then in defence you could not quote me, but rather just did your own funny math to prove it. Your math is not what I said.
I know it’s about just one tank. But it’s also about who has the correct way to do the math in evaluating an attack. Which is why I think I could smoke Jennifer any day of the week, after reading her little math essay above where somehow 2 + 2 + 3 -5 = 7.
So since you thanked me for saying something I didn’t say, I’ll also thank you for saying something you didn’t say, which is “you’re right, you never said that attacking archangel was 0.5 IPCs better than just blitzing karelia.”
-
Since you are posting about “JUST blitzing Karelia” (emphasis added), what happens when you change those parameters and also have 1 (or more) INF added to Karelia?
Now I know that under your reasoning above that that makes the Archangel move worth $2 less IPC’s net because you would assign the value of Karelia to the other forces rather than the ARM. Fine, it is really irrelevant what unit gets the “credit” for it, Germany still gets the cash, so I will count it as a net positive.
Anyway, You have an ARM in Archangel. You have a unit (or units) in Karelia. You have a unit (or units) in Belo. You have a unit (or units) in Ukraine. What does Russia have to do to counter? That is the question that has not been fully explored in the discussions above.
Sure, you kill an ARM in Archangel. Germany may or may not take out a Russian INF along with it. But what of the rest of it? Above posts have the ARM being killed by 2 INF (Moscow) and 1 FIG. OK, so half of the Russian Air Force is committed to battle in Archangel, 3 territories left to take. So what are you going to throw forward against the Nazis? What punch units are you going to send forward to die on the next German counter? Your ART? Some of your few ARM? Or do you skip a few battles and have reduced Russian income further increasing the income disparity with Germany and strap Russia for cash earlier in the game?
And THIS is where the real “nit picky German Economizer” kicks in. Not with the .5 or 2 or whatever in Archangel, but with drawing out the punch units of Russia into Karelia/Belo/Ukraine where the Germans can kill them with minimal losses by using concentrated air power and a few INF; with the whole mass backed up by the major threat of large numbers of ARM.
Sure, Germany loses 1 ARM, but Russia has to sacrifice either income or punch units on the next trade forward, and that is ADVANTAGE GERMANY.
-
@Cmdr:
Or you could blitz Karelia (which is never going to happen, you’ll invade with 1 infantry like everyone in the world does that I have ever played) and get 2 IPC
Well if you blitz to Arch, you should put an inf in karelia so it’s another target for Russia turn 2.
However, I disagree with your assumption that EVERYONE in the world does that. In fact, if I were to JUST blitz karelia, WHY would I put an inf there?
-
I think that we are increasing th entropy of the dicussione and someone may do not understand (I am the first)
Infantry in Karelia? Is out of discussion. All the thread is about blitzing without leaving infantry to be killed i nthe Russian turn.
The scenario in discussion are two. Blitz in and out of Karelia and blitzing to KAR and then to ARK.
Economyc analysis. There is a problem we have to say wich is the economic value considered. It seem that we are interested to TUV and to IPC gain. Another problem is the time priod involved. Let’s consider from end of G1 to start of G2. I will do a statistical anlysis (I am not considering the highly improbable possibilities, I do not plan considering them)
Blitz a to KAR: +2 IPC - 2 IPC = 0.
G1 IPC Gain: +2
German TUV variation: 0.
Russian TUV variation: 0.Blitz to KAR and ARK:
- 2 (KAR, blitzed G1) + 2 (ARK, blitzed G2) -5 (Tank loss, R2) + 1/2 * (3 IPC - Russian Inf, R2) - 2 (Kar, left open, R2) - 2 (Ark, lost, R2) = -3,5 IPC
G1 IPC gain: +4
German TUV variation: -5.
Russian TUV variation: -1.5 (on average), worst -3, better 0.This is the economic anlysis in time period [end G1 - start G2], with average results considered.
Different results may be obtained if different period of time are considered.
Another thing to avoid is consider KAR only as +2 and not as -2. We are speaking of leaving it undefended.Strategic and opportunistic cost, related to the strategy that one is following may be considerd in the evaluation. They may be hardly quantified in general and are strictly related to the single game (for this reason they are opportunistic).
So it sould be possible that blitzing to ARK may be a great move in such games. But not fro mthe economic point of vies. From a strategic/logistic point of view it may be but from a economic point of view is a losing move.Just to complete my evaluation, we may consider the economics of sending an inf in KAR:
+2 (KAR) - 3 (INF) + 1/3 * (3, Russian inf) - 2 (KAR) = 2 -3 +1 -2 = -2 IPC
period [end G1, start G2]G1 IPC gain: +2
German TUV variation: -3.
Russian TUV variation: -1 (average), best -3, worst 0. -
The reason why I would drive my German tank to Arch is
1. If Russia kills it, Russian units use one extra turn to reach WRU or Cauc.
2. If UK kills it, they can’t both do this and take Norway, or attack Kalia.I prefer to play aggressive when I feel strong.
Germany is stronger than Russia in the beginning of the game.
If you look at it this way, why should Germany attack Africa at all, allies will almost in every case take it
back….? But I usually try to get a hold in Africa, because axis must play aggressive in the beginning,
allies need only to keep what they have. -
The reason why I would drive my German tank to Arch is
1. If Russia kills it, Russian units use one extra turn to reach WRU or Cauc.
2. If UK kills it, they can’t both do this and take Norway, or attack Kalia.I prefer to play aggressive when I feel strong.
Germany is stronger than Russia in the beginning of the game.
If you look at it this way, why should Germany attack Africa at all, allies will almost in every case take it
back….? But I usually try to get a hold in Africa, because axis must play aggressive in the beginning,
allies need only to keep what they have.These are the strategic/opportunistic factors.
Each move has a different value regarding to the strategy of the player.
Each move may be a great move or a lame one depending on the result achievable.
Economic analysis is only a factor, but it may not be totally ignored. -
Generally it’s better to retreat units from TT’s if you know you can’t hold it, but not always.
Example: Jap has 30 tanks in Novo, Russia attacks with everything (cap is safe this rnd),
Russia is left with 5 units in Novo, Jap has 18 tanks in Sink, and 9 tanks in Kwang, Manch and Frindo.
Russia has 15 ipc, Jap has 45 ipc.
Japan usually lose more TUV in the Novo battle, but as Russia is very weak and Jap is very strong,
I would push every Jap units towards Moscow, regardless of bad TUV change,
Russia couldn’t handle the pressure for more than a couple of more rnds.Now the German tank in Arch. is G1, but this is how I think and play, sometimes it works,
sometimes it doesn’t.
If I buy AC G1, then I would probably keep the tank, but then the strat is different. -
OK, so half of the Russian Air Force is committed to battle in Archangel, 3 territories left to take. So what are you going to throw forward against the Nazis? What punch units are you going to send forward to die on the next German counter? Your ART? Some of your few ARM? Or do you skip a few battles and have reduced Russian income further increasing the income disparity with Germany and strap Russia for cash earlier in the game?
Already been explained. Russia is used to committing art to the frontline. Germany has like what, one inf in 3 territories and 1 tank in Archangel? You think they’ll have trouble killing them? 2 art in W. Russia, 1 art in Caucasus, and 2 fighters. Russia could trade 5 territories on R1 if they wanted to. There’s no need to commit arm. They could just add figs like you’re doing in your game Switch as the turns go on and have plenty of permanent trading power later on as well.
-
I give up. Strategy and simple arithmetic is beyond your current capabilities I guess. Nothing wrong with you as a player, but I don’t think you are able to see the bigger picture of position + economics + statistical results.
I’ll just have to blitz you in our next games to drive the point home that it’s a good move for Germany and a bad move for Russia!
-
@Cmdr:
I give up. ~~Strategy and simple arithmetic is beyond your current capabilities I guess. Nothing wrong with you as a player, but I don’t think you are able to see the bigger picture of position + economics + statistical results.
I’ll just have to blitz you in our next games to drive the point home that it’s a good move for Germany and a bad move for Russia!~~
Victory, victory!
-
If you say so. You can claim victory all the way up to the time Switch and/or I break your nation in half by blitzing Archangelsk as the first step to global domination.
-
@Cmdr:
If you say so. You can claim victory all the way up to the time Switch and/or I break your nation in half by blitzing Archangelsk as the first step to global domination.
Hey switch, sounds like you’re jen’s b**ch. Wazup?
Anyways, jen, YOU’RE the one that said you give up. Too late now . . .
@Cmdr:
I give up.
@Cmdr:
I give up.
@Cmdr:
I give up.
@Cmdr:
I give up.
@Cmdr:
I give up.
-
So far, Switch and Jennifer have ignored my challenge. You guys be the axis, and I will leave Karelia and Archangel empty on R1, and you have to blitz to Archangel with your tank.
I’ll take you by myself or with trihero, NPB or DM or Gamer as a teammate, or whoever else has been arguing that the tank move to Arc is a bad one.
It’s time to represent!
-
@Cmdr:
If you say so. You can claim victory all the way up to the time Switch and/or I break your nation in half by blitzing Archangelsk as the first step to global domination.
Imma gonna whip you like a red-headed stepchild!
Suggested Topics
