If you are playing Revised with a bid then one possibility is to add a 2nd G transport to the Med fleet instead of adding units to Libya/Algeria. It doubles the transport capacity and can make the Russian player weary on an amphibious attack on the Caucasus/Ukraine.
Like mentioned above the drawback is that additional units sent to Africa won’t be used on the Eastern front and the 2nd transport will be sunk with the rest of the fleet if the Allies decide to do so.
Nit picky German Economizer
-
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!
-
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.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I don’t know how else to show you that +2 IPCs is bigger than +0.5 IPCs. Even Switch has implicitly accepted this because the only argument he has left is “positioning.” Let’s just look at the pure math and arithmetic. It proves you wrong, mathematically. +2 IPCs is bigger than +0.5 IPCs. There’s no reason not to concede this. It is adding and dividing to arrive there. You might very well make an intelligent point about overall Russian positioning, but there’s absolutely no reason you can say to me that blitzing Archangel provides a greater net IPC result mathematically than blitzing Karelia and out. I can’t fathom this. I can fathom that you have some “positioning” issues, but I can’t fathom that +2 IPCs is bigger than +0.5 IPCs. It’s extremely frustrating to spend the majority of my time on these forums showing you how to compare 2 numbers. It’s just a waste of time. Is +2 bigger than +0.5, or is it not?
All I’m asking you is to admit a readily apparent small picture mathematical truth - +2 is bigger than +0.5. Maybe you still feel blitzing Archangel is a better move overall because of a different factor - I can accept your opinions on that. But if you can’t see plainly that compared purely on direct IPC net results, that Karelia is +2 and Archangel is +0.5 (by your own calculations!), then who is indeed the blind one? You already calculated correctly the +0.5 IPC net result (over blitzing/attacking nothing). What I’ve asked you to is simply calculate the net result of the other option (+2) and compare the 2 numbers. Can you simply admit that +2 is bigger than +0.5? I’m not asking you to concede your position that blitzing Archangel is better than just Karelia, keep that since there are, as switch is saying, other factors that may possibly support the bigger picture.
But you see, you have to explain the bigger picture in relation, correctly, to the smaller picture. All of your poor mathematical comparisons show that you can’t see the small picture at all, you think and have been trying to show consistently that +0.5 is better than +2. You can’t ignore the small picture, you have to explain it in terms of the bigger picture. You can say something like, well trihero yes you’re right - +2 is bigger than +0.5, but I will blitz Archangel because xxxx. But what you have been trying to say with all of your incomplete comparison is that +0.5 is +0.5 and that alone makes the difference and the +2 doesn’t exist and there’s no relation between the 2.
I’ll also say that it’ll be pretty difficult, and potentially useless to try to “prove” who’s right by play testing this. You’d have to play a bazillion games to show that. I already know what will happen, because I’ve seen it way too many times when discussing probability - you will only report the times that you are right, and never compare it to the number of times you are wrong. I’ve been through this enough times to know how it works.
-
It suprises me that someone actually believes that the tank blitz to Arch. is important.
A game to decide who is right???
You’re all arguing weather it’s 0.5, -1, -2 etc….
There are many more stupid or clever moves which will be done in any game, than the tank blitz to Arch.
Get real. -
It suprises me that someone actually believes that the tank blitz to Arch. is important.
A game to decide who is right???
You’re all arguing weather it’s 0.5, -1, -2 etc….
There are many more stupid or clever moves which will be done in any game, than the tank blitz to Arch.
Get real.Agreed.
It all boils down to a flip of the coin anyways… 50% it’s a good move (tank hits)
50% it’s a bad move (tank misses)If I lose because of one tank hitting / missing…I might as well give up playing this whacky game.
-
Yes, I give up trying to impart wisdom and sanity upon the insane and unwise.
You are actually trying to say that it is more important for Germany to save 1 IPC when they can cost the Russians 1 IPC. Let’s see, what is greater 1/40 or 1/24?
Which is of stronger use, 1 German Armor in E. Europe or 2 Russian Infantry in W. Russia?
Which is more valuable? 1 German Armor which can be lost three times over before actually starting to hamper the German economy on replacement units or 1 Russian Infantry that cannot be replaced without being a drain on their economy?
See why your petty little “well in this ONE extreme case scenario I am cherry picking out of 24 million possible games, your blitz is stupid” arguments don’t bear any weight with me? You fail to consider opportunity cost, actual cost netted from BOTH sides and loss of opportunity cost of the enemy.
Hell, I can make the same argument! Let’s just pretend that there is no England and Germany starts with all of Africa. Isn’t it much better to move all your infantry out of Western Europe and attack Russia faster!?! (Same argument, on a larger scale to show the ridiculousness of the arguments you seem to be proffering by cherry picking one situation, the worst possible one that’s got the worst odds of happening, as your main line of attack on an idea.)
-
@Cmdr:
Yes, I give up trying to impart wisdom and sanity upon the insane and unwise.
You are actually trying to say that it is more important for Germany to save 1 IPC when they can cost the Russians 1 IPC. Let’s see, what is greater 1/40 or 1/24?
Which is of stronger use, 1 German Armor in E. Europe or 2 Russian Infantry in W. Russia?
Which is more valuable? 1 German Armor which can be lost three times over before actually starting to hamper the German economy on replacement units or 1 Russian Infantry that cannot be replaced without being a drain on their economy?
See why your petty little “well in this ONE extreme case scenario I am cherry picking out of 24 million possible games, your blitz is stupid” arguments don’t bear any weight with me? You fail to consider opportunity cost, actual cost netted from BOTH sides and loss of opportunity cost of the enemy.
Hell, I can make the same argument! Let’s just pretend that there is no England and Germany starts with all of Africa. Isn’t it much better to move all your infantry out of Western Europe and attack Russia faster!?! (Same argument, on a larger scale to show the ridiculousness of the arguments you seem to be proffering by cherry picking one situation, the worst possible one that’s got the worst odds of happening, as your main line of attack on an idea.)
Lol. But that’s your USUAL argument, Jen!
MY wonderful shiny explanation INCLUDED economic AND opportunity cost.
Anyways, I don’t notice you offering to take up Ender (frood)'s challenge, Jen.
(makes chicken noises)
Suggested Topics
