In this thread, the G1 AC + 3 TRN buy seems to put quite a load on both UK and USA, right to RND2 at least.
If you know what you are doing, then AC+3T can be a very good buy.
If you dont, you can be defeated much easier.
Nit picky German Economizer
-
It is very relevant to the German front. Manchuria and Buryatia would not be in your hands. You’d be 4 IPC lower. Also, Germany easily recovered from the pitiful advances of the Russian hoardes, and, because you had to use the British navy in SZ 4, you got England completely cut off from Europe before UK 2 resulting in the loss of all your new transports and a blocked Battleship meaning no more England landings for at least a turn.
Now Russia’s going to have to spend tanks to advance or advance much more slowly. Yes, they have 37 IPC this round due to bad luck to the Axis and good luck to Russia (they really are the only ones having luck, they just seem to be having it on both attack and defense, which compounds the issue.) Meanwhile England’s out of the game for 2 rounds (1 to clear a path to get more troops, and 1 to get them.) and America’s not even set up a shucking program.
Russia is solo because the allies were forced into over extending. They got lucky with the Russian defenses which means the allies still have a chance to win the game.
-
Is Jen whining about dice again???
:evil:Jen… NO ONE IS THAT UNLUCKY!
The flaw is not in your dice, but in your strategy. A single set of bad dice should NOT determine the outcome of a game (subsequent bad dice though, especially in the same geographic area) could be the end though…
-
There haven’t been many more Japanese dice in that area, because I haven’t allowed her to hit my units anywhere since then (unless she wants to try a suicide run against Sinkiang, I’m sure she’ll have lots of “bad dice” to complain about after that battle)
If anything, the allies have had some bad luck - I lost 2 UK ftrs and 4 US Ftrs taking out the German fleet. Fortunately the allies now own the Atlantic after US3, the Med is empty, and UK owns ALL of Africa, the only extra forces that the UK used was 1 Inf and 1 TRN from NZ, and the Indian Ftr. Not a bad return on investment.
But that’s not thanks to dice, that’s just because the Germans never landed any units there and moved their Med fleet into the open Ocean.
Oh and India is again in UK hands, as it was only defended with 1 Jap Inf at the start of UK4.
I usually feel lucky with the dice but I think that’s because I avoid situations where the dice can do really bad things to me. The one exception being the naval battles in our game, in which I had to bite the bullet because the German navy was really in my face. End result though even with some bad dice is that I now own the Atlantic, and the Baltic is now wide open with lots of Allied TRNs in range, forcing you to keep units back in Germany to fend off any 1-2 punch.
Now, I won’t claim that this comes from the Arc blitz, since in retrospect my Russian tank blitz to Nor in R2 was just as much a waste (except it kept you from uniting your fleet by tempting you to land units in Nor), but I think I’m coming out ahead because I’m economizing better.
Example: in G3, you defended 3 border territories with 3 Inf 1 Arm each. I strafed all three with favourable economic odds. I actually got luckier than I wanted to and ended up capturing two of the territories with a total loss of 4 Inf, with the result that I then lost net 4 Inf to a counter-strafe in Ukraine, but you on the other hand lost 8 Inf 2 Arm to my strafes with Russia. That diff of 2 Arm (10 IPCs) is a big deal, esp. when Russia is earning 28-31 IPCs each round, it really equalizes the income nicely with Germany’s 40., which has to defend against two other allies as well.
So far, Russia, by playing “economically” has actually gained income from the starting position. Now after UK4 the allies have a beachhead and an almost-working shuck, and Allied income is 96 to Axis 70.
-
@Cmdr:
It is very relevant to the German front. Manchuria and Buryatia would not be in your hands. You’d be 4 IPC lower. Also, Germany easily recovered from the pitiful advances of the Russian hoardes, and, because you had to use the British navy in SZ 4, you got England completely cut off from Europe before UK 2 resulting in the loss of all your new transports and a blocked Battleship meaning no more England landings for at least a turn.
Now Russia’s going to have to spend tanks to advance or advance much more slowly. Yes, they have 37 IPC this round due to bad luck to the Axis and good luck to Russia (they really are the only ones having luck, they just seem to be having it on both attack and defense, which compounds the issue.) Meanwhile England’s out of the game for 2 rounds (1 to clear a path to get more troops, and 1 to get them.) and America’s not even set up a shucking program.
England was only out for 1 round, because the UK rebuilt TRNs and in a 1-2 punch with the US cleared the path.
Now, the only units that the UK lost that mattered were 2 Ftrs and 3 TRN, and for the US, 1 TRN 4 Ftrs. That’s 92 IPCs. None of the other naval units matter because the Pac and Indian fleets have now arrived and are sufficient to provide cover from the 4 remaining German air units (which frankly have enough work to do on the mainland now)
Germany on the other hand has lost not only her entire starting navy (2 TRN 3 Sub 1 DD 1 BB, for 76 IPCs), but also 1 AC and 3 Ftrs which you expended in addition (another 46 IPCs). And the allies have not bought a single naval unit that isn’t a transport. UK and US each still have 1 BB and 1 AC, and that plus a bunch of TRNs and the odd sub and DD is more than enough to protect my shipping from a Luftwaffe that has lost half its fighters and is trying to trade 3 territories each round (Kar, Belo, Ukr)
The US will be shucking at least 3 TRN loads in US4, and there’s nothing stopping it from getting more going now, with the Atlantic clear.
@Cmdr:
Russia is solo because the allies were forced into over extending. They got lucky with the Russian defenses which means the allies still have a chance to win the game.
I don’t see where the Allies have overextended. And from where I sit, looking at the fundamentals of the game, I’d have to feel generous to say the Axis still have a chance.
-
Sorry about all this blabbing about my and Jennifer’s game.
Back on topic to the Archangel blitz:
Having tested the move in a game, I report the following:
1. On UK1, UK took Karelia, so Russia did not have to worry about that. This point is irrelevant anyway because Germany will take Karelia even if it does not blitz Arc.
2. On R2, because Karelia is not next to a German stack, and is blocked by the UK controlled Karelia, Russia could send its tanks there. Those tanks are not needed anywhere else, because they are too valuable to send in to Belo or Ukr next to the big German stack there, as Russia does not have enough fodder to protect them yet.
3. With all those tanks, only 1 Inf from Mos (which has nothing else to do) is needed as fodder to make sure that if the Ger tank hits, it doesn’t kill a tank. So it truly is a 100% chance to kill the tank (pretty much) and only a 50% chance of losing the Inf., so the net gain in this battle alone is +5 and +2 for the territory, -1.5 for the chance of losing an Inf, total +5.5, not bad.
4. Here’s the key lesson learned that has not been discussed yet: on G2, Germany retakes Karelia; one effect of this is that the Inf in Archangel (if it lived) is NOT OUT OF POSITION, as it now borders a German territory.
5. That leaves Russia to take Ukr and Belo. However, the Arch blitz has no effect on this, because none of the units used to retake Arc would be able to help with these objectives anyway. So Russia is not stretched any thinner than it would be if Arc was not blitzed.
6. Finally, the tanks in Arc are not really out of position, since with their range they can still hit Ukr or Belo or reinforce Caucasus.
Conclusion: Sending the German tank to Arc on G1 does not really gain the Germans anything positionally. The only gain is the +2 IPCs for the territory, and the 50% chance to kill an Inf (+1.5 IPCs), and there is a cost of an active tank unit (-5 IPCs).
+3.5- 5
= -1.5
Summary: no positional advantage, and net loss of 1.5 IPCs. Not a huge deal, but a pointless loss of IPCs.
- 5
-
@Ender:
Sorry about all this blabbing about my and Jennifer’s game.
Back on topic to the Archangel blitz:
Having tested the move in a game, I report the following:
1. On UK1, UK took Karelia, so Russia did not have to worry about that. This point is irrelevant anyway because Germany will take Karelia even if it does not blitz Arc.
IMHO you overkilled a bit with 1 btl, 1 bom, 2 fig, 1 inf vs 1 inf. Sending the bomber to Ssinkiang threatens Japanese shipping, or you could send the bomber to Anglo-Egypt and land with the fighter you used to retake Anglo. Or at least, I assume you used the fighter to retake Anglo, as I see that you retook it. Well
2. On R2, because Karelia is not next to a German stack, and is blocked by the UK controlled Karelia, Russia could send its tanks there. Those tanks are not needed anywhere else, because they are too valuable to send in to Belo or Ukr next to the big German stack there, as Russia does not have enough fodder to protect them yet.
I disagree, and again I think you overkilled - if I remember the moves correctly. If I remember correctly you committed 3+ tanks. Tanks in West Russia increase the size of the defensive stack, increasing the cost of a German kitchen sink attack. Tanks in Moscow give a credible threat to attack early Japanese holdings in Asia.
3. With all those tanks, only 1 Inf from Mos (which has nothing else to do) is needed as fodder to make sure that if the Ger tank hits, it doesn’t kill a tank. So it truly is a 100% chance to kill the tank (pretty much) and only a 50% chance of losing the Inf., so the net gain in this battle alone is +5 and +2 for the territory, -1.5 for the chance of losing an Inf, total +5.5, not bad.
4. Here’s the key lesson learned that has not been discussed yet: on G2, Germany retakes Karelia; one effect of this is that the Inf in Archangel (if it lived) is NOT OUT OF POSITION, as it now borders a German territory.
You’re right, that point wasn’t discussed. I straight out STATED that that was the case, and I was sob ignored.
5. That leaves Russia to take Ukr and Belo. However, the Arch blitz has no effect on this, because none of the units used to retake Arc would be able to help with these objectives anyway. So Russia is not stretched any thinner than it would be if Arc was not blitzed.
Well, if Russia’s TRADING Ukr and Belo. If Russia opts to try to HOLD Ukr, then things change. Note that IMHO trading is usually the correct move.
6. Finally, the tanks in Arc are not really out of position, since with their range they can still hit Ukr or Belo or reinforce Caucasus.
Conclusion: Sending the German tank to Arc on G1 does not really gain the Germans anything positionally. The only gain is the +2 IPCs for the territory, and the 50% chance to kill an Inf (+1.5 IPCs), and there is a cost of an active tank unit (-5 IPCs).
+3.5- 5
= -1.5
Summary: no positional advantage, and net loss of 1.5 IPCs. Not a huge deal, but a pointless loss of IPCs.
Gah, that’s what I’ve been sayin!
- 5
-
Good points, NPB.
I do tend to go for overkill - I think that’s part of the reason my opponents tend to think I’m lucky with the dice.
In this case, I really wanted to make sure that I’d kill that German Inf and be able to blitz a Russian tank to Nor. In retrospect, I wouldn’t do that again while Ger still has a Baltic TRN. So yeah I should have moved the Bomber further East.
WRT the Arc attack, I moved 2 Russian Inf into Sink on R1, and I could see that Japan would not be able to take Sink anyway, so my tanks were not needed to provide that threat. They were also less important in WR because Ger had retreated all but one Inf from Ukraine, so WRus was really not under any threat. In fact I was trading both Ukr and Belo anyway.
-
Previously I said that I would move my German tank to Arch. to put pressure on Russia.
Now I changed my mind…. :-o
I will not leave a Russian inf behind in Kalia either,
no obvious reason, just feels right to stack WRU with all possible units.
Saving one German tank is a minor detail, but many details throughout a game may have big impact
in the end. -
Previously I said that I would move my German tank to Arch. to put pressure on Russia.
Now I changed my mind…. :-o
I will not leave a Russian inf behind in Kalia either,
no obvious reason, just feels right to stack WRU with all possible units.
Saving one German tank is a minor detail, but many details throughout a game may have big impact
in the end.In order to learn, one must change one’s mind. :-D :-D
-
Sorry I hadn’t followed all this topic [Am I the only where these forum pages load way too slowly ?].
But I have another situation that may be considered a “Nit picky German Economizer”.
Germany has a mass in EEU, Russia in Caucasus. Between them it’s no man’s land.
Germany has only 4 fighters (one lost R1 in UKR, one lost G1 sinking the Med British BB) and no bomber (previously lost to AA in strat bombing) to swap 3 territories.
Suppose Russia has 2 fighters.A) A neighboring area is empty but enemy-controlled. Is it better to blitz with a tank (and back!) [enemy can do the same] or advance with 1 inf there, or more ? Does it make a difference if it’s UKR for 3 IPC or BEL/KAR for 2 ? That difference is 1 IPC, or less (due to forced enemy reaction that may regain the same IPC) ?
B) All 3 neighboring areas have 1 inf. Is it worth to attack two of them with only 1inf,1ftr ? That’s what I usually and systematically do, and I recognized as “nit picky economizer”. Or attack only two areas with 1inf,2ftr each ? is 2inf,1ftr worth the try ? (or even 1inf,1art,1ftr what I often use as Russia against 2inf) ?
On the other hand, suppose something quite horrific may happen if area remains traversable by enemy (Like an US tank horde in KAR adding to an attack on GER). How mandatory is to use more inf instead of fighters ?
-
The thing you are saying has been the initial object of topic.
Apparently blitzing in and out of empty territories is better for Russia than for Germany.
Because the only place that may be used for doing that is the Karelia, that is empty in G1. Blitzing to Ark has been subsequently discussed, as a poor economic move that, however, could give strategic and opportunity advantages, if you play it right.
The problem with this blitzing in Karelia is that also Russia have tanks and may blitz in and out Karelia without any loss.
For the other territories (BEL and UKR) starting this move is also more disadvantageous for Germans. They have first to leave empty BEL and UKR if they own them, leaving to Russia a greater advantage: cashing high every turn without losing units.
After three or four of this turn Read Army become huge. Really German also have a lot of units, but he has not bleed Russia, and when Allies landing increases the pressure is again in bad shape. Meanwhile Russia may divert more units to stop the Japanese advanve, being only lightly engaged by the Germans.
The problem is even worst if UKR or BEL are in Russian hands. Conquer them and leaving them open i nthe same turn is impossible.Regarding the trading and the ebb and flow battles, it dependes from the high level strategy hoe to approach them.
- If Japan is aggressively attacking RUSSIA, I usually raise the bet for the trading territories. That is I made the opposite of what we was saying. I send to each territory a couple of inf and 1 art supportedf by at least 1 fig. This force the Russia to counter with more units, that I will destroy after commiting even more forces. This trading of units bleed the German army but bleed more the Russian, that are also losing income to the Japanese.
The Russia may react in teo ways. Hold the line on the German front, staying engaged, losing a lot of units and weakening Germans, but leaving more space to the Japanese. Othrwise Russia may disengage from the Eastern Front, countering more strongly the Japan but allowing German to advance toward Moscow. - If Japan is having an hard time to advance in Asia, then minimizing the losses on the Eastern front is mandatory for Germany. Attacking and holding territories with minimal forces is the rule of thumb. Even risking to not get the IPC is feasible if this minimize the infantry losses. Because in those way Europe may be stacked more heavily. When finally Japanese arrive to Moscow, Germans have to move towards Moscow, fighting their way. So they needs the more units possible to engage Russia while leaving behind a strong defense against allied landings.
Summarizing, I believe that an economic-driven policy for the Eastern front is more advantageous for Russia than for Germany. Germany have to trade unit for unit with Russia, leveraging their superiority in IPC gaining, while preparing to advance when Japanese reach Moscow outskirts.
- If Japan is aggressively attacking RUSSIA, I usually raise the bet for the trading territories. That is I made the opposite of what we was saying. I send to each territory a couple of inf and 1 art supportedf by at least 1 fig. This force the Russia to counter with more units, that I will destroy after commiting even more forces. This trading of units bleed the German army but bleed more the Russian, that are also losing income to the Japanese.
-
Switch,
Not complaining about “bad” dice. I’m stating the fact that Russia this game has had UNGODLY dice! They sold their souls to the devil to win every engagement where they had even a 1% chance of livng and won them decisively.
-
@Cmdr:
Switch,
Not complaining about “bad” dice. I’m stating the fact that Russia this game has had UNGODLY dice! They sold their souls to the devil to win every engagement where they had even a 1% chance of livng and won them decisively.
Okay, now I KNOW that you just make stuff up. The only bigger battles for Russia were R1, where I took both WRus and Belo without loss. Then you complained so I gave you the No Luck result for those battles, so that cancels those dice right out.
And since then it’s pretty much just been trading territories, where I recall you describing victory for the attacker as the “expected outcome”. What are you talking about, “Ungodly dice”? The only Russian engagements that were not just straight trading had me attacking 3 Inf 1 Arm with something like 3 Inf 1 Art 2 Arm 1 Ftr. Hardly a “1% chance” of victory. Maybe you can show me a battle where I had a 1% chance of victory. Considering that I usually go for overkill, me going for a battle with 1% odds of success is pretty unlikely.
Sure you had bad luck in Bury (where I had a 15% chance of surviving unless you were willing to sacrifice Ftrs), but I never told you that you had to attack a stack of 6 Inf with only 4 Inf of your own plus all air in range, thus forgoing Pearl. That Pearl Fleet is now smack dab in the middle of the Atlantic, replacing the units I lost killing the German fleet.
I think your problems this game (which you say you are winning) have more to do with putting German units (land and sea) where the Allies can kill them, and not having enough transports for Japan, giving Japan limited mobility / tactical options.
A key part of strategy in war is controlling the circumstances under which your forces will encounter the enemy. You can’t control the dice, but you CAN avoid putting a lone armor unit (or Arm+3 Inf), right next to a big enemy stack that will eat it for breakfast.
-
Uh, you forgetting the very slim odds you had in Buryatia? How about the R2 reclaimation against 9 infantry, 3 armor with the loss, if I remember right, of 1 attacking infantry?
Russia’s been outright damn lucky and I can only hope the luck turns and you get 0 hits defending Moscow or Caucasus in a major engagement to bring the game back online.
England and America, however, have had neutral dice. Germany and Japan have had neutral dice. Russia, unGodly, unholy dice because they sold their souls to the devil! :P
-
You are talking about two battles in which Russia got lucky on defence - and not for strategically vital territories like Egypt or Eastern Europe or something like that.
I could say the same about my attacks on the German fleet - you got lucky with those dice, and those cost me Fighters, not Inf. So I don’t think luck is the main factor in our game. But I’m sure people here are tired of hearing about our game… let’s just play it out, the point about the Arc blitz has been made.
-
No, of course, +4 IPC for Russia on round 2 isn’t vital at all! I mean hell, that’s nothing! Especially when added to -4 to Japan AND the loss of a major portion of the Japanese army to an inferior defensive force with almost no damage done to that defensive force.
Then couple that with very good (not extreme, since you did lose a whole infantryman) series of attacks on Russia 3 resulting in superior outcomes in Europe.
Nope, the dice have had no effect. :roll:
-
Dice whiner.
Your lucky dice in defending your exposed fleet netted you a relative benefit of tens of IPCs. I’m not saying I haven’t had any good luck. We’ve both had good luck and bad luck. The trick is dealing with it.
+4 IPCs is not “strategically vital” - I’m talking about a battle that nets you an enemy IC, opens/closes the Suez canal, or allows a large body of tanks to move through in NCM. These little battles are just a sideshow, a jockeying for income. The real game is in moving your armies around.
So you had some bad dice. Deal with it! (strategically and emotionally)
-
@Ender:
So you had some bad dice. Deal with it! (strategically and emotionally)
Working on it. Just need you to get a set of bad dice with Russia so I can get the tables leveled again. :)
-
Huh. Never thought you’d actually attack Ukraine, or that you’d at least divert a few units off to Karelia. Instead you attacked with full strength and got pretty good dice. However, you left Berlin exposed too.
Good dice: you survived with 7 more Arm than the median result. With the median result, Russia would have made an economic gain in that battle - eg. it would have been a pyrrhic victory. As it is however Russia’s now in a tight spot. But so is Germany.
Good thing it wasn’t a league game. Sounds like you don’t want to play anymore.
-
Erm just curious, who wound up “winning”? It sounds like you both quit, but I’m not sure…did someone give in to someone else or just a mutual quit or what? lol :lol:
Suggested Topics
