@axis_roll:
Is that fair in a game play test to give Germany BOTH worse case scenarios?
I get 25% for 7 inf, art, 2 tank and 26% for 6 inf,art,2 tank in WRU
For Ukraine, it is not so close as the the most common outcome:
21% you have 2 tanks, 2 ftr, 18% is 1 tank, 2 ftr
What makes this one unit discussion so difficult is that WRU most common outcome is basically TWO outcomes they are so close in percentage.
My point was as a game test, shouldn’t you give russia the slightly better outcome in one battle and the slightly worse outcome in another to best average the results?
Even if we go with slightly worse in W. Russia and slightly better in Ukraine it’s not a huge difference. You were saying W. Russia with 5 infantry, I was saying 7. Now you seem to be saying 6 would be better. That’s doable. However, I like to look at what’s worst for Germany, since, if I was going to do Sea Lion, then I’d expect worst possible results.
To me that’s 7 Inf, 1 Art, 2 Arm, AA Gun in W. Russia; 2 Armor in Ukraine and taking England with 1 Armor, no fighters or bombers left.
None of that is highly unlikely. It’s pretty likely that all three (with slight modification) will happen. By slight modification I mean +/- one unit for the attacker.
So if each scenario had 20% chance to fail (for example) should I bet that all three will fail or that all three will succeed? Well, 0.20.20.2 = 0.008. That’s 0.8% that all three will fail, not very likely. Actually, the chances that the battles go slightly worse for Germany in the first two and average for the last one is much more likely then if the first two battles go poorly for Russia and Germany gets average results in England.
Even if you don’t want to buy that, what harm is there in looking at it from the worst realistic case for Germany? If it works out for Germany in the worst realistic case for Germany, then it should only work better for each other realistic case, right?