@cyan:
i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up
option 1:westrussia and ukrain attack 18ipc advantage for russia
option 2:only westrussia 4 ipc advantage.
option 3:belorussia and west russia is 13ipc advantage.
so on the economic level ukraine is teh best with an addtional 5ipc gain. i also like where the units are palced out at the end of the turn too.
You didn’t understand what I wrote. Let me simplify.
Do not do the IPC breakdown. Think about what each country has to lose. Think about the effective power of each unit, and where it is best used. I will tell you that if I had an African bid that could put two more units at Anglo-Egypt on G1, I will gladly see Ukraine fall if Russia committed three Russian tanks to the attack. To me, those three Russian tanks are well worth the loss of the fighter. That’s my first point.
To illustrate that point in a rather extreme fashion, say you have 100 IPC of fighters and I have 60 IPC of infantry and 24 IPC of artillery. Your forces are worth more IPC, which is essentially the basis for which you are advocating West Russia/Ukraine over West Russia/Belorussia - that is, using IPC gain and loss (including the anticipated values of units and territories) as the sole basis for deciding whether the attack is worthwhile or not.
But if I attack your forces, I will easily win, and if you attack my forces, I will absolutely crush you.
This is a very extreme example because fighters are normally used with infantry shields, or to attack enemy naval units, and for their ranged threat. But it DOES illustrate my point. Although I agree that early IPC gains are important, I believe that preserving valuable forces for later use and having the correct mixture is ALSO important.
–
“i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up”
I totally do not understand your post at all. You would send 3 inf from Norway to Karelia, and gain 4 IPC? But 3 inf only have a 42% chance of destroying a single opponent on the first turn, so using 1/3 * 3 as your calculation is incorrect to subtract 1 from Germany’s IPC gain is incorrect. Please take the time to explain yourself for future posts!
I also seriously think that a habit of assuming “you will lose 3 infantry” is bad. The SINGLE most likely outcome in a game is not going to happen maybe 80+% of the time, because there are any number of outcomes that each have distinctly lesser probabilitiies of happening, but that cumulatively outweigh that single “most probable” outcome. That is my second point.
To illustrate that point, Belorussia is a safer attack because it is almost impossible for it to go disastrously wrong. It can often go wrong a little, but there is a safety margin because the fighters can always retreat even if the worst should come to pass. But if Ukraine goes wrong, there is no safety margin; West Russia and Caucasus are stripped, and any Ukraine forces can team up with Belorussia for an early attack.
