Yakut

[Jennifer]

New Paint:

I’ve been playing with a new opening.  I’ve found that in recent games I’ve been to reactionary and not proactive enough (aka Aggressive.)  I actually blame NoMercy for this because he made the statement that he could aways goad me into making attacks on his terms because he knew I’d be overly aggressive.

Here’s the new open:

3 Infantry, 1 Fighter from Karelia to E. Europe
1 Armor from Archangelsk to E. Europe
Overall %*: A. survives: 51.3% D. survives: 40.9% No survivors:8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Not Stellar odds, I’ll admit, but let’s work through the rest.

3 Infantry from Archangelsk to W. Russia
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Russia to W. Russia
Overall %*: A. survives: 98% D. survives: 1.6% No survivors:0%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Odds are super here!  Might even consider reducing the attack, but I don’t see what else I could use the missing fodder for…

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus to Ukraine
1 Armor, 1 Fighter from Russia to Ukraine
Overall %*: A. survives: 63% D. survives: 32.3% No survivors:5%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Again, the odds are not stellar.

Interesting thing here is you are not risking anything with Russia you would not have lost anway.  And actually, you have a much higher potential gain then normally.

England follows that up with a 3 infantry from India, 1 Fighter from SZ 35 assault on FIC.
Overall %*: A. survives: 46.6% D. survives: 44% No survivors:9%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
  50/50 attack

So you have a very good chance as the allies to kill 3 axis fighters on Round 1 with no losses you would not otherwise have sustained using more traditional attacks and expecting traditional counter-attacks.

Now yes, the Axis could stop all these attacks with minor bids, but how often do you see 9 IPC bids going for 1 infantry in FIC, 1 Infantry in Ukraine and 1 Infantry in E. Europe?  Why?  Because no one expects it.

[saburo sakai]

3 Infantry, 1 Fighter from Karelia to E. Europe
1 Armor from Archangelsk to E. Europe
Overall %*:  A. survives: 51.3%  D. survives: 40.9%  No survivors:8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Not Stellar odds, I’ll admit, but let’s work through the rest.

3 Infantry from Archangelsk to W. Russia
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Russia to W. Russia
Overall %*:  A. survives: 98%  D. survives: 1.6%  No survivors:0%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Odds are super here!  Might even consider reducing the attack, but I don’t see what else I could use the missing fodder for…

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus to Ukraine
1 Armor, 1 Fighter from Russia to Ukraine
Overall %*:  A. survives: 63%  D. survives: 32.3%  No survivors:5%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Jennifer, you stole Rainynite’s opening.  I actually don’t think it is very effective unless all the battles go very well for the Allies.  Russia is left far too exposed to counterattack, especially if not all the attacks go well.  And while you are correct that you don’t often see infantry in each of FIC, EEur and Ukraine an infantry or two in Ukraine is quite common, in which case your attack odds decrease significantly.

SS

[Guest]

The odds of success in all 4 attacks…
.513 x .98 x .63 x .466

14.76%

Those are abysmal odds.  Just try Sea Lion on G1, your odds are not THAT miuch worse at 6.3%

[Guest]

Actually, with an 8 IPC bid and an extra TRN in the Baltic, you can increase the odds of Sea Lion G1 all the way to around 34%, better than 1 in 3.  Whereas with ANY bid the odds of that 4 territory Allied strike drops down into the low single digits (worse than Sea Lion)

But hey, if tyou want to set up game boards and do the 1 in 20 for the quick win, knock yourself out :-D

[Jennifer]

You’re taking odds of success to own the land.  You need to add in the odds of success of mutual destruction as well, because as the allies, I don’t need the land as much as I need to demolish your massive standing armies.

(59.3% + 98% + 68% + 54.6%)/4 = 69.98% chance of winning if you don’t want to own the land.
(51.3% + 98% + 63% + 46.6%)/4 = 64.73% to own the land in all 4 attacks.

Do you want to risk the damage inflicted by that opening on your army?  Bearing in mind the allies start with a very significant financial advantage and it’s going to take time for you to get there.

So the chances are actually significantly higher then you describe. (You made an algebraic error.  An average is not the product of all four attacks but the sum of all attacks divided by the number of instances.)

And yes, I did lift that from Rainynite.  I think it’s a pretty strong opening, even if you fail, you cuase significant damage.

[Guest]

Even to clear the land it is only a 21.58% chance.

To figure total odds, it is not an AVERAGE of the percentages, but a multiplication of them in decimel form.

hence .593 x .98 x .68 x .546 = .21576 or 21.58%
and for your second line of figures the result is as I previously posted…  14.76%

It is a SEQUENTIAL SERIES of odds, thus the multiplication.

[Jennifer]

I think you’re off.  I think it’s an average because you are averaging the chance of success, not correllating the data into a bell curve.

[Guest]

No, because the results are cumulative.
Example:
You have a 50% chance of taking Ukraine (again, just an example)
And you ahve a 50% chance of taking West Russia

Half the time you get Ukraine
Half the tiem you get West Russia.
25% of the time you get both
25% of the time you get neither.

So it IS a cumulative series, which mens multiplication.

I had someone use your 3 attacks on R1 in a game not long ago, and as predicted, 1 failed.

Try your move in a few games, I think you will find that you ahve several failures of your strat, missing at least 1 territory 85% of the time.

[Jennifer]

but the allies can fail in taking the land in all of the attacks as long as the axis loose 2-3 fighters. (att fighters assumed to retreat if they can.)

[Nix]

It´s still craoy odds, and switch are correct it´s multiplication that is to be used.

The reason is that it´s 3 different things that are happening, and they are not connected with each oter, but in order to score a “succes” you need all three to happen.

Pr(first aaction)*Pr(second)*Pr(third)=The total odds for all three things to succed.

[Jennifer]

It’s really no crazier then hitting Borneo, New Guinea, SZ 59, SZ 45 and maybe SZ 5 with England on round 1 is.  Or assuming you’ll kill the fighter in Ukraine with Russia.

It’s just a different kind of crazy.  And I’ve proven to myself that a conservative strategy in the early part of the game by the Allies spells their imminent, but not assured, defeat in the end.  You almost have to go radicle and do as much damage as possible (even if you sustain more expensive losses) in Round 1 maybe even Round 2 to assure a victory for yourself.  And odds are, the dice will back you up.  You’ll almost definately not get ALL of your objectives, but it’s like a shotgun.  You might miss the target, but you’ll do so much collateral damage that the Axis cannot possibly hope to recover in one round alone.

[Guest]

I will admit, I have had some succes with Russia going a little crazy on R1-3 :-)  But the Allies were playing stoic, conservative, and were right on the mark to cover my bacon once I was spent (and had pretty well spent Germany as well).  The combination made short work of Germany (well, the combination, and some poor German attempted counters to it).

[Jennifer]

I find that Crazy Ivan with Suicidal Limey and Bored American works quite well in destroying Germany.

Crazy Ivan:  Risking it all for minimal gains in land, but maximum damage to enemy units.
Suicidal Limey:  Attacking superior numbers amphibiously to strafe them until all land forces are destroyed, again the goal is to do as much damage as possible, even if you take more then you give.
Bored America:  Lands reinforcement units.  Never conquers anything, just holds basic land to ensure a base income level for England/Russia.

[Guest]

If the Allies fight using WWII style tactics (Africa then Western), that is about the ONLY way to play it.

[Jennifer]

I have personally found that America has to EITHER go After Japan, After Africa or After N. Europe.  Even they don’t have the resources to do all three or even two of the three to great effect.

[Guest]

I am finding that US to Africa, which allows the US to engage both Germany and Japan by about Turn 5, is a tough Allied strat to crack.  Even if you have Russia on the roaps, and UK can;t get their footing in Europe, 20-30 US divisions in Africa, with accompanying TRNs in the Atlantic and Med, is a tough matter to deal with.

[newpaintbrush]

(Now with commentary!)

@Jennifer:

New Paint:

I’ve been playing with a new opening.  I’ve found that in recent games I’ve been to reactionary and not proactive enough (aka Aggressive.)  I actually blame NoMercy for this because he made the statement that he could aways goad me into making attacks on his terms because he knew I’d be overly aggressive.

You should be reactionary.  If you’re aggressive, and your opponent is reactionary, you should lose.  The best strategy is, I believe, flexible.  Of course, I’m not saying you should turtle in.  That’s called turtling.  If you’re reactionary, you respond to your opponent’s moves and try to exploit any weaknesses in his/her play.

Here’s the new open:

3 Infantry, 1 Fighter from Karelia to E. Europe
1 Armor from Archangelsk to E. Europe
Overall %*: A. survives: 51.3% D. survives: 40.9% No survivors:8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Not Stellar odds, I’ll admit, but let’s work through the rest.

You’re going to give me a 49% chance at killing that Russian fighter.  Already very nice for Germany.  There is a decent chance of no survivors, in which case I traded 2 inf tank fighter for 3 inf tank fighter.

3 Infantry from Archangelsk to W. Russia
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Russia to W. Russia
Overall %*: A. survives: 98% D. survives: 1.6% No survivors:0%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Odds are super here!  Might even consider reducing the attack, but I don’t see what else I could use the missing fodder for…

You win, but with that attack force, you will probably not wipe the Germans out the first turn, meaning that the Germans will kill off about two more valuable infantry.

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus to Ukraine
1 Armor, 1 Fighter from Russia to Ukraine
Overall %*: A. survives: 63% D. survives: 32.3% No survivors:5%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Attacking 3 inf 1 art 2 arm 1 fig.  Defending 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fig.  A bit of bad luck, and a Russian fighter dies, very good for the Germans.  Only moderately bad luck and the attack has to be called off, which is not good for Russia.  Even regular luck means that the Russians will lose their entire attack force to the German counterattack anyways.

Again, the odds are not stellar.

Interesting thing here is you are not risking anything with Russia you would not have lost anway.  And actually, you have a much higher potential gain then normally.
_You risk both Russian fighters, and your potential losses are staggering.  With a West Russia/Belorussia attack, about the MOST you risk is losing 3 inf for 1 infantry at Belorussia (bad, but not horrible).

You can say that each individual battle has “good chances”, but the odds of at LEAST one of those battles failing is high, and Russia will pay the cost.  The only way all these attacks will pan out well for the Allies is if the Russian player makes sure to use loaded dice._

England follows that up with a 3 infantry from India, 1 Fighter from SZ 35 assault on FIC.
Overall %*: A. survives: 46.6% D. survives: 44% No survivors:9%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
  50/50 attack

_I wouldn’t try it.  Again, you risk a very valuable Indian fighter and only slow Japan a bit.  Without the UK forces to threaten a counterattack, Japan can now run freely through India.

I don’t know why you’re trying this general strategy of depleting the Allied reserves in risky attacks, when all you have to do is defend Moscow and wait for the other Allies to arrive._

So you have a very good chance as the allies to kill 3 axis fighters on Round 1 with no losses you would not otherwise have sustained using more traditional attacks and expecting traditional counter-attacks.

I would have a good chance as the Allies to kill 3 Axis fighters on Round 1 with that plan, but saying you lose nothing and risk nothing with those attacks is not accurate.  With a run of good luck, those attacks can put the Allies in good position to win the game, but regular or bad luck will see the Allies in a lot of trouble.

Now yes, the Axis could stop all these attacks with minor bids, but how often do you see 9 IPC bids going for 1 infantry in FIC, 1 Infantry in Ukraine and 1 Infantry in E. Europe?  Why?  Because no one expects it.
Maybe because 1 FIC, 1 Ukraine, and 1 E. Europe bid is actually the WRONG bid for the Axis to make?  There is something to be said for trying new things, but there is also something to be said for planning and risk analysis!

[Jennifer]

Paint, in order for Germany to kill off any Russian fighters in that opening you’d have to get EXTREMELY lucky with the dice.

Ukraine:

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Armor, 1 Fighter

vs

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter

(note, I’m going with low end for attacker, high end defender in cases of close races for most likely results. ie 68.5% and 67.25% chances for attacker is 67.25% result)
0% Chance of killing Russian fighter on R1
Most Likely Result of 1 Round:  1 inf, 1 art, 2 Arm, 1 Fig vs 1 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig

0% Chance of killing Russian fighter on R2, assuming most likely result of R1
Most likely result of 2 Rounds: 2 arm, 1 fig vs 1 arm, 1 fig

0% Chance of killing Russian fighter on R3, assuming most likely results of R1 and R2
Most likely result of 3 Rounds: 1 Fighter vs Nothing

So Ukraine’s pretty well locked in as pretty close to an assured survival of the Russian fighter.  And if that changes, Russia can always retreat the fighter.

E. Europe:

3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter vs 2 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter

R1: 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig vs 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig
Chance of Russian Fighter Loss: 0%

R2: 1 Arm, 1 Fig vs 1 Arm, 1 Fig
Chance of Russian Figher Loss: 0%

Given this situation it’s time to retreat.  However, let’s pretend to go for a 3rd round:

R3: Fighter vs Nothing.
Chance of Russian Fighter Loss: 50%; Chance of German Fighter Loss 50%

So, as you can see, Paint, with this opening you are not really risking your Fighters as Russia at all.  Not even a mild risk with an exceptioanlly large payoff if you are successful.  3/12 Fighters destroyed reducing the playing field immensely in favor of the Allies. (3rd fighter potentially destroyed is in FIC by England’s attacks.)  That’s 30 IPCs the Axis don’t have on R1 to replace them.  Especially if you keep up the pressure on Round 2.

[Nix]

In any attempt to Build an Indian ICX you must attack FIC with 3 inf, 1 Fig and Kill the 2 Infs at whatever cost.  But when you have killed the 2 infs you may withdraw if you want your fig to live.

But if you fail, put the IC somewhere else.

[Guest]

You know, there IS another viable place for an early UK IC that does NOT detract from an attack on Germany AND gets rid of that production limit for UK…

Eastern Canada.

3 units per round… TRN and 2 units initially, then 3 units per turn.  Out and back with 2 TRN from ECan to UK adds 3 more pieces to the flow into wherever UK is landing, or a seperate out and back landing of 3 units into Africa that is independent of the UK builds and movements.

Immune to SBR. 
Not likely to EVER be taken by the Axis.
And only 1 move away from “the action”

If folks want to discuss that though, please start a new thread, we are now on the opposite side of the Earth from Yakut :-P