Nit picky German Economizer

OK, thank you.

Yes, it is half an IPC on average, so there IS a small gain, a small EARLY gain which magnifies over time in the game.

Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…

You engineer a situation where Russia is modestly weaker on all 4 attacks, and that means that the Dice Gods are likely to intervene in 1 or more of those battles.

It is the German version of the concept behind the SZ59 heavy, SZ45 3-piece attack, and Pearl reinforce being discussed in another thread…  Too many attacks and spreading too thin.

Now add 1 more element to it…
Bid units to Libya
T-J via Amphib on G1

It is the Germany AT&T Opening…  Reach out and Touch Someone…  :mrgreen:
Russia has enemy units/threats to be dealt with in 4 territories on R2 (plus any Japan threats), and the Germans are already moving into the Middle East making Caucuses more of an issue…

You really want to have to send forces to the Arctic Circle for TWO battles instead of only 1 in that scenario?

Switch you are right in your analysis. But I think that the point here is another.

There is an economic aspect that may be rigorously analyzed: the economic aspect and Ender and other here have make a good analysis of this. Blitzing to Kar is more convenient economically than blitzing to Arkangelsk. This is sure.

After there is another called opportunity cost by Axis_roll and strategic advantage by you. But this one may not be quantified even if it may be more important and worhty than the simple economic gain. I strongly agree with you for the question of increasing the battle that Russia have to fight.

There is one thing to add.
You have to act in a way to have advantages from it, otherwise you will not have anything in return for the sacrifice done.
So I think that there is the possibility of a strategic gain but you need to play accordingly, the player have to be aware of the action.
So it is not an automatic gain. In some case it is useful for the startegy and is a gain, in other case it is a loss.
In chess you may sacrifice a piece without having another piece in return with the objective of disorganize opponent king defense and chekmate it. But if you do not play accordingly you have only lost a piece.

@ncscswitch:

Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…

Ncsswitch, my point is that those infantry at Moscow that would otherwise be unable to attack anyplace are now able to attack the German tank at Archangel.  That isn’t GOOD for Germany.  It’s BAD.  Try a 2 inf 2 art 2 tank buy / Ukraine / West Russia attack, or a 8 infantry buy / Belorussia / West Russia attack, either variation leaving Karelia and Archangel open.

The tank blitz to Archangel makes Russia commit infantry and either tank, artillery, or fighter for most favorable odds.  So the Russians pay the opportunity cost of moving those units against the German tank; particularly fighters, which are very valuable for trading forward positions without committing ground units.  Assume, then, that the Russians use a tank (which they should have at least one of on Russia 2).

So on R2, if the Russians do capture Archangel, how does Germany profit?  Russian units at Archangel can be used to trade Karelia, but are not placed at West Russia, making West Russia potentially more vulnerable.  Also, as those units are not at West Russia, Russia has less to attack and hold Ukraine with.

So the question is, can Germany either attack West Russia on G2, or maintain control of Ukraine on G2 (this latter more likely after a Belorussia/West Russia attack, as German fighters can land at Ukraine)?    Note that the two dovetail nicely, as German fighters used against West Russia can land in Ukraine.

But the answer, barring REALLY bad luck or bad Russian moves, should be “No” to both.

If the Germans leave enough units close enough to West Russia to attempt to crack West Russia on G2, Russia can attack and retreat on R2 before the German hammer falls, forcing the Germans to trade German fighters for Russian infantry if the Germans do follow through on the attack.  If the Germans do NOT have enough units to crack West Russia, then the Russians can simply trade Karelia/Archangel as previously described, and the Germans lose the valuable tank that was used to take Archangel.

The German attack on Ukraine is similar if carried out through the Balkans; the Russians can again act similarly and deplete the German forces before the German attack.  Of course, the Germans can opt to build S. Europe transports on G1, but treatment of that topic must wait for another thread, as it’s really quite a different line of play that can only be undertaken given particular Russian purchases and moves and requires a German preplaced bid in Africa (and it doesn’t include taking Trans-Jordan)

Tank blitz to Archangel baaaad.

I would prefer (as Germany) that Russia allocate forces to Arch, that means less strenght on the
eastern front, and if they use ftrs then Russia cannot use them in Ukr or Kalia.

@ncscswitch:

OK, thank you.

Yes, it is half an IPC on average, so there IS a small gain, a small EARLY gain which magnifies over time in the game.

Then when you add the advantage of making Russia attack 4 territories instead of 3 on R2…

You engineer a situation where Russia is modestly weaker on all 4 attacks, and that means that the Dice Gods are likely to intervene in 1 or more of those battles.

It is the German version of the concept behind the SZ59 heavy, SZ45 3-piece attack, and Pearl reinforce being discussed in another thread…  Too many attacks and spreading too thin.

Yeah, what NPB said. Arc can be taken by Moscow units that wouldn’t have anywhere else to attack anyway, so there is no thinning. But even if there were, you are making a big assumption:

Germany is not “making” Russia attack 4 territories, or indeed any territories. It is entirely up to Russia which territories she attacks. A smart Russian player will not necessarily attack all 4 territories, but the optimal combination of them. The optimal combination may be all four - I’d have to see it in an actual game situation - but my point is, Russia is not forced to attack four territories, it is free to optimize its attacks and can probably come up with something better.

I think I want to challenge ncscswitch and Cmdr Jennifer to test their mettle in an actual game on this. If they accept, and someone else wants to join the fight on my side, so be it, but I’m prepared to take them on solo too.

I realize a single game won’t prove much, but after all this hot air I think it’s time someone put their Inf chips where their mouth is.

And @Lucifer: those Russian units are only in Arch for 1 turn. And from there, they actually have a number of options, so they are hardly wasted there.

OOOO A CHALLANGE!  (spelled “challenge”, but I like spelling it wrong . . .)

OOOOOOOOOO  :-D

Ender:

Thank you for conceding my point that the battle on Archangelsk with an unopposed tank averages out to a better net then just blitzing Karelia.  That’s all I was saying.  Better for Germany = Worse for the allies.  It’s why Rockets are so devastating to Russia if Germany gets them.  Sure, the rocket to Russia and the rocket to Caucasus may only do 1 IPC damage each, but they might do 12 IPC damage and that’s usually worth the 20 IPC I find it takes (on average) to get a technology.

The entire game is based on economics.  +.5 here and there over 10 rounds adds up to a lot!

Ender, you’re right about that Russia will use forces from Moscow, but those units will take one more rnd
to move to WRU, Cauc or Kalia in order to attack Belo or Ukr.
This is just a minor detail, a game will not be decided by a German tank to Arch.

No, it won’t.  But it can be one more block removed resulting in JENGA

@Cmdr:

Ender:

Thank you for conceding my point that the battle on Archangelsk with an unopposed tank averages out to a better net then just blitzing Karelia.

Didj00 say that, Ender?  Becos I have like, no recollection of that alleged event.

He did when he agreed that the armor blitz to Karelia over 1000 rounds will average 0.5 IPC more then not blitzing Karelia.

@Ender:

@Cmdr:

Ender:

I’ll give you $5 and you give me $4.  Then we will roll 1 Die.  If we get a 1, 2 or 3 you give me $3 more.  Let’s do that 1000 times and see who comes out on top?

And that’s not including the real possibility that your attackers miss and my defender hits giving me a second shot at another $3 for the same $5 risk.

I understand perfectly well that in the scenario you describe, you will on average come out on top by 0.5 IPCs each time - with Russia / UK attacking with enough material to kill the tank in one round pretty consistently.

So yes you come out on top by 0.5 IPCs.

@trihero:

Jennifer, it’s just time to give up the chase. He never said that blitzing Archangel is 0.5 IPCs more than just simply blitzing Karelia. He said that blitzing Archangel is +0.5 IPCs better than doing nothing at all, and that is what your math is showing. If you actually sat down and looked at the math, of which there is none at this point, just blitzing Karelia is +2 IPCs between Germany and Russia. I already calculated the +0.5 IPCs for you way at the beginning of this thread. It’s +2 IPCs for blitzing Karelia. All you keep saying is “I am right because I calculated +0.5 IPCs.” Congratulations, you reinvented the wheel. You’re way behind in this conversation, that was already discussed.

Sorry, I do think he said that the average result comes out to .5 IPC better to blitz to Archangelsk then to just blitz Karelia.

Perhaps you are confused and misreading his statement?

7 IPC > 2 IPC is it not?  2 For Karelia, 2 for Archangelsk, 3 for the Infantryman you kill vs 2 for Karelia which is really never going to happen because if you are going that route, you are going to use a German infantry to garrison it and force Russia to attack so it’s really +2 Karelia - 3 lost Infantry for net -1 vs the tank route which is +4 territory - 5 lost Tank = -1 net.

The only major difference here is that Russia now has units in Archangelsk that it would otherwise have in W. Russia or Ukraine and that means less units to protect their flank and better chance for Germany to push into those territories and reduce the Russian army by a major score.

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 Tank

2+2+3 = 7 IPC

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

Hmm, well, the realistic is Armor lost in Archangelsk or Infantry lost in Karelia.  Either case, your worst case scenario is -1 net IPC.

Now, let’s use Frood’s calculator eh?

Most likely attack on Archangelsk:

2 Infantry, 1 Fighter vs 1 Armor

There’s a 2% chance the tank lives killing both infantry and the fighter.
There’s a 13% chance the tank kills both infantry (that’s almost 1 in 6, or the equivalent chance of shooting down a bomber with an AA Gun)
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.

60% Chance of killing 1 infantry on defense.  That means you have collect 4 IPC for the land and killed a 3 IPC infantryman in 3 out of 5 combats.  More then half the time you are going to gross 7 IPC in IPC shift by blitzing and only 40% of the time you will net -1.

Simple arithmetic will show you that it’s far better for Germany to risk losing the tank and netting 1 IPC loss for the superior chance to killing at least one, if not two attacking infantry and making a large capital gain on the loss of that tank.

@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 Tank

2+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.