Nit picky German Economizer

:-D
  The only reason I would blitz all the way to Archangel would be to cause the allies to pull troops off into that territory and divert them from other more critical areas, such as Africa or the Caucuses. The - 3 or -1.5 in trade off may well be worth the movement of 3 or more times that much of allied units into a backwater position for a turn or two which may well pay off by being able to control more profitable realestate elsewhere for a longer period of time.
As the Russian player, I never leave Leningrad undefended to avoid having to retake Archangel. There are no freebies if I can help it.
That’s my 2c worth on this topic.

@Cmdr:

I think rationally and economically.

Let’s say that you can buy a nickel for two pennies.  Good deal right?

Now let’s say that after you buy that nickel for two pennies, you can buy another nickel for nine pennies.  You don’t have to, but you can.

My thought is that I’ll just buy that first nickel for two pennies and walk away.

If YOU want to buy that second nickel, and net yourself two nickels for eleven pennies, you can do it.

Let’s say you can trade $5 for $7 or you can trade $5 for at least $4 and as much as $10 based on the roll of one die?  Which is a better deal?

In the first case, you are guaranteed a return of $2 + your original $5.  But in the later you will get $4 no matter what, but you may get as much as $10.

In other words, you can keep the tank by blitzing in and out of Karelia or you can blitz to Archangelsk and be guaranteed at least 4 IPC with the potential of killing one or two attacking infantry for 10 IPC

Tank blitz to Karelia return to Eastern Europe:  +2 IPC from income from Karelia.  Net +2 IPC.

–

Tank blitz to Karelia then Archangel:  +2 IPC from income from Karelia.  +2 IPC from income from Archangel.  -5 IPC from loss of German tank.  +2 IPC from optimistic odds on killing a Russian infantry when Russia attacks.  Net +1 IPC.

Germany suffers positional loss from loss of forward mobilized tank.  Increased income is not placeable on the board until the end of G2, and will therefore not reach the front until combat on G4.

–

If it were possible to pull Russian forces out of position with the Archangel blitz, then it would be worthy of consideration.  However, it will NOT be possible unless the Russian player is a very bad player.  As a matter of fact, blitzing a German tank to Archangel actually HELPS the Russian player by solving the logistics problem of moving infantry from Russia to the front, by putting a German tank on the doorstep of Russia.  Since only a few units are needed to recapture Archangel, those few units can be used to trade Karelia with Germany next turn, while the mass of Russian infantry at West Russia trade Belorussia and Ukraine as usual.

The end is that Germany gains nothing in position, loses position, and gains less relative IPCs even with an optimistic estimate of the next turn.

–

There ARE some cases in which the Germans should blitz to Archangel.  That’s when the Russian player either suffered absolutely abysmal casualties on first round attacks, or if the Russian player was an idiot and moved everything, well, I don’t know, somewhere really amazingly stupid.  Since this usually does not happen, I feel pretty safe saying that the Germans should NOT blitz to Archangel.

Basically, what I said, NPB.

You can be guaranteed $2 or you can have the realistic potential of $10 in return.  A realistic potential of $1 loss as well.

Like playing the lottery, Jen?  :-D

Of course, not that many folks DO leave Karelia open (and many that do picket Archangel), so overall, this whole discussion is a moot point…

@ncscswitch:

Of course, not that many folks DO leave Karelia open (and many that do picket Archangel), so overall, this whole discussion is a moot point…

FYI, I leave Karelia and Archangel open EVERY SINGLE TIME I play Allies.  This isn’t a crack pipe phenomenon either.

@Cmdr:

Basically, what I said, NPB.

You can be guaranteed $2 or you can have the realistic potential of $10 in return.  A realistic potential of $1 loss as well.

So where do you get this “realistic potential of $10”?  I am very curious.

Karelia +2
Archangelsk +2
Round 1: Defender Hit +3 Attacker Miss
Round 2: Defender Hit +3 Attacker Hit

not that it’s going to happen most times, but it’s a realistic outcome depending what Russia attacks you with, or England for that matter.  No, I don’t assume it would happen most or even a lot of the time.  But it’s in the back of my mind as a possibility.  (Russia attacks with 2 infantry, fighter, usually a win against a tank, but the tank could kill the infantry before it dies too.) As I said, there’s also a possibility that you could lose your tank and not kill a dang thing attacking you either.

We need a smiley that shows beating your head into a wall…

Ender, karma +1 for your creativity in smiley design and for advancing the research in the field of expressing thought with images!

@Romulus:

Ender, karma +1 for your creativity in smiley design and for advancing the research in the field of expressing thought with images!

Sweet, that gets me to +45 Karma! That means that with that final post, I achieved 45 Karma! Ergo, that one post was worth 45 karma points!

… or …

Sweet, moving that Tank into Archangel gets me to +4 IPCs! That means that with that final move, I achieved +4 IPCs! Ergo, that one move was worth 4 IPCs!

I do not thing so!

But your example hit the bullseye, I think!

You know, the Wizards website forums have a smiley of a head beating against a wall
Quite a few other smileys too.

Yea, I definately need that smiley when dealing with your defeatism.

It’s simple.  You collect +4 IPC with that move.  If you lose the tank, you net -1.

Strategically, you collect +4 IPC with the move, you may lose the tank -5 and you might kill an attacking infantry +3

4-5+3=2 IPC gain

@Cmdr:

Yea, I definately need that smiley when dealing with your defeatism.

It’s simple.  You collect +4 IPC with that move.  If you lose the tank, you net -1.

Strategically, you collect +4 IPC with the move, you may lose the tank -5 and you might kill an attacking infantry +3

4-5+3=2 IPC gain

Jennifer, you have to COMPARE THAT MOVE to THE OTHER MOVE to see THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOVES. We are COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT MOVES. Sorry for the shouting.

Simply blitzing Karelia also happens to net +2 IPCs, so even by your math it’s a wash between the two moves.

However, your math is flawed because you can’t count a full 3 IPCs for the chance of killing an Inf. That chance is worth 1.5 IPCs. The tank is dead meat fo shizzle though, so that is a full 5 IPC loss (plus more because it is a front-line unit.)

And you can’t count +4 for the move because +2 of that can be achieved without incurring the cost of the tank.

Let’s try it in terms of dollars and cents. I make you two different offers:

1. I will give you $2 million. You don’t have to pay anything, I just give it to you.
2. I will give you $4 million up front, but you have to give me $5 million back right away, and I’ll give you a 50% chance of me giving you a further $3 million.

#1 is easy - you get $2 million
#2 - half the time, you will walk away with a net gain of $2 million. The other 50% of the time, you will lose $1 million net.

What’s the better deal? (I won’t explain to you which deal is analogous to which attack until after you give your answer  :wink: )

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

OR CAN YOU

DUN DUN DUN

@Ender:

@Cmdr:

Yea, I definately need that smiley when dealing with your defeatism.

It’s simple.  You collect +4 IPC with that move.  If you lose the tank, you net -1.

Strategically, you collect +4 IPC with the move, you may lose the tank -5 and you might kill an attacking infantry +3

4-5+3=2 IPC gain

Jennifer, you have to COMPARE THAT MOVE to THE OTHER MOVE to see THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MOVES. We are COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT MOVES. Sorry for the shouting.

Simply blitzing Karelia also happens to net +2 IPCs, so even by your math it’s a wash between the two moves.

However, your math is flawed because you can’t count a full 3 IPCs for the chance of killing an Inf. That chance is worth 1.5 IPCs. The tank is dead meat fo shizzle though, so that is a full 5 IPC loss (plus more because it is a front-line unit.)

And you can’t count +4 for the move because +2 of that can be achieved without incurring the cost of the tank.

Let’s try it in terms of dollars and cents. I make you two different offers:

1. I will give you $2 million. You don’t have to pay anything, I just give it to you.
2. I will give you $4 million up front, but you have to give me $5 million back right away, and I’ll give you a 50% chance of me giving you a further $3 million.

#1 is easy - you get $2 million
#2 - half the time, you will walk away with a net gain of $2 million. The other 50% of the time, you will lose $1 million net.

What’s the better deal? (I won’t explain to you which deal is analogous to which attack until after you give your answer  :wink: )

Puts on his best Howie Mandel impression

“So, Cmdr. Jenninfer, DEAL or NO DEAL?”

:wink:

A&A’s most important factors are maths and economy.
I think we all agree on that. But that doesn’t mean that other issues are irrelevant.
If Germany blocks sz3 with sub then Russia has to take back Arch, not UK, or G have Arch for 2 rnds.
This makes it an tactical issue, not only economy.
And if Russa moves most inf to east for SJF or KJF, then G should play very aggressive against Russia.
So even if G may lose 1 ipc on the Arch blitz, to say this is a bad move is just a $imple understanding of
different style of gameplay. Instead, try to see the whole picture.