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.
I spent 5 IPC to get Karelia and Archangelsk. If that 5 IPC is destroyed, I am down 1 IPC.
No you see, you have to compare it to just blitzing Karelia, not just comparing it to a baseline. We’re comparing moves here, not just saying that you should blitz something to get IPCs.
Blitzing Karelia is +2 IPCs.
The risk is in getting another 2 IPCs. If you take the risk to get Archangel, it’s +2 IPCs there, but it cost you 5 IPCs and you’re praying that it pays off. More often not, the 5 IPC cost to get an additional 2 IPCs (over just blitzing Karelia) isn’t worth it, or comes out the same. No one’s saying that you can’t take out 2 inf, but it’s more likely that you won’t take out anything.
Where’s your rationale when comparing the two moves (blitzing just karelia, then blitzing karelia and archangel?). Remember, the odds are higher to come up shorthanded or even, compared to coming out higher. How do you rationally/economically justify this?
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!
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 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:
- I will give you $2 million. You don’t have to pay anything, I just give it to you.
- 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.
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.
That’s called “opportunity cost” in economic terms
@Ender:
… but you have to give me $5 million back right away
That’s an expensive 1942 model tank…who is buying this, the US government?
:cry: :roll:
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.
That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make, Lucifer. Given the whole picture, German tank blitz to Archangel is a bad move, unless Russia’s doing something spectacularly dumb (like buying two destroyers on R1 and charging east with everything, making no attacks on Germany at all).
Remember my earlier post mentioning that purchased units placed in Russia can be used to recapture Archangel, as well as any units moved to Russia in noncombat. It is really quite difficult to come up with any reasonable Russian position that ends up with the German tank in Archangel successfully unbalancing the Russian position.
Try it, and you’ll see.
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.
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
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.
You consistently ignore that there is a better move available - simply blitz Karelia. All you do is say that blitzing Archangel is a good move economically, but there is a better move available. I don’t know why you would choose the worse over the better.
Your second scenario is incomplete, because there is the alternative - You give me 0, and I give you 2. In your scenario it ends up with you 0.5 IPCs ahead of me, but if you use the better scenario you’re always 2 IPCs ahead.
@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.
You truly amaze me with your ability to miss the point I and two or three others are trying to make to you. It’s about the comparison.
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. But with just blitzing Karelia, you gain 2 IPCs, guaranteed, and preserve a front-line, non-fodder, offensive unit.
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.
