Nit picky German Economizer

That’s pretty much my thoughts as well.  I was considering the same idea, why trade infantry for territories that arn’t even worth the cost of an infantry???

But it boils down to using up enemy offensive power and the hopes of doing disproportionate damage to the enemy.  Ask Switch how many times he’s attacked a picket of mine and lost 2 or 3 units just to get it or, even worse, been forced to retreat.

How many of those battles would he have won if I didn’t put a picket there? (Hint: the answer is 100%!  And cost free too!)

@ncscswitch:

So, the question is…

Do you tie up (in this discussion) Russian FIGs in trading battles, or do you let the Russians trade for free (or only using a single INF) and use their other INF and the FIG elsewhere?  In some cases that MAY be a good idea.  In others, it is sheer folly.

The trick is knowing the difference…

Very true.

It’s situational.  No blanket statement can be made about this.

One key is opportunity cost: limited resources can only do so much. 
If you give the Russians (or Germans) too much to do (ala the 2 inf picket), they might not be able to do it all

The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

I agree with Trihero on this one and have made that move frequently.

leaving 1 inf in a 2 or 3 IPC territory that Germany owns is a poor economic move even against the minimum attack of 2 inf, 1 fig. Against KGF, keeping every possible unit centralized is priority for flexible defense and Germany usually has more than enough aircraft to trade the territories the Allies take. I prefer that Russia pull units away from the Japanese front and advance toward me rather than trying to expand against forces that are coming in on all sides. Typically, the result, in the mid game at least, is that one Ally attacks the territory with 1 inf and aircraft and even if they only clear the territory a follow up Ally moves 1 inf in to take it so they will be coming out ahead finacially anyway.

The only times I picket all of my trading territories is during KJF to put maximum trading pressure on Russia, to block an armor blitz, or when Russia has more territories to trade than it has fighters to force them to let me have the territory or expose an offensive ground unit to counterattack.

And I will always leave a territory empty against overwhelming force. The chances of getting a defensive hit with 1 inf are too small to risk it’s sacrifice.

It is actually +0.5

Also, the 50/50 to kill 1 INF on defense is not quite accurate.

With a typical trading force of 2 INF, 1 FIG from Russia:
You DO kill 1 INF 50% of the time.
But 10% of the time you kill 2 INF
and nearly 4% of the time you kill both INF and the FIG.

That means that 2/3 of the time you will be net AT LEAST +2 IPC to blitz an ARM to an undefended Archangel.

And of course the positional advantage of forcing Russia to counter-attack it, tying up 1 of their FIGs that now cannot be used in Ukraine or Belo…  And diverting 2 INF north away from the most common main thrust area toward Caucuses, putting those 2 INF, even if they both survive, 2 turns out of position.

@trihero:

The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

Well, that is why it is nitpicking, it only occurs at the beginning of the game and maybe once or twice later.

But I have to point out that I believe your second statement is incorrect, where you say that “you’ve just surrendered the initiative.”

When you’re in trading wars with 1-3 inf in a territory, the advantage goes to the attacker, because 1-3 defending inf don’t hit with great accuracy, while the offense containing fighters/art + inf have a great chance of killing the defending units. The offender usually comes out 1-2 units ahead.

Thus, to prostrate yourself in a defensive position in those trading territories is not good. It is, in fact, giving the attacker the initiative. To put a German inf in Karelia is to give Russia the advantage, because your inf will only hit 1/3 of the time, while his 2 inf + fighter will hit almost 100%. Eventually of course you will have to trade once someone takes the territory, which the Russians should be doing, because they want the Germans to commit forces and get them out of their shell. But as the Germans, dont’ come out of your shell if you don’t have to (i.e. when you already control the territory).

If your goal is as Germany is to fully conserve your forces, then you will not start with the wrong foot by sticking an infantry where it doesn’t need to be. Let Russia start the quibble.

I agree with Hobbes.
I don’t think he means that you put the German inf out there to be slaughtered, but that it is bad to assume Germany is just going to continue to trade with Russia indefinitely.

Example:  Kar, Belo, Ukr - all occupied with 1 Ger inf.
Russia attacks each and reclaims Kar with 1 inf, 1 rt, and Belo and Ukr with 2 inf leftover.  It would not be wise to assume Germany will send 2 inf and 2 planes to attack each of these in return.  What may be more likely would be to send 1 inf, 6 planes to attack Belo and then remaining inf, rt, and arm to Ukr.
Here you clear out the 2 inf in Belo for 1 inf (maybe 0 inf) and take Ukr with maybe a loss of 1 inf (or 0 inf), but now Russia may not be able to counter the Ukr stack b/c they just lost 2 inf in Belo and have 1 inf, 1 rt stuck in Kar, or Russia must go for it all and risk an awful lot of units to attack the Ukr stack.

In this case it is about position.  Germany can sacrfice the IPC’s it may have gained in Kar or even Belo, if it means gaining Ukr and putting immediate pressure on both Wrus and Cauc.

This move of course depends on unit count for both Germany and Russia on whether it is doable, but no matter what side you are you always have to make sure your opponent can’t just bypass trading and move strongly to Ukr.

The case of Germany moving out like that is a variation of the “Lurch” from Classic.

If I’m trying to make life expensive for the Russians, I’m garrisoning with 3 infantry.  That almost forces a 3 infantry attack, usually also tieing up a fighter, sometimes two fighters or even an armor.

But I’m never just giving Russia land.

Now, I’ll ignore the British if I am strapped for units.  I’d rather they have the land because they have to move their units into my path.  Russia builds in my path!  So I’d rather kill Russians then Brits or Americans.(Unless absolutely necessary.)

@trihero:

This may or may not be news, but I thought I’d share a small idea that I haven’t seen much discussed:

With Germany, in a KGF situation, you should absolutely try to avoid holding any border territory with any men if you already control it or can blitz it.

I think this a small point, but every little bit counts.

For instance, usually Karelia is abandoned by the Russians, and sometimes they will avoid attacking Ukraine.

I beg to differ.

@Jennifer:

Axis don’t need Africa to win, it just makes it 10 times easier.

Mmm.

Most games I’ve seen when G has all of Africa for many rnds, allies lose.

So if US+UK don’t take back Africa if G got lucky in the first rnd, then allies do not play with clever strategy.

Karelia left empty is an easy thing to do, and I agree with trihero that is a gain for Germany.
Two problems arise.

• Russia on G2 may blitz Karelia as Germany did. Russia is really happy do not lose units, do not have to commit nothing, may use fig elsewhere. Moreover, Russia is focusing all its inf around Caucasus, where they have more value than if they wander in the north.

• What to do with Belorussia and Ukraine? leave them open? Garrison with 1 inf? With 2 inf? Leave them also open?
  It could be a nice gain for Russia so I thing they should be garrisoned. Summarizing we are speaking of saving one alone single inf.

About the initiative, I think that the real initiator of this scenario may be the URSS.
Usually as Russia I leave Karelia open. Because I try to trade Karelia for free. If German agree I am happy.

@Lucifer:

@Jennifer:

Axis don’t need Africa to win, it just makes it 10 times easier.

Mmm.

Most games I’ve seen when G has all of Africa for many rnds, allies lose.

So if US+UK don’t take back Africa if G got lucky in the first rnd, then allies do not play with clever strategy.

As I said.  The Germans don’t NEED africa.  It just makes life ever so much easier if they HAVE africa.

The Allies NEED africa.

That means that if allies let G have Africa, then they lose. If allies can’t deny Jap to take Africa later in
the game then this is because of good/bad play by allie/axis players. Or bad luck. 
If you play axis and allies let you have Africa, then they let you win the game.
Pure and simple.

Life is always easy if you don’t get contested.

The Axis does not NEED Africa, they need IPC’s.  If they can gain them in Europe and Asia, so be it.

Losing Africa though cripples UK, at least for a while until the US can liberate it.  And UK crippled weakens then Allies and makes IPC gain in Europe and Asia easier.

So Africa early, Europe and Asia after that :-D

@trihero:

The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

But I have to point out that I believe your second statement is incorrect, where you say that “you’ve just surrendered the initiative.”

When you’re in trading wars with 1-3 inf in a territory, the advantage goes to the attacker, because 1-3 defending inf don’t hit with great accuracy, while the offense containing fighters/art + inf have a great chance of killing the defending units. The offender usually comes out 1-2 units ahead.

Thus, to prostrate yourself in a defensive position in those trading territories is not good. It is, in fact, giving the attacker the initiative.

I think you misunderstood me there on who’s the attacker and the defender. What is more offensive? To blitz to and back from a territory or to move 1 INF there?
OK, the attacker can use 3 INF and 1 FTR and kill the lonely INF on that territory, but what other choice does he/she have? Leave the INF there and fall back on the IPC curve and have a hole on their front that can be used by the other player to take other territories behind? Does the attacker then have the initiative or he’s simply forced to react (and use FTR/ART/ARM that could be used in other places?) to the lonely INF moving?

If your goal is as Germany is to fully conserve your forces, then you will not start with the wrong foot by sticking an infantry where it doesn’t need to be. Let Russia start the quibble.

If you mean that G’s goal should be to conserve its forces, then I reply that when I play as G my goal is to kick Russia as hard as possible, regardless of the Allies’s strategy being KGF or KJF. And even the Allies are going for KGF you have several turns worth in advance to move towards Russia, looking for an opportunity to take and hold either WR or Caucasus. Then if the pressure gets too much its just a matter of pulling back the tank stack (10-20 tanks) to G and leave J to finish Russia. Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

Oh, and I think this tactic works better but as a Nit picky Russian Economizer against J.

Two things…

1.  Replacement Cost of the ARM was already figured into that analysis to come  up with the +2 IPC result
2.  The point of pointing out the 4% to kill the FIG also was to show that it is not a 50/50 analysis, but that it is a variable result, and that there are some very positive potential results for Germany.  (and FYI, retreating the FIG only increases the odds of a favorable result for Germany in terms of maintaining control of Archangel)

Lastly, you speak of Germany being strapped for INF on the Russian front.  But Russia is REALLY strapped for offensive units.  And putting an ARM in Archangel forces Russia to use one of their 2 FIGs, and 2 of the INF in Russia, to fight to liberate a territory that is normally theirs “free and clear”.  So now another attack that Russia does (Karelia, Ukraine, Belo…) that turn is going to be reduced in offensive power, thus giving Germany more “kills” on their defense, and on subsequent counters because the Russians took the territory with fewer remainign units alive.

The effect is CUMULATIVE.

@ncscswitch:

Two things…

1.  Replacement Cost of the ARM was already figured into that analysis to come  up with the +2 IPC result
2.  The point of pointing out the 4% to kill the FIG also was to show that it is not a 50/50 analysis, but that it is a variable result, and that there are some very positive potential results for Germany.  (and FYI, retreating the FIG only increases the odds of a favorable result for Germany in terms of maintaining control of Archangel)

Lastly, you speak of Germany being strapped for INF on the Russian front.  But Russia is REALLY strapped for offensive units.  And putting an ARM in Archangel forces Russia to use one of their 2 FIGs, and 2 of the INF in Russia, to fight to liberate a territory that is normally theirs “free and clear”.  So now another attack that Russia does (Karelia, Ukraine, Belo…) that turn is going to be reduced in offensive power, thus giving Germany more “kills” on their defense, and on subsequent counters because the Russians took the territory with fewer remainign units alive.

The effect is CUMULATIVE.

Solution? The old, good principle of A&A: never leave territories free to the enemy?

I mean, this happens because usually Karelia is left without units from Russia. Leaving there a little, nice inf, will avoid to Russia al lthose problems.
If Germany want Karelia have to commit 2 inf and 1 fig, or 2 inf and 1 art.
Result? No problem of blitzinf German tanks, territory gained for free, trading without losing infantry.
German and Russia are at war… so they have to fight!

You’ve got it Romulus.

Leaving that 1 INF forward in Karelia…

• Preserves 2 IPC in Archangel
• Makes Germany commit forces to taking Karelia instead of it being free (forces that could be destroyed by a Russian atack from West Russia on R2)
• Can potentially kill 1 (or more) German attackers in Karelia
• Prevents the need for Russia to fight in Archangel on R2, freeing up 2 INF and 1 FIG for other duties.
• Reduces the German Build on G2 by $2, with no need for an SBR :-)