Nit picky German Economizer

@trihero:

I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia.

That’s what I see too, Frood. I just don’t see how it’s overextending Russia even if you did Ukraine/W. Russia.

Oops, I meant Archangel, not Karelia, but I think you knew what I meant.

I agree with Trihero.

All Russia needs is one inf and it can attack Arch with 1 inf and ALL its armor.
Russia won’t be using its armor to attack Ukr, Belo, or Kar so it is just sitting there doing nothing anyway.  And on R3 that armor in Arch is still within reach of Ukr, Belo and Kar if need be.

Now I don’t attack Ukr on R1 and I’ll buy 3 inf, 3 arm so I’ll have 7 arm available on R2.  I attack Wrus only and typically Germany will counter with 1 inf in Ukr, 1 in Belo, and 1 in Kar.  That means 2-3 inf, 1 ftr to ukr, 2 inf, 1 ftr to belo, 2 inf, 1 rt to kar and 1 inf, 3-7 arm to arch.
I don’t see how this is overextension?
If you block Kar, you’re likely to see this on R2:
Kar:  2 inf (possibly 1 if you hit on def)
Belo:  1 inf
Ukr:  1 inf

Russia still has to commit an rt to one of those battles or ignore one (which is the same as leaving Kar empty).

Essentially it is a wash if the German armor in Arch hits on defense.  Germany gains 2 ipc and kills 1 inf (3 ipc) on defense but losses the armor (5 ipc).  2+3-5=0

But 50% of the time the armor misses on def, so Russia essentially trades Inf for Arm.  I’ll take that as Russia all day long.

@trihero:

But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.

Quick grammar lesson Romulus - it should be

“But what if the Germans still have a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?”

And

“Uk probably can not invade Norway on the second turn, so the blitzing of the German unit hurts the UK.”

Thanks Trihero!
Now I am starting to think that… may be I need a grammar corrector!

Moreover the idea of sending the sub as road block is also not useful.
The sub will be sink and UK may move units in Russia in NCM.

I think the point is to NOT have to do 4 battles on Russia 2 since you only have 2 fighters.

Of course, England could help at the cost of not landing in Africa, reducing it to three battles.  As DM pointed out the one behind the lines if is safe enough to use Armor on reducing you to two battles and you just happen to have two fighters, one for each.

But it still forces the allies to go the non-optimal route, IMHO.

Frood here, just changed my name and avatar, like some others have recently done…

I don’t think landing in Karelia / Archangel is at all sub-optimal for the Allies. The UK has no business in Africa, IMHO. Landing in North Europe ASAP opens a second front on Germany, they now have to contend with UK and Russia, which combined have greater income than Germany.

Landing in Africa opens a second front on Germany and threatens a full 20% of the German’s income (or saves 33% of Englands, depending on how you are looking at it.)

If anyone has a stake in Africa, is it not England???

Yes, Russia can afford to hit all 4 territories on Russia 2. (Karelia, Archangelsk, W. Russia and Ukraine.)  But is it optimal?

I would do the “angel blitz”, because I like to…
And as Russia I would leave one behind to prevent this move from Germany.
Sometimes I think it’s better to play aggressively, and other times I choose to dig in.

@Ender:

Frood here, just changed my name and avatar, like some others have recently done…

I don’t think landing in Karelia / Archangel is at all sub-optimal for the Allies. The UK has no business in Africa, IMHO. Landing in North Europe ASAP opens a second front on Germany, they now have to contend with UK and Russia, which combined have greater income than Germany.

I agree with Ender that UK sooner or later should go to the North. USA is more well placed for landing troops in Africa (from the first turn) and when needed may switch target of the shuck to another territory.
Uk may land units in KAR or ARK from UK 1, and it is a good thing for relieving pressure from Russia.

The problem is that if UK goes to North, USA can not strike Algeria first turn. (2 TRN and 1 DD are an easy prey for the Luftwaffe)
But it may be solved postponing the landing in Algeria to the second turn, after buying 1 AC or a lot of TRN.

Tri:

5:40 < 3:24  Or in easier to understand terms.  You are killing 12.5% of Germany’s starting income value vs losing 12.5% of your starting income but what’s worse is that Germany has probably closer to 46 whereas you probably have 26 if you are lucky.

Meanwhile, you just pulled an infantry off the front lines to kill a tank.  That’s one less Infantry that Germany has to kill to get into Stalingrad or Kiev or Warsaw, etc.

Because if Germany instead chooses to go into Ukraine for keeps (Eastern and Balkans forces, plus new ARM from Germany, plus Southern or Egypt forces via TRN), now those 2 INF ARE out of position, and USSR has 2 less fodder pieces to try to expel the Germans from Ukraine, and now have to defend Caucuses/West Russia both, with no gain in IPC’s from Ukraine, or probably Belo either.

Even if Russia can’t afford it, the UK can take care of it, maybe even with a battleship, thus not suffering any return fire even.

But I think Russia can handle it, esp. if on R1 you went heavy into WRus (which I usually do, as WRus is to Russia as Eastern Europe is to Germany) then WRus will not fall in G1, meaning any Inf in Mos at the start of R2 have no other immediate use anyway. And the next turn those Inf can be used to swap Karelia, or beef up WRus - they are hardly “way out of position”.

But what am I thinking? The more people that want to blitz a tank to Archangel, the better for me. I think its a noob move (Ooh, look, free territory! I get to use my Blitzing Power! w00tz0rz!) but if you want to do it, knock yourself out. As long as you’re not on my team :-D

So by all means, yes, tank blitz > Archangel = good move!!! Do it! My Russian game plan will be a shambles after this daring exploit throws my entire army into confusion!

Yes, they can.

Someday I’ll show you how…

I base a lot off of starting income when it comes to optimization of round 1 moves.  If Russia loses 27 IPC in equipment on Round 1, have they narrowed the gap or spread the gap?  If Germany loses 5 IPC in equipment in Round 1, have they narrowed or spread the gap?

If England goes to Archangelsk/Karelia to save Russia equipment, is Germany uncontested in Africa and laughing with a 50 IPC a round income?

This isn’t a game of brute force.  It’s a game of economics.  You want to trade less for more of your opponents stuff.  What you trade is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that you force him to trade more then you lose.

So yes, as Switch says, you can invade Ukraine hard.  Russia has to chose, blow all their offensive power killing you off and watching you spit tanks out faster then a FORD factory spitting out Focuses, or retreat?

@Commander:

This isn’t a game of brute force.  It’s a game of economics.  You want to trade less for more of your opponents stuff.  What you trade is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that you force him to trade more then you lose.

Such as an Armor for an Infantry?

Ultimately what counts is total front-line Axis units v. total front-line Allied units. Doesn’t matter how you achieve that, that’s what counts. As the quote in my sig says, the only rules of the game are what you can do to the enemy, and what you can stop the enemy from doing to you. You need units for both.

So I guess I disagree. It’s a game of economics to the point that your economics give you more brute force (in the right place at the right time) than the other guy.

A Germany Armor for a Russian Infantry + 4 IPC for Karelia + Archangelsk.

Germany -1
Russia -3 (they’re recovering home ground, that does not add as bonus income, but failing to recover would add as negative income.)

Economics.  Especially considering that 1 IPC loss is 1/40th your home value vs 3/24ths their home value.  Doesn’t sound like much, but how fast can you build up 2 or 3 to one odds on attacking Russia’s army if you continually have those trades?

What’s the alternative?  Let him trade on your land?  That’s bad.  You net 0 for the land and lose money on the lost units.  He loses money on the lost units, but gains value on the land to off set his costs.