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.

4 IPC for the loss of 5, dear.  You get 2 for Archangelsk but you also get 2 more for Karelia.

And your armor has a 50% defense rating, not 33%.

I guess that really depends what’s attacking the tank and your own personal luck/karma.

But here’s what I got:

Attacker: 1 Arm. v. Defender: 1 Arm. Link to or bookmark this scenario.

Average battle duration: 1.3 rounds of combat
  avg. # units left IPC value Punch
Attacker: 0.30.7 1.73.3 12
Defender: 0.30.7 1.73.3 12

Surviving Attackers

Surviving Defenders #Casualties

Overall %*: A. survives: 33.3% D. survives: 33.9% No one survives: 32.8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red.
  Attacker results:
  Probability % # units / losses
    33.27% 1: 1 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
    66.73% 0: no units. 1 Arm. : 5 IPCs
  Defender results:
  Probability % # units / losses
    33.89% 1: 1 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
    66.11% 0: no units. 1 Arm. : 5 IPCs

Looks like 2/3rds of the time you hit something, but only 1/3rd of the time you survive the engagement.

In a tank v. tank engagement, yes that’s true - assuming you fight to the death, you have a 33% chance of surviving, as does the other side.

The less confusing way to look at it is this:

Possible outcomes:
33%: Attacker lives, defender dies
33%: Attacker dies, defender lives
33%: Both attacker and defender die.

Your conclusion is confusing the way you wrote it - it sounds like the results are lopsided. Rather, both sides have 2/3 chance of getting killed, and a 2/3 chance of killing the other unit, and a 1/3 chance of surviving.

In effect, the results are a wash. However, this is more likely:

Attacker: 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm. v. Defender: 1 Arm.

Average battle duration: 1.2 rounds of combat
  avg. # units left IPC value Punch
Attacker: 3.4 0.6 13.1 1.9 7.3 0.7
Defender: 1 5 3

Surviving Attackers

Surviving Defenders #Casualties

Overall %*: A. survives: 99.9% D. survives: 0.1% No one survives: 0.1%

In this attack, Russia comes out solidly ahead in retaking Archangel, losing 1.9 IPCs to Germany’s 5. Although I would probably have the UK kill that tank with a battleship anyway.