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.

You are making it overly complicated, Dan.

Germany takes Archangelsk and Karelia with 1 Armor.

Germany +4

Russia attacks:  You have a 50% chance to hit your target on the first roll.  For argument’s sake, let’s presume he sent 2 infantry, 1 fighter to kill you.

Worst case scenario:

Germany is +4 for cash -5 for the armor = -1 net
Russia is +0 for cash -0 for equipment = 0 net

Most realistic scenario:

Germany is +4 for cash - 5 for the armor = -1 net
Russia is +0 for cash - 3 for equipment = -3 net

Best case scenario:
Germany is +4 for cash, 0 or -5 for the equipment = -1 or +4 net
Russia is +0 for cash - 3 or 6 for equipment = -3 or -6 net

No matter what the outcome, Russia can only expect to be +0 for cash.  Why?  Because Russia is liberating their land, not gaining any land.  That means they are not collecting anything they didn’t collect last round, thus they have no increase.

Germany, on the other hand, is at worst down 1 IPC in value and at best has caused Russia more grief then the land is worth.

You can’t count Kar (as +2) Germany gets that anyway.

Why not just blitz kar and move back to EE?
B/c then Russia can do the same, it is a wash.

Germany can only get 2 inf out of Nor via trn so either 1 inf is left in Nor or one moves to Kar anyway.

For Ger,
At BEST the arch Blitz is a wash, NO BETTER.
At WORST, it is -3 IPC (loss of tank + 2 ipc for arch)

• armor missed on Def -

For Russia,
At BEST, +2 (see worst for Ger)
At WORST, wash (see best for Ger)

This is b/c Russia can attack with 1 inf and 7 armor.  You trade inf for arm, it is that simple.

It doesn’t matter if it is Russian territory, it is UNHOLDABLE by Germany.  There is no other gain for Ger other than collecting 2 IPC and the 50% chance of killing 1 inf.  That is it.

Russian Armor are as much of a threat to Ukr from Arch as they would be if they were in Wrus, Cauc, or Mos.

As for the loss of fodder, what is the difference whether you lose that one if in Kar (on Rd 1 Def), or on R2 attack?

In rd 1 you only have a 33% chance of killing a German INF, but in Rd 2 you essentially have a 100% chance of killing one ARMOR for that inf b/c you can afford to bring in 5,6, even 7 tanks.  Yes you give Germany 2 more IPC, but all that does is allow them to “upgrade” 1 inf to an armor.  So Germany is trading one armor on the front lines for the ability to buy an armor in Rd 2 then move it to the front lines in Rd 3, and then it can use it to attack in Rd 4.  Not sure if that is such a great idea.

I count Kar and Archangel because that tank took both.  That’s +4.  If I lose the tank then I’m still +4 in cash for the land, but i’m -5 for equipment.

@Cmdr:

I count Kar and Archangel because that tank took both.  That’s +4.  If I lose the tank then I’m still +4 in cash for the land, but i’m -5 for equipment.

Sorry, that’s bunk. We’re doing comparison between two alternatives: blitzing Karelia and retreating to safety, or going through to Arc.

Plan 1 gets you Karelia (+2),

plan 2 gets you Kar + Arc (+4) minus the loss of a tank (-5), so total is -1.

-1 is -3 from +2

Other way to see it is that as you can get 2 for free, that’s the baseline. The difference then is that the Arc blitz gets you an additional +2 and -5 (-3 total difference) from what some of us are saying.

Finally, as I’ve said many times, you can’t value front-line units on a straight basis with IPCs from captured territories. As DM points out, those extra IPCs don’t become “active” until several rounds later. Think of it like the “time value of money” in financial planning - a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Sorry, but putting a tank in Arc on G1 is a noob move, no matter who’s making it and how much they’ve posted on this forum  :roll:

It seems that everyone has its own way of evaluate territory trading!

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

@Romulus:

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

Yes - mine!  :lol:

@Romulus:

It seems that everyone has its own way of evaluate territory trading!

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

part of that rule of thumb needs to be ‘opportunity cost’
If russia had so many other things to on top of archangel, it might be worth it to be sitting in archangel with a tank.

Strategy is important in swapping of territories, not only economics, I agree with you.

What it is unclear is how to evaluate the economic of a territory trading from the economic point of view.

I am a bit confused!  :?

Again, there is also value in making Russia engage in more attacks that would otherwise be needed.

And Darth is someone who posts often of this… the risk to the Axis due to the large number of attacks that the Axis has to make early (especially G1) in order to succeed.  Each attack is a chance for dice to enter into the mix. And the more attacks, the higher the PROBABILITY of a negative result in one (or more) of those attacks.

Blitzing to Archangel increases the number of R2 attacks by a third, increasing the likelyhood of bad dice by a third as well.  4 attacks is a hell of a lot more risk than 3.

And with only 2-3 FIGs, that means ground units stranded on the front SOMEWHERE for Germany to counter with their 5 FIG/1 BOM Luftwaffe.

And again, Germany COULD Karelia Stack behind that blitz… now it is Russian ARM hanging out to dry either in West Russia or Archangel for the Germans to counter the next turn, and with the Germans just as able to move their ARM to Ukraine as Russia.

So Darth, your point applies both ways, and all that comes into play is who has more dice to roll, and with the blitz to archangel it is RUSSIA that is on the receiving end of the odds reduction by stacking several battles.  Even if they were all 75%, that means that odds are at least one fails…

THAT is the final advantage of that blitz to Archangel…

@axis_roll:

@Romulus:

It seems that everyone has its own way of evaluate territory trading!

There is a rule of thumb for evaluating such economics?

part of that rule of thumb needs to be ‘opportunity cost’
If russia had so many other things to on top of archangel, it might be worth it to be sitting in archangel with a tank.

Meh - reading this and Switch’s post, I still think the analysis is flawed because:

• Okay, maybe giving Russia one more territory to attack does stretch it a little far. Maybe it’s true that Russia can only attack a certain # of territories on R2. However, with that tank sitting in Kar, you’ve just given it one more choice, and one of those choices is now a tank without fodder. So really you’ve just increased Russia’s options in exchange for getting a few IPCs. So instead of attacking Belo, Russia leaves Belo alone and hits Karelia instead, kills a tank instead of an Inf, and leaves an Inf somewhere that it might NOT get killed right away, as opposed to in Belo, where it is dead meat.
• It’s a short-lived advantage anyway, as after UK1 and definitely after UK2, I will have some UK units in Nor/Kar/Arc that can pick up the slack on any territories that Russia can’t afford to trade.

1 German tank takes Archangelsk and Karelia.  Germany +4

Russia retakes Karelia and Archangelsk but loses 1 infantry.  Russia -3, Germany -1

Why?

Archangelsk and Karelia have to be retaken for Russia to reach zero.  Meanwhile, Germany starts at zero.

Simple arithmetic here guys.  Not that hard.

@Cmdr:

Simple arithmetic here guys.  Not that hard.

Apparently it is… but not for me!  :lol:

Karelia = 2
Kar + Arc = 4
One lost tank: priceless!

So Russia might be down one extra 2 IPC territory for 1 round max. I’d still take that in exchange for killing a tank.

That forward tank has to be valued at more than 5 IPCs. Think of it this way: what would you pay for a tank that you could place at the front (say Ukraine) instead of in Germany at the end of G1?

I have never claimed this to be a “game winning move”

I have stated that ON AVERAGE the blitz to Archangel is a positive economic trade for Germany.

MOST of the time, it pans out.  I already posted the odds, and even if you disallow the karelia income, 2/3 of the time the Germans come out even OR BETTER.  And that is before you take into account the thinning of Russian Forces for other attacks on R2.

Remember, I play this game as a game of economic might and grind out my opponent once I have it (just ask Jen after our last game when my economic grind beat 8 straight rounds of favorable dice for her).

Also, giving Russian bonus income without making them pay for it is a BAD IDEA.  In my current game, we just completed R3, and Russia has FIVE FIGS because of bonus USSR income.  When Russia has to spend forces attacking 2 territories JUST to get back to even, their bonus income is minimal, or non-existent.  When they get to keep even $2 secure, then they get to go for bonus income… and do things like collect $34 on R3 with 5 FIGs on the board…

In light of all this conversation about how limited Russia is by having just 2 Fighters, I’m starting to wonder if 2 Ftrs early one wouldn’t be a bad investment for Russia…

Interesting to see that we really do have fundamentally different approaches to the game. You go for economic might, while I see local force superiority as the critical thing to achieve. And yet I don’t think either of us is a bad player.

The advantage of Revised over Classic…

There is more than 1 way to win…
:mrgreen:

@Ender:

In light of all this conversation about how limited Russia is by having just 2 Fighters, I’m starting to wonder if 2 Ftrs early one wouldn’t be a bad investment for Russia…

Interesting to see that we really do have fundamentally different approaches to the game. You go for economic might, while I see local force superiority as the critical thing to achieve. And yet I don’t think either of us is a bad player.

I think ur BOTH bad players!11!one!  HO HO!  Or do I?

If you buy 2 Russian fighters early on and do Ukraine/West Russia/ bulk in Burytia, Russia is going straight to hell.  Japan and Germany will just roll Russia right up.

Economic might helps local force superiority, and vice versa.