Red Factories CPP Poll

How would you spend 1CPP in RO CGII?

  • Buy OBA (80+ Btln Mtr or 70+).

    Votes: 15 40.5%
  • Buy a pre-reg hex for already purchased OBA.

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Buy Forts and up Booby Trap level.

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Upgrade SAN from a 5 to a 6.

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • Save it for the next day.

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 1 2.7%

  • Total voters
    37

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,157
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
What JR points out is that your 1 CPP does not get you SAN 6 by itself - it changes a SAN 5 into a SAN 6.

SAN 6 is likely to hit several times over the course of a scenario, sure - but so is SAN 5. What matters is the difference that it brings - which, as JR correctly calculates, is an increase in DRs that hit your SAN of 1 out of 36 DRs - 1 out of 108 if you count the activation dr. That's the same difference as between SAN 0 and SAN 2, or between SAN 2 and SAN 3, which is something many people are likely to forget.
Yes. My point about the SAN is that unlike, say, a TH change, the value of a +1 increase in SAN is the same whether the "before" SAN is two or six. In contrast a +1 TH change is more valuable and has higher incremental impact if the "before" TH number is six than if it is two. That is because the SAN is determined by rolling exactly that value, while the TH is determined by rolling less-than-or-equal-to that value.

I was not arguing that the SAN was the most-best-est (or least-best-est) option. I was saying that an increase of +1 in the SAN has the same value (in terms of change of number of expected SAN results) whether the original SAN is low or high. Note that this does not factor in raising the SAN above the CG "potential loss" limit. Most CGs have a rule that causes the SAN to decrease. Usually if the SAN is above a certain value the player makes a dr to see if it is reduced. The existence of such a rule makes a SAN increase less valuable if the current value of the SAN is high.

JR
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
556
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Fair cop but I rarely stack under even the best conditions much less if the other side has OBA. Since an SR can't hurt you, scout HSs can still DASH across roads to draw fire or strip concealment while '?' 8 morale troopers aslt mov/adv through the buildings.
I wouldn’t think a discussion of our opinions on the CPP would be a derailment of a thread about spending CPP.

Anyway, AM/Adv doesn’t put much pressure on the Ruski. I tried “The Snail” gambit in one of my early playings of RB...2nd or 3rd. Germ casualties were low but so were the ruski casualties...which is bad. The Germ has to generate a 2-2.5 sqd kill ratio per day. To get that kind of kill ratio the germ is going to have to stack to mass FP and take advantage of leader MODs to overcome the normally thick DRM present in RB. The Germ isn’t going to get double breaks fanatic ruskies from stone factories firing 2-3 sqd unstacked (no leader mod) FGs into stone locations through 1-2 debris hexes. And the Germ isn’t going to cut rout paths by AM/Adv.

The “Snail” strategy might minimize the risk from OBA, but then again, if I got my SR living in the head of the German player...my OBA wins.

However, I have definitely seen a high SAN do serious damage...I have also seen a high SAN do little to nothing. Thing about the SAN is that there is nothing a player can do about it...it doesn’t really influence behavior because there is no strategy that can counter the randomness of SAN. OTOH, the presence of an SR can and does drive reaction/behavior....AND...as mentioned before, if that choice FFE opportunity doesn’t show up, the OBA can be retained where as you will generally have to repeatedly buy the SAN back up to keep it above a 3-4.
 

Smedley

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
268
Reaction score
102
Location
Vermont
Country
llUnited States
Don't worry about derailing the thread! Lots of good discussion. One thing to consider is the smoke stack sniper. A 3dr will set this guy off if a subsequent dr is a 1-4.

Rob
 

Sully

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
244
Location
Mpls, MN
Country
llUnited States
An increase in SAN by one increases the expected number of SAN activations by 1 in 36 DRs, whether the increase is from 2 to 3 or 6 to 7.
Which is why I never buy a SAN increase - very little bang for the buck. Vs. even 70mm OBA? It's not even close.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,157
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The value of SAN is higher when the number of enemy SAN-eligible DRs is higher.

Below is a quick table of the expected values based on the number of SAN-eligible DRs in a player turn and the SAN value, assuming six game turns.

SAN Events Per Game
SAN ?
SAN DR/player turn ?234567
1824681012
364812162024
5461218243036
7281624324048

As one example, over a six game turn game, a player with a SAN of 5 where his opponent is rolling 54 SAN-eligible DRs per player turn should see 24 SAN events over the game (54 × 4/36 × 1/3 × 6 × 2), or two per player turn on average. If one-in-three (my wild guess) SAN events affects a leader, per game that's four out-right kills and four wound drs, the latter killing a fifth leader plus potentially recalling others post-game. Under those particular assumptions an increase in SAN by one increases the number of expected kills and the number of expected wounds by one each per game.

Obviously the bigger the game (and so the more SAN-eligible DRs), the more valuable the SAN. The above also ignores the value of SAN results that pin or break MMC.

JR
 
Last edited:

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
1,050
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
…<snip>...I was not arguing that the SAN was the most-best-est (or least-best-est) option. I was saying that an increase of +1 in the SAN has the same value (in terms of change of number of expected SAN results) whether the original SAN is low or high. Note that this does not factor in raising the SAN above the CG "potential loss" limit. Most CGs have a rule that causes the SAN to decrease. Usually if the SAN is above a certain value the player makes a dr to see if it is reduced. The existence of such a rule makes a SAN increase less valuable if the current value of the SAN is high....
Don't get me wrong, I do understand your argument as well as the math behind it. Like you I am not arguing that a high SAN or OBA is "the most-best-est (or least-best-est) option". That said, it has been my experience (being limited largely to RB, OWT, PB, OV) that the loss of key SMCs can badly affect the attacker (and defender), especially in the urban CGs, when the counterattacks (local or by CG Date) come. I tend to have very bad luck with the '-2' and '-3' SMCs. If I place one on the map he/they will die by one method or another in relatively short order (with a sickening regularity). My lower ranked SMCs, up front and exposed to more danger seem immune. I have even offered to exchange a '-2' leader for a 7-0 in one game. My opponent declined because he knew my record. The 9-2, in the rear rallying brokies, fell to a sniper. I lost the scenario.

However, Smedley has advised he went with the OBA and I wish him (and his opponent) well in the first day of RF. I think I would still have gone with the SAN increase if only to see how the bell curve of total DRs works out. With each player turn having four phases that can activate a sniper it would be interesting to see how many 5 vs 6 DRs there would be spread over all the TH, IFT attacks, MC and TCs (in the dozens, if not 100+) once the masses start moving on the map.

Cheers.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
1,050
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
The value of SAN is higher when the number of enemy SAN-eligible DRs is higher... <snip>… Obviously the bigger the game (and so the more SAN-eligible DRs), the more valuable the SAN. The above also ignores the value of SAN results that pin or break MMC.
I learned many years ago that the less I throw the die the less trouble I can get myself in. If I can manoeuvre my opponent into a bad position it takes only a few DR, and hopefully most of those in favourable CC attacks, to win the battle. This can reduce the effectiveness of a higher SAN over the length of a scenario.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
1,050
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
… <snip>… Anyway, AM/Adv doesn’t put much pressure on the Ruski. I tried “The Snail” gambit in one of my early playings of RB...2nd or 3rd. Germ casualties were low but so were the ruski casualties...which is bad. …
Applying the Aslt Mov/Adv (snail) tactic requires knowing when to time a push, preferably behind an effective FFE (HE or Smoke) or two. I have heard discussed here and at tournaments that RB (for example) is pro-Russian. That has not been our experience. While not necessarily heavily pro-German we have had more German wins than losses (including personal morale breaks amongst Russians). In my last go as the Germans my Russian opponent threw in the towel after day 3 when he lost all but seven squads (mainly due to failure to route) and I raced halfway down the map blocking route paths.

The “Snail” strategy might minimize the risk from OBA, but then again, if I got my SR living in the head of the German player...my OBA wins.
To a point but sooner or later you have to go for the FFE or the Germans will call your bluff.

However, I have definitely seen a high SAN do serious damage...I have also seen a high SAN do little to nothing. Thing about the SAN is that there is nothing a player can do about it...it doesn’t really influence behavior because there is no strategy that can counter the randomness of SAN. OTOH, the presence of an SR can and does drive reaction/behavior....AND...as mentioned before, if that choice FFE opportunity doesn’t show up, the OBA can be retained where as you will generally have to repeatedly buy the SAN back up to keep it above a 3-4.
Perhaps, but SAN does not malfunction and then disable and it does not rely on pulling black chits/cards. Broken and Pinned squads can also disrupt attacks (and defence) even if not as painful as a dead 9-2 keeping your 5-4-8s in the fight.

Don't misunderstand, as a Russian I purchase the 70+ and 80+ OBA as much as I can but if I can augment these with a higher SAN, the job of the 4-4-7 and 4-2-6 gets (mercifully) a little easier.
 
Last edited:

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,994
Reaction score
2,107
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
I am firmly on the side of increasing the SAN to a 5 or 6 level as fast as possible in any RB/RO/VotG/FB CG. That said, if all you are considering is a single CPP early to early-mid number of scenarios in that CG, and what to do with the single remaining CPP, my vote went to what I typically do in such situations, save it. a CPP in the bank early on is worth its weight in gold later when you REALLY need that 8 ML infantry RG and you are just 1 CPP short of buying it.

My reasons for high SAN up to SAN 5 are that the math supports its general game effects overall in every scenario (beyond SAN 5 you are talking diminishing returns due to SAN reductions possible in RePh), from that one forward, but you are also going to get inside the enemy player's head and he WILL hold off on a number of 2+2 or even 4+2 shots, that COULD have an effect, and simply not fire those collateral units not involved in the main push, simply to avoid the possibility of triggering a SAN 5. (I am leaving the chimney snipers out of this general analysis they only increase any SAN capability where they are present).

But overall, it is important in nearly EVERY HASL CG to establish and maintain a firm plan for saving CPPs until they are REALLY needed in mid to end game crunch time.

Hence my vote goes to save the CPP.

YMMV of course,
KRL, Jon H
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,994
Reaction score
2,107
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
one last item to consider with the save it for later concept. If you don't spend it, your opponent has no idea whatsoever what you may have done with it, and will accordingly worry about a HIP observer /OBA HIP fortifications, or a higher Booby Trap level, or even non-existent fortifications or even think your real units might be dummies bought with FPP.

The more I can make the opponent work with the intangibles about my side, the better I can take advantage of that meta-game above the board and work it to my unit's positional advantage on the map.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
518
Reaction score
393
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
One thing to think about in valuing SAN increases: especially in a CG setting, the side with the higher SAN can stalk the enemy sniper quite effectively. A 6 SAN is more likely than a 5 SAN to be able to strike first, which will make him even more likely to also strike second against a 4 SAN, etc, etc. So if your enemy's SAN is 5, raising up your own from 3 to 4 might be much less useful than to raise it from 5 to 6. The former case just makes it slightly longer until your sniper is eliminated altogether; the latter case give you a shot at killing off your opponent's sniper. This seems true even though the marginal increase in sniper activations is the same in both cases.

Of course, all this assumes that targeting snipers is the thing you "should" be doing over targeting units, but I tend to think it is.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,157
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
One thing to think about in valuing SAN increases: especially in a CG setting, the side with the higher SAN can stalk the enemy sniper quite effectively. A 6 SAN is more likely than a 5 SAN to be able to strike first
This actually depends on which side is rolling more SAN eligible DRs too. If you have a seven SAN but I hardly ever roll (for whatever reason) while I have a two SAN but you roll all the time (recon by fire, digging foxholes?) I may be more likely to hit first.

Even if we are both rolling the same number of DRs, if you have a seven SAN and I have a two, it seems like a waste to "hunt" my Sniper. Going after my 10-3 seems like a better choice.

JR
 

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
495
Reaction score
111
Country
llUnited States
A higher SAN will be more effective than a lower SAN: that seems obvious. What may not be apparent is that the increase in the number of a due to moving a two SAN to a three SAN is the same as from a five SAN to a six SAN, i.e. the SAN activates on 1/36 more DRs. The increase in activations is linear with the SAN number.

JR
Because the one in 36 results are being generated from two, six-sided dice and not one, 36-sided dice, the probability analysis is more persuasive than you suggest. Increasing your SAN from 2 to 3 increases the probability of a particular DR resulting in a SAN DR 100%, whereas increasing your SAN from 5 to 6 increases that probability only 25%.

Anyway, that is what I deduced from von Marwitz's "Basic Probabilities Primer for ASL."
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,157
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Because the one in 36 results are being generated from two, six-sided dice and not one, 36-sided dice, the probability analysis is more persuasive than you suggest. Increasing your SAN from 2 to 3 increases the probability of a particular DR resulting in a SAN DR 100%, whereas increasing your SAN from 5 to 6 increases that probability only 25%.

Anyway, that is what I deduced from von Marwitz's "Basic Probabilities Primer for ASL."
If you make N SAN-eligible DRs, the number of SAN rolls will be N * (the chances of rolling the SAN). The chances of rolling the SAN are (m/36), where m is the number of ways of rolling that particular SAN number. The number of ways on two dice to roll particular numbers are: DR of two = 1 way, DR of three = 2 ways, DR of four = 3 ways, DR of five = 4 ways, DR of six = five ways, DR of seven = 6 ways. The difference in number SAN DRs for any increase of one will be: N * ( ( m + 1 ) - (m) )/36 = N * 1/36, regardless whether the original "m" was low or high.

To make this concrete. If the number of DRs is thirty-six and the SAN is two, the expected number of SAN DRs is one. If the SAN is increased to three, the expected number of SANs goes from one to two. That is indeed a 100% increase for a net gain of one expected event. If the SAN is five, the expected number of SAN DRs is four, and if the SAN is raised to six, the expected number of SAN DRs is five. That is a 25% increase, but it is also a net gain of one expected event. In my opnion the value of a change in SAN is in the increase of the number of expected events, not in the percent increase of expected events. To me the value of a SAN increase is the same whether the original number was low or high. In this example you gain one SAN event by increasing the SAN by one whether the original SAN was two or four (or three or five or six).

JR
 
Last edited:

Russ Isaia

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
495
Reaction score
111
Country
llUnited States
If you make N SAN-eligible DRs, the number of SAN rolls will be N * (the chances of rolling the SAN). The chances of rolling the SAN are (m/36), where m is the number of ways of rolling that particular SAN number. The number of ways on two dice to roll particular numbers are: DR of two = 1 way, DR of three = 2 ways, DR of four = 3 ways, DR of five = 4 ways, DR of six = five ways, DR of seven = 6 ways. The difference in number SAN DRs for any increase of one will be: N * ( ( m + 1 ) - (m) )/36 = N * 1/36, regardless whether the original "m" was low or high.

To make this concrete. If the number of DRs is thirty-six and the SAN is two, the expected number of SAN DRs is one. If the SAN is increased to three, the expected number of SANs goes from one to two. That is indeed a 100% increase for a net gain of one expected event. If the SAN is five, the expected number of SAN DRs is four, and if the SAN is raised to six, the expected number of SAN DRs is five. That is a 25% increase, but it is also a net gain of one expected event. In my opnion the value of a change in SAN is in the increase of the number of expected events, not in the percent increase of expected events. To me the value of a SAN increase is the same whether the original number was low or high. In this example you gain one SAN event by increasing the SAN by one whether the original SAN was two or four (or three or five or six).

JR
No disagreement here. I simply believe that when making decisions about probabilistic systems, like the fall of dice, analysis of the probabilities is a superior basis for making decisions than hiding the uncertainty by analysing the "expected" events.

If for no other reason than that a least then I can blame the dice.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
3,435
Reaction score
1,400
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Barring some strange situation, the choice is not even close : 80mm btln mtrs.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
518
Reaction score
393
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
This actually depends on which side is rolling more SAN eligible DRs too. If you have a seven SAN but I hardly ever roll (for whatever reason) while I have a two SAN but you roll all the time (recon by fire, digging foxholes?) I may be more likely to hit first.

Even if we are both rolling the same number of DRs, if you have a seven SAN and I have a two, it seems like a waste to "hunt" my Sniper. Going after my 10-3 seems like a better choice.

JR
Agree that the Enemy-at-the-Gates dynamic is not an all-overriding consideration. However, my experience with Valor of the Guards suggests that die-rolls are roughly symmetric, and that having two snipers means that SAN-hunting and 10-3-hunting are not mutually exclusive. I haven't tried Red Barricades yet, but my impression is that this is just as true, or maybe even more so.

Of course, one of the main reasons that SAN-hunting is so valuable for the Germans in VotG is that you have roughly 147 50 mm mortars that are basically useless unless you can get the Russian down to a 0 or 2 SAN. I don't know whether this particular dynamic is shared in Red Barricades.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,994
Reaction score
2,107
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Agree that the Enemy-at-the-Gates dynamic is not an all-overriding consideration. However, my experience with Valor of the Guards suggests that die-rolls are roughly symmetric, and that having two snipers means that SAN-hunting and 10-3-hunting are not mutually exclusive. I haven't tried Red Barricades yet, but my impression is that this is just as true, or maybe even more so.

Of course, one of the main reasons that SAN-hunting is so valuable for the Germans in VotG is that you have roughly 147 50 mm mortars that are basically useless unless you can get the Russian down to a 0 or 2 SAN. I don't know whether this particular dynamic is shared in Red Barricades.
now wait... 147 different 50* Mtrs with each having a 3 ROF. Let's just assume they all fire once per player turn (which we all know the statistical average of a 3 ROF weapon with a B12 is far more shots per player turn than that.) Then we assume the worst and the scenario ends on the end of game turn 6. (which we all know the statistical average for that is minimal compared to ending later.)

we took the worst possible cases. You're going to call them "basically useless unless the Russian SAN is reduced to a 0 or a 2".

with the probability of a 2D6 system, these 147 mortars all in play under the above circumstances only, will generate 3.8 critical hits per player turn, for a total of 6 game turns (12 player turns) or 45.6 critical hits, each scoring a 6 fp -3 (or -4 if a fortified building location) effect on the IFT. I'm sorry, but an average that is higher than 45 separate 6fp -3 IFT attacks is NOT "basically useless" in a scenario, regardless of enemy SAN #'s. (and it would be higher than a 45.6 average, as I noted above, this only takes the worst possible case with every single mortar losing ROF every single time it fires, hard to achieve at best with 3 ROF weapons. You're actually going to get more critical hits than just 45.6 over the course of 6 game turns.)

A helpful tactic for these mtrs to do their work in stone building urban terrain, is to refuse to place acquisition, (it is voluntary to place, not mandatory, the ASLRB says " may" , not "must"). This prevents non- critical hit DR IFT results from occurring when the TH would have missed by just 1 or 2, but the acquisition made a non CH hit that must now be resolved with the IFt DR and facing the +3 or +4 TEM. (unnecessary risk to higher enemy SAN #'s.)
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
518
Reaction score
393
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
with the probability of a 2D6 system, these 147 mortars all in play under the above circumstances only, will generate 3.8 critical hits per player turn, for a total of 6 game turns (12 player turns) or 45.6 critical hits, each scoring a 6 fp -3 (or -4 if a fortified building location) effect on the IFT.
This is a very persuasive analysis. I am starting to suspect that there may be fewer mortars in my OB than I had previously estimated.
 
Top