In my group we generally skip the tech development. To my opinion too it is unbalancing the game for one player. It feels more like a fair fight to play without the tech development.
R1 - To Defend ARC or LEN or not?
-
I don’t see the point of leaving an infantry in either. It is just going to get killed. So let’s say you are lucky and take a german with you, that will be a net loss of 1 ipc for germany (-3 for inf / +2 for territory) and a net loss of 5 ipc for Russia ( -3 for inf / -2 for territory). I don’t think Russia can afford to throw away troops or money. Leave the territory open and hope the germans are follish enough to blitz a tank.
-
I put a German infantry in Karelia because I want to keep Russia from blitzing into Norway. Russia does not need the 3 IPC. I’d rather Britian have it, or even better, America. (As the German player, mind you.) Russia with Norway, W. Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine is a nightmare.
-
Yes it would be nightmare for Russia to hold all those territories but not overcomable. If Russia tries to take all those territories they run the risk of stretching themselves thin which (as Germany) I would love to see.
-
I don’t know if I agree. If Russia took Norway using a series of 2 or 3 strafe attacks (if alone) the 3 extra IPC mean Russia gets an extra INF every turn with little to no effort after that b/c there is no new border created after that.
Be advised the only time Russia should consider that would be if Germany didn’t put stock in a Navy.
-
I get that Russia holding norway is 1 inf a turn but if as Russia it takes you 2 to 3 strafing runs to take the territory then as the german player I am happy. Just gives me time to consolidate a rather large army in EE to crush whatever russian held territory gives me the best strategic advantage.
-
No one needs 2 or 3 strafing runs to take Norway.
In fact, most Russian players will ignore Norway unless Germany leaves Karelia open and Norway undefended. Then they’ll run a tank up there for giggles. (Heck, Karelia + Norway = 5 IPC or the price of 1 tank anyway.) And it’s so hard for Germany to get back because you KNOW Germany has no navy at this point, if they had a navy, Karelia would not have been left open. :P
So now you’re looking at a Russia earning as much as Germany. Not a good situation
-
The fact that Germany has no navy at that point and that Norway is difficult retake is exactly why as Germany I write Norway off as a loss. Now I am not saying that as Germany I would love to see Russia controlling Norway, Karelia, WR, and Ukraine, in fact it would be terrible. Then again so would my German strategy if I let Russia control all those.
To me as Germany losing Norway is not going to make me adjust fire. Now as jennifer said Russia having the same amount of IPC as me would definately have me thinking but then again there is always Japan to help out.
-
As Germany I would also write Norway off as a loss, then I would try like h*** to take the Caucasus worth 4IPC’s and it also has an IC for more convenient troop deployment.
That’s my two cents,
-LT04
-
Norway is a loss. The trick is to lose it to America if you can. England if you must. And NEVER Russia, under any circumstances…I don’t care if you have their capital, do not give the Russians Finland! There’s bad blood there man! (Okay, that last bit may be an exaggeration - historically accurate, but an exaggeration.)
Caucasus is a good goal. Japan can threaten from Persia (if the Allies let them.) And germany from Ukraine. And you can always move Persia to Kazakhistan and Ukraine to W. Russia to threaten Moscow and make him chose between Stalingrad or Moscow.
-
jennifer you’re right. It is bad mojo to let the russians have Norway. When I write it off it is usually to the UK. The UK is usually so strapped for cash they convince the other allies that they need it most. Most times they are right.r
-
I agree. England is usually the nation that takes it. Though, I have gotten allied players to take it with America, which makes me giddy! Because I too write it off as a lost cause and, let’s face it, of the three nations, America is in the least need of the 3 IPCs. Russia, I feel, is in the most need. England is in a very close second. America is in so far a distant third place as to almost not even be in the running!
-
Jen your exactly right in theory, but If the US player is the “babysitter” for the less experienced UK, and Russia player US might need every extra IPC it can get to hold all 3 allied capitals. Food for thought.
-LT04
-
Yea, maybe. But odds are, the allied nations are all being played by one player - at least on the boards. And even if it is multiple players and America is the “babysitter” (to use your word) then isn’t the babysitter probably telling them what to purchase and what combats to make?
-
touche Jen, touche :-)
-
Ahh but Jennifer you are not factoring pride. I just played a 5 man game and the Russian player, who is inexperienced, pretty much committed suicide by running their largest army into a stack of 25 german INF and 6 ARM. Why? he just didn’t like the US “babysitter” telling him what moves to make. It was a cheap win for the Axis but with the group I play with pride and ego ruin as many allied strats as bad dice.
-
I’ve done that, and won. :P Don’t discount my russian infantry, they’re the best offensive unit I have on the board!
-
Sorry I let this one get away. I mentioned earlier about making 2 or 3 strafing runs to take Norway and Jen said that no one should have to. What I was saying is that it could behove Russia to take Norway using that method of approach. We all agree its bad if Russia gets Norway, I think that through a series of strafing runs thats Russia can take Norway and not necessarily compromise its defensive posture in Karelia S. S. R.
But now that I look at the starting setup that idea is better in theory then in practice. Just wanted to make my point clear.
-LT04
-
I don’t think it’s worth it to Russia to devote any ground forces to combat in Norway. However, if it’s open and there is no German fleet in the Baltic to retake it, then it’s worth sending an infantry or a tank to take it if you can. (Depending on what you ahve available. Blitz in/out is best, invade with infantry next best, invade with tank third best.)
-
I leave Archangel and Karelia wide open.
1. Germany can kick the crap out of Karelia anyways. It’s like throwing away a 3 IPC unit for 1 IPC. (it’s expected that there’s about 1/3 chance of the Russian infantry killing something a 3 IPC German infantry). I do not expect the Russian infantry to survive more than one round of combat, because of the overwhelming force Germany can bring to Karelia.
2. Since Germany can take Karelia if it wants it, I will leave Karelia open. If Germany DOES take Karelia in force, well, that’s that anyways. If Germany blitzes Karelia, I just re-blitz from West Russia. Free IPCs.
3. Leaving a unit in Archangel is no point. Only German unit that can take is a tank. I will happily kill that German tank on R2. Germany traded 5 IPC of MOBILIZED units for 2 IPC in the bank and 1.5 IPC of mobilized Russian IPC (infantry).
Therefore, I leave Archangel and Karelia open. Germany can do whatever. Russia has strong counters to any German play.
This is after West Russia/Belorussia, plus no fighter buy or Russia.
-
Like I said before if I was Germany I wouldn’t break my back to take Karelia if it was reinforced I’d rather have the Caucasus b/c its worth as much as Karelia and Archangel together plus it has an IC, and then the icing on the cake is that now your front with Russia’s capital has just doubled.
-LT04
Suggested Topics
