You think Western Russia / Eastern Europe as proposed is a good move?
I would say no to eastern europe/west russia gambit.
No reason to go after eastern europe on russia 1. If you want to take out a fighter, take it out in ukraine.
Leaving a fighter to defend vs. inf or multiple inf plus fighter is no good for russia. Russia can take advantage of position more than taking out eastern europe.
Ok, everybody says this crazy russian move sucks because you lose a fighter. I say not necessarily. What if…
You do:
3 inf Kar, 1fig Kar, and 1 arm Arch attack EE.
3 inf, 1art, 1arm Cau, 1 fig Rus, and possibly 1arm Russa attack Ukr
3inf Arh, 3 inf, 1(2)arm, 1art Rus attack WRus
Now the odds for winning all these battles aren’t great:
EE: about 52% chance things working out for you
Ukr: about a 64% chance of things working out
WRus: 91% chance of things working out
Sure all these battles are risky, but if EE or Ukr start off bad just back out. While the “Russian Gambit” is inherently risky, the two fighters can still be saved.
Alll though your ability to start trading territories could be VERY hurt if these battles go wrong, but thats war.
1. I wouldn’t do EEU because the odds aren’t good enough. I will only try battles with those kinds of odds if the risk vs. reward is worth it (ie. Capturing a capital, or taking out a bunch of fighters/armour that will cripple my opponent in the long run.
2. I probably wouldn’t even like this UKR battle because these odds are still kinda low
3. I might take WRU, but with what remaining? He can probably counter from Belorussia, and if I got a bad result in UKR, he’s got additional troops to counter WRU with (and the arm from BAL).
–------
If I felt like the underdog going into a game, I might try something like this if I figured I’d get creamed if I played a normal game. Then at least a good result on R1 might give me a chance at winning. My father likes to play bridge (card game) and he’s famous for saying if there is only one possible way to play a hand to make the contract, you play the hand that way and hope the cards fall kindly. I equate that to this Russian Gambit.
Ok, everybody says this crazy russian move sucks because you lose a fighter. I say not necessarily. What if…
You do:
3 inf Kar, 1fig Kar, and 1 arm Arch attack EE.
3 inf, 1art, 1arm Cau, 1 fig Rus, and possibly 1arm Russa attack Ukr
3inf Arh, 3 inf, 1(2)arm, 1art Rus attack WRusNow the odds for winning all these battles aren’t great:
EE: about 52% chance things working out for you
Ukr: about a 64% chance of things working out
WRus: 91% chance of things working outSure all these battles are risky, but if EE or Ukr start off bad just back out. While the “Russian Gambit” is inherently risky, the two fighters can still be saved.
Alll though your ability to start trading territories could be VERY hurt if these battles go wrong, but thats war.
Why take a risk when you don’t have to?
Why take a risk when you don’t have to?
I’m just saying you could, if you feel a little riskier, do the same opening but make sure that neither of your fighters die.
You think Western Russia / Eastern Europe as proposed is a good move?
Hard to say
i’ve looked at it a few times, and never really liked going after it, even tho’ i kind of wanted to.
What i’m trying to work out is a way to take NOR, as well as WEU. The time i went for NOR i got wiped out, but i think the odds are slightly in my favor.
:-o
There is a lot to be said for an early; ie: Round one offensive that stings Germany beyond the usual game play.
It is rather unnerving to the Axis player and upsets his gameplay.
Step one to victory; Make your opponent react to you, not the other way around.
I’ve tried this a couple of times, (Ukraine, W.R. and EE). And on both occasions I was victorious in the battles, but was so thin that the German player rolled my front right up to Moscow by G3. Not a comfortable position so early in the game :-(
But with careful planning and patience, and a little luck too, it is by no means a disaster.
The first thing is to buy only infantry on R1. Then starting on R2 begin to buy an Artillary and a tank or two to show some counter-punch capability. Remember, The British and Americans can send in Fighter support for defense, no need for Russia to spend resources on these expensive units. Russia is far better off with tanks in the offensive anyway. it’s all about numbers of units in combat, not quality of units in combat.
For instance,
10 Ipc will buy one fighter = one die roll hit on a 3 or less, (if it survives the flak).
10 Ipc will also buy you two tanks= two die rolls that hit on a 3 or less, and no flak to contend with.
It did effect the German assaults in N. Africa, and against Karilia, as well as the Caucuses, which he didn’t take until G5, If my memory serves me correctly.
By then though, the Britts and US were well on the way through Norway and the middle east. Germany had to retreat, followed closely by my massive Moscow Armies. Once Germany starts surrendering income territories it’s Victory for the Allies!
Oh, what about the Japanese you say?
I was able to send enough Allied units their way to keep them just busy enough to throw the Germans back on their heels.
:roll: crazy Ivan
But that balancing act, where ever move is essential, where margins of victory for battles are thin… that invites the DICE to become the main arbiter instead of solid play.
A couple of sets of bad dice by the same side, and you are TOAST
(and I don;t mean horrid dice, I mean just a few below average rolls where you lose 2-3 units more than expected on the attack, and a corresponding higher loss with less damage to the enemy when they counter…)
:-o
That is how I like to play, on the edge.
Alexander the Great liked to say," Victory favors the bold!"
I play to try and get the quick kill. Don’t much care for the slow buld up, and steamroller games. Too boring IMO. So I attack often with smaller armies. I’m in it for the fun folks.
C.I.
I’ve been thinking, with all those tanks going into W. Russia instead of Ukraine, what are your odds of success in Ukraine?
