Ukraine bid

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

I think you have negated it in that the AA gun that was bid ended up serving no purpose at all.

And it’s not very accurate to say that you have given Germany 28 IPCs of extra units on your front, because
a) Killing WR, you wipe out 18 IPCs of units so that’s only a difference of 10 IPCs, not 28
a.1) If you are strafing Ukraine, hoping NOT to take it, you are in fact gunning for the same 18 IPCs but without having a Ftr shooting at you.
b) In killing Ukraine, you will lose a fair bit of IPCs yourself which you have to offset against those 28 IPCs
c) After killing Ukraine you will probably lose any tanks to Germany’s counter-attack.
d) West Russia can be taken and held with more Russian units and defending against fewer German units (esp. if you also strafe / take Belo w/ 2 Ftr 3 Inf)

I think that’s what my R1 looks like right now - Take WR w/ all avail. units except a few thrown into Belo. I can go either way on the Belo attack though. But West Russia is such a key territory, a big stack there has so many options and hence exerts a big influence on Germany. But Ukraine? That 1 German fighter is not worth losing 4 Russian Tanks.

In A&A, you can not look strictly at the difference in IPCs after the results of a battle.

There are many other factors involved like strategic importance of a territory, what defending units are being eliminated, as well as taking into account the counter-attack.  Also, there’s opportunity cost as well.

[Jennifer]

Usually Russia will own both Ukraine and W. Russia on Russia 1.  If a bid forces Russia NOT to own Ukraine, then yes, you have netted 28 IPC from your bid, the total cost of replacing all the units you otherwise would have lost.

And yes, there is more too it then that.  Not only did you not take those units, but they are available on Round 1, an increase in value.  Not only available, but in position to do something, again an increase in value.

[frood]

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

I think you have negated it in that the AA gun that was bid ended up serving no purpose at all.

And it’s not very accurate to say that you have given Germany 28 IPCs of extra units on your front, because
a) Killing WR, you wipe out 18 IPCs of units so that’s only a difference of 10 IPCs, not 28
a.1) If you are strafing Ukraine, hoping NOT to take it, you are in fact gunning for the same 18 IPCs but without having a Ftr shooting at you.
b) In killing Ukraine, you will lose a fair bit of IPCs yourself which you have to offset against those 28 IPCs
c) After killing Ukraine you will probably lose any tanks to Germany’s counter-attack.
d) West Russia can be taken and held with more Russian units and defending against fewer German units (esp. if you also strafe / take Belo w/ 2 Ftr 3 Inf)

I think that’s what my R1 looks like right now - Take WR w/ all avail. units except a few thrown into Belo. I can go either way on the Belo attack though. But West Russia is such a key territory, a big stack there has so many options and hence exerts a big influence on Germany. But Ukraine? That 1 German fighter is not worth losing 4 Russian Tanks.

In A&A, you can not look strictly at the difference in IPCs after the results of a battle.

There are many other factors involved like strategic importance of a territory, what defending units are being eliminated, as well as taking into account the counter-attack.  Also, there’s opportunity cost as well.

Wasn’t I taking exactly those things into account?

Except for the “strategic importance of a territory”. In this regard I think I have a different approach to the game from a lot of other players. My basic philosophy is that units are far more valuable than territory. As Jennifer notes, units that are in position are worth more than units that are not. By that logic, units that are in position (such as Russia’s forces on R1) are more valuable than the 3 IPCs it gains from Ukraine which will only mean one more Infantry placed in Moscow at the END of the NEXT turn.

Off hand the only time I view a territory as having great strategic value is when taking it will prevent a bunch of tanks from being added to a counter attack - eg. Germany has a bunch of tanks in Karelia, and you take Eastern Europe to prevent those tanks from striking the Balkans next turn, where you have your main force.

My thinking on Ukraine is influenced also by what I’ve learned in chess. In chess, if one side has more material (pieces and pawns) than the other, then it is to that sides advantage to start trading off pieces, because eventually trading will leave that side with something and the other with nothing. In AAR, Russia has fewer pieces and less ability to replace them, so I don’t like to do big trades as result from taking Ukraine.

But if I can destroy MORE enemy units than I will lose in the attack and the counter-attack, then I will take the territory. Not because of the territory, but because of the unit gain.

In AAR, units are the most direct expression of a country’s power, and give you the actual ability to destroy your opponent. In the long run yes you need to gain territory but you can’t do that if you throw your units away for short-term gains.

[Amon-Sul]

@Jennifer:

Usually Russia will own both Ukraine and W. Russia on Russia 1.  If a bid forces Russia NOT to own Ukraine, then yes, you have netted 28 IPC from your bid, the total cost of replacing all the units you otherwise would have lost.

And yes, there is more too it then that.  Not only did you not take those units, but they are available on Round 1, an increase in value.  Not only available, but in position to do something, again an increase in value.

i agree, if you go KGF

otherwise, see it diferently

[Romulus]

Frood you are right and your similarity with chess is very interesting!

Also I play chess and I would like to make a consideration.
In chess strategy elements are not reduced to the piece count. There are situation in which you sacrifice one of your pieces for gaining other objective, for example breaking the cover of the opponent King. Furthermore in chess there are two fundamentals factors that must be taken in account: position and tempo (timing). If a player have more pieces, and is doing the right moves but he is one turn behind his opponent he is in big problems. You also said that availability of units change their extimed value.

And also in AAR there are such factors. For my understanding axis_roll referred to such factors, and considered important for the strategy also the value of territory that is not expressed in form of IPC.
For example, Buratyia is important to take for Japan because avoid US plane to land there after attacking on Japan TRN.
In my limited experience I see position and tempo also important factor in AAR.
Returning on topic: I think Ukraina should be attacked even if there is a bid that place there an AA gun.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

My thinking on Ukraine is influenced also by what I’ve learned in chess. In chess, if one side has more material (pieces and pawns) than the other, then it is to that sides advantage to start trading off pieces, because eventually trading will leave that side with something and the other with nothing

Not to state the obvious, but A&A is not chess.  I know you are using chess as a general reference to strategy, but A&A is different in that you can be rewarded for occupying a territory (IPCs / totally eliminating a defenders units).  In this case, the ukraine ftr is a nice ‘prize’ for russia and will not be achieved unless you can eliminate all defending German units.

More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies.  If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once.  Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost).  Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)

====================================================

Back on topic:

I personally like to take out ukraine R1, and find you can generally do it with only 4 heavy hitters (2 tank, 2 ftrs).  If there was an AAA in there as part of the bid, I might still attack with just 1 ftr and 3 tanks.

[Amon-Sul]

@axis_roll:

More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies.  If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once.  Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost).  Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)

yes, for going KGF attacking Ukraine is something obligatory, except there was 2 or 3 units bided to help defense

than USSR can attack Norway or Belorussia

but some would still try to go take Ukraine
dont know the odds there in that case but

[Jennifer]

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

[Amon-Sul]

@Jennifer:

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

i played only once this strategy and i failed in Eastern

well it can be done
in a good KGF game maybe it isnt needed all three victories
a draw can be fine in Eastern maybe

what is important is that Germany losses full army in three territories, and afcorse USSR will capture at least one of those 3

[Amon-Sul]

@Jennifer:

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

maybe Norway instead Eastern?

[ajgundam5]

What forces would you send to 3 territories and still have a reasonable chance of taking them all?
Without killing all of your offensive forces?

[Guest]

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

[axis_roll]

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

It can be done.  It was done to me:

I had another player attack Norway, West Russia AND Ukraine R1:
3 inf, tank, ftr > Norway

6 inf, art, tank > west Russia

3 inf, art, 2 tank, ftr > ukraine

Lucky son of a gun won all three… handily!

Results:
Norway - 2 inf, tank,ftr (lost 1 inf!!)
West Russia - 3 inf, art, tank (lost 3 inf)
Ukraine - tank, ftr (took ukraine!)

This is a tourney game too. I probably would quit a ‘normal’ game at that point, but alas, I played on.

[frood]

I can consider that the Ukraine attack might be okay, but someone here has said that it is obligatory for a KGF. That’s bollocks.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

I can consider that the Ukraine attack might be okay, but someone here has said that it is obligatory for a KGF. That’s bollocks.

Hmmm.  I WONDER whom you might be reffering to?

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

My thinking on Ukraine is influenced also by what I’ve learned in chess. In chess, if one side has more material (pieces and pawns) than the other, then it is to that sides advantage to start trading off pieces, because eventually trading will leave that side with something and the other with nothing

Not to state the obvious, but A&A is not chess.  I know you are using chess as a general reference to strategy, but A&A is different in that you can be rewarded for occupying a territory (IPCs / totally eliminating a defenders units).  In this case, the ukraine ftr is a nice ‘prize’ for russia and will not be achieved unless you can eliminate all defending German units.

More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies.  If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once.  Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost).  Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)

If this (in bold) is the quote to which you refer, please call me out by name and not vague reference “SOMEONE HERE…”

Also, please quote the identified quote properly.  I said you “PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many Germans as possible with all three allies at once” (general strategic statement).  Not sure how this equates to saying “Ukraine was obligatory in a KGF strategy.”

[Romulus]

In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though.  So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)

That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move.  Not a strong position to start from.

Though, it IS a risk.  Cannot say it isn’t.  But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?

[Weekend Gamer]

@Jennifer:

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though.  So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)

That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move.  Not a strong position to start from.

Though, it IS a risk.  Cannot say it isn’t.  But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?

Jenn, how about responding to my bid?!  (for the tourney)  I PM’d you the bid # from Frood.

[newpaintbrush]

@Romulus:

In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.

BTW, wazup Gamer?  I haven’t been online at home in a little while (I post at work XD)

My thought on that German fighter:

German fighter used to attack Allied fleet.  That’s fine by me; German blood for UK or US blood.

If I commit Russian tanks to Ukraine on Russia1, though, I lose them.  That’s not so fine by me; Russian blood is precious, and I prefer to save every last drop.

[Romulus]

I see your point newpaintbrush, but when I attack only West Russia, and thing do not goes perfectly, i.e. I lose more than three infantry, German try always to strafe my troops there (using infantry from Bielorussia and from Ukraine, three tanks and a couple of fighters) then retire in Ukraine and land there as many fighter is possible. I do not like that situation. Being kicked every turn in West Russia while pensky Japanese come from the East it is not comfortable.

Usually I try to strafe Ukraine, but if things goes well I try to get the territory. I usually employ there 2 Tanks and two fighters, using other two tanks in West Russia. This leave me with 5 tanks (I usually buy 5 inf, 1 art and 1 tank in R1) of wich two are doomed to die if they stay alone in Ukraine. But in such way, strafing or conquering Ukraine, allow to keep my stack in West Russia relatively safe (at least until German move her main army to East).
What if there is a bid AA gun in Ukraine? I use the method of Marshal Zhukov when the enemy lay mines on the front line “I attack as there are not mines!”.
So I attack as the AA gun in Ukraine was not there.
If the bid is a panzer and an infantry… maybe I should not attack… ! But Zhukov may not agree! :)