Siberian Units

[frood]

Good points. What to do, what to do???

[Romulus]

It is one of the thing I love of A&A…. what to do!  :-D
I mean: I like games that are various and umpredictable and that needs a lot of thinking… A&A!!!  :roll:

[Jennifer]

I think the option to hit W. Russia and Belorussia has less to do with holding W. Russia (which you could do, if you really wanted too) and more to do with maximizing damage done to Germany to damage done to Russia.

Can Germany reclaim?  As you said, odds are they can have 4 armor surviving in W. Russia.  Congratulations.  I am now killing those 4 armor and losing 2-4 infantry.  Good trade.  Meanwhile, Germany is now at a severe disadvantage as they have almost no panzer corps left to use as valuable combat punch to defend their infantry stacks.

So the question is, if you attack W. Russia and Belorussia, will Germany risk a massive blow to their own army to do some damage to Russia’s army?  Or will Germany hold back, reclaim Belorussia, take Karelia, and build up forces at twice the pace of the Russians until they can more readily move in and take Russia?

[Romulus]

If attack in WR goes bad (I mean losing more than 2 inf, one time I loses 5 inf!) Germany may try to strafe WR (not to conquer it) or may try to adance in Ukraine covering the army with fig and threatening Caucasus from G2 on.
With Ukraine in Russia hands this is very difficult to happen.
Moreover, I am convinced that attacking Ukraine gives more flexibility to Russia (you may resolve WR attack first and then decide if going heavy in Ukraine or only strafing it for 1 round). Belorussia on the other hand is a do or die attack.
I think that in A&A having more choices is a value. For this reason I prefer to attack Ukraine.

[axis_roll]

@Jennifer:

I think the option to hit W. Russia and Belorussia has less to do with holding W. Russia (which you could do, if you really wanted too) and more to do with maximizing damage done to Germany to damage done to Russia.

Doesn’t attacking and killing 3 inf, art, tank and ftr in ukraine equal maximizing damage to Germany?
I certainly wouldn’t call trading 3 inf for 3 inf (belorussia) as maximizing damage done to Germany.

@Jennifer:

Can Germany reclaim?  As you said, odds are they can have 4 armor surviving in W. Russia.  Congratulations.  I am now killing those 4 armor and losing 2-4 infantry.  Good trade.  Meanwhile, Germany is now at a severe disadvantage as they have almost no panzer corps left to use as valuable combat punch to defend their infantry stacks.

So the question is, if you attack W. Russia and Belorussia, will Germany risk a massive blow to their own army to do some damage to Russia’s army?  Or will Germany hold back, reclaim Belorussia, take Karelia, and build up forces at twice the pace of the Russians until they can more readily move in and take Russia?

Am I missing something or did you just argue AGAINST Russia hitting belorussia and west russia round 1?

[frood]

@axis_roll:

Turning around and attacking West Russia on G1:
When ukraine was not attacked R1:
3 inf, art, 3 tanks, 6 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks > 61% win chance, 4 units left

when belorussia was not attacked R1:
3 inf, tank, 5 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, art, 2 tanks > 46% win chance, 4 Russian units left

So the odds are slightly BETTER  for Germany to attack West Russia G1 if Russia does not hit ukraine R1.

DISCLAIMER:
This was a very rudimentary analysis, the number of units in these battles is small, so there can be a lot of variance, especially with the AA gun firing on defense against a G1 hit (either way).

There is one flaw in your scenario - you have Germany committing all of its airpower to attacking WR on G1. That means ignoring or under-powering the Egypt attack, leaving the UK BB alone, and not hitting Karelia, and Belo/Ukraine (whichever Russia took) with any air.

That’s a lot of battles to completely deprive of air support, esp. when committing all possible ground units to WR as well.

[Lucifer]

Few players would allocate 4-5 air units to WRU with 1 Russian AA gun moved to WRU.
It’s worth 2 ipc. I cannot remember that I have ever seen such a move with Germany.
As G I don’t want WRU anyway. Cauc is much more important, and worth more.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

@axis_roll:

Turning around and attacking West Russia on G1:
When ukraine was not attacked R1:
3 inf, art, 3 tanks, 6 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks > 61% win chance, 4 units left

when belorussia was not attacked R1:
3 inf, tank, 5 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, art, 2 tanks > 46% win chance, 4 Russian units left

So the odds are slightly BETTER  for Germany to attack West Russia G1 if Russia does not hit ukraine R1.

DISCLAIMER:
This was a very rudimentary analysis, the number of units in these battles is small, so there can be a lot of variance, especially with the AA gun firing on defense against a G1 hit (either way).

There is one flaw in your scenario - you have Germany committing all of its airpower to attacking WR on G1. That means ignoring or under-powering the Egypt attack, leaving the UK BB alone, and not hitting Karelia, and Belo/Ukraine (whichever Russia took) with any air.

That’s a lot of battles to completely deprive of air support, esp. when committing all possible ground units to WR as well.

Wait!
How did opportunity cost come into the discussion?

Jenn was avocating potentially hitting west russia G1 if you attacked Ukraine and West Russia on R1.  I ran the odds.

Nowhere did I discuss anything about what else Germany could/should do on G1.
You’re bringing up strategic aspects into a purely statistical analysis.

There’s many factors (even in the first round of the game) to discuss as to when you would want to hit west russia G1.  Discussing that elsewhere would be more fitting as opposed to responding to a purely statisical analysis post.

[trihero]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with attacking Ukraine along with W. Russia. It is a one time opportunity to take out German offensive gear (art/arm/fig) before it disappears behind a stack of inf. Russia should be leaping at a chance like that. As mentioned many times, the loss of the fig helps the other allies land earlier, and/or makes Germany build another fighter.

Attacking Belo + W. Russia is a safe bet I would say, though. Preserving those 4 Russian tanks and putting them in Moscow allows you strike into Sinkiang and Ukraine, whichever is a juicier target.

[Romulus]

Attacking Belorussia is safer, I agree.
Attacking Ukraine is riskier but more effective, and I think is more flexible.
Moreover the loss is not of four tanks, but only two, maybe three (dependes how many of them are used in the attack).

[newpaintbrush]

My thought on Ukraine/West Russia, as opposed to Belorussia/West Russia:

Belorussia/West Russia:

Extremely safe play for the Russians with very favorable odds in all battles.  There is a extremely small chance that one or both battles go very badly for the Russians, leaving the Germans in a good countering position.

Ukraine/West Russia:

Aggressive play with the Russians.  Attacking with two tanks is very risky.  Attacking with three tanks is very costly.  Whether two tanks or three tanks are used, though, a few bad rolls by the Russians followed by a German counter means a chance for the Axis to take control.

I’m only radical when it comes to writing posts  :-D

[frood]

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

@axis_roll:

Turning around and attacking West Russia on G1:
When ukraine was not attacked R1:
3 inf, art, 3 tanks, 6 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks > 61% win chance, 4 units left

when belorussia was not attacked R1:
3 inf, tank, 5 ftrs, bomber on 7 inf, art, 2 tanks > 46% win chance, 4 Russian units left

So the odds are slightly BETTER  for Germany to attack West Russia G1 if Russia does not hit ukraine R1.

DISCLAIMER:
This was a very rudimentary analysis, the number of units in these battles is small, so there can be a lot of variance, especially with the AA gun firing on defense against a G1 hit (either way).

There is one flaw in your scenario - you have Germany committing all of its airpower to attacking WR on G1. That means ignoring or under-powering the Egypt attack, leaving the UK BB alone, and not hitting Karelia, and Belo/Ukraine (whichever Russia took) with any air.

That’s a lot of battles to completely deprive of air support, esp. when committing all possible ground units to WR as well.

Wait!
How did opportunity cost come into the discussion?

Jenn was avocating potentially hitting west russia G1 if you attacked Ukraine and West Russia on R1.  I ran the odds.

Nowhere did I discuss anything about what else Germany could/should do on G1.
You’re bringing up strategic aspects into a purely statistical analysis.

There’s many factors (even in the first round of the game) to discuss as to when you would want to hit west russia G1.  Discussing that elsewhere would be more fitting as opposed to responding to a purely statisical analysis post.

What’s the point of a purely statistical analysis? What I think most of us are interested in is “What is a better play for Russia on its first turn?”

It’s about the game as a whole, not abstract speculation about what Germany could commit to a battle if it was willing to commit suicide everywhere else.

I’ll point out that this thread is actually about Siberian units, and we got on to the topic of Ukraine as a result of discussing whether Eastern units are helpful in Ukraine or if they should stay East. So the discussion really is about overall strategy. I was just pointing out that your post is not very helpful in terms of overall strategy because it relies on an unrealistic assumption.

Now, I would love it if I could count on my opponents to do crazy things like ignore Egypt and the UK BB, but unfortunately most of them are too smart for that. Since that is the case, I’m more interested in analysis based on what a rational German player might do in response.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

What’s the point of a purely statistical analysis? What I think most of us are interested in is “What is a better play for Russia on its first turn?”

My point was that you gave me sh*t about reaching a conclusion via something not even part of the discussion.

An example:

If we were discussing cooling a house with a 3 ton versus a 4 ton unit, and I concluded that the 4 ton was better…. then you came in and said:

“Oh yeah, well I like to cool off better by jumping in the pool”

Non-Sequitor!

[frood]

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. In my view, the conversation was about good Russian strategy. It may be that your POST was about the odds of taking West Russia or Ukraine on the assumption that nothing else mattered and Germany would commit all its airpower.

So in the context of a general discussion about strategy, the fact that Germany has other pressing needs for its air power is very relevant.

Who cares what Germany can accomplish if it is willing to shoot itself in the foot? You may as well have a discussion about how many turns it would take Japan to build and defend an IC on Hawaii. Japan COULD do it if it committed all it’s resources, but it’s a pointless discussion since no sensible Japan player would ever go for that.

Again, your confusing the point of your post with the subject of the entire conversation. I gave you shit for something that wasn’t part of your post, yes, but not for something that wasn’t part of the “discussion.”

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

Again, your confusing the point of your post with the subject of the entire conversation. I gave you sh*t for something that wasn’t part of your post, yes, but not for something that wasn’t part of the “discussion.”

I guess when you quoted my post, I thought your reply was specifically targetted towards the quoted comment.

But then again, I could be mistaken.

[frood]

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

Again, your confusing the point of your post with the subject of the entire conversation. I gave you sh*t for something that wasn’t part of your post, yes, but not for something that wasn’t part of the “discussion.”

I guess when you quoted my post, I thought your reply was specifically targetted towards the quoted comment.

But then again, I could be mistaken.

When I quoted your post, I assumed your post was part of the general discussion on R1 strategy.

However, your post could still apply I guess, if the assumption is modified equally for each attack - does Germany have better odds if you change the assumption to it only attacking with 1 or 2 air units instead of 6 or 7?

[Romulus]

@newpaintbrush:

My thought on Ukraine/West Russia, as opposed to Belorussia/West Russia:

Belorussia/West Russia:

Extremely safe play for the Russians with very favorable odds in all battles.  There is a extremely small chance that one or both battles go very badly for the Russians, leaving the Germans in a good countering position.

Ukraine/West Russia:

Aggressive play with the Russians.  Attacking with two tanks is very risky.  Attacking with three tanks is very costly.  Whether two tanks or three tanks are used, though, a few bad rolls by the Russians followed by a German counter means a chance for the Axis to take control.

I’m only radical when it comes to writing posts  :-D

Russian side analysis, I agree.
German side analisys slightly to correct:

Belorussia/West Russia:

Germans is in a relatively better position (related to the other options) because Ukrainian army is still alive, may attack UK in Mediterranean using up to 6 fighter. German si happy still having all her tank and six fighters.

Ukraine/West Russia:

German is in a relatively worst position, have to counter Ukraine invasion, maybe committing a fighter, may attack UK in Meditarranean using up to 4 fighter, maybe 5.
German is slightly grumbling, missing the sixth fighter anf the panzer.

Now my question is: being German what scenario do you like more?
(I am speaking of which one gives to you the more confortable opening.)

Belorussia/West Russia I suppose, at least I like it more than the other. This is why  I do Ukr/WR when I am Russia.

Returning on topics: I leave Siberian units on Japanese front, infantry is made for holding ground, it is less equipped for switching fronts.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

I assumed your post was part of the general discussion on R1 strategy.

You know what they say that happens when you a$$_u_me…. !

[trihero]

I’m definitely more uncomfortable when Russia does W. Russia/Ukraine (when I’m Germany), especially when they come out with 3 tanks + 1 aa in Ukraine (very common). Sometimes I just have to avoid counterattacking Ukraine on G1 or get burned out.

But then again, Japan would be in a more comfortable situation without those T-34’s ready to counterattack Sinkiang.

[Romulus]

@trihero:

I’m definitely more uncomfortable when Russia does W. Russia/Ukraine (when I’m Germany), especially when they come out with 3 tanks + 1 aa in Ukraine (very common). Sometimes I just have to avoid counterattacking Ukraine on G1 or get burned out.

But then again, Japan would be in a more comfortable situation without those T-34’s ready to counterattack Sinkiang.

And the we come back on topic: I stack Novo with siberian inf, aiming at delay Japanes build up, with 6-8 inf there and two fig. it is possible to counter at least one Japanese pincer: Yakut or Sinkiang. After, that I hope that US/UK have landed somewhere in Europe and are doing something of useful against Germany.