First: Start with a “traditional” Russian openning of WR and Ukr w/ typical dice.
Then the German counter in Ukraine, and the blitz to Archangel
Combine with a Karelia Stack, and the Med Fleet in SZ15…
Now look at the board at the start of R2…
Do you see it yet?
A good solution to this, if Germany do the “Angel-blitz”, UK can take Archangel.
Peace folks :wink:
I’m a W. Russia/Belorussia opener myself, maybe that’s the difference…
But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.
And this… for not leaving an inf in Leningrad!
Sending any German navy out to block an Archangel landing is not worth while.
The Archangel Blitz is a simple gambit, designed to get the Russians to over-extend (and thus get spanked by Germany)
It is NOT your spearhead to Russia, it is a thorn, an annoyance.
It is not the move itself that is so essential for Germany, it is how Russia Russia counters that is critical because of the huge potential (especially with so many small battles over such a broad front) of Germany being able to create a major advantage on the Russian Front early, increasing Germany’s IPC’s and decreasing Russian IPCs by pushing the trading territories close to Moscow, and forcing a stronger “close in” defense by Russia
In fact I agree with you Switch. The sub in sz5 is only a speculation that I made.
The reason for such example is that I believe that trading territories is not only a question of IPC and units, is principally a Tactical and Strategic question.
My idea about this specific Karelia issue is to alway leave a inf in Kar.
First this avoid German blitzing in and out, gaining 2 free IPC.
Moreover it do not allow German to blitz a tank to Arkangel.
Finally the situation is reversed: leaving an inf in Karelia is the German that have to use units there (at least 2 inf and 1 fig) and spread out their forces, giving Russia a good start.
I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia. I guess it can make Russia spread its forces a little thinner, but Russia can deal with it. It can take it without air support, or the UK can take it, because there’s likely not a lot of German follow-through. At least not in my games - I usually gather everything into EE. I guess you could load Karelia instead, but then farther from Ukraine…
Ultimately, not a big loss for Germany, but I never like to trade an active unit for IPCs (esp. at 5:2) unless I’m also killing an enemy unit.
I never like to lose my Russians to the Germans. Better to use the limeys and keep my good Vodka drinkers in reserve!
I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia.
That’s what I see too, Frood. I just don’t see how it’s overextending Russia even if you did Ukraine/W. Russia.
But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.
Quick grammar lesson Romulus - it should be
“But what if the Germans still have a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?”
And
“Uk probably can not invade Norway on the second turn, so the blitzing of the German unit hurts the UK.”
I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia.
That’s what I see too, Frood. I just don’t see how it’s overextending Russia even if you did Ukraine/W. Russia.
Oops, I meant Archangel, not Karelia, but I think you knew what I meant.
I expected that you would think that I knew what you meant, but I forgot to say that in the previous post by pointing out the Archangel thing. :-o
I agree with Trihero.
All Russia needs is one inf and it can attack Arch with 1 inf and ALL its armor.
Russia won’t be using its armor to attack Ukr, Belo, or Kar so it is just sitting there doing nothing anyway. And on R3 that armor in Arch is still within reach of Ukr, Belo and Kar if need be.
Now I don’t attack Ukr on R1 and I’ll buy 3 inf, 3 arm so I’ll have 7 arm available on R2. I attack Wrus only and typically Germany will counter with 1 inf in Ukr, 1 in Belo, and 1 in Kar. That means 2-3 inf, 1 ftr to ukr, 2 inf, 1 ftr to belo, 2 inf, 1 rt to kar and 1 inf, 3-7 arm to arch.
I don’t see how this is overextension?
If you block Kar, you’re likely to see this on R2:
Kar: 2 inf (possibly 1 if you hit on def)
Belo: 1 inf
Ukr: 1 inf
Russia still has to commit an rt to one of those battles or ignore one (which is the same as leaving Kar empty).
Essentially it is a wash if the German armor in Arch hits on defense. Germany gains 2 ipc and kills 1 inf (3 ipc) on defense but losses the armor (5 ipc). 2+3-5=0
But 50% of the time the armor misses on def, so Russia essentially trades Inf for Arm. I’ll take that as Russia all day long.
But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.Quick grammar lesson Romulus - it should be
“But what if the Germans still have a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?”
And
“Uk probably can not invade Norway on the second turn, so the blitzing of the German unit hurts the UK.”
Thanks Trihero!
Now I am starting to think that… may be I need a grammar corrector!
Moreover the idea of sending the sub as road block is also not useful.
The sub will be sink and UK may move units in Russia in NCM.
I think the point is to NOT have to do 4 battles on Russia 2 since you only have 2 fighters.
Of course, England could help at the cost of not landing in Africa, reducing it to three battles. As DM pointed out the one behind the lines if is safe enough to use Armor on reducing you to two battles and you just happen to have two fighters, one for each.
But it still forces the allies to go the non-optimal route, IMHO.
It might be a problem if blitzing Archangel magically opened up a German gateway such that Russia had to contest it as a 4th zone for many battles to come, but for one round? When you have plenty of units garrisoned on all 4 zones on R2? No problem, especially since you’re getting a good economic trade out of knocking that tank out.
Frood here, just changed my name and avatar, like some others have recently done…
I don’t think landing in Karelia / Archangel is at all sub-optimal for the Allies. The UK has no business in Africa, IMHO. Landing in North Europe ASAP opens a second front on Germany, they now have to contend with UK and Russia, which combined have greater income than Germany.
Landing in Africa opens a second front on Germany and threatens a full 20% of the German’s income (or saves 33% of Englands, depending on how you are looking at it.)
If anyone has a stake in Africa, is it not England???
Yes, Russia can afford to hit all 4 territories on Russia 2. (Karelia, Archangelsk, W. Russia and Ukraine.) But is it optimal?
Landing in Africa opens a second front on Germany and threatens a full 20% of the German’s income (or saves 33% of Englands, depending on how you are looking at it.)
Actually, Germany only has 2 IPCs to lose in Africa. The best way to look at it is the latter, 33% of UK’s income, and also chipping away at Germany’s fortune.
Yes, Russia can afford to hit all 4 territories on Russia 2. (Karelia, Archangelsk, W. Russia and Ukraine.) But is it optimal?
I don’t understand. How is it not optimal? A German tank for a Russian inf is a great trade - for the Russians. At a 5:3 IPC ratio exchange, Russia could take out most of Germany by itself. Any leftover inf in Archangel is perfectly positioned to trade Karelia next turn, which is what you would be doing anyways. I’d take a German tank for a Russia inf anyday. You speak of “only 2 fighters?” So what? That’s 4 territories with 1 unit in them apiece, nothing terribly spooky. You have 2 art 4 tank in W. Russia, 2 art 5 inf in Russia, and 5 inf 1 art in Caucasus, plenty to easily take over those territories and having a great chance at taking out a tank for an inf.
I would do the “angel blitz”, because I like to…
And as Russia I would leave one behind to prevent this move from Germany.
Sometimes I think it’s better to play aggressively, and other times I choose to dig in.
@Ender:
Frood here, just changed my name and avatar, like some others have recently done…
I don’t think landing in Karelia / Archangel is at all sub-optimal for the Allies. The UK has no business in Africa, IMHO. Landing in North Europe ASAP opens a second front on Germany, they now have to contend with UK and Russia, which combined have greater income than Germany.
I agree with Ender that UK sooner or later should go to the North. USA is more well placed for landing troops in Africa (from the first turn) and when needed may switch target of the shuck to another territory.
Uk may land units in KAR or ARK from UK 1, and it is a good thing for relieving pressure from Russia.
The problem is that if UK goes to North, USA can not strike Algeria first turn. (2 TRN and 1 DD are an easy prey for the Luftwaffe)
But it may be solved postponing the landing in Algeria to the second turn, after buying 1 AC or a lot of TRN.
