Right. Game starts Dec 8, 1941.
The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq
-
@MEANWHILE:
2. Britain takes both Iraq and Persia in the first round. They are pulling units from the Pacific, meaning that they have more of an advantage in Europe. They must take advantage of that and get control of Africa and the Middle East. The plan is to eventually divert units so that India doesn’t fall. Moscow is in a lot of trouble so the western Allies must keep pressuring Europe. A strong Britain combined with the American fleet attempt to divert German resources away from Moscow to make up for the extra income they aren’t getting from Africa and the Middle East.
Why are they pulling units from the Pacific? It is possible that Britain Europe takes Iraq T2 with the Inf from Persia, plus the inf dropped by the tranny off of the coast of Egypt T1 and a plane or tank. This is the better course of action. Why would you pull from the Pacific theatre?
I can explain this but I will start with why Iraq is definitely a good option for Russia. They will immediately make up for the loss of 1-2 infantry in Iraq with 5 IPC’s from the territory. The tank, mech and plane can make it back safely to Moscow and their absence won’t be noticed. You may end up forgoing one possible counterattack but those are really only worth the value of the territory you take plus a 1/3 chance of killing one German infantry when the infantry hits on defense. That’s 2 IPC’s, and it doesn’t matter that much. So you make up for your sacrifices after the first two turns, then you are killing it with an extra 1.66 infantry in Moscow each turn.
There are two viable counterarguments to this strategy. First, if Moscow falls you are losing hard. Second, Britain might be able to use the 2 IPC’s/turn better attacking Germany’s flanks. Both of these point to a KGF strategy if you let Britain have Iraq. You aren’t going to have those extra Russian troops, so you had better make up for it by using Britain’s extra potential to pressure Germany. This is why you should pull offensive units and the transport out of the Pacific theater and just turtle there, sending units from Persia if you need to.
-
Personally I always park 2 Inf in Caucasus and 1 Mech + 1 Tank in Rosstov to march on NW Persia.
It never ended badly and more than once I conquered It. Somaliland and/or Lybia with the Mech or Tank.But, to be honest, I am as much a noob on this game as my fellow friends which are playing against me. :roll:
-
Personally I always park 2 Inf in Caucasus and 1 Mech + 1 Tank in Rosstov to march on NW Persia.
It never ended badly and more than once I conquered It. Somaliland and/or Lybia with the Mech or Tank.But, to be honest, I am as much a noob on this game as my fellow friends which are playing against me. :roll:
My strategic choice in this matter is to either take an infantry and ask UK to take him to Italian Somalia so I can get the Spread of Communist bonus or if s/he refuses, I use a mech infantry and drive him down there.
-
I usually prepare mechanized units to take Iraq. If Germany waits, the troops put pressure in China and the UK takes Iraq.
I usually also weaken Iraq with the UK first (sometimes I take it unwillingly and I’m OK with that, not the end of the world)
-
I usually prepare mechanized units to take Iraq. If Germany waits, the troops put pressure in China and the UK takes Iraq.
I usually also weaken Iraq with the UK first (sometimes I take it unwillingly and I’m OK with that, not the end of the world)
Isn’t Iraq two infantry?
-
@Caesar:
I usually prepare mechanized units to take Iraq. If Germany waits, the troops put pressure in China and the UK takes Iraq.
I usually also weaken Iraq with the UK first (sometimes I take it unwillingly and I’m OK with that, not the end of the world)
Isn’t Iraq two infantry?
Definitely 3 infantry. One of my favorite trick is to Attack from both side and move the two infantries from Persia to Transjordan in the retreat. It makes it much harder for Egypt to fall.
-
My tactics is for India to produce mech infantry on its turn and then have it convert Iran and use Persian infantry backed by Indian Mech Infantry to convert Iraq.
-
Where in the rules can I find the clear ruling that USRR get 3 IPC for all nations on the Europe map. My last game my opponents disagreed and argued it was all in the actual continent Europe (including Turkey) as otherwise the including Turkey would make no sense. Maybe you know where I can show them?
-
Europe is ruled by the board itself so all nations in Europe count for it, not Pacific.
-
“3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.” Pacific rules, P36.
It has nothing to do with which board, except that there are no German or Italian territories on the Pacific Board. The only debatable word is ORIGINAL. Not EUROPE (which isn’t in that sentence). There are also no Pro-Axis neutrals on that side, though I guess Mongolia could become Pro-Allies, never Pro-Axis.
ORIGINAL means as it is color-coded on the printed map. Regardless of if your set-up changes the INTIAL owners (say, G42), only the territories of your nation that are color-coded that way are original. Thus, Persia is never “original” even if UK controls it at the beginning of the game.
-
Actually from my understanding, Mongolia could go pro axis. If USSR attacks Japan in their territory, it breaks Mongolia and it becomes strict neutral there for if the allies attack any neutral then, it would then turn pro Axis as all neutrals join that side.
-
Yes, Mongolia could go pro-Axis under those circumstances. That still wouldn’t make it an ORIGINAL pro-Axis neutral.
What if this actually worked? Then, every game Russia would attack Japan on R1, then have the Allies DOW on the true neutrals, then start gobbling up Mongolia for a total of +18 IPC’s. Now that’s broken.
-
Tav says Mongolia can’t go Axis to which I proved it can.
-
The rule book is pretty clear that the 3 IPC’s is for any Originally Controlled German, Italian, or Pro-Axis Neutral Territories. That means that it would have to be a neutral territory that has “Pro-Axis” printed on the board.
Using the logic that you could call a Mongolian territory pro-axis and therefore eligible for the 3 IPC’s would be the same as saying that you could get the bonus for taking Egypt after it had fallen to the axis. Yes Mongolia could become pro-axis, but no it is not originally pro-axis.
-
Actually I think he’s saying he wasn’t trying to argue that Russia could get the bonus, just that Mongolia could go Axis under a certain set of circumstances. That part is correct.
-
Yeah, I never argued that Communism can be spread in Mongolia, that’s already true in G40. I am arguing Mongolia can go pro axis.
-
Oh ok. Yes it states right in there that you can do that for sure.
-
Yeah, anyone with a brain knows that Iraq is the closest for USSR to spread communism but I tell UK to beat up Italy and try not to take Ethopia or Italian Somalia and leave that for USSR.
-
Could you imagine if Mongolia could have the spread of Communism. 6 territories worth 3 each plus additional 6 infantry?
-
Yes, CS lays out a scenario where it could become Pro-Axis, so I stand corrected.
However, it is not ORIGINAL as you also point out, so no crazy bonus grabbing from Mongolia.
And great plan with the Italian territories, so that would have changed my vote here. Always something new.
Suggested Topics
