Russian Fighters

[U-505]

Oh, I misread that. Never mind. I’ll just build all ground units(4,2,1 mix inf/art/arm) except for 6 fighters with Germany and place them all in WR. And 1 sub in sz6.

[U-505]

@ncscswitch:

I was not speaking of a liquidation start U-505… I was being sarcastic about startign with a vacant board, then USSR gets to build $24 of units, Germahy $40, UK $30, Japan $30, USA $42… (no combat round 1 since no nation would have any units on the board), the start from there.

It was a post to point out how silly it is to discount the units you start with when determining the value of various units.

I know. I was just messing with you. I value all of my starting units. Otherwise I would SBR with the German bomber from G1.

[Guest]

Back on topic…

I like a R1 USSR FIG build.  3 FIGs to allow for trading 3 territories along the German front.  If conditions permit, I will buy a 4th.

But the Russians cannot afford to be the ones to take out the Med Fleet.  Those FIGs are too critical to trading with Germany (and later countering Japan advances) to be lost to destroy a TRN and BB.

[Imperious Leader]

The Russian fighters should never be used for anything except proven odds battles where they are not at risk, unless its the ‘big battle’ to decide the war…etc

Russians can never replace them unless they are clearly not in trouble.

[U-505]

@ncscswitch:

Back on topic…

I like a R1 USSR FIG build.

I don’t. And for only one reason: Because you can’t forsee how R1 will turn out. We’re having that discussion in the other thread about having to plan for bad dice in ADS and this case is a perfect example. No matter what you attack on R1, if Russia ends up taking heavy casualties and you bought the 3rd fighter, you’re going to be missing the 2 inf, 1 art you could have bought instead. I prefer to wait until the battle lines are established before deciding if I can spare the 10 IPC’s for a 3rd Russian fighter. I see extra Russian fighters as a luxury as opposed to a neccesity. If Germany can push a big stack covered by an AA into Ukraine or Belorussia earlier than normal because Russia is short on ground units then the 3rd fighter bought on R1 just became a poor purchase.

[Imperious Leader]

I think it should if ever be build only after Soviets are out of immediate danger, and more likely if this is a KGF deal.

otherwise it would be good for R2-3 provided the German player is spending IPC on fleet that will not impact USSR, such as the transport piggyback to Russia from baltic. The fighters would be good to keep Japanese back long enough to make an impact on Germany

[U-505]

Exactly. It’s much better to wait until the battle lines are drawn first. That way you can not only determine if it is possible after seeing R1 but also determine if a 3rd fighter is a correct purchase after seeing Germany tip it’s hand on it’s strategy on G1. Buying a 3rd Russian fighter isn’t always the correct move, even as late as R3, so you shouldn’t pigeonhole yourself by doing it before you even see the first die fall.

[Jennifer]

Ya know, 40 IPC worth of equipment in W. Russia might still take Russia on Round 1. :P

[trihero]

I think I’m back to where U-505 is currently stating (not because he said it, but because I’ve been playing around with R1 purchases). I’m finding that it’s not as hard to hold Ukraine early on as I thought since you can put 3 inf 1 aa there and the Germans don’t really want to touch it; it’s too risky to use fighters, too risky to hit with everything because of Cauc + W. Russia, and inefficient to throw away art/arm at it when the Russians can do about the same. Then you only generally need 2 figs to trade the other 2 territories; if the Germans send more than maybe think about getting another fig but they will be spending themselves thing sending more than 1-2 inf.

And like U-505 said, it’s contradictory to play ADS and assume things will go well for you, I’m surprised that Switch wants to buy a fig immediately because that’s not planning for bad dice at all. It’s the same reason that you don’t want to buy double complexes with Japan immediately, because you need to see how Pearl goes and if you need more naval screen after that, which tran does.

[Guest]

If you get diced badly on R1, nothing you purchase is going to make much of a difference.  The extra FIG though (combined with eastern INF being brought to the German Front is a pretty good way to help control the damage.

As for the Ukraine w/ AA issue…
Med Fleet it out of existence instead, and invite Russia to come back again and again :-)

[trihero]

If you get diced badly on R1, nothing you purchase is going to make much of a difference.  The extra FIG though (combined with eastern INF being brought to the German Front is a pretty good way to help control the damage.

2 inf + 1 art makes a much larger difference in a counterattack than 1 fig will. It will also allow you to have more land units to take territories, which a fig won’t.

The extra FIG though (combined with eastern INF being brought to the German Front is a pretty good way to help control the damage.

All being said I don’t think buying a fig off the bat is terrible, either.

As for the Ukraine w/ AA issue…
Med Fleet it out of existence instead, and invite Russia to come back again and again smiley

That I could live with, because UK2 will kill the med fleet with 3 fig 1 bom and suddenly Germany is overspent in Ukraine. I think it’s more of inviting Germany to come again and again because typical Ukraine/W. Russia ends up with 6 inf 1 art 1 arm in W. Russia with 5 inf 1 art in Cauc, that’s 11 inf 2 art 2 arm 2 fig to counterattack Ukraine, which doesn’t favor the Germans stacking it hard. I guess the Germans could build 8 arm in anticipating of countering again, but soon they are out of inf and having to defend from too many angles.

[Imperious Leader]

2 inf + 1 art makes a much larger difference in a counterattack than 1 fig will. It will also allow you to have more land units to take territories, which a fig won’t.

I look at the fighter as a more efficient tool to kill enemy infantry so that you dont have to waste an extra fodder on the same battle.

So a battle to kill 3 Germans infantry can be done with good odds with 3 fighters and 2 infantry, whereas if you kept trading back and forth over the same you would need extra infantry with 2 fighters. If you dont think this will occur with the Soviets/ Germans then its not a good option… but usually its a common thing.

Probably more important with Japanese who cant hit you early with lots of land, so you can save the fodder.

so to bottom line it: Its a more efficient tool for saving infantry as fodder for small battles and improving odds.

the 2 infantry and one infantry will be used as fodder during the course of a game in extra “payments” for trading small stacks which does result in the Soviet player with less net exchanges of value with axis.

[Jennifer]

But what is the cost to Russia of over stacking Ukraine and losing the AA Gun.  Now YOU have to deal with the gun, and Germany gets the benefit.

Hell, I’ll trade a tank to take back Ukraine with a small stack of infantry to force Russia to either let me keep it or risk fighters or their own armor taking it.

Germany earns 40 IPC
Russia earns 24 IPC

Which one do you think is going to bleed dry first?

[trihero]

But what is the cost to Russia of over stacking Ukraine and losing the AA Gun.  Now YOU have to deal with the gun, and Germany gets the benefit.

I didn’t say overstack it.

Hell, I’ll trade a tank to take back Ukraine with a small stack of infantry to force Russia to either let me keep it or risk fighters or their own armor taking it.

How about neither - use artillery.

Germany earns 40 IPC
Russia earns 24 IPC

Which one do you think is going to bleed dry first?

It’s too bad there are 2 other nations to consider against Germany…

[Jennifer]

The other nations are not relevant.  Only Russia.  Bleed Russia as dry as possible as fast as possible, let Japan mop up the rest.

And, if Russia insists on trading Ukraine that hard, I’d put in tanks just to kill off his attacking infantry faster.  Sure, I lose tanks, so does Russia then.  (4 Infantry + 2 Armor almost necessitates you ignore it or attack with 4 infantry, armor, 2 fighters of your own, at the least, in ADS.  At least in MY opinion.)

[trihero]

And, if Russia insists on trading Ukraine that hard, I’d put in tanks just to kill off his attacking infantry faster.  Sure, I lose tanks, so does Russia then.  (4 Infantry + 2 Armor almost necessitates you ignore it or attack with 4 infantry, armor, 2 fighters of your own, at the least, in ADS.  At least in MY opinion.)

Like I said, I’m not overstacking it. I’ll leave 1-3 inf + aa gun in Ukraine, and then it’s up to Germany to toss arm into there when I have immediate reinforcements from Caucasus. It’s not a war Germany wants to get engaged in because the other Allies will have a much easier time. I’ll be using cheaper artillery to trade out the arm.

And any time you throw in very significant forces like 4 inf 2 arm, I would seriously consider tossing everything at it. I would lose maybe 2 units but you wouldn’t be able to counterattack due to your loss of inf and arm.

[Jennifer]

3 Infantry + AA Gun (upper limit you wanted)

3 Infantry, Artillery, Battleship attacking.

No AA Gun shots, no fighters present.

Attacker has 86% chance to win with most likely outcome of losing 2 infantry in the attack.

Russia has lost 3 infantry and an AA Gun which is now poised to attack Russia if they send fighters.  If they do not send fighters, they now have to send some hard units (as in not flesh and bone) to recapture the land that will be open to attack.

I don’t think this is a winning proposition for the Russians.  As Germany only needs to make sure that they force Russia into risking fighters to AA Guns or sending artillery/armor into Ukriane to be destroyed by the Germans.

Honestly, if I was left with Inf/Art in Ukraine, I might send in two more infantry for reinforcements.  That would leave Russia facing 3 Infantry, Artillery and AA Gun.  (Or I might just send an armor instead of the artillery in the original attack, even though it only increases the win percentage by 2%.)  That would almost require Russia to send at least 4 ground units and/or planes.  That’s generally most of their build per round.

[DarthMaximus]

I think what is likely to happen is a possible German Lurch to Ukr pretty early.

You can realistically have Japan ftr support on round 2, round 3 might be a safer bet, but depending on Rus and Ger buys, I’d be looking to stack Ukr ASAP if Russia is going to try the middle of the road approach (3-4 inf maybe aa too).

Germany could even pull the inf/rt from Afr (or just use SE troops) as well on G2 to hammer Ukr, and while that may put the Med fleet in jeopardy it is worth it since you still gain a few Afr IPC for a few turns but can make bigger gains in Europe.  And the Med fleet is only in jeopardy if UK didn’t attack Sz 5 on Rd 1, which means you don’t really need to buy on ships on G1 to keep the fleet alive until G2.

This all assume an Afr bid of 8 (1 inf, 1 arm).

[trihero]

Japanese fighters to Ukraine is annoying, but they are not likely to be used in trading any territories right after that due to having to fly over the Caucasus AA gun. Plus, Ukraine immediately borders any build in Caucasus, and Russia should have plenty of units. And it’s very unlikely to be able to go to Ukraine until round 3, because round 1 sees the fighters in Kwang to counterattack Yakut, China, and India for maximum flexibility. And only 4 fighters, since 2 are being used in Hawaii.

Also if you go to Ukraine hard early, and you would have to go very hard, that means ignoring Karelia/Belorussia. If you send even 1 inf to each of those that could very well mean the difference between keeping Ukraine since Russia builds immediately on Caucasus and can have arm builds in Russia reach it.

[DarthMaximus]

@Bean:

Japanese fighters to Ukraine is annoying, but they are not likely to be used in trading any territories right after that due to having to fly over the Caucasus AA gun. Plus, Ukraine immediately borders any build in Caucasus, and Russia should have plenty of units. And it’s very unlikely to be able to go to Ukraine until round 3, because round 1 sees the fighters in Kwang to counterattack Yakut, China, and India for maximum flexibility. And only 4 fighters, since 2 are being used in Hawaii.

I typically won’t land my ftrs in Kwa on J1, it is Fic barring some KJF strat.  7 inf to Chi on J1.  I really don’t care about Yak/Ind.  You’ll see that resistance disapear quite fast with 6 inf standing in China and 4 ftrs/bom in range on Sin.  The Allies can have those if I get Sin with a decent sized stack on Rd 2 and Germany in Ukr.

And with a mix of inf/arm buys by Ger, Russia can’t push Ger out of Ukr (which is the key thing), now I just have to wait for Japan.  And that really isn’t an issue with Germany on the boarder of Cauc.

So, if Ukr is left open to a big move by Ger in Rd 2, I’ll do it, knowing I have 2 ftrs for back up.

@Bean:

Also if you go to Ukraine hard early, and you would have to go very hard, that means ignoring Karelia/Belorussia. If you send even 1 inf to each of those that could very well mean the difference between keeping Ukraine since Russia builds immediately on Caucasus and can have arm builds in Russia reach it.

You can afford to ignore Kar/Belo if it means Ukr on G2/3.  As long as you have the numbers to hold Ukr (or make the Russian counter so costly that even if they do it you can clean up the remnants and essentially take them out of the game as an offensive threat).  You’ll get Kar/Belo the next turn but now have the option of landing G ftrs in Ukr, I’ll trade those 4 ipc (or 1 rt) for a strong position in Ukr.