Russia's Far East Army

[coorran]

This is one question I’ve been asking myself for a long time. I still can’t decide.

[newpaintbrush]

If you put 1 on Soviet Far East, Japan has a high percentage attack there with inf/artillery.  The lone Russian infantry dies, the territory is lost, and if Russia counters SFE on R2 (Russia’s second turn), on J2, Japan just takes it right back and kills Russian infantry.  Russia trying to trade early game with Japan and Germany is just not something that Russia can sustain at all, with 3 territories against Germany and 1-2 territories against Japan, and only 2 Russian fighters to work with.

And no, it isn’t "easy to do if I just buy a third Russian fighter’, because a German tank push drains Russia out pretty fast when combined with Russia sending units east.  Less Russian ground units (buying fighter) plus less Russian ground units (sending units east) equals German push in Europe.

Stack Yakut?  I wouldn’t. I don’t want to trade with Japan on the coast anyways.  So it’s back towards Russia.  It is not in Russia’s best interest to lose unit for unit against Japan in an area in which Japan can see everything coming and respond instantly.  Specifically, Russia has to march infantry into Novosibirsk then into Yakut, before they can threaten Soviet Far East or Buryatia, which uses up a lot of time (production one turn, then march, march, fight, for a three turn delay, as opposed to a one turn delay of production-fight from Caucasus into Ukraine, or production-march-fight of two turn delay from Russia to West Russia to Belorussia/Karelia.)  Also Japan can see it all coming, and can easily stack so heavily that Russia is forced to retreat, losing more time, or Japan can divert through China, forcing Russian retreat again (and losing time again).

6, 1, or none on Buryatia, and that is all.  I’d say none, unless you’re trying some sort of KJF (Kill Japan First) variant, or willing to risk a G2 tank blitz through Africa, in which case 6 is worth thinking about.

Why none?  Why not one?

If Japan keeps its battleship at the sea zone east of Japan, a transport can offload two ground units plus battleship support shot for a high odds attack on Buryatia, which would kill one Russian infantry anyways.

Why not six?

Japan can hit Buryatia with up to 4 ground units plus air and a battleship support shot.  Even if Japan loses, Russia will lose a lot of infantry that it can’t replace.  So long as Japan retreats its air, it should be fine.  If Japan wins, it’s very nasty for Russia, of course.

You can preserve the Buryatia stack by using the UK India fighter to hit the Kwangtung transport and land on Buryatia.  But you have to make the decision on R1 whether to stack Buryatia with six or none.  Suppose Germany gets lucky at Anglo-Egypt and keeps 3 German ground units there.  UK will probably have to use 3 infantry, fighter, and cruiser shot for decent odds there, meaning the UK fighter can’t land on Buryatia.  Of course, if Germany only has 1 ground unit surviving at Anglo-Egypt, then UK will be fine with just 3 infantry and a cruiser shot, but there’s no way to tell on R1 what will happen on G1.

Suppose that the Allies are willing to take a chance.  IF Germany does not hit Anglo-Egypt at all, or IF Germany does not keep a lot of units at Anglo-Egypt, or IF UK locks itself into committing only 3 infantry 1 cruiser shot, or IF UK decides to hit Anglo-Egypt and abandons Buryatia hoping that Japan MAY not hit Buryatia . . . if, if, if.  But consider that of Japan’s starting units, it may choose to send 1 fighter 1 bomber to Hawaii (along with some navy), and 1-2 fighters to China, leaving 3-4 fighters to hit other targets.  3 infantry 1 artillery and 3-4 fighters 1 battleship support shot has decent odds of destroying the Buryatia stack of 6 lone infantry.  Of course . . . with the UK fighter, it’s a bit different.  So it’s pretty much a question of risking a G2 tank blitz through Africa in exchange for helping protect the Buryatia stack.

Which is not to say that a Buryatia stack is “wrong”.  I just don’t think it’s definitely “right” - i.e. it’s not something that I would say Russia should always always do.  I think it’s a matter of preference.

Why not none?  Because then Japan can just walk in with one infantry, and use its Japanese transport to land units at French Indochina, possibly setting itself up for a 4 transport J1 build, early attack on Africa, and early control of India.  So there’s really something to be said for all sides.

[Nomarclegs]

I advocate evacuating the all Soviet Asian infantry.

There are three routes across Asia: Siberia, China, and India.  Each is three territories long (by shortest path); and each is worth 6 IPCs (if fully controlled).  Japan can take any route it likes. The difference is: the Siberia route is back-loaded in terms of IPC value; the China route in consistent in terms of value; and the India route is front-loaded.  By withdrawing the Soviet infantry you make Siberia the path of least resistance.  If you destroy the lone Japanese transport (I like using the carrier) you delay Japans ability to bring its island garrisons to mainland Asia.  If you destroy the FIC infantry (not a sure thing) you preserve India for at least one turn.  The Soviet-Asian infantry can be massed in Novosibirsk and used to counter Japanese advances through China, or Siberia (with tank and/or fighter support), or brought all the way to the European front.

The most important asset for any power in Spring ’42 is flexibility.  Japan (with her large air force and navy, as well as local production facilities) has incredible flexibility.  As USSR I’d opt to preserve as much of my flexibility as possible. That means keeping my men alive.

[Hobbes]

@Nomarclegs:

The most important asset for any power in Spring ’42 is flexibility.  Japan (with her large air force and navy, as well as local production facilities) has incredible flexibility.  As USSR I’d opt to preserve as much of my flexibility as possible. That means keeping my men alive.

I agree with the issue of flexibility for both, but the first round is a window of opportunity to harass Japan’s flexibility by giving it a lot of targets to hit so that it can’t focus on everything. If the results of Russia’s opening attacks favored the Russians or just gave out the average losses then those units can be used to throw a few speed bumps at Japan or pressure it.
If you combine all 6 units on Buryatia then Japan has a very big problem to solve, in addition to the usual ones:

• US fleet at SZ52
• China
• UK cruiser/carrier at SZ59
• UK sub at New Guinea/Solomon
• UK transport from SZ40
• Remaining UK fleet on the Indian Ocean
• India

And this assumes that the UK didn’t went to attack FIC or Borneo, instead of retaking Egypt. If I’m playing Japan, one option is to attack SZ52, China and Buryatia, but to do so it would mean the Indian advance will be delayed, as well as any reinforcement of the Germans on Africa until round 3. I’ll have to use a lot of the airforce, to prevent any dice failures.
The other is to hit China, SZ52, and get rid of most UK naval units, while reinforcing Manchuria and transporting 1 inf, 1 arm to Indochina, ensuring the fall of India on J2 (and opening the possibility of building an IC on J3). At the same time it positions Japan to reinforce Egypt with plenty of fighters and units carried by the transport, which can also be used instead to bring the 2 inf from East Indies to attack India.

On the first one, Japan will kill 6 Russian inf at the average cost of 2 or 3 of its infantry. It will also have to bring more land forces from Japan if it wants to advance past Yakut. The UK will also have attacked Indochina, taking away the possibility for an IC build there until round 3, the same round that India should fall. Indian IC on built on round 4, produce units on round 5 that can finally be used on round 6. Meanwhile Africa should fall sooner to the Allies, will take more time to threaten/reinforce Africa with Japan.
But…  if Germany got lucky against the Russians (the deciding factor for me) and destroyed a large part of their army then this option is a must because it will give 2 simultaneous blows to Russia’s power.

Second one, the 6 Russian inf get away or make a kamikaze against 2 inf, 2 ftr on Manchuria. Usually they are pulled back and can reach Russia by round four. If there’s no Russian threat to retake India then I’ll get that IC for it and by round 5 I can start using its units. Meanwhile, the UK’s production is going down and down (India, Persia, Jordan, Egypt, the rest of Africa, possibly Australia), either forcing the Allies to retake Africa or start facing a losing economic situation, which gets worse as Japan keeps building its attack forces and advancing towards Russia.

Tough call? Yes, it can be.