The Caucasus Industrial Complex

[TheDesertFox]

Looking at Russia situation, really it doesn’t matter too much when they’re attacked G1, 2, 3 or even 4 it seems that the Germans tend to always bring the brute strength to the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, and they do it for 2 reasons.

1. Striking at the Southern portion of the Soviet Union severely damages the Soviet’s economic status and mobilization potential

2. It is the one area of the USSR that is the most difficult to reinforce.

Both of these are significant reasons, though having looked at it over and over the second reason seems to have the most weight. Having looked at it from your mobilization zone, Berlin, to each Soviet Victory City/Industrial Hub, it goes by which it takes 3 spaces to reach Leningrad, 5 spaces to get to Moscow, and 6 to reach Stalingrad and the Caucasus. Logically, the Germans are going to be bringing the brute force and brute strength to the South being that even if they do take out Ukraine at some point, their capability of reinforcing is only limited to 3 units a turn, which isn’t enough.

So having looked at this scenario, it seemed like a logical solution to outproduce them in units with another industrial complex, on the Caucasus.

Take the scenario of the Soviet Union and Germany, Germany has taken out Kiev and the industrial complex there and is no capable of producing 3 fast moving units a turn, against your industrial complex in Stalingrad that can produce 3 units. An even match for match, which isn’t good, Germany will beat the Soviet Union in fire power down south and producing of 3 units isn’t going to be enough. Yes the Major Complex in Moscow is within close proximity, but not close proximity to be building slower moving units like infantry, artillery or anti aircraft artillery. Now, that is the case, but with an IC on the Caucasus, you’ll have a lot more potential to beating back the invading Germans, and for what it’s worth, the first place to begin a push back against Germany being that the opportunity comes, is the South, being the least defended and least reinforced area that Germany can support, so use it to your advantage. A factory on the Caucasus also largely increases your able diversity of spreading units out across the big land mass, providing an equal opportunity of defending every square inch from those Germans.

Otherwise that’s basically it for this tactic, perhaps it would fare well in protecting the South perhaps it may not, but through and throughout it seems that quite the majority of Soviet players have completely lost control of Ukraine, the Caucasus and Stalingrad boosting Germany’s economic structure substantially, so I thought this might be that of a good idea.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Ummmm… No.

This is a disaster in the making.

First, Russia is doing everything it can to just hold Moscow. Building a mIC in the Caucasus just removes 4 badly needed infantry in Moscow.

Second, it is impossible for Russia to hold this mIC. Once Germany turtles Moscow Germany can turn their forces south and take it easily. All you are doing is giving the Germans another mIC to build against Moscow and then the Middle East. At least they would probably send you a Christmas card thanking you.

I vote a strong no on this tactic.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

Andrew, the saving grace you’re gonna have is the infantry from Siberia. That’s what counter attacking is all about, you might be taking away 4 needed infantry, but you’re gonna get that back with 6 infantry that will arrive at Moscow right on time as the Germans are arriving, you could potentially get all 18 if you’ve delayed the Germans effectively by means of counter attacking.

And second, you have a better chance at turtling anyway then that of Germany, Germany suffers far more from attrition having invaded such a huge land mass, they won’t get newly mobilized units over to Moscow fast enough hence why that starting invasion on G3 is the force that’s going to have to fight in Moscow.

And my final point here, the unit distribution, makes all the less difference. You can only produce 3 in places like Kiev, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, which you wont be producing in Stalingrad until it’s under threat, meaning the majority of your units are going to end up in Moscow anyway, so it’s not like you’re taking anything away from Moscow. And be that as it may, a player playing Germany that’s just trying to make a break for Moscow is going to lose, you have to secure the flanks if you want a chance at beating them. The Nazis in the real war thought they could get away with taking Moscow and that’d be it but as it turns out they didn’t have a whole lot of luck with that predicament, so neither will the German player in this game either, seeing both the Northern and Southern flank of the USSR pushed them back to the point where Germany just wasn’t capable of making a counter offensive.

Now in the event that a competent German player knows how to fight against a properly sized mass of land, they’re going to secure Leningrad and Stalingrad, then move in on Moscow, and in these circumstances, you’re gonna have to increase your speed and size in mobilization across the country or you’re gonna lose both flanks, Leningrad is already bad enough being that it’s completely surrounded by 1 territories and it’s the closest city to the German front line so there’s no set intention to make it worse on yourself with Stalingrad.

Just consider the circumstances

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

you’re gonna get that back with 6 infantry that will arrive at Moscow right on time as the Germans are arriving,

You are going to get those 6 infantry from the Far East whether or not you build the mIC so either way you are still down the 4 infantry if you build the mIC.

If you can explain how you are going to hold the mIC than I will listen to your argument. If you cannot hold it, and I say you can’t, than it is nuts to build it for Germany to take over and use.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

You are going to get those 6 infantry from the Far East whether or not you build the mIC so either way you are still down the 4 infantry if you build the mIC.

That’s compensation. Any time you factor out something, you can always factor something IN to sway the balance. Anything and everything that isn’t built toward infantry is factored out of the equation as having ‘lost infantry’. Bringing units across Siberia to fight Germany factors these IN to the equation. When you have a number of -4, add 4 to it bringing it to just the exact amount of infantry you would have normally had, plus another 2 leads you with positive 2, more infantry than what you would’ve lost. You’re not still down the 4 infantry by making this number up, and you’ll continue to make up for with the 12 more infantry moving across the land as well, that’s how this math works, any time you factor something out, it can always be factored in through mobilization of new units or units sent from another designated area.

If you can explain how you are going to hold the mIC than I will listen to your argument. If you cannot hold it, and I say you can’t, than it is nuts to build it for Germany to take over and use.

Do I really have to? Here you have a Germany with a meager industrial complex on Ukraine capable of pumping out 3 units a turn, with this industrial complex, and Stalingrad, you’ll be pumping out twice as many units as they are, which is kind of a big deal in this scenario. Capable now of pumping out 6 units a turn, they’re going to suffer from attrition (lack of proper supply of more units and resources) and therefore lose their grip on the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, providing proper war recovery to the economy and maintaining fighting capability. Germany’s already going to be delayed a turn with a first initial counter attack, followed then by the defense of Leningrad and finally having reached Moscow, an Allied landing being made in the West. Case in point.

[surfer]

@thedesertfox The simple math is where are the $$ coming from to power up the extra mIC in Caucasus? Moscow + Volgograd + Caucasus is 16 units max (assuming you want all infantry, which it doesn’t sound like you do.) = 48 IPCs. Russia just doesn’t have the money.

On the other hand, if you spend 18 IPCs to power up Volgograd + Caucasus. It leaves only 19 for Russia on turns 1-4 (assuming G3 DOW and 37 ish IPCs for Russia). Afterwards, Russia’s income plummets. If you still want to spend that money there. Germany should be sitting in Bryansk with its entire army and approximately 36 IPCs of Russians defending the South. So you are now short 12 guys + 4 guys for mIC and Moscow will fall perhaps as quickly as G6.

Suggest you download some league games involving the Elite players and watch how they invade Russia. There is never an opening for a Russian counter attack. They may not succeed in taking down Moscow, but only because Russia focuses initially on only one thing — defend Moscow. Turns 1-10 that’s all they do. Maybe mess with the Japanese if there is an option, but with Germany its all business of entrench and wait for help. It’s “boring” but that is how the game is designed.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@thedesertfox said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

That’s compensation. Any time you factor out something, you can always factor something IN to sway the balance. Anything and everything that isn’t built toward infantry is factored out of the equation as having ‘lost infantry’. Bringing units across Siberia to fight Germany factors these IN to the equation. When you have a number of -4, add 4 to it bringing it to just the exact amount of infantry you would have normally had, plus another 2 leads you with positive 2, more infantry than what you would’ve lost. You’re not still down the 4 infantry by making this number up, and you’ll continue to make up for with the 12 more infantry moving across the land as well, that’s how this math works, any time you factor something out, it can always be factored in through mobilization of new units or units sent from another designated area.

Ummm, not really. You are still down 4 infantry from what you could have potentially had. Yes instead of 4 you have 6 because you brought 6 from the Far East. However, instead of 6 you could of had 10 with those same Far East infantry plus not building the mIC. You are still down 4 infantry from what you could of had; 6 versus 10. BTW 4 infantry will take a 60-40 battle and make it more like 88-12.

@thedesertfox said in The Caucasus Industrial Complex:

Do I really have to? Here you have a Germany with a meager industrial complex on Ukraine capable of pumping out 3 units a turn, with this industrial complex, and Stalingrad, you’ll be pumping out twice as many units as they are, which is kind of a big deal in this scenario. Capable now of pumping out 6 units a turn, they’re going to suffer from attrition (lack of proper supply of more units and resources) and therefore lose their grip on the Southern portion of the Soviet Union, providing proper war recovery to the economy and maintaining fighting capability. Germany’s already going to be delayed a turn with a first initial counter attack, followed then by the defense of Leningrad and finally having reached Moscow, an Allied landing being made in the West. Case in point.

So you may be building 6 to his 3 but he already has like 70 guys there. Your other 80 guys are sitting in Moscow so he takes about 20 guys and rolls over your 6 guys.

[TheDesertFox]

@surfer

And you’re certainly not wrong, that’s the thing about it, but all that is in the end is just more unit distribution. If you weren’t going to mobilize it one place you woulda mobilized it somewhere else. You already start of with 4 industrial complexes as a whole so you’re already over stretching the amount of IPC’s you can fit infantry for all of them so this really isn’t anything new to the equation.

Frankly, that’s the beauty about the Soviet Union, it’s that even having taken a decent portion of their land, you haven’t taken away that much money. With territories of 1 IPC value spread for miles, they’ll still be able to produce something instead of nothing, now, IF the South falls then yes, that will be a significant economic downfall to the war effort, but if giving it up and condensing in Russia is the so said ‘better way’ to go, then could you maybe show me an instance where that’s worked? I’ve yet to see someone that’s condensed their forces together actually win over against Germany.

Other than that, I see where you’re coming from and you do have a point, but this is all in the assumption that Germany is trying to make a break for Moscow man. And if they are trying to get there with forces within 4 turns from the capital, I say absolutely protect Moscow. Since losing your capital isn’t exactly the latter option. But I’m just here to say this, a proper German player is going to secure the flanks, both Leningrad and Stalingrad, economically crush the Soviet Union to never make a comeback again, then move in to Moscow. Believe me when I say this you won’t be losing any forces from your initial invasion onto Moscow, nor will you be really taking up any extra time doing this.

Hitler thought he could get away with taking out just Moscow to end the war but as it turns out that didn’t bode well for him.

[TheDesertFox]

@andrewaagamer

Ehhhhh, not really. That’s just plane math. And math says that you’re up more infantry then that of which you lost. Now granted, you won’t be up AS MUCH as you could have, which could potentially hurt you in the long run, so you’re right in that you won’t be making as much more infantry as you could be.

Also, no. He won’t have 70 guys there, he won’t even have 60, or 50, or 25 for that matter. Giving you that ample opportunity to actually make a comeback in the South, because your units are DIVERSABLE. They can move from one place to another in the event that it’s needed. If you have 6 guys sitting in the Southern area of the Soviet Union than shame on you for literally handing Germany your IPC’s because that’s why the Soviet Union is losing games consistently, they bottle up in Moscow, wait for the impending German attack, either they still get defeated since they left the German army untouched, or maybe they got some good rolls and beat em back, then you’re pretty much sitting in the water. You’ve got a weakened force that just battled like hell on Moscow city, and half your country is pretty much gone and you’re making dirt for IPC’s to produce anything of value since, half your country was taken after having given it to Germany.

I’ll tell you what, if you can prove to me that handing Germany the majority of the Western half of the Soviet Union, that giving them all those national objective boosts for holding the Caucasus, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, plus what they had to start, all those industrial hubs they have to reinforce themselves, and all those IPC’s that come with it is worth, then I will absolutely believe what you’re saying. But as of right now, you’ve only told me that consolidating your forces to protect Moscow, and there is something to be said for that, but it’s gonna take some good evidence to explain the benefit YOU get as the Soviet Union, from giving Germany all that money and power even if you were to win the battle of Moscow. It’s a pyrrhic victory for the Soviet player man, you won’t be able to mount a counter offensive at all.

[surfer]

@thedesertfox I really don’t see the advantage of this mIC. You say it allows more unit distribution. Sure you could put 3 more units in the south, but why would you?
Germany will either be in W.Ukraine or Belarus with the majority of its forces. At the end of G4. Approx 28 inf, 11 art, 14 mech, 7 tanks + 5 mech and 5 tanks in E. Poland and 5 tanks + 5 mech in Germany.

The Russians are facing off with 62 inf, 6 art, 2 tank, 2 mech, 2 ftr, 1 tac, 4 AA with fully conservative buys at the end of R4. 6 inf are in Novosibirsk having walked from Siberia.
I would delay the 12 other inf just to keep Japan honest…but that is for another discussion. For this, they are in Timguska.

Russia buys the mIC, but when?
R1 would buy in Novogord+Ukraine+ Moscow–no need for mIC,
R2 could be same but any units bought in Novogorod can get cut off, but still can use Volgograd to reinforce so still no need for mIC.
R3 Ukraine and Novogorod are typically indefensible for long term. Any Russian counter would be at a distinct disadvantage, but can probably set up to trade one of these back and forth for a turn so that Germany loses the factory).

So R3 is first time I can see this would be used. Put 3 guys there for two turns R3+R4
And if you’re going to reinforce down south, I would assume that you are putting 3 guys in Volgograd as well R3+R4.

So 4 guys off the board for mIC. 58. Of these, 12 are not in Moscow. 6 could be in Tambov+Rostov , the other 6 are in Volgograd+Caucasus.

G5 move to Bryansk with 28 inf, 11 art, 12 tank, 21 mech+ Luftwaffe 5 sb 2 tac 2 ftr.
R5 you can’t attack the German invasion so you have to turtle. 10 units to Russia. Even with that, G6 is 80-20 battle. The Siberian units are one turn away…
G6 – now that you turtle, I gobble up all the surrounding territories, bomb you and bring in more fast movers, and thank you for the extra mIC to help attack the Middle East.

This scenario just gets worse if you spend to buy more offensive items than inf, as you have fewer defenders for G6. The Germans can get ~278TUV of units to Bryansk G5. The Russians can get about the same in the regions around it. Since all the ground units defend better than attack, the Germans will win if the Russians attack. So they turtle…you just don’t have the time and money to outflank the Germans with a Southern offensive/defensive strike. Any units added to the south at this point will not defend Moscow and once it falls, this mIC is a liability.

[TheDesertFox]

@surfer

When you lose Kiev. Hell you might not build it turn 1, maybe not even turn 2, but seeing as the majority of Soviet players are losing because they can’t seem to figure out that giving up the main abundance of their IPC’s to Germany so it so much so to say that an industrial complex in the Caucasus might do yah a little bit of good to beating back the Germans?

Listen man, at the end of the day, maybe it is a bad idea. Maybe the dice just weren’t with you that game or maybe your German counter part was too cunning with their tactics, bottling up and condensing your forces together doesn’t work anymore, people have tried this and it’s failed all the same, General hand grenade’s counter attacking strategy had a good run for seeming ‘impossible’ to defeat when combined with Middle Earth and that predicament died fast, leaving a Soviet Union with absolutely nothing left to bring to the table, so understand that I’m trying to think of a way to win over as the Soviet Union or at least provide some ample coverage to keep those Germans at bay, but all the same it won’t bode well for the Soviet Union either way.

Germany is just too strong. They get 70+ IPC’s on the second turn to spend on nothing but mobilized ground units to send into the Soviet Union so how could there be any hope anyway. I’ve already made a counter to the Soviet counter attacking strategy to go along with emphasizing counters to middle earth and the floating bridge, so maybe at the end of the day Moscow is just destined to fall. Personally I don’t think the Counter Attacking Strategy works. I thought it was an incredibly lame way at calling a combined Allied strategy “impossible to defeat”, and frankly nothing’s changed. The Axis still have a huge advantage in this game and even with bids it still isn’t enough. I’m typically not very fond of playing the Allies and I’m more of an Axis player so I know and understand everything that you’re saying. Even if America gets ground units into Europe, it’s 8 a turn, by turn 6 to which the Soviets are on their knees to Germany with the Middle East and North Africa crumbling to the Axis powers.

In order to really stop them, you need all 3 Allied members going after Germany. All of them. There need to be British and American troops in mainland Europe as early as turn 5 to even stop Germany or have a chance to, and even that sometimes doesn’t work.

But, in any debate, it’s important to understand the merits at which are and are not possible, and with any benefits come downsides to doing something, bottling up on Moscow is leaving Germany completely untouched as they make their way to Moscow, counter attacking is throwing your units into a counter offensive against a Germany that might be delayed, but will still roll over the Soviet Union as a whole, a factory on the Caucasus? Will just forget it because apparently prioritizing the major IPC hub of the nation is just one sacrifice too great, but that’s the game, making sacrifices and winning battles.

[Colt45554]

Agree with the dissenters. I’m not even sure I would build it if it’s free. If you can’t stop the German scheduled march into bryansk, you can’t stop him from taking cauc and it’s even easier with can-open. You can defend Caucasus or Moscow but not both.

I like the energy but your point would be strengthened if you shared a match link of your plan at work.

[TheDesertFox]

@colt45554

True, for me it’s a hit or miss, either it would work for the Soviets or it wouldn’t, I suppose it just depends how the beginning turns looked like for either nation.

[nishav]

Have to agree that this isn’t a smart play, you’re not capping out your existing industrial capacity, adding more is a loss of throughput.

For unintended concequences it would be hilarious if the Germans take it early and then, while they’re pushing Moscow, lose it to the Brits. However, when your strategy depends on your opponent being an idiot, you don’t have a strategy, you have a dream.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

As an Axis Player i would welcome your idea of Russia building an mIC in Caucasuss, it makes the NO even more tempting.

Like Colt allready explained, please provide a few games as evidence that this will work and prove us wrong.

I highly recommend to reconsider your thoughts on the mIC.

Best regards

AetV

[MarshmallowofWar]

Not only does it make Moscow weaker by at least four infantry (more if Russia actually builds there), it also forces the UK’s hand. Now the UK must defend the Middle East and be prepared to fight for Caucasus while Moscow is under siege. Under no circumstances can Germany be allowed to hold Caucasus with a Russian-built IC present on the territory.

A Russian IC in Caucasus is a bad idea, pure and simple. It’s almost as bad as pulling all UK forces out of the Med on UK1 so that Italy can lock the UK out of the Med on I1.

Marsh

[taamvan]

reduce all city bonuses from 5 to 3 theyre stupidly outrageous oob

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

It isn’t going to work against any decent opponent since Germany can have two dozen tanks/mechs and a bunch of infantry/artillery sitting in Bryansk on Bryansk by G5. They will be supported by a reasonable number of Italian ground troops, along with air support of both nations. If Russia wants to block a charge of the tanks/mechs to the Caucasus, they would have to either:

a) stack Rostov and Tambov with at least a dozen units each to prevent the Italians from opening a path or

b) stack Caucasus with at least three dozen units to prevent the Germans from blitzing down there with air support.

Hence you are looking at a board with a huge number of units missing from Moscow, making it trivial for Germany to sack the capitol on G6.

My guess is that you are playing against poor Axis players who don’t bring Italian troops to support the German advance and/or waste their income defending Western Europe from the Allied invasion instead of a singular drive to head into Russia during the first three turns.

[Bryzz]

I know I’m kinda getting in here late, but seeing as how it got bumped a couple times after an extended period, I’mma take a swing.

If the goal is have-guys-in-the south-to-defend, isn’t a more cost-effective (and by extension more flexible) thing to do just walk the guys down there you wanted to put there anyway?

If you’re making a 12 IPC bet that you’re going to need to place 6 dudes, why not just walk the 6 dudes down there so they’d be there when you’d be buying them anyway… And then you’d still have the 12 IPC. And the same number of dudes covering the south.

And if you don’t use them they can just walk back. If you don’t use your 12 IPC complex, it can’t walk back. And can be used against you or allies (not having to spend on another complex to take Persia IC and/or Cairo for the board victory can make a 1-turn difference or more that we all have experienced can make-or-break a game).

[taamvan]

@bryzz

There is one viable point made here, which is that russia lacks troops to defend the south. What is not mentioned is the factory you already have (Volgograd Stalingrad). Later in the game, Russia often lacks the troops needed just to block. They could walk all the way from moscow or be waiting down south all game, but if you failed to do that, building some more units in the south in the mid game might be a good idea to get some blockers in place.

For all the talk about how powerful Germany is and how imbalanced the game is, its odd that no one suggests making Germany or the Axis weaker, rather than the allies stronger. Or both.

Removing an air pair from japan or germany makes a big difference.
And to repeat, why does germany get 70-80$? That’s what makes it too easy. The bonuses are too easy to get and are easily nerfed (leningrad volgograd moscow shouldn’t be worth 5, you could make them 2-4 and lowering the bonuses doesn’t alter Germany’s setup or first turns. Moreover, interfering with Germany and Japan money and production is way too difficult in comparison to how easily they can smash the UK or USSR economy (except in anniversary). By midgame, Germany has 2 greater and 5 lesser factories, we’ve tried partisan type rules to limit their vast choices.