[Game 4] TGC (CP) v DoManMacgee (Entente) -oob, no bid, RR

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain said in [Game 4] TGC (CP) v DoManMacgee (Entente) -oob, no bid, RR:

@domanmacgee I was never trying to leave Russia with the German armies up in Karelia. I was trying to get British units to run the minefields and land units up there so those German units could remain active and avoid being “mobility killed”. I was never going to go farther than Poland.

That’s interesting. I figured that, if left alone, you might have tried walking the stack (or at least part of it) down to the western front to push through the stalemate there. It makes sense that you’d want to keep the stack there to block any attempt at getting Russia back in the game though.

I went with not building the fleet in this case because I felt certain the UK would just sack its transport fleet and that just didnt seem productive to me as the CP.

Correct. Would have just let the boats die, at least until India was secure. If anything one blank turn of Germany buys might have gotten France back in the game and prevented me from surrendering (although with Italy dead I probably would have quit anyway).

One thing I would really like to know your mind on - why don’t you have the USA take Spain? Or why not have the USA soften it so that France can pick it up? I feel strongly that USA should take Spain (although my shuck strat is very different than yours too) but my feeling is that you feel strongly they should not take Spain and I would really like to hear that argument if that’s how you feel?

In a normal game I would have went for it (the second option, having USA soften it and let France get the IPCs) but I felt the crunch to get units into the Mediterranean ASAP (due to the rest of the game going south). I think I forgot to mention that in my notes though (it should have been under the part where I hypothesize what territories the Entente can take to make up for lost Russian IPCs).

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain The only question I have about this game is which exact point did you make up your mind to refuse the RR and go for Moscow? Was it a long-term plan or an opportunistic thing based on how things went in other parts of the board (me staying in Ukraine for too long/Sevastopol going well for you/etc.)?

[The_Good_Captain]

@domanmacgee said in [Game 4] TGC (CP) v DoManMacgee (Entente) -oob, no bid, RR:

The only question I have about this game is which exact point did you make up your mind to refuse the RR and go for Moscow? Was it a long-term plan or an opportunistic thing based on how things went in other parts of the board (me staying in Ukraine for too long/Sevastopol going well for you/etc.)?

It was opportunistic – in my opinion at point, there is a lot to unpack in this game, at least as regards the CP/Russia relationship in the first 6-8 turns. In our earlier game, I had a (imo) fatal misunderstanding of the rules and my own strategy with how to deal with Russia. Your response post game was something to the effect of, “I could see you were going for RR”.
My instinct was that it was “not good” that it was so visible. My next immediate instinct was that “either outcome needs to be okay as the CP and the outcome shouldn’t be forced. I don’t think I will change my mind on this concept going forward. It seems to be panning out well enough in other games. I have had one of each (accept RR, not accept RR) in concurrent games and in either case they seem to be playing out very competitively afterwards. For me, the ideal conditions on when to do one or the other are not crystal clear. However, I feel confident that the conditions on when to accept RR or brush it off will become more clear with more playing.
At this point in time, I feel that control of Sevastopol is/was the main factor. Since CP already controlled a pathway into Russia, might as well get all the IPC I can. I was leaning in that direction but had to think about the UK in the north part of the board. If I accept RR, the UK has to suicide charge out of Russia which I liked. On the other hand, UK transports will definitely sealift the UK army in Karelia out and into France – I felt this was not good. I wanted the CP to eliminate as much British material as I could up there with the forces I had on hand. What I settled on was that it was better to fight the UK in Karelia than to fight them in France or India. I felt that keeping that front open was something Germany could handle better than the UK – and that it would benefit the CP more than the Entente to do so overall. This was a decision made under shades of gray. I wasn’t sure if UK packed those transports and risked a full amphibious landing in Finland that I would be able to fight that entirely effectively or that “something else” would pop up but I was comfortable enough with that risk I guess.

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain said in [Game 4] TGC (CP) v DoManMacgee (Entente) -oob, no bid, RR:

For me, the ideal conditions on when to do one or the other are not crystal clear. However, I feel confident that the conditions on when to accept RR or brush it off will become more clear with more playing.

That’s an interesting point. From my side Russia’s entire gameplan ends up revolving around dealing with the threat of RR firing (whereas in a normal game the plan would just be to fall back to Moscow and wait for the Americans to show up/the Entente to start making progress in other parts of the board). The rule forces Russia to actually deal with the “will they/won’t they” mindgame which is created by the Central Powers’ ability to decline the revolution. At this point, I’d probably say that RR is basically mandatory to give the game any chance of being balanced, not unlike the old “USSR can’t attack R1” rule in Classic.

[The_Good_Captain]

@domanmacgee

I have another short comment as I re-read portions of your analysis.

You seem/are critical of your commitment to Ukraine throughout the game.

This is mildly surprising to me as that caused me quite a bit of pain or perceived pain as the CP. More specifically, it was demoralizing to have to fight so desperately for so long for that high value space. Again, your reflective analysis was a bit of a surprise to me in this way as I felt I might plagiarize that move (or a version of that move) in future games where I control the entente.

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain It might have been different if I was ferrying the UK guys in earlier in the game (either from a boat lift or via Mesopotamia). The issue from my perspective is that Germany was getting the better IPC trades every round after the first battle (~turn 3). It’s probably less about diving on Ukraine in the first place (that was probably fine, since you had AH eat most of the casualties, which made them a non-factor in the area) but trying to 1v1 Germany with Russia with no support for an extended period of time was just asking for trouble IMO.

[The_Good_Captain]

@domanmacgee rack another? I will be hitting Entente with the same opening moves.

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain Sure. Just LMK when you start the game.

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain Oh wait duh. If I’m CP I have to start it. Will get on it either later tonight or tomorrow.

[The_Good_Captain]

@domanmacgee if you want CP, its all yours - I was leaning towards hitting you with the same basic strategy again as the CP though. If not now, perhaps in the future. Just let me know

[DoManMacgee]

@the_good_captain Oh I thought you were “hitting me with the entente”.

If possible, I’d like a go at Central Powers just to get the experience in, since I usually play Allies in most A&A Versions with my face-to-face friends.

[The_Good_Captain]

@domanmacgee fire when ready my friend!