Russian tanks or artillery?

[meterpaffay]

I’m sure that this has been discussed a few times (posting links to any existing insightful discussions is very welcome!), but I’d like to ask again for your take on whether Russia should indulge in buying 2 tanks (and 4 inf) or stick with the more conservative 4 inf, 3 art approach.

I played around with both approaches and subjectively feel like the artillery start has worked out better for me in general. Bear in mind that this just a personal feeling because I find it hard to explain any given win or loss by merely looking at my opening purchase. In fact, I find a far better outcome predictor for a game is a look at the West Russia/Ukraine battle. Especially if Ukraine goes poorly, I find it extremely hard to pull off a win against a decent opponent.

One observation I made is that, if I started out with tanks and got lucky with the dice rolls in West Russia and Ukraine I had a lot more momentum than if I started with artillery. Conversely, starting with artillery while having poor to mediocre results in the two opening battles, seemed to yield better results. Can anyone confirm this, or have I fallen into the trap of my own confirmation bias?

Pros/Cons tank:
The tank approach obviously focuses on the mobility which gives Russia more options to attack and defend. R1 tanks in particular can allow for an attack at Karelia R2, assuming Ukraine went well (and maybe was just strafed so 3 tanks are left in Caucasus). If Ukraine was captured (and all leftover tanks will most likely be destroyed in G1), the new tanks could come in handy, if Russia can afford to help UK in India against a J3 attack. However one could argue that the same can be accomplished by buying tanks R2 and placing them in Caucasus, so it’s definetely not the main selling point.
The cons are fewer bodies to defend against the German onslaught and every unit counts in a tight battle.

Pros/Cons artillery:
The artillery is less mobile than the tank but offers one more unit and at the same time elevates the offensive power of any existing infantry unit making medium to big fights more cost effective for Russia.
I would also argue that Russia doesn’t need very high flexibility in the early stages of the game since the main goal is most likely stack West Russia as much as you can and make small trades here and there. Japan won’t be a real threat that requires tank assistance before round 3, maybe even later.
Russia doesn’t have and can’t handle many fronts/stacks it can switch between so it’s probably better off building one big stack with maximum efficiency.

What has worked for you in the past and are there things I might have overlooked to evaluate the situation?

[Dead Rabbits]

I would say your assessment of the difference is correct.

This has been discussed and tested many many times, and while the current Meta favors the 2 tank build over the artillery, if the WR and Ukraine attacks do not go well the tank buy being one less unit than the artillery buy does make a huge difference in the possibility of defending WR round 2.

If the attacks go very poorly that still may not be enough to hold WR round 2 but it does give Russia more options.

The tanks as you say give Russia more options with average to above average results from these attacks for counter attacking Karelia or Ukraine which Germany will almost always try to stack one of these territories round one. However the attrition Russia takes on average for doing these battles is very high. So these builds are a bit of a bluff that the Axis opponent may call anyways for the purpose of destroying a large number of Russian forces right away so Germany can make more progress after this.

Germany does get to counter attack as well and has more units to do so with.

[Dead Rabbits]

If we assume a average capture of WR with 6 infantry surviving there and Germany stacks Karelia this battle is 61% to capture Karelia for Russia with the 2 tank build, assumes 2 infantry move from Okrug to Archangel as well, pretty normal. https://aa1942calc.com/#/E0q7VObBHRhUzhT3InP0sA

Note that this battle is not really a option without the tank build. That would only be 18% to capture instead of 61%. So 2 tanks better right?

The average results of this battle will only leave 2 to 4 ground units in Karelia if it succeeds at all, a third of the time it won’t. And it’s easy for Germany to then take it back and wipe out the Russian tanks again which will basically leave Russia with its round 2 build to work with after this.

Meanwhile if Russia builds the artillery instead and does not attack Karelia but puts everything into defending WR, maybe a light trade of Belarus or Ukraine round 2 it will face more German tanks on this attack round 2 but it has enough numbers to hold if UK and/or US help defend WR sending fighters there.

https://aa1942calc.com/#/A5EJBsZsBIWRk6bEB9L3CQ

You can fool around with these numbers but I do think you have more options with the artillery build in the case of below average results of the round one attacks than with the tank build, but you also are giving up the option to attack Karelia before Germany can go.

So it’s really up to you. Do you want to trade aggressively with Germany? If so I think you need to be doing KGF. Or do you want to play more defensively with Russia? Which does give Allies more options I think.