Once again, thank you so much! You really helped me a lot there!
Thank you! :-D :wink:
Russian moves to start game
-
Germany controlling Caucasus at the beginning of G2?
To be clear, this involves a massive Russian screwup, either a failed triple, or a triple not involving UKR, combined with leaving valuable attack units like fighters at Caucasus.
If Russia royally screwed up, Germany can both take Anglo-Egypt and take and hold Caucasus.
Germany may forgo Anglo-Egypt (sacrificing Africa, even pulling units out on G1 for transport) to hit Caucasus harder. This drops the Med fleet on UK1, but the idea is that with Caucasus in German hands at beginning of G1, and 8+ tanks incoming (Japan doing heavy tank builds as well), Moscow should fall before UK/US can get their transport system in place.
(edit) - oh, yes, and quite correct about taking the Russian sub as a casualty. I should have mentioned that. :lol:
-
Hi,
Very new to the game so just looking to learn. My question revolves around what a number of you have said but I’ll quote SAS:
“Standard attacks are 9 inf, 1 art, 1 tank to West Russia”
If you send 9 infantry into WR, are you leaving just one fighter in Karelia? I assume it will die on G1? Also, nothing is left in Archangel to counter on R2?
Thanks for your help.
The fighters attack Ukraine and land in Caucus. I did screw up with the tanks. My standard opening is 2 tanks on WR and two on Ukraine. Others like to put 3 on UK but I think thats overcommitting.
-
The fighters attack Ukraine and land in Caucus. I did screw up with the tanks. My standard opening is 2 tanks on WR and two on Ukraine. Others like to put 3 on UK but I think thats overcommitting.
It depends on how much of a risk you are willing to assume: 2 armor gives you 85% odds of winning, but since usually people want to take Ukr (to prevent the German armor on Balkans from hitting WR), then the odds are 68% with 1 armor. With 3 armor the odds of taking Ukr with at least 1 armor left are 84%.
The risk is also dependent on how the WR attack goes and how many Russian infantry the Germans manage to kill. Losing 3 inf is the standard but if R loses 5 or 6 infantry then the remaining pieces might be vulnerable to a German counterattack. Taking Ukr reduces that chance by blocking the German armor on Balkans. -
The fighters attack Ukraine and land in Caucus. I did screw up with the tanks. My standard opening is 2 tanks on WR and two on Ukraine. Others like to put 3 on UK but I think thats overcommitting.
It depends on how much of a risk you are willing to assume: 2 armor gives you 85% odds of winning, but since usually people want to take Ukr (to prevent the German armor on Balkans from hitting WR), then the odds are 68% with 1 armor. With 3 armor the odds of taking Ukr with at least 1 armor left are 84%.
The risk is also dependent on how the WR attack goes and how many Russian infantry the Germans manage to kill. Losing 3 inf is the standard but if R loses 5 or 6 infantry then the remaining pieces might be vulnerable to a German counterattack. Taking Ukr reduces that chance by blocking the German armor on Balkans.Yeah but then they just wipe out three of your tanks no problem and with two tanks on WR, it also helps Russia win faster in WR and helps protect against the counter. Besides, it’s a risk for Germany since there’s so many missions for those german fighters. Either way is good. I think that division comes down to personal preference.
-
Re: using 2 tanks vs 3 tanks at Ukraine / Ukraine attack
Yeah but then they just wipe out three of your tanks no problem and with two tanks on WR, it also helps Russia win faster in WR and helps protect against the counter. Besides, it’s a risk for Germany since there’s so many missions for those german fighters. Either way is good. I think that division comes down to personal preference.
Take a R1 sub buy. You want to land your Russian fighters at Caucasus to threaten the German battleship unless it sails west and takes Gibraltar with transport (to prevent UK air from whacking the battleship and transport) or spends IPCs on a defensive navy and stays at Southern Europe.
Failure to take Ukraine means an additional 2 German tanks that can hit Caucasus. If Caucasus is hit, Russian fighters will be lost, and the threat to the German battleship eliminated. Russia can safety and abandon Caucasus, but then the Germans whack Anglo Egypt and grab Caucasus with 1 inf (or whatever minimal forces), making the R1 sub buy fairly useless.Assuming UK recaptures Caucasus on UK1, Russia can land fighters on Caucasus on R2, to threaten the German fleet for R3, but on J2, a Japanese BB and AC can join the German Mediterranean fleet, and/or Germany can take countermeasures. True, Japan might not be in a position to reinforce, but if that were the case, US2 would be able to threaten the un-reinforced German battleship with 2 fighters 1 bomber anyways. (UK1 aircraft carrier/2 destroyer buy; US1 flies 2 fighters to UK carrier, US bomber to Archangel, R2 reinforces US bomber with 3 infantry, UK2 moves carrier to Algeria, US2 moves fleet to Algeria; US fighters on UK carrier in range of Mediterranean, joined by US bomber). This hits the entire Mediterranean.
(Hobbes mentioned in another thread the UK2 attack - UK bomber into position, UK fighter to French West Africa, UK1 India carrier southwest plus fighter for 2-3 fighter plus bomber, but contingent on Japan and German moves.)
So the strong point of the R1 sub buy (threatening German battleship before G2) is undermined if Ukraine is not taken, esp. considering the possibility of J2 reinforcements.
As far as risk - of course it’s all risky; an early German attack on a 6-7 unit Caucasus is risky, dropping the G1 Anglo Egypt attack is risky, if the German attack on Caucasus succeeds, the UK counter is risky, if the UK counter is not taken, the weakening of Japan’s J1 attacks is risky, if Russia attempts to recapture Caucasus, that will also be risky, and if Russia does not attempt to recapture, that will be riskiest of all!
There are dangerous behind every dice pip. :-o
“Remember what Bilbo used to say: It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to."
-
Yeah but then they just wipe out three of your tanks no problem and with two tanks on WR, it also helps Russia win faster in WR and helps protect against the counter. Besides, it’s a risk for Germany since there’s so many missions for those german fighters. Either way is good. I think that division comes down to personal preference.
One of the best targets for the German fighters can be West Russia. Kill all Russian units there and Germany gets the upper hand on the Eastern front for a few turns and might even push Russia to the ropes. If you can do it and still attack SZ15, SZ13 and Egypt then the Allies will have some major headaches at start.
It was more likely to do this on Revised, since the Germans could place their bid on E.Eur/Belo but it is a situation that Germany should take it if R1 goes bad for the Russians.
-
Attacking a moderately defended West Russia or Caucus is risky. In most cases, I don’t think the odds would be favourable. A likely scenario is that Germany burns all their inf and doesn’t take anything, leaving Russia to walk all over them (possibly giving them Norway). It’s not worth the risk on round 1. Egypt attack, and sinking UK boats are more important on rd 1. Plus it puts planes out of range since a lot of them won’t be able to land in France to threat Atlantic waters- something I know you like to do Hobbes.
-
I am suprised not to see anybody to speak in more detail in favour of the Norwegian attack I call Norwegian gambit, that has become the standard opening for me. I do send both figs though, sacrificing one of them, hence gambit. I feel it is absoluteley essential for the Russians to get the UK help as soon as possible and the survival of the UK BB is simply priceless in this respect. In my games most of the time UK is able to hold Norway from R2 due to the Norwegian attack which I think is absolutely crucial.
I have elaborated more on the Norwegian gambit in another forum so let me add few other notes here. It includes taking NOR with all you can (3inf, tnk, 2 figs) which 89 % likelihood, and sending the rest but the arch units to WR (100 % with 8,4 units remaining). Of course, you are leaving cauc empty with just one inf but you do not need to worry, you will get it back.
There is also always at least one inf in karelia at the end of R1 from arch to make norway more difficult to retake for germany. If both attacks went exceptionally good (happens much more often than a failure in one of them), you can save both figs, and move all 3 arch inf to kar with the sacrificed fig, to make it more costly for germans to retake. Otherwise, I just take the last hit on the lame fig above norway and send the 2 inf from arch to reinforce WR.
Germany can of course attack WR with quite a good likelihood of succes most of the time on G1 which i think scares most of the people of playing Norwegian gambit. But closer look shows IMHO there is not so much to worry about. Any single fig Germany does not send there makes the likelihood substantially lower, and you really do not want to skip all the other attacks as a German player do you? So what you ussually see is Germany doing the 2 med SZ, AE, nor, kar, cauc and painfully considering WR, with Nor, SZ 13 and AE all potentially risky attacks.
Now, if the Germans really commit to WR, let us see what are the odds. Say you have in WR standard 5inf, 2 art, 3tnk and AC gun at the end of R1. Germans can bring 6 inf, art and 3tnk as their ground units if they skip cauc which they have to. This on its own gives them 33 % so you still need to send some air. With 1 fig it is 56 % with 2 units alive and this is too high a risk, with 2 figs it gives them 73 % with 3,5 units alive which looks nice… but what if AA gun hits which should happen exactly 1 in 3 times? So you better send 3 figs. Then it is 85,5 with 4,8 units alive which is just fine – almost as good odds as for the russia to take NOR. But at the same time this is max you can send if you do not want to skip other vital attacks altogether. And just one AC gun hit still can turn things really ugly for Gerrys. And German remaining WR units are doomed anyway taking with them aprox. 2 more russian infs.
On G1 though you are left with just a bmb and two figs to clear SZ 15, do AE and kar or nor. All of the attacks supported with just one plane. And you skipped cauc, you better skip nor or kar, or you take really crazy risks somewhere. It also means you need SZ 8 sub in SZ 13. Thus UK has SZ1 trannie alive and FOUR UK units landing Norway R1.
And the worst is usually still to come, because most of the time one of the attacks goes bad for the Germans which is perfectly in the likelihood. The combined likelihood of the failure of one of the 4 attacks (SZ13, AE, KAR/NOR, WR) is usually around 50 %. Hence although you see the players mumble about bad luck the naked truth is they were lurked into taking grossly risky decisions. Which is exactly where you want to have them.
What will happen next, most of the time is Russia will retake WR with hardly any loss and no chance for Germans to take it back R2, Russia will still be able to trade kar, retake and hold cauc R3 the latest and Germany will be in trouble since UK will put a pressure on it from R2 being able to threaten EE, WEU and indeed Germany itself with 8 units from R3. I took Germany R3 with UK more than once. But even without the aid of your opposition’s blunders you make the great use of the battleship that will allow you to spend precious UK IPCs on trannies and ground units much earlier. The bb will give you all the value for the sacrificed russian fig.
Although I lost twiced with severely suboptimal dice, this opening remains for me the best of all Russian options. Because although I cannot recommend attacking WR on G1, many times it just might be the best option Germany has.
-
Attacking a moderately defended West Russia or Caucus is risky. In most cases, I don’t think the odds would be favourable. A likely scenario is that Germany burns all their inf and doesn’t take anything, leaving Russia to walk all over them (possibly giving them Norway). It’s not worth the risk on round 1. Egypt attack, and sinking UK boats are more important on rd 1. Plus it puts planes out of range since a lot of them won’t be able to land in France to threat Atlantic waters- something I know you like to do Hobbes.
The only reason why Germany attacks West Russia or Caucasus early is to break it or strafe it. If broken, Russia should not have enough left to counter Germany. If strafed, Germany pulls back before destroying the enemy.
The question is not whether attacking WR/Cauc early is normally a good idea. The question is what happens when WR/Cauc IS a good idea.
In such cases, the loss of fighters for control of the Atlantic is normally anticipated. Germany can act proactively with a Mediterranean sub and/or bomber buy, but lots of tanks is probably more the norm. If Russia’s attack power has been broken, German tanks can often rush in to exploit the weakness, at least securing Caucasus out of the deal.
-
Re: Trading Russian fighter for UK battleship
Initially, I thought it a good idea too; swapping 10 IPCs for 27. But leaving Germany with infantry at Belorussia and Ukraine, allows a lot of strong German plays. Even if Germany’s not beating down West Russia on G1, things like G1 consolidation to Ukraine, or even pulling back and forcing Russia to trade Caucasus, Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia are all trickier without that Russian fighter.
Besides, what have you really saved? Say the UK battleship is destroyed; UK will typically build 1 AC 2 destroyers on UK1, and not drop to Europe for fear of subs/air. If the German player hit both the W Canada transport and the London battleship/transport, UK2 has more fleet build including transports, then it’s UK3 drops to Europe. A BB is insufficient protection for a UK fleet; you still need 1 AC 1 DD on UK1 (AC for defensive power and DD for fodder and for hunting subs), allowing a minimal UK drop on UK2 to Norway, with the 4 transport drop happening on UK3. (if you don’t buy a DD on UK1, you’ll be threatened by 3 subs 4-5 fighters 1-2 bombers if you try to drop on UK2. A DD buy chases German subs out of the Atlantic.)
Thinking about it this way, I typically only do Norway with 1 fighter, if at all. My new pet is the UKR 3 tank-2 fighter/WR attack with 2 sub, 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank buy. There are a lot of weak points to it - I think Zhukov uses sub/fighter build; I’ll have to run some calculations to decide if I’ll end up using that. (Zhukov, if you’re reading this, is it sub/fighter/2 artillery that you do, or sub/fighter/infantry/tank? I’m betting inf/tank.)
Re: West Russia/Norway attack, using Russian blocker at Karelia to prevent German E Europe tank from blitz to Archangel
The Karelia block is a good idea, esp. as it stops Russia from having to trade 4 territories on R2. But I would use lame duck fighter or 1 inf at most. Germany can typically smash Karelia to bits, and with Russia dropping a fighter, Russia’s even harder up to trade territories. A decent German hardpoint at Karelia can be smashed with Russian tanks, but a G1 build of decent numbers of tanks means dead Russian tanks after the Russian recapture. Germany should be able to use its Belorussia infantry to fuel the G2 trades, then after that the G1 infantry buy will be in place (G1 production at Berlin, G2 march to E Europe, G3 Karelia trade.) All I feel Russia really does by sending 3 infantry to join its fighter is losing more infantry.
Personally, I use 1 fighter when I do a Norway attack. If I have decent luck, the UK battleship is saved. If I fail, well, it was worth a shot.
Re: Germany whacking WR after Norway/WR attack
Depends on what you have left in WR and your buy. Germany can pull off a powerful strafe and retreat to Belorussia, leaving it out of attack range (unless you built a good number of tanks), or may chance breaking WR if it’s relatively weak, and particularly if Russia didn’t build some good attack units. Although I agree WR is generally not in a lot of danger.
Re: Germany hitting Caucasus
Either Germany hits light or heavy. If light -
Leaving 1 infantry there makes it likely Germany attacks with 2 units, which draws Germany’s forward reserves in. But I find it more appealing to pull everything out of Caucasus, AA gun included. If Germany moves in 1 infantry, I can use UK bomber and UK Persia infantry to recapture, allowing Russia to build there on R2 (or at least probably march in 1 infantry unopposed, if UK killed the German infantry but lost UK infantry in the process).
If heavy -
Smashing Germany in Caucasus on R2 after a G1 capture may not be at all easy. Best German force there consists of 9 units (5 Ukraine, EE/Balkans tanks, plus units from Southern Europe. Plan A for Germany breaks West Russia with Belorussia infantry plus mass air, pulling units out of Africa. Plan B (if Russia bled off strength to Persia and Sinkiang or other things like that) sends 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 bomber to Anglo-Egypt to clear the units there and clears the cruiser at Gibraltar with remaining air. Japan flies in 4 fighters to reinforce.
In either event, it’s up to 13 Axis units on Caucasus at the beginning of R2, many of them high-dice, not an easy attack for Russia by any means, especially with Russia’s West Russia attack power broken. This is another reason why I don’t use 2 fighters at Norway, and why I think seriously about even leaving 1 infantry at Karelia to block. It could be that I will need every dice available for making WR harder to take, and to retake Caucasus in case WR is attacked. G2 starting with Caucasus is so horrible for the Allies, esp. when the G1 build was 8 tanks anticipating precisely this scenario.
-
I am suprised not to see anybody to speak in more detail in favour of the Norwegian attack I call Norwegian gambit, that has become the standard opening for me. I do send both figs though, sacrificing one of them, hence gambit. I feel it is absoluteley essential for the Russians to get the UK help as soon as possible and the survival of the UK BB is simply priceless in this respect. In my games most of the time UK is able to hold Norway from R2 due to the Norwegian attack which I think is absolutely crucial.
I have elaborated more on the Norwegian gambit in another forum so let me add few other notes here. It includes taking NOR with all you can (3inf, tnk, 2 figs) which 89 % likelihood, and sending the rest but the arch units to WR (100 % with 8,4 units remaining). Of course, you are leaving cauc empty with just one inf but you do not need to worry, you will get it back.
There is also always at least one inf in karelia at the end of R1 from arch to make norway more difficult to retake for germany. If both attacks went exceptionally good (happens much more often than a failure in one of them), you can save both figs, and move all 3 arch inf to kar with the sacrificed fig, to make it more costly for germans to retake. Otherwise, I just take the last hit on the lame fig above norway and send the 2 inf from arch to reinforce WR.
Germany can of course attack WR with quite a good likelihood of succes most of the time on G1 which i think scares most of the people of playing Norwegian gambit. But closer look shows IMHO there is not so much to worry about. Any single fig Germany does not send there makes the likelihood substantially lower, and you really do not want to skip all the other attacks as a German player do you? So what you ussually see is Germany doing the 2 med SZ, AE, nor, kar, cauc and painfully considering WR, with Nor, SZ 13 and AE all potentially risky attacks.
Now, if the Germans really commit to WR, let us see what are the odds. Say you have in WR standard 5inf, 2 art, 3tnk and AC gun at the end of R1. Germans can bring 6 inf, art and 3tnk as their ground units if they skip cauc which they have to. This on its own gives them 33 % so you still need to send some air. With 1 fig it is 56 % with 2 units alive and this is too high a risk, with 2 figs it gives them 73 % with 3,5 units alive which looks nice… but what if AA gun hits which should happen exactly 1 in 3 times? So you better send 3 figs. Then it is 85,5 with 4,8 units alive which is just fine – almost as good odds as for the russia to take NOR. But at the same time this is max you can send if you do not want to skip other vital attacks altogether. And just one AC gun hit still can turn things really ugly for Gerrys. And German remaining WR units are doomed anyway taking with them aprox. 2 more russian infs.
On G1 though you are left with just a bmb and two figs to clear SZ 15, do AE and kar or nor. All of the attacks supported with just one plane. And you skipped cauc, you better skip nor or kar, or you take really crazy risks somewhere. It also means you need SZ 8 sub in SZ 13. Thus UK has SZ1 trannie alive and FOUR UK units landing Norway R1.
And the worst is usually still to come, because most of the time one of the attacks goes bad for the Germans which is perfectly in the likelihood. The combined likelihood of the failure of one of the 4 attacks (SZ13, AE, KAR/NOR, WR) is usually around 50 %. Hence although you see the players mumble about bad luck the naked truth is they were lurked into taking grossly risky decisions. Which is exactly where you want to have them.
What will happen next, most of the time is Russia will retake WR with hardly any loss and no chance for Germans to take it back R2, Russia will still be able to trade kar, retake and hold cauc R3 the latest and Germany will be in trouble since UK will put a pressure on it from R2 being able to threaten EE, WEU and indeed Germany itself with 8 units from R3. I took Germany R3 with UK more than once. But even without the aid of your opposition’s blunders you make the great use of the battleship that will allow you to spend precious UK IPCs on trannies and ground units much earlier. The bb will give you all the value for the sacrificed russian fig.
Although I lost twiced with severely suboptimal dice, this opening remains for me the best of all Russian options. Because although I cannot recommend attacking WR on G1, many times it just might be the best option Germany has.
Good points all. But you’re not giving a full account of the risks involved.
Plug the values for the Nor attack into the Frood dice calc.
You’ll find that while Germany clears Norway 91% of the time, Russia’s chances of clearing it with 2 or more units remaining is actually only 80%.
Now for West Russia. There is a 26% chance that Russia will lose 4 or more infantry taking WR. So in those cases, Germany’s odds for the retake will go up accordingly. I can agree that if Russia only loses 3 inf, then G1 WR is probably a bad idea, but if Russia loses 4 its a different story.
I think if you consider these risks together then the chances of something going bad on R1 is pretty high, maybe 30-35%.
If you go with just 1 fig to Norway, then the risk factor is way higher…imho over 50% that Russia will be in dire straits after R1.
Even if everything Russia does works, Germany is not so bad off. They will have the same amount of figs at their disposal. With Nor taken, the bomber is freed up to support another attack. The SS can knock out the transport or go for the 50/50 against the American fleet, unless Germany is going all in at WR.
So I’m skeptical on whether the benefits justify the risks.
-
Attacking a moderately defended West Russia or Caucus is risky. In most cases, I don’t think the odds would be favourable. A likely scenario is that Germany burns all their inf and doesn’t take anything, leaving Russia to walk all over them (possibly giving them Norway). It’s not worth the risk on round 1. Egypt attack, and sinking UK boats are more important on rd 1. Plus it puts planes out of range since a lot of them won’t be able to land in France to threat Atlantic waters- something I know you like to do Hobbes.
I actually would prefer to hit the Russians hard on WR (note: I meant if Russia made a WR+UKR attack, with 3 armor going for UKR) than to contest the Atlantic, if the Russians lost more than 3 inf and there’s no AA Gun (with regular dice) or there’s a AA (with LL).
But this all depends on a lot of dice results for R1 and mistakes by the Russian player (not moving the 6 inf on Evenki/Novo/Kazakh to Moscow/Caucasus on non-combat move). It is an opportunity that may come up or not. -
and mistakes by the Russian player (not moving the 6 inf on Evenki/Novo/Kazakh to Moscow/Caucasus on non-combat move). It is an opportunity that may come up or not.
I’ve heard two train of thoughts about these R INF that are in Oriental non contested territories during the first turns. The first is to bring them all back to Moscow/Caucasus ASAP, fueling the war against G. The other is to slowly move them towards India, starting a long chain of R INF fueling the Allied defense there, effectively slowing JAP’s advance, making J have to defend the East coast.
Slowing JAP will usually lenghten the game, which usually favors Allies. But fuelling the Eastern front will favor R income, also favoring Allies.
Any thoughts on what’s best in which situation/strategy?
-
and mistakes by the Russian player (not moving the 6 inf on Evenki/Novo/Kazakh to Moscow/Caucasus on non-combat move). It is an opportunity that may come up or not.
I’ve heard two train of thoughts about these R INF that are in Oriental non contested territories during the first turns. The first is to bring them all back to Moscow/Caucasus ASAP, fueling the war against G. The other is to slowly move them towards India, starting a long chain of R INF fueling the Allied defense there, effectively slowing JAP’s advance, making J have to defend the East coast.
Slowing JAP will usually lenghten the game, which usually favors Allies. But fuelling the Eastern front will favor R income, also favoring Allies.
Any thoughts on what’s best in which situation/strategy?
My opinion is that sending infantry units towards India is risking to lose them by Japanese attacks by land and sea. If you want to stall the Japanese advance it is safer to do so by placing stacks on either Novo/Kazakh (or both if you can spare the units), to prevent the Japanese from taking both on the same turn and advancing reinforcements to Yak Sinkiang or Persia.
-
Yeah I wouldn’t be sending Russians to India, or be putting them on any coastal territory. If any go to asia, through China is the best bet because it can stall Japan and you can usually retreat when the time comes.
-
@Bunnies:
Re: using 2 tanks vs 3 tanks at Ukraine / Ukraine attack
Yeah but then they just wipe out three of your tanks no problem and with two tanks on WR, it also helps Russia win faster in WR and helps protect against the counter. Besides, it’s a risk for Germany since there’s so many missions for those german fighters. Either way is good. I think that division comes down to personal preference.
Take a R1 sub buy. You want to land your Russian fighters at Caucasus to threaten the German battleship unless it sails west and takes Gibraltar with transport (to prevent UK air from whacking the battleship and transport) or spends IPCs on a defensive navy and stays at Southern Europe.
Failure to take Ukraine means an additional 2 German tanks that can hit Caucasus. If Caucasus is hit, Russian fighters will be lost, and the threat to the German battleship eliminated. Russia can safety and abandon Caucasus, but then the Germans whack Anglo Egypt and grab Caucasus with 1 inf (or whatever minimal forces), making the R1 sub buy fairly useless.Assuming UK recaptures Caucasus on UK1, Russia can land fighters on Caucasus on R2, to threaten the German fleet for R3, but on J2, a Japanese BB and AC can join the German Mediterranean fleet, and/or Germany can take countermeasures. True, Japan might not be in a position to reinforce, but if that were the case, US2 would be able to threaten the un-reinforced German battleship with 2 fighters 1 bomber anyways. (UK1 aircraft carrier/2 destroyer buy; US1 flies 2 fighters to UK carrier, US bomber to Archangel, R2 reinforces US bomber with 3 infantry, UK2 moves carrier to Algeria, US2 moves fleet to Algeria; US fighters on UK carrier in range of Mediterranean, joined by US bomber). This hits the entire Mediterranean.
(Hobbes mentioned in another thread the UK2 attack - UK bomber into position, UK fighter to French West Africa, UK1 India carrier southwest plus fighter for 2-3 fighter plus bomber, but contingent on Japan and German moves.)
So the strong point of the R1 sub buy (threatening German battleship before G2) is undermined if Ukraine is not taken, esp. considering the possibility of J2 reinforcements.
As far as risk - of course it’s all risky; an early German attack on a 6-7 unit Caucasus is risky, dropping the G1 Anglo Egypt attack is risky, if the German attack on Caucasus succeeds, the UK counter is risky, if the UK counter is not taken, the weakening of Japan’s J1 attacks is risky, if Russia attempts to recapture Caucasus, that will also be risky, and if Russia does not attempt to recapture, that will be riskiest of all!
There are dangerous behind every dice pip. :-o
“Remember what Bilbo used to say: It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to."
i’m a beginner, and i don’t know if i understand the R1 sub buy. is the idea to chase the German BB out of the med by threatening it with 2 fighters and a sub R2? If so, i feel like in all the games i’ve played Russia has quite enough on its plate and too few fighters already without trying to deal with German navy… isn’t it better to just let UK/US worry about that, since they’re more equipped to do it? (and indeed, if i understood the point of a Russian Mediterranean sub, to force the BB out, they’ll end up being the ones to kill it anyway, right?)
just though about it a bit more, by placing R1 sub, it forces G to sac the BB if it wants to attack Anglo-Egypt, since russia can immediately strike with the sub + 2 fighters… is that the reason to take a R1 sub buy?
hope you can explain this to me.
-
just though about it a bit more, by placing R1 sub, it forces G to sac the BB if it wants to attack Anglo-Egypt, since russia can immediately strike with the sub + 2 fighters… is that the reason to take a R1 sub buy?
hope you can explain this to me.
Exactly. Because of the early Russian investment, Germany only gets 1 drop in Africa if it wants Egypt. Alternatives to EGY/SZ 15 for Germany are reinforcing the fleet at 14 or going to SZ13. Normally, these options are mistakes because they leave the UK Egy force intact and allow the Indian fleet to move to SZ15.
As Allies, I want UK/USA to be landing in Europe asap and therefore Africa is a distraction. So the Afrikakorps needs to go in quick time.
Sometimes I buy an additional fighter as well as the sub for a safer overall bet and less chance of losing a fig in the R2 attack. This poses a significant risk and might be a mistake. Perhaps the biggest risk is if Russia gets bad dice R1 and Germany is able to stack Ukr G2 with enough force that Russia cannot retake it without the fighters. Hobbes also mentioned that skimping on inf/tanks early allows Germany to stack Karelia early in the game.
On the other hand, in no case is the fig + sub a waste, since the purchased sub is useful against Japan’s shipping.
-
germany has over 80% odds to win in anglo egypt round one anyway though, and in all my games that BB doesn’t make it past round 2 even without russian sub. so it still seems like whats gonna happen with the R1 sub is germany takes egypt anyway and then loses the BB to russia instead of UK or US. i still need help understanding why russia needs to take that upon herself to deal with the BB instead of focusing on survival/beating back german ground forces
-
germany has over 80% odds to win in anglo egypt round one anyway though, and in all my games that BB doesn’t make it past round 2 even without russian sub. so it still seems like whats gonna happen with the R1 sub is germany takes egypt anyway and then loses the BB to russia instead of UK or US. i still need help understanding why russia needs to take that upon herself to deal with the BB instead of focusing on survival/beating back german ground forces
The difference is you are getting the fleet R2 instead of UK2. Also, in most cases Russia will just lose the sub, so Allies lose a sub instead of a fighter (or 2) if they wait until UK2.
Take a look at the starting units in Africa. If G takes Egy G1, then UK counters Egy UK2 with 3 inf fig bmb, normally clearing it with 2 inf left over. Skip to G2. If Germany is allowed to use the bb/trn on G2, then they can land again in Egypt, or take Trj. Normally, they go to Egypt, and together with the units from Libya they will have 4 ground units, and typically 3 ground units survive.
Now, UK only has 1 inf plus 1 fig 1 bmb to counter Egy. But of course–in this scenario they can’t–since they need to use this air power to take out the fleet on UK2. That means the Afrikakorps will survive for a while and the tank will do some blitzting. Since UK has no ground forces except 1 inf from South Africa to oppose it, the Africa Korps can gradually move south towards South Africa, and Japan can use fighters to defend it from Allied air strafes.
Now if Russia takes care of the G fleet on R2, then Germany is denied its 2nd drop in Egypt, and consequently will only be able to counter Egy with the inf/art on Libya. On UK2, UK uses the fig + bmb + inf to take or clear Egy…and that’s it, the Afrika Korps is kaput. The battle for Africa is over on UK2, until the Japs arrive.
Is the gambit worth it over the long run? Who can tell? What I like about it is if Germany’s income is lower and UK’s income is higher, then that’s excellent news for Russia. If you finish Germany quickly in Africa, then it makes it harder for Japan to prop Germany up, since it can’t defend German possessions down there.
-
ok that makes perfect sense. thank you for taking the time to explain it to me! i will definitely try the R1 sub buy next game and see how it works for me. it’s a little scary spending the money down there, that’s a big chunk of my defense budget
Suggested Topics
