Generally speaking, I tend to not leave infantry lying around simply to make territory hard to conquer. There are two times I might choose to leave one:
Lets take japan vs. russia for example. I tend to not leave troops lying around as the planes are going to usually be brought in on the attack and I will be lucky to get one hit. It seems like a silly last stand when that infantry can be used more effectively elsewhere and for a counter attack.
yep, b/c of reason #1
usually leave a picket:
Of course if you are playing with the house rule of paratroopers, then it would be worthwhile to picket all territories within range of the bombers to prevent the quick +/- 2 or 3 ipcs that can change hands. IMO this is a better choice than strategic bombing because there is no risk of the bomber being shot down but you still gain a 4 to 6 ipc change (or more if you can keep the territory for more than one turn).
Edit: Also, you would most definitely picket your capitals (imagine E. US falling to a single German paratrooper because Germany got LR and could land perhaps on a Japanese held territory like Alaska :lol: ). Also, if you play with Kamikazee rules, then definitely E. US would be in range of the German (and Japanese for a 1-2 punch) bombers.
I always picket with Russia for the reasons stated above. it slows japan down by requireing him to bring more troops fo the safety factor.
On a side note, I rarely play paratroopers, I did last week and believe it or not I lost Moscow to Paratroopers! I came back to win, but it made it difficult.
Sadly, I don’t think I communicated my question very clearly. Given the 2 circumstances that I noted, I will almost always picket. What I meant to ask was what happens OUTSIDE of those circumstances. Obviously you are going to picket if a tank can blitz.
I think the circumstance I was going for was more of the following:
Japan is barrelling down on russia. Lets say it starts at yakut, and russia retreats back to novo. In this case, russia expects japan to hit yakut with 8 infantry, 3 fighers and a bomber. Southeast asia is light enough that japan will take its battles without extra air support. The question is as russia, do you leave an infantry in yakut?
More often than not, I see people leaving an infantry as some sort of silly last stand. I never do, because I see it as pointless.
I don’t considering picketing pointless, because as a Russian player picketing not only slows down the Japanese player, but allows you more time to prepare defense. Let’s say that Japan has 10 armor, 2 fighters, and a bomber in Yakut and attacks the one infantry in Novo. At the time the Russians had 24 infantry in Moscow, by the time the Japanese have the ability to hit Moscow, they’ll now be 32 infantry instead of 24 considering that Russia’s economy is even. I’d much rather have 32 infantry than 24 to defend my capital.
I picket more often than not, especially in the Russian battle with the Germans. I tend to leave eastern Russia undefended. Otherwise I have 10 infantry in Yakut.
I don’t considering picketing pointless, because as a Russian player picketing not only slows down the Japanese player, but allows you more time to prepare defense. Let’s say that Japan has 10 armor, 2 fighters, and a bomber in Yakut and attacks the one infantry in Novo.
That’s a horrible example. Why would you want to slow down japan? I’ll take my 24 infantry against your 10 armor, 2 fighters, and a bomber anyday, and beat you 99 out of 100 times and more.
Obviously, if Japan had 30 armor, it’d be a different story. But lets instead say that Japan (more likely) has 5 armor, 25 infantry, 4 fighters, and a bomber. I still say not to picket. He can attack your 24 infantry in moscow, blitzing through, with 5 armor, 4 fighters, and a bomber. Not really a big deal. If you don’t picket, he will not attack moscow, but will attack novo. If you do picket, he will not attack moscow, but will attack novo. That infantry will die on the first round, and maybe, just maybe, get a shot off. I fail to see how using a picket “slows” japan down. If japan wants to come down the pipe with raw armor, I say bring it on.
Only in certain circumstances does it slow japan down. In a lot of cases, like the above, it is just a pointless waste of an infantry.
where i picket the most is Yakut, NOV, and EVE. This way JAP can’t simply blitz through YAK to take both of them very easily, and it forces them to split up their forces to take NOV and EVE when they are on YAK (to some degree).
I suppose that i consider it advantagous for Russia as it generates new deadzones where it might otherwise just be easy pickin’s for JAP.
But lets instead say that Japan (more likely) has 5 armor, 25 infantry, 4 fighters, and a bomber. I still say not to picket. He can attack your 24 infantry in moscow, blitzing through, with 5 armor, 4 fighters, and a bomber. Not really a big deal. If you don’t picket, he will not attack moscow, but will attack novo. If you do picket, he will not attack moscow, but will attack novo. That infantry will die on the first round, and maybe, just maybe, get a shot off. I fail to see how using a picket “slows” japan down. If japan wants to come down the pipe with raw armor, I say bring it on.
Only in certain circumstances does it slow japan down. In a lot of cases, like the above, it is just a pointless waste of an infantry.
This situation isn’t the norm though. The Idea of picketing is for delaying Japan from making cheep grabs with small groups inantry spread out over asia.
I would think it’s obvious if Japan has 25 infantry a picket is useless. At that point I might consider a picket two spaces away depending on how many tanks he had.
