I almost always do the belo and west Russia first turn. But can see the Ukraine attack as a good thing as well as long as you get the fighter there. The only problem I see with the Ukraine attack over belo I some times have a depleted front after and my open buy is 2 tank and 4 inf so what attack is better for the long run
Also in the east should Russia stack inf to keep china or pull back in my games if I stack Russian inf on the Manchuria front it helps keep the us fighter alive but I always loose my stack and if I don’t well kiss the us fighter by by it also reinforce it with one Russian inf and the British fighter from the coast of India so stack or no stack
Ukraine requires that you put tanks at risk on counter attack (unless you get a lucky strafe and can pull them back to Caucasus). Ignoring Belo makes it easier for G to stack center/north. I’m not sure which attack I prefer. Sometimes if I feel like gambling I will go Ukraine, but I’ve been burned there. An infantry or artillery bid in Caucasus can help make an attack/strafe here more powerful. Or allow you to go lighter with tanks (though I’ve been burned doing that too.) An infantry or artillery in Karelia can set up a Baltic attack, or an easier Belo blast. I think 2 attacks at most (W. Russia + one other territory), 3 is pushing it to the breaking point.
The only advantage I see to the Bury stack is to keep the Japanese transport and tank occupied, so it only seems worth it if you are going to go all out against Japan with UK and USA. Otherwise that’s 12-15 ipcs worth of Russian infantry that just end up getting killed immediately, and 3 ipcs worth of land left exposed after Japan takes Bury. Unless you are putting the pressure on J from all directions, it’s pretty easy for them to crush Bury and still manage to push out in the second round. Alternatively they can just stack Manchuria for defense (unless Russia does wild things landing fighters in reach of the far east) Japan might just opt to ignore the Bury stack and focus on China or the Burma push. Sending a Russian inf from Kazakh to Szech might be the difference between keeping those American units alive into the second round, or just allowing Japan to kill them outright, regardless of what happens in Buryatia. I think Bury has more to do with setting up the Pacific campaign than the mainland campaign. For the mainland its probably easier to pull around to Evenki and then drop south with tank support, while India just stacks.
It might be possible to set up a more effective Bury stack with a bid focus in the far east. The most you can bring into Bury itself is 5 inf and 3 fighters + whatever you bid. There are two Russian territories adjacent to Bury, so potentially 8 ground after non com, covered by the fighters (that’s putting everything possible into the territory, both Russian fighters and the British fighter, and probably bringing the Arch tank to Yakut to max the attack threat.) Against that Japan might not have enough to take Bury at odds, but they can certainly still defend Manchuria against an R2 attack with a pretty sizable force. It would allow a quick transit of USA fighters, or potentially British fighters if they landed in Arch. If it was possible to stack Bury for multiple rounds it might start to have an impact, but it’s the second round defense against J that is going to be decisive in that case. I think the max you could pull off for a round 2 defense, (if you bid ground and sent every air unit on the board to Bury) is 10 inf, 3-4 armor, 1 bomber, 7-8 fighters. But G would likely be hammering you on the eastern front. I’m not sure, I’ve never seen it play out with a bury stack at that sort of nuts commitment hehe. I suppose one might be able to bounce the fighters out of Bury after holding it for 2 rounds, flying directly to Moscow for a defense. Like just inviting a major German advance way earlier than normal. Not sure if there is some way to exploit a move like that as Allies. Seems like you’d have to at least try to take W. Russia light if you were attempting a throw all tanks east type plan. But G is powerful from the first round, if Russia doesn’t check them outright they can just launch forward everywhere.
I’m not sure that the advantage on stalling J would be worth the effort putting yourself at risk from Germany. Unless the idea was to draw an early attack on Moscow just to set up in Asia or the Pac with USA, a true American Tokyo endgame with the full commitment by all Allies. Going all ridiculous against Japan with everything, also leaves Egypt open unless you bid an inf there, so you might be down another Brit fighter trying to pull off bury 8 inf deep. This is all just musing in bid speculation.
Also, very important to consider…
A Bury stack requires that you kill the transport in sz61, which drops the odds on any sz 37 attack, or else allowing 2 Japanese transports to survive really seems to defeat the whole Bury play. On the low end, bidding nothing in the far east, and just leaving 1 inf behind might be enough to keep Buryatia out of Japanese hands, if you have enough in Yakut to threaten counter attack. Or a smaller 3-4 inf stack in Bury, might give you a similar effect tying down the Japanese battleship and transport, but without having to risk all 5 Russian infantry in the process.
A 5 Bury stack might work in conjunction with other bids, like a hit on 37 with a sub, or a Borneo play, or something that splits Japan in more directions than they can handle. As the British, or American player, I would feel obliged to triple team Japan, if the Russians threw their far east troops into a forward position. Bid-wise, perhaps a single Russian infantry unit might make the Bury stack a bit more intimidating for Japan. This all assumes dice. In LL a stack of only naked infantry is much easier to crush, so whether its 5 or 6 inf in the stack probably wouldn’t matter all that much.
Well it’s not my normal Far East strategy but think it would be fun have the us put pressure on japan by island hoping to set yourself in striking range of japan . Max out your bury stack with your bid if you get one and fighter from Russia and fighter from the carrier from India also have Brits build 3 tanks per turn in India for the most part kick japan off the main land and by the time the us coul of takin Borneo and East Indies at the very least and be in striking range of japan. If you are very aggressive with the US I don’t think japan could defend there hold on the Asian main land if allies pressure from India and a huge bury stack only thing your fighters would have to be able to turn back to defend Moscow ASAP
Stacking Bury with Russia in Round 1 is honestly a terrible idea. In this version, it’s not very favorable for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This means that the battleship and at least 2-3 fighters are free to attack Bury.
Just compare the potential starting forces:
Russia can possibly present 5-10 inf and 2 fighters
Japan has 5-10 land units, 2 battleships, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber.
This means that Russia has practically no hope of pressuring Japan and units sent towards Japan will likely be lost in an unfavorable battle.
I tend to agree. In Revised the main reason to stack Bury was to take pressure off Borneo and Pearl, while simultaneously threatening Manchuria or the distracting the rest of the mainland. Here Pearl is a non-issue, there are less units to stack into Bury, the transit to East Indies takes longer even if USA goes south, and its easier for Japan to push the center or India out of sz 61. That said, if you were going to leave units behind in Bury, the only reason to do so is to hold the battleship and transport north in the first round, which you can probably accomplish just leaving 1 inf behind. Putting 5 into it, just seems like throwing the ipcs away. Stacking Yakut, or pushing down to hold the center, is likely more advantageous than stacking Buryatia on this board.
