A teacher told her class that lottery tickets were a bad investment. To prove this, she went out and bought one. The ticket won a hundred dollars. (Or however much it was.) True story. (Or so I hear.)
I wanted to play a quick game, so I met up with a nice player on TripleA and hashed it out live online. When I started, I figured I wanted a quick game, so I decided to do a R1 Russian Triple with artillery/4 tank build. Either I would succeed and plow him into the ground, or I would fail and maybe die to the mind-bogglingly exciting German Turbo Tank Dash, which is of course so exciting it may actually make young players vomit. Anyways, I figured it would be an exciting game regardless, with my using what I privately refer to as Russian Roulette - that is, a Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack.
If you don’t know what Russian Roulette is, look it up, but don’t try it at home.
I figured I’d make a commentary on the game too, because . . . well, it might be useful to some players to know how I think as a player, and besides, publishing game reports will make me famous. You know, book deal, movie deal, money, power, small furry animal protection campaign spokesbunny, that sort of thing.
So begins this exhaustive and exhausting game commentary. I hope you find it useful. If you REALLY find it useful, you can support the fine administrators of these here Axis and Allies forums. Right side of the screen, look for Patron Support Level, all sorts of nice donation options for the fine people that maintain this forum, major credit cards accepted.
I don’t have anything to do with all that, I’m just an independent player that posts on these here forums sometimes. So if you have a good idea for the forum or what have you, please post to the proper forum group/thread, and don’t contact me. Because I can’t help you.
DISCLAIMER: I make a lot of statements, but anything lacking solid statistical backup should be regarded as my opinion.
R1 (Russia 1)
Planned attacks: 3 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway
3 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks to Ukraine
6 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter to West Russia
Why list planned attacks first? Because that’s how it’s best thought out. First figure out your attacks, then figure out what you should build to best support those attacks.
3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway, because sending 2 fighters means you will definitely lose 1 fighter on Germany’s turn, and as much as I wanted to check out what was on sale at the grocery store, I wasn’t about to risk a precious fighter. Besides, a Russian Triple attack spreads forces VERY thin – probably a second fighter really couldn’t be spared. The Norway attack has a couple good points. If you claim Norway, then Germany doesn’t have any real attack on the UK battleship. If you weaken Norway a lot, Germany might get nervous about using Norway as a landing spot for its fighter and bomber after hitting the UK battleship. Bad points are – you’re sending Russian units to the rear of the German lines. Germany has a logistic problem getting units to the front lines; by attacking Germany’s rear lines, you’re doing the footslogging for them. Also, the Norway attack only has a bit better than 60% to do “well”. I forget what “well” was; I ran the numbers a long time ago. I think it was at least killing the Norway fighter while keeping the Russian fighter alive.
3 inf 1 artillery 3 tanks to Ukraine. If you do NOT claim Ukraine, then Germany can blitz Eastern Europe and Balkans tanks into Caucasus. So all the ground units that could hit there went.
6 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter to West Russia. If you don’t send at least a Russian fighter to West Russia, the odds of doing even moderately well there plummet. Whatever Russian units are there form the core of your R2 threat into Karelia and ability to trade Belorussia, plus if you’re pretty weak there, Germany will just run right over you. What with losing West Russia and Ukraine, that means Russia can potentially be blocked from collecting income from Karelia and Belorussia next turn. That might seem trivial, just 4 IPCs, but a single unit can easily mean the difference between a 30% chance of success and a 85% chance of success.
Comments on Russian Norway/West Russia/Ukraine Triple – super risky, if you fail to do well, you leave yourself open to an incredibly brutal German counter. Even if you do moderately well, attacking 2 territories rather than 3 means Russia’s dissipated its attack power, and will take more casualties from the defenders as the attackers don’t overwhelm them with numbers. On the plus side, doing well at any of the three battles can make things very tough for the Germans, but that’s not really likely.
Purchase: 1 artillery, 4 tank
Supposing a brutal failure at all three; Germany could take West Russia from Belorussia, and smash into Caucasus with 7 ground units. (Figuring on German units from a Mediterranean transport, Eastern Europe and Balkans tanks for five units, plus two surviving ground from Ukraine). UK would not be able to retake Caucasus from Persia, then Japan would be able to fly in 2-4 fighters to support Caucasus. (If UK attacks Japan’s fleet at East Indies, particularly if Germany left Anglo Egypt alone to go after Caucasus, sinking the Japanese carrier would force the Japanese fighters to land on East Indies, out of range to reinforce Caucasus. But this is probably not good in most situations, so we’re looking at 11 units, mostly high dice, on Caucasus. To counter, Russia would have 6 infantry (moved in during noncombat) plus 2 fighters, for 8 dice attacking 11 defenders on Caucasus, with 6 of those 8 dice being infantry which are awful on attack. Horrible. But this does not account for a Russian build.
So what should Russia build? Just infantry? Infantry are lousy on attack, and with only Russia’s fighters providing attack power, the Axis would chew through Russian infantry like mad with all those high-dice tanks and fighters defending. Mass artillery? But artillery are poor defenders, and when the infantry they support are destroyed, artillery drop to 2 attack for 4 IPC (1 dice pip for 2 IPC spent, or 50% attack), while tanks stay at 3 attack for 5 IPC (60% attack) regardless of how many infantry there are. Besides, tanks would be able to reach Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine, depending on how the German turn went. I decided to go with 1 artillery 4 tanks for maximum mobility and decent counterattack in case Russia lost Caucasus. The threat would be 13 dice attacking 11 defenders, with perhaps a bit more or less depending on exactly how awfully Russia did (again, assuming Russia DID do awful).
The order you carry out combats is important. Failing West Russia would mean Germany would have a shot on Moscow, with West Russia survivors, Ukraine tank, Ukraine, Balkans, and Eastern Europe fighters, and German bomber. That’s 5 units PLUS West Russia survivors; considering West Russia starts with 5 units, potentially 10 dice that could hit Moscow. Performing poorly at West Russia would also mean an increased threat to Caucasus from the West Russia survivors. So it was very important to do the West Russia battle first, to see what would happen. The decision to press attacks or retreat from Ukraine and Norway would depend on results at West Russia.
So I did West Russia first. There were no unusually high numbers of hits or misses. The Allies did about as statistically expected, with 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter surviving. But “statistical expectations” mean little with dice. It could easily have been that Russia would have to retreat from West Russia with only 1 artillery 1 fighter versus a German artillery and tank surviving (1/6 chance for Germany to kill both artillery and fighter if Russia continued the attack, and Russia losing fighters is awful). Or, Russia could have ended up with possibly 4 infantry 1 artillery at West Russia. I actually considered myself quite lucky that in order to counterattack West Russia, Germany would probably want to commit at least a tank (considering that German air have a lot of important naval targets on G1).
The next battle I did was Ukraine. On the opening round of fire, I got five hits. This was extremely improbable and very horrible for Germany; Germany obliged Russia even further by getting only two hits in return (two or three is expected, so Russia got a bit lucky). But a BIT of luck counts for a LOT in the first round of fire. At this point, I had 1 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks attacking 1 German fighter. Retreating would mean preserving 22 IPCs worth of Russian units. Attacking would only net a 3 IPC territory and a 10 IPC German fighter, plus whatever units Russia managed to kill on Germany’s counterattack, potentially just 2-3 German infantry. So press the attack and gain 3 IPC in the bank for taking control of Ukraine, kill a 10 IPC German fighter, lose 22 IPC of Russian units, and kill 6-9 IPCs of German infantry? Well . . . the balance was about the same, but the story goes a little deeper.
First, I knew that Germany had lost its West Russia units, so it didn’t have any units from West Russia (particularly cheap infantry) to hit Ukraine with. Second, I knew I had built attack units that would be able to take or strafe Ukraine. Third, I knew West Russia was very weak. The more units Germany sent to Ukraine, the less would be available for West Russia. Fourth, I knew that Germany usually wants to take out other valuable targets on G1 (Germany’s first turn) with German air. If Germany sent air to Ukraine, that would increase the probability of Germany suffering air losses elsewhere. Fifth, from experience playing Germany, I knew that Germany dealing with 1 Russian unit on Ukraine (having lost West Russia) was slightly inconvenient. 2 units on Ukraine was not fun for Germany to deal with. 3 was a major inconvenience. 4 was like getting kicked in the nuts. 5 was, well, frankly, this is when you start having tantrums and cursing in German, not because you’re mad, but because you sense the hand of God or fate is against you. Anyways, I decided to press on in light of all this. So I hit, and the German fighter missed. Five Russians on Ukraine. It’s like a miracle, but I felt dirty.
The last battle was Norway. On the first round, I got two hits, which is frankly fairly lucky for Russia. Again, the first round of combat means a lot. Germany fired back, and got one hit. At this point, I had to admire the Axis player for not cursing or even complaining in the slightest. Next round, I got no hits, the Axis got one hit. The third round, I had 1 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter, and got 1 hit, and the Germans got 1 hit with their fighter and infantry. Again, slightly lucky – if Germany had got two hits, that would mean the next round would be Russian fighter against German fighter, and Russian fighters are too precious to lose. So I pressed the attack, and got no hits, but the German fighter got a hit. At that point, the Russian fighter retreated.
Noncombat moves:
In dice games, always save noncombat moves for last. Regardless of rules technicalities, it’s good practice. New players will often make noncombat moves during combat because it helps them visualize the board as they want it to be, or because they think they’re going to do something regardless of how the battles go. But it is always best to wait until after combat to do noncombat moves. Maybe you will lose that 89% battle and be forced to rethink things.
Russian sub moved to UK battleship. This would help defend against the German fighter/bomber/sub attack on G1. The idea is that the Russian sub does NOT submerge. If the German sub gets a hit, the Russian sub is destroyed. There’s also a slight possibility of the Russian sub hitting. If the Russian sub hits, then any hits the UK battleship makes must be against expensive German air. Even if the Russian sub does not hit, if it is taken as a casualty against a German sub hit, that leaves a decent chance that the UK battleship will survive the German fighter and bomber for another round of fire. If the UK battleship survives for another round of fire, it may destroy more German air.
The West Russia and Ukraine battles had gone very well (frankly Ukraine was unbelievably lucky), so I did not have place all units in Moscow preparatory to retaking Caucasus. I moved Kazakh infantry to Caucasus, and Novosibirsk and Evenki infantry to Moscow, leaving Moscow with 4 infantry and Caucasus with 2. I moved the Moscow AA gun to West Russia, so Germany would not be able to easily capture West Russia. Either it would have to use valuable tanks that Russia could then destroy on its turn, or it would have to risk valuable air. If using air, not only would those air be at risk to AA gun fire, those air would not be able to be used for other important targets on G1.
I knew at that point I would place 1 artillery in Caucasus (to help retake Ukraine after Germany countered), and a tank in Caucasus (to help defend it against German invasion; Germany could send infantry/tank/2 fighters/1 bomber to Caucasus. But more than that; a Russian tank on Caucasus can be useful to hit Trans-Jordan or India. It seems pretty odd to send a single tank to try to cause trouble, but Japan has a severe logistics problem early on, and Russian tanks on Caucasus are something that can cause a lot of problems for Japan early on.
The remainder of the Russian tanks would go on Moscow. Russian tanks on Caucasus could be trapped to countering Archangel, West Russia, and Ukraine, if Germany took West Russia. From Moscow, though, tanks could hit Karelia, or even Belorussia if Russia did not lose control of West Russia.
For those keeping track, I had left Karelia and Archangel empty on the Russian combat move. The Russian power is stretched so thin on a triple attack, every unit is needed. Anyways, Germany blitzing a tank to Archangel can be met with Russian infantry and a Russian tank. Unless Germany stacks Karelia a bit, it cannot kill that valuable Russian tank in return. Considering the nasty Russian stack on Ukraine and the decently sized Russian stack of survivors on West Russia, I figured a German stack on Karelia could only come at the expense of giving up position on Ukraine and/or West Russia. At the worst, I would be able to use Moscow infantry and a fighter to kill any German tank blitzing to Archangel; that would mean killing a 5 IPC tank in exchange for maybe a 50-60% chance of Germany’s killing a Russian infantry and getting a 2 IPC territory. (That’s maybe 4.5 to 4.7 IPC gained by Germany in exchange for its 5 IPC tank, plus some slight logistic pressure against Russia – but very slight – and locking the US bomber out of landing on Archangel on US1. Not a particularly good deal – not awful, but Germany may well not take Archangel.)
I landed 1 fighter on Moscow and 1 on Kazakh, and moved Yakut and Soviet Far East infantry to Buryatia, so Buryatia had 6 infantry. These were noncombat movements that were only really worth considering AFTER seeing how combats had turned out. If things had gone badly, infantry would have been racing back to Moscow.
Kazakh can only be considered a safe landing zone for a Russian fighter if Russia took Ukraine, otherwise Germany can and very possibly will send the Ukraine fighter and/or the German bomber to kill the Russian fighter. From Kazakh, Russia threatens Trans-Jordan and India (along with the Russian tank on Caucasus), and Manchuria. (The Manchuria threat is really only credible because of the 6 infantry on Buryatia).
Stacking Buryatia with 6 infantry is a moderate to high risk move. Even if UK kills the Kwangtung transport, Japan has excellent chances to kill 6 infantry on Buryatia, take China, and destroy the US carrier and fighter at Hawaii, regardless of what the Allies do. If Japan does hit Buryatia and China, it will take a lot of casualties, but a bit of luck can mean very bad news for the Allies. Particularly for Russia – after the 6 infantry stack is lost in Asia, Russia is completely helpless against any Japan attack.
However, if Japan does NOT hit Buryatia, Allied air can land on Buryatia, which can be inconvenient to Japan.
Collected 29 IPCs. Altogether an EXTREMELY lucky turn, no doubt about it, particularly the extremely nasty pressure to Germany at Ukraine, as well as having a very decent number of survivors on West Russia. Norway did not go particularly well, but I certainly wasn’t even considering that a problem in light of Russia’s massive luck and Germany’s massive unluck at Ukraine. In fact, I considered it quite lucky that I was not forced into a “2 German defenders vs Russian ground and Russian fighter” situation. In any such situation, Russia risks air, and only under the most unusual circumstances should Russia ever risk its precious precious fighters.
Tricks that were lined up: (things that may not be immediately noticeable to new players)
Buryatia stack allowing US fighter from Hawaii to hit sea zone east of Japan if Buryatia not taken. Buryatia also provides a landing spot for UK air, same idea. Again – there is some risk involved with this.
Russian reinforcement/counters to Trans-Jordan and India with Caucasus tank and Kazakh/Moscow fighters.
If Germany hit Anglo-Egypt, UK could send India fighter and UK bomber to attack the German battleship, with a Russian fighter following up to hit an unguarded transport (if UK air and the German battleship destroyed each other). Germany can potentially avoid this problem by hitting Anglo-Egypt AND Trans-Jordan, but that’s very high risk for valuable German air, and likely will mean having to leave the UK battleship alone.
If Germany did NOT take West Russia, Russia would be able to trade Karelia and Belorussia next turn, which would mean increased income. If Germany did NOT take Ukraine, that would mean extremely valuable Russian tanks would run away; the next time Germany saw those Russian tanks it would be behind a nasty screen of Russian infantry.
Attached is the TripleA .tsvg (saved game file). This uses TripleA version 1_2_5_5 and may not be compatible with the most recent release verison (1_3_1_0).
Commentary.tsvg