Strategic Option question time again :-)
With full support by UK and US of Russia for the Karelia and adjacent territories theater, should Russia pull back their 3 Western tanks and begin non-combat movement of them toward the Japan front?
INF defends as well as tanks, and Russia builds tons of INF. With US and UK support, Karelia is not going to fall for lack of a few tanks.
But if those tanks move east, they can team up with another tank and 7 INF in Yakut (or possibly elsewhere) to be a very powerful offensive wedge force to beat up Japan and maintain Russian IPC’s from eastern territories; or to counter-attack Japan incursions into China/Sinkiang/India.
This is a variant of moving the Russia fighter to the Eastern Front for a R1 Manchuria assault, but is slower to develop and preserves Russia’s INF for us against German naval forces, to defend UK navy via a carrier landing, or just as strong land defense in Karelia or elsewhere against German land forces. Could also allow for UK air forces to be focused more heavilly on Germany by elliminating the need to possibly use them for counter-strikes against Japan in rounds 3 or 4.
Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts?
I would keep the arm in Kar.
The UK and US after a sufficient build-up will attack and take EEur. The Rus tanks can follow by blitzing into SE for $6. Ger can reclaim SE, but follow-ups by UK/US will rapidly overwhelm Ger defenses.
For Rus, after getting the $6 for SE, and $3 for Ukr. Non-combat enough inf into EE deter the Ger attack. Move the rest into Rus, and build there as the new front vs. Jpn. Rus at this point does not need to defeat Jpn, just hold them off for long enough until US/UK take Ger.
Interesting question, switch. I would say this depends on the situation.
If the Axis are approaching an economic victory, this is generally a good way to beat them back (though not as good as Africa usually is, but that is for another thread). Also, if Japan has left open the possibility of doing some severe damage to them, such as the possible breakthrough to recover the territories in S. Asia and China, then it might be a good thing to do as this will set them back to the point where the Axis will never recover.
However, Linkon also makes a good point that you should take out Germany as your first priority since this is generally the best way for the Allies to win the game. To weaken you attack on Germany might extend the game unnecessarily for the Allies.
I was thinking more in terms of an initial strategy rather than later in the game… Rrely on INF as Russia, as well as allied forces, to hold off Germany in the west; and using Russia’s figs to support slash and run strikes. And use 4 tanks and 7 INF (plus the initial US and UK forces in separate strikes) to keep Japan pinned to the coast using a series of heavy strike & occupy moves that rip Japan’s land forces apart for the first several rounds.
My thought was that if you moved enough offensive force (land forces that can stay where they win instead of Russia’s figs that are better for defense and straffing against Germany) to the Eastern front, you can shut down Japan’s IPC growth long enough to allow Germany to be obliterated and Japan be in NO position to do anything about it. Also, Russia would maintain higher income throughout by counter-attacking and re-taking any territories Japan moved into, further speeding up Germany’s demise.
After several play-tests…
Against the Hasbro AI, consolidating the 2 Russia tanks with the Eastern forces into Yakut (7 INF 3 tanks) allows Russia to kick some serious butt against Japan. Those forces can rip through coastal Asia in short order, and counter-attack each area Japan tries to re-land in. The force lasted 5-7 rounds on average before Japan finally weakened it to the point where it was no longer effective and/or destroyed. This was with NO reinforcements being provided by Russia. The “loss” of the 2 tanks on the German front had little effect in the AI test either. Russia built up forces and before the Eastern strike team was destroyed, held Eastern Europe and Ukraine (UK held Norway). Russia was building an average of 9-10 INF during the first 7 rounds. On a side note, in one test the Russian sub survived its encounter with the German Atlantic sub and eventually worked it way all the way to Japan about the time Japan defeated the eastern strike team. It sank 3 Japan tranny’s before finally being lost to a Japan fighter.
Against common human strategies, the move of those 2 tanks had mixed results.
Lacking those 2 tanks, Russia had to strip Caucauses and Russia, consolidating in Karelia, to not lose Karelia to the Germans. Even then it was a CLOSE fight. In 5 tests, Karelia fell twice. On one occasion, both Russia fighters were lost fighting the German Baltic fleet (fluke), on the second Germany rolled well on the first round. On the 3 where Russia held: once fighter only, one fighter and tank, once 2 fighters, 1 tank, 2 INF (no loses to German navy that game).
But also against human strategies, the additional tanks were less effective. When Japan went “all in” on the Continent (ignoring Pearl), it really had no difference in slowing Japan down any more than simply consolidating in Yakut w/o the tanks. If Japan went after Pearl, but used Phillipine tranny to move forces to Manchuria, similar results. If Japan went after Australia on J1, the Russia strike team beat the crap out of the Manchurian forces and then proceeded to spend 4 rounds booting Japan out of territories before finally being defeated (similar to results against AI)
Basically, AI can’t handle any massed force, the same as most novice and intermediate players. So in those cases, the Russian tank shift east is a viable strategy. And if combined with modest reinforcement should be very effective as a counter to Japan’s normal IPC growth in Asia. Against an experienced player, it simply adds a twist to make things a bit different in the early rounds, but otherwise does not have any long-term impact on overall strategy for either side.
As you know Nc, I’m a fan of the Japanese, and I still contend that they are the key to the game, not Russia. Maybe I should redefine that to be the key to the game is the interplay of Russia and Japan - but I still think that Japan holds the power from the start since they are positioned as an aggressor. If I were playing Russia, I know Japan’s potential, as well as its weaknesses.
To take your strategy, which I like in my first impression, there are two things I’d look at:
1. Let’s assume that UK and US help in holding Karelia, and blunt the German advance in general (as you stated). If this is the case, I’d also assume some of the pressure intended for Japan is being redirected by UK and US. Perhaps not, but I will go with this. I would think it appropriate to redistribute pressure elsewhere to make up for it - so I like the idea of sending tanks to SE Asia by Russia. In fact, I usually buy a tank or two from the start to do so. This all falls under one of my perceptions of the game. There’s a revolving pressure that occurs between the Axis and Allies. Consider the positioning of the forces (A = Allied, X = Axis):
A A X A X
You have nations sandwiched between enemies, and as you go around to everybody’s turns, you see that coordinated attacks generally produce the best results. If Germany attacked only UK, then Russia would be free to waltz into Europe, and vice-versa. So I think as pressure is removed from Japan, it needs to be added elsewhere.
2. The tanks work better at assaulting than defending, so send them on to attack. If you’re not planning to attack Germany immediately, atleast move them back to Russia. This allows for counter attacks on Karelia, or moving on to SE Asia.
Those are my basic concepts for your strategy, so I agree with it so far. It may only be 2-3 tanks, but in the Pacific theater, that can make a big difference.
Other reasons why I’d go for it: There are limited Allied units in SE Asia, so any extra defence is welcomed. If you can reduce/stagnate Japan’s income, then by all means do so (with a meager 25 IPCs to start, removing any mainland Asian territories is a big strike against them). Holding Russia’s backdoor is essential in their survival, so buying time and relieving pressure can help deal with Germany. Forcing Japan to reacquire beachheads will relieve pressure from the US (transfer of units from Pacific to Asian coast). Holding or increasing Russia’s IPCs will help in the long run, and help to produce more units for either front.
I would not advocate sending them east in the first round, but that is because I like to use them to strafe the ukraine. Without that strafe and without defending russian armor in karelia, karelia is actually fairly weak in the first round. I don’t like to bet on germany not being insane, sometimes they are.
However, starting round 2 if I can afford to I will start sending an armor or two east. Again if I can afford it, I may start building 1 a round in turns 3 or 4. Sure it would be nice to rip through japanese forces on the coast, but as you analyzed in another post then you are exposed to the japanese navy. A fine strategy is to let japan in a little bit, say to yakut or sinkiang, and then counterattack. Indeed, I find this to be the best russian “defense”. The problem for Japan is that they have to take territory. As they take territory they cannot defend with planes. So when they attack, they are also defending at 2’s. Russia can attack at 3’s and 1’s, losing the 1’s which are more readily replaceable. As russia, you can even just strafe japan and retreat, then move in some more infantry to your leftover tanks making them a solid defensive force. Then the next round attack again. Certainly russia is going to lose to Japan eventually, but countering japan will slow them down a lot. Note that the above is pretty much just a rehash of deadzones.
