@burmaboi The rules consistently use the term “into” when referencing the ending space of a unit’s move and “through” when referencing spaces passed through along the way. So, an air unit must conduct combat if it moves “into” an enemy-occupied space, but not “through” one (other than being fired upon by AA guns). Also, on page 14, the rules mention AA guns in “flown over” territories, which indicates that enemy-occupied territories may be moved through, and the Official Rules Clarifications make the same reference on page 2 in point 6 regarding AA guns.
R1 Fighter movement to Egypt a good/ bad idea?
-
Obviously there are pros’s and con’s to every move. Here are some to consider:
Con’s-
-
Russia will not have their fighter’s to defend their homeland on G1 and J1.
-
Fighter’s in Egypt are lightly defended with only 1 UK infantry and 1 UK armor. This makes the fighter’s more likely to be destroyed than if they were protected in any of the Russian territories which typically contain many more infantry.
-
If both fighter’s are sent to Egypt, then only the Karelian fighter may attack in R1, and this attack is limited to only E. Europe or Ukraine. This profoundly cuts down on R1 combat options.
Pro’s-
-
Russia doesn’t need much defense in the first turn since Germany hasn’t yet had the opportunity to build up ground troops. However, Egypt is typically attacked and taken on G1 and thus needs more defense. If the Russian player properly positions their infantry there should be still be more than enough defense of their territories.
-
It is true that Germany will be able to send more than enough fighters to the battle in Egypt to still take it and destroy both Russian fighters. However, if Germany does this, then they must not have taken out all of the UK Atlantic fleet. Since the UK navy is more important than 2 Russian fighters, the Allies still come out ahead even if Egypt is lost in the first turn. With 2 Russian fighters in Egypt, Germany cannot take Egypt and destroy both UK battleships.
-
Only 1 Russian fighter attacking E. Europe or Ukraine should still be enough to do any damage Russia wishes to do in R1.
-
It is much more difficult for Germany to take Africa. They might not be albe to take Egypt in G1. Also, if Egypt is not taken in G1, the UK has the oppurtunity to set up better defenses there, or even retreat from a possible overwelming G2 attack.
-
-
I have seen it used in AARevised (by Av Hill), but not the 2nd ed MB version.
-
It might work vs PC, but I think it gives too big an oppty for Ger to take Kar and the upper hand.
Extra Rus Ftr in Egy will deter the Ger attack there, but certainly invite a Kar attack.
Egy is important, but Kar has the IC, so the game can swing much more decisively with its capture. Besides, UK has 3I , F, + B to retake Egy to hold back Ger.
-
Russia could leave as many as 19 inf in Karelia if they leave Caucasus weakly defended. If Russia does this, what exactly will Germany do? What should they attack with into either/ both the Caucasus and Karelia on G1? When Germany attacks with these forces, what is the most likely outcome of the battle/s? What can the Allies counter-attack with?
Now let’s assume Russia leaves a modest 15 inf in Karelia and a few inf in Caucasus. For simplcity, let’s assume Russia didn’t attack anything on R1 so Ukraine still has their starting force. What exactly do you think Germany should do for an attack? What is the most likely outcome of the battle/s? What can the Allies counter-attack with?
I’ve run what I believe is every plausible scenario and I don’t see a lack of fighters in Karelia as a significant disadvantage for the Allies in the long run. At the end of turn 1 the Allies may look like they are in trouble since they may have lost Karelia and Egypt, but this is a facade. With this fighter movement, in order for Germany to take either or both of these countries on G1 they must have taken them so weakly that the respective German front will be brought down to a halt in a couple of turns.
I would like to add that the Luftwaffe is stretched thin as it is on G1 without this Russian fighter movement. This fighter movement makes it much worse. What should Germany do with 4 or 5 fighters and 1 bomber on G1 with this Russian fighter movement? Let’s assume 2 scenarios; playing either with 1 or 2 hit battleships. I don’t see the Luftwaffe striking hard enough at all the UK navy and Egypt and Karelia. Germany is likely to lose on at least one of those fronts or take all 3 so weakly that any Allied counter-attack will likely spell doom for the Germans.
-
If Russia has no fighters or only 1 fighter in Karelia, I’d attack with everything I had into Karelia as Germany. Odds are you’d win with 7 armor, 5 fighters and maybe an infantry. (Odds with hand thrown dice, anyway. Didnt run it through the calculator.)
-
OK Jen, so you sent all your fighters into Karelia and took it strong. I take it that UK has all their navy still in tact and still has Egypt? You didn’t mention any other battles so I have to assume this.
First, let me say that something has to be wrong with your logic. I don’t see how Germany still has 5 fighters since they start with 5 and on average 1 fighter will be shot down (not 0). 1 fighter being shot down will result in 1.5-2 hits less by the Germans assuming the battle goes for 3-4 rounds. Maybe then only 5 arm and 4 fighters remaining would be more accurate given the rest of your assumptions.
To make things simple let’s assume Germany ends up with 6 arm and 4 fighters. The fighters have to land elsewhere, which leaves 6 armor in Karelia. Since Germany used all the fighters in the battle for Karelia, UK can apparently counter-attack with 1 BB, 2 transports with 2 inf and 1 arm, and 2-3 fighters (however they see fit) and a bomber. Let’s assume that with whatever force UK decides to attack with, the UK ends up retreating the remaining airforce left after 1-2 German armor remains. Russia may then attack on R2 with 3 armor and whatever inf were not left in Karelia at the end on R1. Jen, you never told me how many inf you assumed Russia left in Karelia so I don’t know what I’m dealing with in terms of a Russian counter-attack.
Anyway, long story short, if Germany atttacks Karelia on G1, they will have unprotected armor in Karelia. The Allies should try to whittle this down. This will make the German assault to Moscow come to a screeching halt even if Germany survives the UK and Russian counter-attack with a couple armor left. Germany cannot realistically count on taking Moscow without the armor they start with.
People who seem to be against this strategy are apparently just writing that Germany can take Karelia on G1 and thus the game is over. I think people need to think a little more long-term here or at least state why it’s apparently over for Russia if Germany takes Karelia with 6 armor on G1.
-
People who seem to be against this strategy are apparently just writing that Germany can take Karelia on G1 and thus the game is over. I think people need to think a little more long-term here or at least state why it’s apparently over for Russia if Germany takes Karelia with 6 armor on G1.
UK can retake Karelia even with 6 armor on site. Available forces if Germany ignores UK navy are too great.
(Yes, I know I am arguing against a strategy I posted elsewhere)
-
5 fighters + 1 bomber attack Karelia, loose one to AA fire and I usually loose a bomber before a fighter (fighters are just too strongly needed for defending Europe.)
Once the Russian army is obliterated, Germany can send those 6 or 7 armor + 5 fighters into Russia destroying whatever’s been made on R2 to take the capital. Then they can turn and focus on the British fleet (which should have lost at least a transport - maybe a transport and a BB from the two German subs (w/transport for dmg shield.) That depends on if Russia moves the fleet into the Hudson Bay or to the English Channel - both are common moves for the Russian fleet on R1.
With the two fighters in Karelia, Germany can still win the ground, but both sides will be out of military units which significantly puts the battle in the hands of the Allies. This is why both fighters are almost always found in Karelia. (Although, I’ve been known to pull back to Moscow and surge back forcing the German’s to defend with tanks - if I think the player’s stupid enough to put tanks there.)
-
Only if U.K. is planing of building Factory their which is suicidal so no. Russia cannot afford ot replace lost fighters. Keep them on the defensive behind a stack of infantry. Best bet.
-
Who says the fighters will be lost? The fighters will prevent Germany from taking Egypt and after the UK kicks Germany out of Africa, Russia can move them back.