@Gamer:
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?). You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks. If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory. That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory). And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).
Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter. AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter. IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position. I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks. I think even Ender would concede that.
In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy. And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter. And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine. Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things. I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.
I’m willing to accept your points on Ukraine. However, Belo is not simply about killing the Inf for me. It really reduces the fodder that Germany has for a counterattack on WRus.
My concern about losing the Russian tanks in Ukraine is that while yes it may be at worst an even trade, early on Germany can afford to trade better than Russia can. However, I’m starting to think that I’m not seeing the full picture there - Germany also has to dedicate production to keeping England and US at bay, so perhaps they come off worse in the trade.
Now, with reference to our other game, I concede that my side’s tactical position sucks. I think Germany was doing as well as it could though - Japan had some unfortunate delays and setbacks though, and IMO should have built more TRNs, among other things, but no need to air dirty laundry here…