@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.
Attacking Ukraine
-
Even if you did Ukraine and West Russia on R1, it is still an EXTREMELY high risk move likelt to back-fire.
And a well played Germany can exist a long time even if deprived of Africa early
As evidence, see how well Bo is doing as Germany in the Tournament Consolation game. He lost th Med Fleet on R2, yet still has 42 INF, 4 ART, 6 ARM, 4 FIG, 1 BOM and other than Africa is down only Norway and West Russia in the middle of Turn 5…
-
Well, the AC is a nice thought, and I don’t think Switch actually looked at what you were arguing before he responded (mainly cause he said hit Caucasus which is impossible if you take W. Russia and Ukraine and put an AC in the SZ next to Cauc (16 I think.))
But there’s some MAJOR problems here.
1) That’s a huge expense for Russia. (2/3rds of their starting income.)
2) How does this replenish your infantry and armor? Without new armor built you have none to use on Russia 2. (I’m assuming W. Russia falls because it’s the worst possible situation for Russia.)
3) You can’t attack anything with it, so Germany’s not threatened in the Med at all. -
if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth. if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?
Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage
Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1
You almost totally did not mention the possibility of German counterattack, sole exception Karelia.
The advantage of Belorussia is that 1) there is much less chance of a disastrous battle, 2) in case the battle does turn bad, Russia’s position will still be strong, 3) Russia preserves its tanks beyond the German counterattack on G1.
I did i gave you the advantage at the end of G1 for option 2 and 3. i was not sure what the based counter attack for option one was so i asked and if i get an answer i will add up the loses
I do stand corrected. But I believe that cost breakdown and careful analysis is most crucial for the first option you listed. Although your treatment of the second and third options was brief, no extensive analysis is, I think, needed beyond the presence of the West Russian stack. Cutting off the German counter and the Russian counter-counter, though, is a severe omission for the Ukraine-West Russia attack.
As Germany, I would counterattack with barely enough units to take Ukraine (if Germany doesn’t take Ukraine, that isn’t good, but taking the Ukraine is just a bonus; the key is those 15 IPC of unprotected tanks). Germany also takes Karelia and West Russia. Now on R2, Russia isn’t going to commit in force to the Ukraine, because Germany can counter with 1 bomber, 5 fighters, and various infantry and tanks. So Russia will resort to the usual tradeoff with Germany between Eastern Europe and West Russia, but now Russia’s attack would be 3 tanks weaker, and the consequent reshift of direction against Japan would be significantly weaker.
2 inf 2 art 2 tanks is the standard Ukraine-West Russia build, but I feel that all it does is put pressure on Germany’s fighters that can easily be countered with an African bid
In a game without the Ukraine attack and no African bid, Germany is pretty much forced to run the Mediterranean fleet east to run 2 inf 1 tank (1 inf/art/tank) 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 inf 1 tank 1 fighter at Anglo-Egypt, leaving 1 fighter, battleship, and transport to fight the UK destroyer in the Mediterranean (the fighter’s a safety in case the UK destroyer gets lucky against a German battleship/transport). Meanwhile, 1 sub and 4 fighters hit the UK battleship off Gibraltar, and Germany makes ground moves against Russia.
But WITH the Ukraine attack, Germany either no longer has the safety fighter against the UK destroyer in the Med, or Germany has 1 less fighter to go against Anglo-Egypt, or Germany has to pull a fighter off battleship duty. Pulling a fighter off battleship duty is a big risk, because as it is, the 8 IPC German sub is probably going to bite it, but losing a 10 IPC fighter on top of that is going to hurt. Risking a loaded transport or a battleship is a pretty horrific chance to be taking. So that pretty much means that the Anglo-Egypt attack will be less powerful, so only 1-2 tanks will survive at Anglo-Egypt, so UK can run 3 inf 1 fighter 1 bomber vs Anglo-Egypt UK1, and the Allied fleet can unite off the west of Algeria (because 5 fighter 1 bomber against 1 battleship 1 destroyer 4 transports is a risky attack for Germany that will deplete its air while the Allies easily rebuild their entire fleet). And that means that Germany will NOT have the initiative in Africa at all. To make things worse, to kill the 2-3 Russian tanks in Ukraine, Germany will have to commit ground forces because no air can be spared from all those crucial battles, which means Russia can counter. (Germany can counter that counter, but it depletes Germany’s forward infantry reserves).
But if there is an African bid, now Germany can send its Atlantic sub, battleship, and transport to unite at Gibraltar with just a single fighter safety from W. Europe. With two units in Africa that can reach Anglo-Egypt, UK can still counter, but now it is unlikely that the Allies will unite off the coast of Algeria, because of the German battleship there that can soak up a hit and retreat, as well as the powerful German air force. Germany can still run a fighter and bomber to Anglo-Egypt, and Germany still has three fighters that can now be used mostly at Germany’s discretion to punish Ukraine. (It’s true that if Germany uses three fighters, it won’t be able to place as many fighters at Western Europe, but the key is that the German fighter at Eastern Europe can be used to hit Ukraine AND fly to Western Europe, and that one fighter saves a whole tank’s worth of commitment, which is quite a lot). Even if Germany plays it REALLY safe for the eastern front and commits two fighters, that’s still three fighters, a bomber, a battleship, a sub, and a transport that threaten invasion of London combined with the Baltic fleet, or any Allied fleet off Algeria.
What this all boils down to is my personal opinion that:
With no preplaced Axis bid, a Russian attack on the Ukraine is risky but reasonable if it uses two tanks, MAYBE even if three tanks are used (although I think I would have to think very carefully about it), because of the various pressures that are put on German air and the forward positions of German infantry on its southeastern front. Germany will have to commit valuable air or forward placed ground units to counterattack into Ukraine.
With a preplaced Axis bid in Africa with two or more additional German units able to attack Anglo-Egypt on G1, I think a Russian attack on the Ukraine with two tanks is still risky but reasonable just on view of the chance of trading 2 tanks for 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter. But using THREE tanks is not good, because I want to conserve Russia’s hitting power against Germany early game and Japan late game. I know it sounds odd to say that three Russian tanks are more valuable than a German artillery, tank, and fighter, but the fact is that Russian reserves are harder to build up than German reserves. There is no substitute for seven-eight tanks and two fighters at Moscow on R3-4 that can attack Archangel, Karelia, West Russia, Belorussia, Caucasus, Ukraine, Persia, Kazakh, Novosibirsk, Evenki, Yakut, and Ssinkiang. Combined with a stack of infantry at West Russia and another stack at Novosibirsk, with just 2-3 artillery thrown in (probably towards Germany), Russia can really threaten the heck out of the Yakut and Ssinkiang and anything-adjacent-to-West-Russia attacks. To be more specific, Russia could ATTACK with the West Russian infantry and Moscow tanks and pull the Novosibirsk infantry back to Moscow (possibly leaving some to block); Japan probably wouldn’t be able to take Moscow, and on Russia’s next turn, it could turn the West Russian infantry around, send the tanks back to Moscow, grab any lightly held territory with infantry and fighters, and threaten the main body of Japan’s forces for the following Russian turn (and note that Germany’s forces would not be in position to counterattack, having been smashed at the expense of the West Russian infantry).
-
Well Jen, teh original post was for an AC and TRN, so Russia’s ENTIRE income not most of it on R1.
I also clarified in a subsequent post that it is not as immediately disastrous, but still likely to be catastrophic, even if you take Ukraine and West Russia on R1 with the naval build.
Germany moves into Ukraine, HARD. End of Russian ARM
Takes out Karelia
Stages forward everything else (Balkans, Germany, Southern forces)On R2, where is Russia going to go? Caucuses is empty, or nearly so. They have teh WRS, but it is matched by what is in Ukraine, and is nearly matched by Karelia forces.
Japan may very well have just blasted throguh the Bury forces, or the Bury forces are running away trying to get to Moscow giving Japan Bury for free and startign pursuit from the East.Russia has ONE last attack with the WRS before they are toast. And if they do not attack, then they retreat or die. Eitehr way, Germany has Karelia, Archangel, West Russia, Ukraine after G2 at a minimum, and has a fair shot at Cuacuses unless Allied airpower was flown in.
G3, Caucuses falls. Germany is down 2 IPC in Africa, 3 for Norway, up 7 from Karelia, Archangel and Caucuses.
Japan is in Yakut, and will move into Evenk and Novo on J3.Russia with an income of 10 IPC on R4, with Germans on their doorstep in 3 territories, and Japan on their doorstep in 2 territories, and no R1 INF build, so they now have whatever they were able to salvage of the WRS, the 2 INF each for Novo and Kazakh, whatever they retreated from Yak/Bury/SFE, and two builds of 8 INF each.
Moscow’s defense at the end of turn 3 is 20 two’s while Germany has their entire inital forces load perched on their doorstep, plus more armor.
-
As Germany, I would counterattack with barely enough units to take Ukraine (if Germany doesn’t take Ukraine, that isn’t good, but taking the Ukraine is just a bonus; the key is those 15 IPC of unprotected tanks). Germany also takes Karelia and West Russia. Now on R2, Russia isn’t going to commit in force to the Ukraine, because Germany can counter with 1 bomber, 5 fighters, and various infantry and tanks. So Russia will resort to the usual tradeoff with Germany between Eastern Europe and West Russia, but now Russia’s attack would be 3 tanks weaker, and the consequent reshift of direction against Japan would be
significantly weaker.But WITH the Ukraine attack, Germany either no longer has the safety fighter against the UK destroyer in the Med, or Germany has 1 less fighter to go against Anglo-Egypt, or Germany has to pull a fighter off battleship duty. Pulling a fighter off battleship duty is a big risk, because as it is, the 8 IPC German sub is probably going to bite it, but losing a 10 IPC fighter on top of that is going to hurt. Risking a loaded transport or a battleship is a pretty horrific chance to be taking. So that pretty much means that the Anglo-Egypt attack will be less powerful, so only 1-2 tanks will survive at Anglo-Egypt, so UK can run 3 inf 1 fighter 1 bomber vs Anglo-Egypt UK1, and the Allied fleet can unite off the west of Algeria (because 5 fighter 1 bomber against 1 battleship 1 destroyer 4 transports is a risky attack for Germany that will deplete its air while the Allies easily rebuild their entire fleet). And that means that Germany will NOT have the initiative in Africa at all. To make things worse, to kill the 2-3 Russian tanks in Ukraine, Germany will have to commit ground forces because no air can be spared from all those crucial battles, which means Russia can counter. (Germany can counter that counter, but it depletes Germany’s forward infantry reserves).
i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up
option 1:westrussia and ukrain attack 18ipc advantage for russia
option 2:only westrussia 4 ipc advantage.
option 3:belorussia and west russia is 13ipc advantage.
so on the economic level ukraine is teh best with an addtional 5ipc gain. i also like where the units are palced out at the end of the turn too. -
@ncscswitch:
Well Jen, teh original post was for an AC and TRN, so Russia’s ENTIRE income not most of it on R1.
I also clarified in a subsequent post that it is not as immediately disastrous, but still likely to be catastrophic, even if you take Ukraine and West Russia on R1 with the naval build.
I missed the transport. And from what I saw in your post I was assuming you attacked Cuacasus on G1 and I was wondering how in the world you planned to do that when no land forces could reach, you could use all your fighters and a transport to attack from the Med, but the odds of THAT succeeding against 2 infantry from Kaz moving in is almost nil. That’s why I made my comments.
-
i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up
option 1:westrussia and ukrain attack 18ipc advantage for russia
option 2:only westrussia 4 ipc advantage.
option 3:belorussia and west russia is 13ipc advantage.
so on the economic level ukraine is teh best with an addtional 5ipc gain. i also like where the units are palced out at the end of the turn too.You didn’t understand what I wrote. Let me simplify.
Do not do the IPC breakdown. Think about what each country has to lose. Think about the effective power of each unit, and where it is best used. I will tell you that if I had an African bid that could put two more units at Anglo-Egypt on G1, I will gladly see Ukraine fall if Russia committed three Russian tanks to the attack. To me, those three Russian tanks are well worth the loss of the fighter. That’s my first point.
To illustrate that point in a rather extreme fashion, say you have 100 IPC of fighters and I have 60 IPC of infantry and 24 IPC of artillery. Your forces are worth more IPC, which is essentially the basis for which you are advocating West Russia/Ukraine over West Russia/Belorussia - that is, using IPC gain and loss (including the anticipated values of units and territories) as the sole basis for deciding whether the attack is worthwhile or not.
But if I attack your forces, I will easily win, and if you attack my forces, I will absolutely crush you.
This is a very extreme example because fighters are normally used with infantry shields, or to attack enemy naval units, and for their ranged threat. But it DOES illustrate my point. Although I agree that early IPC gains are important, I believe that preserving valuable forces for later use and having the correct mixture is ALSO important.
–
“i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up”
I totally do not understand your post at all. You would send 3 inf from Norway to Karelia, and gain 4 IPC? But 3 inf only have a 42% chance of destroying a single opponent on the first turn, so using 1/3 * 3 as your calculation is incorrect to subtract 1 from Germany’s IPC gain is incorrect. Please take the time to explain yourself for future posts!
I also seriously think that a habit of assuming “you will lose 3 infantry” is bad. The SINGLE most likely outcome in a game is not going to happen maybe 80+% of the time, because there are any number of outcomes that each have distinctly lesser probabilitiies of happening, but that cumulatively outweigh that single “most probable” outcome. That is my second point.
To illustrate that point, Belorussia is a safer attack because it is almost impossible for it to go disastrously wrong. It can often go wrong a little, but there is a safety margin because the fighters can always retreat even if the worst should come to pass. But if Ukraine goes wrong, there is no safety margin; West Russia and Caucasus are stripped, and any Ukraine forces can team up with Belorussia for an early attack.
-
i would personaly not use a fighter in egypt. to take ukraine you have to use the 4inf from the balkans and eastern europe with 1 tank the balkans. you will lose 3 infantry so that is 12ipc versus their 15ipc there is no way to attack the 4inf/1art/1tank in west russia. i would send 3inf from norway. thats an ipc gain of 4ipc because you both will lose one infantry. so your up 7ipc+the 6 from capturing ukraine. russia was up 31 ipc but 31-13=18 so b the end of G1 russia will always be up
option 1:westrussia and ukrain attack 18ipc advantage for russia
option 2:only westrussia 4 ipc advantage.
option 3:belorussia and west russia is 13ipc advantage.
so on the economic level ukraine is teh best with an addtional 5ipc gain. i also like where the units are palced out at the end of the turn too.I totally do not understand your post at all. You would send 3 inf from Norway to Karelia, and gain 4 IPC? But 3 inf only have a 42% chance of destroying a single opponent on the first turn, so using 1/3 * 3 as your calculation is incorrect to subtract 1 from Germany’s IPC gain is incorrect. Please take the time to explain yourself for future posts!
I also seriously think that a habit of assuming “you will lose 3 infantry” is bad. The SINGLE most likely outcome in a game is not going to happen maybe 80+% of the time, because there are any number of outcomes that each have distinctly lesser probabilitiies of happening, but that cumulatively outweigh that single “most probable” outcome. That is my second point.
3infantry vs. 1infantry will mostly win. each infanry atttack on a one so 3times 1 is 3. then you divide and get 1/2. russian infantry divend on a 2 or 1/3. russia will probablly miss and germany will mostly hit the infantry this or nest round. 1/3+1/3=2/3. 1/2 chance of not killing the russian * 1/3 chance of kiiling on the second round or 1/6+1/3 from killing prevously roud =1/2 so you should kill a german infantry half the time in the whole battle. ;et say russia didnot get the kit but germany rolled aone 1st turn. you know go -3ipc. so now that is a 15 ipc advantage. really should be 16.5 ipc.
karelia is worth 2ipc so when you take it from russia that is -2 for russia and +2 for germany. that is how i got the four.
“This is a very extreme example because fighters are normally used with infantry shields, or to attack enemy naval units, and for their ranged threat. But it DOES illustrate my point. Although I agree that early IPC gains are important, I believe that preserving valuable forces for later use and having the correct mixture is ALSO important.”
that is why you lose 3ipc for an infantry death and 4for artilery and 10 for fighters.“I also seriously think that a habit of assuming “you will lose 3 infantry” is bad. The SINGLE most likely outcome in a game is not going to happen maybe 80+% of the time, because there are any number of outcomes that each have distinctly lesser probabilitiies of happening, but that cumulatively outweigh that single “most probable” outcome. That is my second point.”
your right but the easiest way to predict something is use the outcome with the highest probabilty. ets say 4inf +1 tank attack 3tanks. you will mostly kill two tank and the rusians 2 infantry. then 2inf 1tankVS1tank. my bad i ran thsi through a probailt calcultor for aa and it said 1 extra inf should die.so you are up a 13.5ipc asvantage which is almost identical to belrussia option. thanks for helping find my mistake in the ukraine option. so i ges all i proved was don’t only attack westrussia but another terrotory too. so i guess it is which option yiu personally like best to do. for me this is ukraine. i don’t like leaving karelia empty and i get to maybe cause a medeterian assult fail for germany nest turn beacuse of the fighter.
-
As I said before there’s alot more to attacks than IPC value of pieces destroyed. IMO the R1 Ukraine battle is one of those attacks. It sets the tone, it kills a precious German fighter, it helps lower the % chance of things going well for Germany on G1 attacks.
And it’s not the death knell for Russian armor. Only use two in the attack, and slowly (or quickly if so desired) replenish Russian armored forces. The battle favors Russia, and there’s no room IMO to base decisions on the chance of bad dice. You could just as easily factor in the chance of overwhelmingly good dice, which makes no sense. I choose to base my battles on odds.
-
It’s not so much a debate over IPC value when you talk about taking Ukraine (although the extra 3 IPC is nice to have.) It’s more of a situation where you have the best possible opportunity to destroy a German fighter, a fighter that could be an absolute total and complete thorn in the side of the allies for the next 8 rounds if you do not get it now. It might not, but it might.
Also, you give me that extra fighter and I will play havoc on you. :) Seriously, the extra fighter means I conquer Egypt with more units, probably, and I might even take T-J at the same time so I can move into the Indian Ocean on G2. (A tactic I’ve always wanted to do…)
-
Absolutely, completely, 100% in agreement. You don’t measure the loss of a German fighter as 10 IPCs, but as a loss in flexibility in both attack and defense for the rest of the game. It’s like losing a bomber on the first turn, only worse because bombers don’t couple as defensive units.
-
You’ve obviously never lost 2 infantry to a defending bomber before, have you? :)
-
Ouch, I sure haven’t but I can imagine the pain. :-(
That’s an interesting battle if you think about it- a bunch of bomber crews parked on the ground firing pistols at hoards of infantry… and winning.
-
Yea it is. BTW, the instance was this:
Britian put a bomber in India.
Japan attacked amphibiously with 2 infantry off East Indies. (No other units were suspected to be needed.)
I can only assume that England did not notice that a transport from Australia could bring 2 infantry to India, or thought it was going elsewhere.
-
@88:
As I said before there’s alot more to attacks than IPC value of pieces destroyed. IMO the R1 Ukraine battle is one of those attacks. It sets the tone, it kills a precious German fighter, it helps lower the % chance of things going well for Germany on G1 attacks.
And it’s not the death knell for Russian armor. Only use two in the attack, and slowly (or quickly if so desired) replenish Russian armored forces. The battle favors Russia, and there’s no room IMO to base decisions on the chance of bad dice. You could just as easily factor in the chance of overwhelmingly good dice, which makes no sense. I choose to base my battles on odds.
So do I, except my odds say go into WR heavy, wipe in 1 round, and reduce the german shots at you. VERY VERY VERY LITTLE RISK of not prevailing. If you do, your dice were so bad you were going to lose anyway. Plus, bid units to Ukraine dont affect the strategy.
Second, you easily retake Caucus/Ukraine Ussr2
-
Yea, I like that method too, at times.
I’ve seen the E. Europe, Ukraine, Belorussia approach too. Gotta be risky has hell, but he successfully destroyed two of my fighters on R1 and a Jap fighter with England on UK1 in FIC.
BTW, I like the 3 Infnatry, 3 Armor buy for R1. Gives you lotsa tanks to play with, especially if you don’t over expose in Ukraine.
-
Jen, I FINALLY have an example of bad dice that beats your averages…
4 Russian FIGs attacking Japan forces in Novo with an AA gun…
FOUR FIGs SHOT DOWN BY AA FIRE!And that immediately after the US attacked German forces in Ukraine that had an AA gun, and the US lost a FIG and a BOM to AA fire.
Although, I have to admit that, since I am playing one of the axis powers, I am actually HAPPY about those dice :-)
-
I do agree squirecam. Killing W Russia alone limits losses and ensures overwhelming success. With an 8 infantry build it leaves you in a great position numerically on the front. That’s an incredibly solid opening.
But I’ll admit it- I like killing the German fighter, and forcing Germany to respond in more spots. I like being aggressive and setting the tone of the game. For me the opening move transcends IPC values. It’s a statement to your opponent. And believe it or not, in countless games where both myself and my adversaries attack the Ukraine as a standard move, 90% of the time the Russian player seems to end up taking it with 2 armor, and that’s only bringing 2 in the first place.
Can’t explain it, but the gods of war (or the gods of boardgames simulating war) seem to smile on the aggressor :evil:
-
Yea, I like that method too, at times.
I’ve seen the E. Europe, Ukraine, Belorussia approach too. Gotta be risky has hell, but he successfully destroyed two of my fighters on R1 and a Jap fighter with England on UK1 in FIC.
BTW, I like the 3 Infnatry, 3 Armor buy for R1. Gives you lotsa tanks to play with, especially if you don’t over expose in Ukraine.
how would you take eastern europe,ukraine and belorussia?
-
@ncscswitch:
Jen, I FINALLY have an example of bad dice that beats your averages…
4 Russian FIGs attacking Japan forces in Novo with an AA gun…
FOUR FIGs SHOT DOWN BY AA FIRE!And that immediately after the US attacked German forces in Ukraine that had an AA gun, and the US lost a FIG and a BOM to AA fire.
Although, I have to admit that, since I am playing one of the axis powers, I am actually HAPPY about those dice :-)
DAAK, dear?
And yea, that is pretty erronious dice results!
I had a transport of mine shoot down two planes though. That was fun!
Cyan:
I was attacked in EE with 3 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 armor
Ukraine by 2 armor, 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter
Everything else into WRU. (I misspoke, it was not Belorussia….that’s normally the 3rd point, Belo, WRU and Ukr, in a 3 prong attack by Russia.)
Suggested Topics
