“Basically, if you could have 3 Russian ARM retreating to CAU leaving 1 GER FTR in UKR, or 3 Russian Arm holding UKR, which would you choose?”
I do not do Ukraine.
If I attack Belorussia and West Russia, I have good odds at both places, a few bad rolls will hurt neither battle, and I preserve Russia’s attack strength.
–
If you do Ukraine, and face the situation described, you KNOW Germany is going to retake. So you are trading 3 tanks for a fighter and an infantry. (You can probably kill something of Germany’s as they retake). 15 for 13, sounds good. But it isn’t so hot. That fighter probably isn’t going to be aimed at Russia anyways, and even if it was, I would far rather preserve the 3 tanks attacking at 3. You can threaten FAR more territory with tanks; you can pull tanks back into Moscow and threaten any number of Axis contested territories, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Losing tanks means you lose flexibility as to where you will attack, as well as attack strength.
I would choose to conserve the tanks.
1 bom for Egypt, 3 fig, 1 sub for SZ 13 and 1 bb, 1 trn for SZ 15.
Thats 19% chance to lose 1 or more FTR against the BB, and 13% chance to lose at least a loaded TRN… I dont like those odds.
Mateooo
Even if I have 6 fighters, I do 3 Fighters, Sub in SZ 13. I just add more fighters to Egypt since the odds of loosing units are MUCH higher there.
And you know, I have never seen, both being attacked and attacking, any fighters lost in SZ 13 if you do 3 fighters, 1 submarine. Seen it with 2 fghters, but never 3 or more.
And you know, I have never seen, both being attacked and attacking, any fighters lost in SZ 13 if you do 3 fighters, 1 submarine. Seen it with 2 fghters, but never 3 or more.
And I had never lost a loaded TRN when I attacked the british DD with the BB and TRN… that is, until I lost a loaded transport attacking the DD with the BB and TRN.
And odds are, about 1/3 of the time, one of those events will happen, and 1/30, both.
But thats what happens when we roll dice
Mateooo
My personal opinion is if you are going to bid anything into Ukraine, bid 1 infantry, 1 armor. Then you shift the dynamics of the attack results in your favor. 2 Infatry in Ukraine is just two more dead infantry with Russia still owning the land with at least 1 armor left. THat’s like taking the Axis without a bid, IMHO.
IIRC, Ukraine has 3I 1Art 1Arm 1FÂ (15)
USSR brings 3/1/3/2 = 21
2 Inf bid is now 21 vs 19 instead of 21 vs 15.
R1 USSR 3.5 hits, Germ 3 hits.
Now its art/3 arm/f vs 1-2I/art/arm/f
So its USSR 14 vs 11-13. (Lets take worst case)
2.33 hits USSR and 2 hits Germ
Now its 9 vs 9.
Unless you get that extra hit USSR 1, its about even.
I think 2 bid inf makes a difference.
Point being also that Ukraine R1 with bid is a 50/50 kinda attack. It could go well, but it could backfire in your face. Is it worth it on R1 ???
I do agree that a successful strafe (if you could guarantee it) is a good strategy. But you cant guarantee it (except in LL games)
I experimented over several games with the Libyan bid, and I have to be honest…
Africa is too easilly countered and contained by too many potential Allied moves for that bid placement to be worth it… unless you are German Fleet Unifcation player.
But for non-fleet unification, keep your bid on the front lines of your primary target… RUSSIA.
An INF in Ukraine add the likelyhood of an additional Russian casualty on R1, and increases the odds of a serious loss by Russia dramatically. Also, reducing the force needed to re-claim Ukraine on G1 gives Germany more flexibility on where and how to stage and stack for their main strike… allowign them to choose center or north instead of being forced south.
KEEP YOU EYE ON THE OBJECTIVE!
If your objective is UK, then bid into the Baltic.
If your objective is Russia, then bid into central Europe
If your objective is the US, then bid to Japan.
My last two games UK has retaken Egy on UK1 - but the advantage is that you take out UK units that would otherwise slow Japan down. Especially killing that Ftr.
So Switch are you saying you can live without African Income? This seems like a big change from the advice you gave me in my game v. Darth, IIRC (which I won without any African income).
I think the Russian attack on Ukr is a bad move personally - it costs Russia a lot of expensive units. Much better is to take WRus solidly, which is key to Russia’s game. As long as WRus stands, Russia doesn’t have to keep too much back in Mos or even Cau - all the approaches are deadzoned - at least until Japan comes rapping gently at that window…
Against Jenn and Frimmel CC and I put 2 Inf in Ukr, and Russia left it alone. But Russia also kept most of its force in Mos for much of the game.
Against Sime I placed a TRN in the Med, which allowed me to bring extra to Egy w/o a Libya bid, plus the TRN provides extra mobility against Russia - can hit Cau from SE, which is nice. You then have the choice on G1, depending on Russia’s play, which way to send extra dudes. So far I like it. It also made the retake of Egy on G2 easier, and bringing 2 more Arm to Afr allows you to blitz a lot of African income very early.
@froodster:
Against Sime I placed a TRN in the Med, … So far I like it.
That’s the first time I’ve seen that bid, and I must say that I like it too. It gives the Germans a lot of flexibility within the Med.
Using LL numbers to prove the value of a bid is a bit off when arguing an ADS game.
I have never seen two infantry in Ukraine result in anything more then Russia being reduced to 1 or 2 armor instead of having 2 or 3 armor after they kill your fighter. And the odds of that happening seems pretty similar to NOT having two infantry in Ukraine.
As I said, you want Ukraine, then put an infantry and an armor there. Or just an armor. At least you have a very good chance of obliterating the Russians without much intervention.
As for Africa, you have to have Africa at the start of the game. It’ll take the allies 5-7 turns to get you out of Africa.
Using LL numbers to prove the value of a bid is a bit off when arguing an ADS game.
I have never seen two infantry in Ukraine result in anything more then Russia being reduced to 1 or 2 armor instead of having 2 or 3 armor after they kill your fighter. And the odds of that happening seems pretty similar to NOT having two infantry in Ukraine.
As I said, you want Ukraine, then put an infantry and an armor there. Or just an armor. At least you have a very good chance of obliterating the Russians without much intervention.
As for Africa, you have to have Africa at the start of the game. It’ll take the allies 5-7 turns to get you out of Africa.
I would rather have 2 at 2 than 1 at 3. But thats just me.
As for “odds”, it is somehwere 55/45 ish. Slight USSR advantage. You hav to consider it before doing the move. And it will backfire. I’ve seen it often enough. And when an already weaker USSR loses its tanks in a bad roll, its over…
2 Inf make a huge difference in a medium size battle like that, on defence or offence. 2@2 is 1 more punch than 1@3, but the perhaps bigger advantage is a whole additional “hit point”. Try imagining a tank that rolled 2 2’s on defence, and after one hit could still survive at half strength. Everyone thinks about punch, but “hit points” are also important.
Consider this: Offensively, 3 inf are more powerful than a ftr. Both start with a total punch of 3, but after one hit, the inf force is only reduced by 33% while the fighter is eliminated.
Also, 2 Arm are more than twice as powerful as a fighter. On punch alone, they are twice as good, but they are also twice as good in longevity.
Not that I want to educate my current opponent of course…
It boils down to this though - ESPECIALLY with 2 extra Inf, but even without, Germany can more easily than Russia replace the units lost in a Ukrainian battle, and the units that are lost in the counterattack.
Just so we are all clear…
Ukraine:
No Bid: Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF: Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
2 INF: Doubtful Russia would even try Ukraine, because they would have only a 52% chance of TAKING Ukraine.
So, that 1 INF bid to Ukraine is a GOOD BET for Germany. On average it results in a net effect of adding $2 to the value of Germany’s bid.
Suddenly $7 bid is now $9…
And it is not so strong that Russia would “abort” the attack. Call it a minor sucker play :-)
Interesting analysis. So what would you do with the other 4 IPCs of a 7 IPC bid, Switch?
Although similar reasoning could apply to any bid placement, eg. placing 1 Inf 1 Art in Libya, Ger can take Egy and come out ahead, so you could add those savings to the value of the bid too.
Hey, just passed 700 posts - w00t! Fighterdom, here I come. My life has meaning!
@ncscswitch:
Just so we are all clear…
Ukraine:
No Bid:Â Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF:Â Â Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
2 INF:  Doubtful Russia would even try Ukraine, because they would have only a 52% chance of TAKING Ukraine.So, that 1 INF bid to Ukraine is a GOOD BET for Germany. On average it results in a net effect of adding $2 to the value of Germany’s bid.
Suddenly $7 bid is now $9…
And it is not so strong that Russia would “abort” the attack. Call it a minor sucker play :-)
52% sounds about right.
@froodster:
Interesting analysis. So what would you do with the other 4 IPCs of a 7 IPC bid, Switch?
Well, I usually do the $1 to Japan, but I ahve been working on some options after the clobbering I took a few games back from becoming so predictable…
Other things I have done…
1 INF Belo
1 INF Libya
1 INF Manch
2 INF Libya
1 ARM Libya
@ncscswitch:
Just so we are all clear…
Ukraine:
No Bid:Â Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF:Â Â Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
I think that is slightly misleading b/c in both cases Russia loses all three armor on the German counter. It doesn’t really matter if you take with 1 arm, 2 arm, or all three. They are all going to die if you intend to take Ukr on R1. Maybe you takeout another Ger inf on their attack with 3 arm left insted of two, but that is not a big deal IMO. I think it is a bigger deal that you eliminated the Axis bid (or part of it) without changing anything Russia does. If you’re a R1 attack UKR player that is.
@froodster:
Although similar reasoning could apply to any bid placement, eg. placing 1 Inf 1 Art in Libya, Ger can take Egy and come out ahead, so you could add those savings to the value of the bid too.
This is true.
A bid to Lib may very well allow Germany to hold Egy (which right there adds a fictitious 2 ipc to the bid) plus the gain in IPC from an immediate Germany blitz on G2 instead of having to retake Egy on G2.
There are lots of “hidden” things that can add up from bids and it just depends on how you view killing an extra Russia tank that will probably die anyway (again if your playing a R1 Ukr attacker) on a potential R1 attack vs. the “hidden” benefits of any other bid placement.
I like the Afr bid b/c I think it strengthens my hand in rds 4-8 (give or take), whereas I think a Europe bid may make you stronger in rds 1-2 (maybe 3) but can quickly fade as UK and US get rolling.
@ncscswitch:
I experimented over several games with the Libyan bid, and I have to be honest…
Africa is too easilly countered and contained by too many potential Allied moves for that bid placement to be worth it… unless you are German Fleet Unifcation player.
But for non-fleet unification, keep your bid on the front lines of your primary target… RUSSIA.
An INF in Ukraine add the likelyhood of an additional Russian casualty on R1, and increases the odds of a serious loss by Russia dramatically. Also, reducing the force needed to re-claim Ukraine on G1 gives Germany more flexibility on where and how to stage and stack for their main strike… allowign them to choose center or north instead of being forced south.
KEEP YOU EYE ON THE OBJECTIVE!
If your objective is UK, then bid into the Baltic.
If your objective is Russia, then bid into central Europe
If your objective is the US, then bid to Japan.
If you place units in Africa and use the German S. Europe transport, you can often survive with 1-2 inf and 3 arm. Countering that is extremely costly for UK in the Pacific, requiring the commitment of the Indian fighter, the Indian transport, most of the infantry near India and Africa, and the UK bomber.
Restricting your lines of play simply means that the Allies have an easier time countering your strategy.
I think it better to leave different lines of play open, either to exploit an opponent’s mistakes, or - more likely against a skilled opponent - to create more viable threats that must be defended against.
For that reason, I almost ALWAYS bid units at Africa. If the Allies do NOT counter Africa, I gain IPCs. If they DO counter Africa, I gain time on the Karelia/Archangel front.
Actually Darth it depends on HOW HEAVY you want to have to ake Ukraine.
Sure, Germany CAN bring enough force to slaughter Ukraine on a G1 counter no matter what force Russia ist left with. The question is, how much do you want to stick out there to in turn die on R1?
Being able to re-take Ukraine against just 1 ARM means a LOT less forces shoved into the killing zone than if you ahve to be sure of killing 3 ARM.
And THAT has value in this game… I think YOU are the one who taught me that :-D
:-D
True, it takes a few more inf to kill 3 arm in Ukr on G1, but I think that is all you really have to do, is commit a few more inf (maybe 1 arm) to kill the extra Russian armor. In the end Ukr still ends up being a deadzone and each side is out a few more pieces in rd 1 and 2.
But Afr can be bottled up easier if all goes avg so even if Germany comes out ahead in the Ukr trading (due to ukr bid) they are still stuck fighting for Egy/Trj instead of blitzing Afr and probably top out at 40 IPC (maybe).
On the flip side, you bid a few troops to lib and take Egy on G1 with those couple of extra troops, now the UK is looking at more losses to liberate Egy (if they even can) and the potential for Germany to gain easy ipc from Afr.
I think if I went inf bid to Europe, I might lean toward Belo over Ukr.
I do like the 1 inf, 1 arm to ukr as Jen pointed out, but again I think that telegraphs (as does any Europe bid) Germany’s moves and sort of boxes you in a bit on what you can do. I agree with newpaintbrush, I like to try and leave a few options open for the Axis.
Mateo, I agree with your reasoning regarding Ukraine. I see a lot of people here are working their calculators, but what most of them forget to take into account is the human factor. Just like you point out it leaves the German player with 5 fighters only, he will be “one short” somewhere. It also up’s the ante in the dead zones, with less figs to provide attack power he may have to commit art or arm to territories like Karelia/Belo/Ukraine. On the long term it also means a diminished threat to the allied navies, perhaps enabling them to make landfall one round earlier than they normally would. So not only do you get to lower his odds for the respective battles, you also increase the odds of him making a tactical error.
I do fear the Ukraine strike myself, though. For either side it leaves too much in the hands of luck too early in the game. (IMHO) If I’m playing an opponent who I will likely beat even with a little bad luck I’m not going to risk the Ukraine strike. If on the other hand I’m likely to lose to a skilled opponent given even luck I might just go for such an attack. In any case I will execute it from time to time to avoid being predictable. I’m not going to attack w.rus or w.rus/belo every time and let my opponent safely put his bid into Africa instead.
