@Zhukov44:
For me, the Russian lurch is a simulateneous advance into Belorussia and East Ukraine, followed by an advance on East Poland. Sometimes, depending on circumstance, they will go to Ukraine instead of E. Ukraine. The important part is stacking Belorussia to make German stacks in Karelia or East Poland vulnerable.
Yeah, Belo is a nice spot if Germany is going after Kar, and if you can move to Belo and Euk (or Ukr) all the better. :-)
@Zhukov44:
However it’s hard to actually hold Novo (beyond the 6 dudes retreating from Siberia) and Persia and also accomplish this offensive in the Eastern front.
I usually have to wait for Allied help in Europe. I try to stop the Ger/Ita advance, while Russia retreats out East, and I usually end up building up in Moscow for a bit. But if all goes well the UK/US start to take over the heavy lifting in Europe and I’ll then pull back the some of Russian forces and eventually turn them all on to Japan. Persia is a bit of a wild card, if you can hold together your initial units you can delay long enough for Allied help, usually via North Africa. But if Japan goes all out for Ind/Per early you might not be able to hold there, in which case maybe you can set up the US shuck to Cauc if you are dire need of troops.
@gamerman01:
I’m not talking about stacking, though. Your post is talking stack this, stack that, stack everything. Do you play no tech or something? The only time I see stacking going on is in no tech.
I wasn’t talking about stacking Chi. I was saying it has strategic importance, and moreso than Nov.
But if your play style ends up with you and your opponent with huge stacks everywhere, that’s not the kind of game I play, so you’re talking apples and I’m talking oranges.
Correct, I play no tech. But I was just using ‘stack’ as a generic term. Heck, a stack could be as little as 2-3 inf. It only has to be as big as what the enemy can threaten you with. If Japan can send 4 tanks at you then you only need 4-5 inf in your ‘stack’.
@gamerman01:
Maybe you’re like an opponent I’m playing right now who buys like 10 infantry every single turn with Russia no matter what the situation is (slight exaggeration, but not much). So yes, depending on how you play, I think which territories are strategic is actually not a static thing. It depends on the players, and whether you’re playing with tech or not. Don’t you think?
Tech makes a difference, but there are strategic territories that will hold true for most games.
Much of my play revolves around controlling the center of the board. 90% of all A&A games will be determined by the fall of Moscow or the fall of Berlin. Almost all major action of the game takes place in Europe, the Med, and Western Russia. Everything else is a byproduct of how good/bad this is going. Bad for the Allies, then more trns in the Atlantic for the UK/US to help, or threaten Japan, etc. Bad for Axis, then Japan better step up and help and either take out Mos or threaten the US, or threaten Afr, etc.
The reason I like Epl in Europe is b/c I think if I can get it then the threat to Moscow from both Ger and Ita is gone. I don’t have to worry about defending north or south, I can simply pump units into one spot Epl until I have enough for a 1-2-3 attack on Pol or force Germany to deadzone Pol. Either way good for the Allies. Once Pol is deadzoned you can go 3 on 1 vs. Japan if Berlin is too well defended to take b/c you now have the economic adv and time is now on your side.
Obviously if something opens up in Fra or Ita you can take it, but I really like the ability of having 1-2-3 attacks and if you focus on Fra too early you run the risk of the Axis isolating Moscow then turtling in Berlin/Rome. But if Germany can keep the Allies out of Eastern Europe long enough then it is likely Japan will take Moscow and now you better be able to take Belin/Rome down or else the yellow monster will get you.
@gamerman01:
Are you talking about huge stacks of mostly infantry lumbering around? I have no idea what you’re talking about, because in my 30 games of AA50 so far, I really have never seen “huge” stacks of Japs trudging around Russia and India and what not. I guess I play more “lightning war” than huge stacks of infantry.
They don’t have to be huge stacks, just enough to either deter an attack or deadzone the nearby territories.
Inf are one of the best ways to counter “lightning war”. Your opponent spends 5 ipc on tanks and you are only spending 3. It is cheaper to defend so if you can hold a terrirtory, any territory that you think is key you should do so b/c at that point (the point at which it is safe to move your army) for every 3 ipc you add in defense, your opponent will have to spend 4 ipc to make you move. A generic small example is, to kill 3 inf (9 ipc) your opponent needs to commit about 13-14 ipc (3 inf, 1 rt or arm) worth of units. But the ratio of 4:3 (attacker ipcs:defender ipcs) holds true, particularly for larger scale battles.
My theory with the 3 territories in this thread is you can try to create a ‘secure zone’ for Russia while you try to level the economic playing field elsewhere on the board and ultimately turn it in your favor. You try and grab superior position first then worry about the other stuff. I guess you could probably turn this into a side debate of position vs. economy.
