R1(KGF)-West Russia only

LOL USA…

1.  You can transport units from S Eur to Libya and consolidate so you have 6 German ground in Libya at end of G1.  This allows Germany to make a serious play for Africa regardless of the fate of the Mediterranean battleship.

2.  If Russia wants to spend precious precious air on a shot against my German battleship, they’re welcome to it.

3.  If Russia screws around with anything but inf/art/tank, it opens the door for early German control of Karelia, particularly if Germany abandons Africa.  (They don’t HAVE to abandon Africa, but if they DO, it’s much harder to stop Germany).  One or two units can make a big difference in the balance of power.

–

Re:  German control of Africa:  German control of Africa and preservation of the German Mediterranean fleet can be a big plus.   Germany has more income.  Japan doesn’t need to devote as much power to Africa, leaving it to put more pressure on Russia - and with a KGF in play, Japan’s will be the main attack.

That isn’t to say the Germans HAVE to be in Africa.  But if the Germans can get into Africa without giving up too much position in Europe, it’s something to think about.

–

To answer the OP - if Russia buys any non-ground units on R1, I’m immediately thinking about ways to make major major nasty attacks.  Like “Break West Russia with Germany or secure Ukraine, build 8 G1 tanks, build 2 ICs with Japan, and tank tank tank east and west” - that sort of thinking.  It might not be possible to smash Russia up real fast, but things can be REAL nasty real quick if Russia leaves 6 infantry on Buryatia, or bled strength off towards Africa/India, or did anything else not along the lines of a UKR/WR open.

Lads and Lasses,

First time on the the site, but I’ve loved what I’ve seen so far! There is a lot of great strategic advice, especially at the beginning of the game.

I was wondering if anyone had an picture of the game with all of the pieces placed prior to the first turn.  It would be great to be able to see the board and pieces in place, so I can envision the moves and see what the opposing players might try.  Maybe it’s because I’m a noob, but  I haven’t been able to memorize the board at the start yet.

Any help would be much appreciated!  Thanks in advance!

Hard to say - all depends on the magnitude of the threat from Germany.

Going full KGF with a pretty standard German opening round means that the sea zone next to Algeria is threatened by 2 subs 3-5 figs and a bomber.

I almost always buy an AC + Destroyer.
Maybe also a Fighter (UK maybe require 1-2 figs on their AC).
this leaves room for 1 transport + 1 tank

I often land in Algeria with 4 units round 1 - meaning I sacrifice the two transports.

Giving me the possibility to move in next with AC + 2 figs + cruiser +2 dd and maybe join up with the UK navy.

Germany can beat this, but not likely without substantial losses, if they do my next buy will be similar, and reach Europe together with the pacific battleship.

Here’s the options for R1, as I see them.

1.  Belorussia/West Russia.  Wipes out forward German infantry, preventing a strong G1 attack against Russian-held West Russia, and keeps Russian tanks at West Russia, where they’re safe.

2.  Ukraine/West Russia.  Wipes out forward German infantry, preventing a strong G1 attack against Russian-held West Russia.  Destroys a German fighter, tank, and artillery.  The German fighter is VERY valuable.  But Russian tanks need to be committed to Ukraine, and will be destroyed in the German counterattack.

2A.  Ukr/WR with 2 Russian tanks / 2 Russian fighters.  There’s about a 19% chance that the Russians will lose one or both fighters on the attack.  There’s about a 12% chance that the Russians will keep both fighters, destroy all German units on Ukraine, but fail to capture Ukraine.  That leaves about a 69% chance of claiming Ukraine with at least one Russian tank.

2B.  Ukr/WR with 3 Russian tanks / 2 Russian fighters.  About a 4% chance the Russians lose both fighters, 2% of losing one fighter, 5% of both fighters surviving but losing everything else. That leaves about a 89% chance of claiming Ukraine with at least one Russian tank.

3.  Norway/West Russia.  Attacking with 2 fighters preserves the UK battleship, but leaves the German infantry at Belorussia and Ukraine intact, allowing the Germans to hit West Russia very hard on G1, and the Russian fighter is lost.  Not discussed in my earlier poll regarding Norway/West Russia was the German fighter depletion strategy.

4.  West Russia/Ukraine/Norway.  Russia attacks at three territories.  Making three attacks instead of two means Russia has to split its forces more, meaning increased casualties when attacking, and leaving the dispersed forces vulnerable to counterattack.  Or, Germany could take advantage of Russia’s weak position by immediately trying to establish a secure forward position, from which it cannot easily be dislodged as Russia’s attacking forces are so weak.  This attack CAN kill 2 German fighters, though, but odds are good that at least one survives.

Let’s elaborate on 4) a bit.

Russia has 2 fighters that can be assigned anywhere, as needed.  Assigning both to Norway means at least one will die, either on the attack, or to the G1 attack on Karelia, where the second Russian fighter must land.

Germans defend Norway with 3 infantry 1 fighter; Russia can hit with 3 infantry 1 tank.  At LEAST one Russian fighter should be committed for this attack to have any chance of real success; 1 Russian fighter leaves about a 60% chance the Russian fighter survives and the German fighter dies.  2 Russian fighters leave about a 89% chance of one Russian fighter surviving (again, even if both Russian fighters survive the initial battle, one dies in the German counterattack).

Germans defend Ukraine with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter; Russia can hit with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 tanks.  Russia has a 62% chance of killing the German fighter even without any Russian fighter.  Adding a Russian fighter brings the odds to about 81% that the Russian fighter survives and the German fighter dies; if the Russian fighter is expendable, it’s about 87% chance the German fighter goes down.  (For this reason, I think when trying to deplete the German air force, it’s better to hit Norway with 1 fighter and Ukraine with 1 fighter, than to send both to Norway).

Germans defend West Russia with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank.  Russia can hit with 6 infantry 1 artillery.  Without going into it, this spends a lot of Russian blood, with a success rate of about 63% - and usually even if winning, just one or two Russian units are left.  That’s why a lot of players opt to use the second fighter not at Ukraine, but at West Russia, bringing the odds of success to about 90% and an average of about 3 Russian units surviving.

With 60/60/90 attacks, there’s a 64% chance of failure at at least one of the important German-fighter battles.  Germany can rush tanks east and create an early strong position.  However, Germany cannot grab Caucasus early, and with West Russia in Russian hands, Germany doesn’t have the power to smash into Moscow immediately.

It’s also possible to hit Ukr/Norway only, instead of draining Russia’s attack power to try to take West Russia, The Germans can grab a lot of territory on G1, but they can’t hold most of it.  The problem with that is lousy position at the start of R2; Russia doesn’t have any territories to trade.

Comment - Ukraine with 3 tanks/2 fighters has about a 4% “total failure” rate, losing both Russian fighters, with 2% loss of one Russian fighter, and 5% of both Russian fighters surviving, leaving about 89% chance of one German fighter going down.  Compare to Russia committing both fighters to Ukr/Norway (either doing Ukr/Norway alone, or Ukr/Norway/West Russia) with a 8% chance of total failure, not killing any German fighters, 44% chance to bag 1 German fighter, and a 48% chance of whacking both German fighters - but BOTH Russian fighters survive.

Comment 2 - the loss of Russian tanks hurts a lot.  Russian tanks can threaten a lot of different territories, and can dash back and forth between the German and Japanese fronts as necessary.  It’s not that they DO dash back and forth; it’s just the THREAT they pose that’s so nasty.  But losing German fighters hurts Germany a lot too, so it’s a bit of a toss-up.

@Zhukov44:

That fig to egy move is devastating when it works.  If Germany doesn’t take Egypt, then UK gets the ez fleet kill on UK2.  It’s an interesting gamble, but it has potential to go wrong if Ukr doesn’t go Russia’s way or if Germany gets a lucky roll in Egy.

It certainly stretches Germany out and forces them to take tons of risks or omit a major battle like SZ2.

Russian fighter in Anglo-Egypt Sudan?

(Re:  German 2 inf / 1 art / 1 tank / 1 fighter vs AES forces)with the additional fighter: [52.6% Attacker, 8.7% Tie, 18IPCs lost]

61% chance Russia shot itself in the ass.

Want to add, if UK fig siurvives land it in china =)

Kiling Japan land troops gives him a big headache.

Awright guys, I think we can lay off dat wawawd cat.  Prollly he/she won’t be participating in a d***-size comparing contest for at least a little while.

For my part, I’d say KGF is correct, with play against Japan IF JAPAN ALLOWS IT, which Japan probably should.

Why I say KGF is “correct”?

1.  Most cost-efficient units on attack and defense are ground units.
2.  To get ground units into battle, UK and US need naval units.
3.  To get naval units into battle against Germany or Japan, they must be built first; UK and US both have weaker navies than either Germany or Japan.
4.  UK only has one industrial complex, close to Germany.  Building another early industrial complex near Japan costs IPCs, means a delay in production, and is limited to 2-3 units per turn (anywhere from Anglo-Egypt Sudan, South Africa, Australia, or India)
5.  Japan’s starting navy/air force is bigger than Germany’s starting navy/air force
6.  Japan’s outlying islands are far away from the action in Moscow; ground forces will need to be transported in closer, which means more naval/air battles.  In contrast, near Germany, units can be offloaded into Archangel, one step away from Moscow.

What about Japan “allowing play against itself”?

If Japan mostly ignores its outlying islands and withdraws its forces west to attack Asia / India / Africa, US can build a small fleet to mess with Japan’s outlying islands.  This will mean Japan either loses IPCs, or will have to pull some units back to stop the U.S.

If Japan doesn’t ignore its outlying islands, that’s less pressure on Moscow.

Either way, the Allies can see what Japan does and act accordingly.