[East & West by Imp Games] Soviet strategy playtest

Non-Combat Movement:
1 inf East Germany to West Germany
2 inf East Germany to Poland
2 arm, 4 ftr West Germany to Yugoslavia
3 inf Poland to Yugoslavia
2 inf Romania to Yugoslavia
3 inf Greece to Yugoslavia
1 crz Black Sea to Algeria SZ
1 arm Karelia to Poland
1 inf, 1 AA Ukraine to Poland
1 AA Georgia to Ukraine
1 hrm Georgia to Qinghai
1 inf Georgia to Kazakhstan
2 hrm Belarus to Kazakhstan
2 arm Turkey to Kazakhstan
3 inf Turkey to Georgia
8 inf Kazakhstan to Sinkiang
1 ftr, 1 bmb Pakistan to Sinkiang
4 inf Sinkiang to Qinghai
2 inf Mongolia to Inner Mongolia
3 inf Manchuria to Inner Mongolia
1 arm East Siberia to Inner Mongolia
6 inf East Siberia to Manchuria
2 arm South Korea to North Korea
2 ftr South Korea to East Siberia

Placement: [26 inf]
4 inf – East Germany
2 inf – Yugoslavia
3 inf – Poland
2 inf – Romania
4 inf – Karelia
2 inf – Turkmenistan
2 inf – Kazakhstan
1 inf – Mongolia
4 inf – East Siberia
2 inf – North Korea

FINAL:
Algeria SZ: 1 crz
West Germany: 1 inf
Greece: 1 inf
Turkey: 1 inf
Pakistan: 1 inf
South Korea: 1 inf

East Germany: 4 inf
Yugoslavia: 20 inf, 2 arm, 4 ftr
Baltic States: 1 inf
Poland: 6 inf, 1 arm, 1 AA
Romania: 2 inf
Karelia: 8 inf, 1 AA, 1 IC
Belarus: 1 inf
Ukraine: 1 AA, 1 IC
Komi: 1 inf
Orel: 1 inf
Georgia: 3 inf
Russia: 1 IC
Urals: empty
Kazakhstan: 3 inf, 2 arm, 2 hrm
Turkmenistan: 2 inf
West Siberia: empty
Baykal: empty
Mongolia: 1 inf
East Siberia: 4 inf, 2 ftr, 1 AA, 1 IC
North Korea: 6 inf (China), 2 inf, 2 arm
Kamchatka: 1 inf

(Chinese territories)
Sinkiang: 8 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bmb
Qinghai: 4 inf, 1 hrm
Inner Mongolia: 5 inf, 1 arm
Manchuria: 6 inf

Collect Income:
USSR - 48
WE - 9
UK - 1
USA - 2
Neutrals - 0
China - 8
Arabs - 0
OAS - 0
Saved - 1
Total: 69

Production Chart:
USSR: $69/60
WE: $27/23
UK: $33/32
USA: $43/41
China:  USSR $8
Arabs:  USSR $0
OAS:  Neutral $0

WE 2

Purchase: [27 IPCs]
9 inf [27 IPCs]
save [0 IPCs]

Combat Movement:
West Germany [1 inf]
1 inf, 3 arm – France
Total: 1 inf, 3 arm vs. 1 inf

Attacker: 1 inf, 3 arm
Rolls: 1@1 3@3; Total Hits: 31@1: (3)3@3: (1, 1, 2)

Defender: 1 inf
Rolls: 1@1; Total Hits: 11@1: (1)

Non-Combat Movement:
3 arm West Germany to France
2 inf France to Norway via 1 trn Komi SZ to Komi SZ
2 inf Algeria to France via 1 trn Morocco SZ to Irish SZ
1 crz Morocco SZ to Irish SZ
1 ftr Red Sea (UK carrier) to Italy
1 ftr India to Sudan
1 inf New Guinea to Borneo SZ via 1 trn Queensland SZ to Borneo SZ

Placement: [9 inf]
2 inf – Norway
3 inf – France
4 inf – Italy

FINAL:
France: 5 inf, 3 arm, 1 AA, 1 IC
Italy: 11 inf, 1 ftr, 1 AA, 1 IC
Norway: 11 inf
Indochina: 3 inf

Komi SZ: 1 trn
Irish SZ: 1 trn, 1 crz
Borneo SZ: 1 trn w/ 1 inf
Sudan: 1 ftr

(Empty territories)
West Germany
Portugal
Morocco
Algeria
West Africa
Equatorial Africa
Congo
Angola
Mozambique
Madagascar
New Guinea

Collect Income:
USSR - 0
WE - 27
Neutrals - 0
China - 0
Arabs - 0
OAS - 0
Saved - 0
Total: 27

Production Chart:
USSR: $69/56
WE: $27/27
UK: $33/32
USA: $43/41
China:  USSR $8
Arabs:  USSR $0
OAS:  Neutral $0

UK2

Technology:
1 @ Armor [5 IPCs]
Rolling 1d6:
(4)

Purchase: [28 IPCs]
6 inf [18 IPCs]
1 spy [10 IPCs]
save [0 IPCs]

Combat Movement:
Komi [1 inf]

• 2 inf – UK via 2 bmb UK

• 2 inf – Iceland via 1 trn Komi SZ to Komi SZ

• 1 crz, 1 BB – Komi SZ

Total: 4 inf, 1 crz, 1 BB, 2 bmb (cannot attack) vs. 1 inf

First Strike: 1 crz, 1 BB
Rolls: 1@2 1@4; Total Hits: 21@2: (1)1@4: (1)
Attacker: 4 inf
Rolls: 4@1; Total Hits: 04@1: (6, 5, 3, 3)

Pakistan [1 inf]

• 2 inf – Sudan via 1 trn Red Sea to Persian Gulf

• 2 inf – Burma via 1 trn Burma SZ to Persian Gulf

• 1 ftr India

Total: 4 inf, 1 ftr vs. 1 inf

Attacker: 4 inf, 1 ftr
Rolls: 4@1 1@3; Total Hits: 34@1: (2, 2, 1, 1)1@3: (3)

Defender: 1 inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)

Non-Combat Movement:
1 inf Ontario to Quebec
1 crz Rio De Oro/West Africa SZ to Morocco SZ
1 trn Morocco SZ to Quebec SZ
2 bmb Komi to UK
1 inf Algeria to Equatorial Africa
1 inf Nigeria to Equatorial Africa
1 inf Libya to Sudan
3 inf Rhodesia to Tanganyika
1 arm Congo to Tanganyika
2 sub, 1 AC Red Sea to Persian Gulf
1 sub India SZ to Persian Gulf
1 ftr Pakistan to India
8 inf, 1 arm Burma to India

Placement: [6 inf, 1 spy]
1 inf – Sudan
3 inf – India
1 inf – Ceylon
1 inf – Burma

FINAL:
Komi: 4 inf, 1 trn, 1 sub, 1 crz, 1 BB
Borneo SZ: 1 inf (WE transport)

Ontario: 1 AA, 1 IC
Quebec: 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 trn
UK: 3 inf, 1 arm, 2 bmb, 1 AA, 1 IC
Gibraltar: 1 crz
Sudan: 2 inf
Tanganyika: 4 inf, 1 arm
Pakistan: 3 inf, 2 trn, 3 sub, 1 AC
India: 15 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr
Ceylon: 1 inf
Burma: 1 inf

(Empty territories)
Western Canada
Libya
Nigeria
Rhodesia
South Africa
Singapore
Western Australia
Queensland
New South Wales
New Zealand

(Allied territories)
Norway: 2 inf
Italy: 3 inf
Equatorial Africa: 2 inf

Collect Income:
USSR - 1
UK - 33
Neutrals - 0
China - 0
Arabs - 0
OAS - 0
Saved - 0
Total: 34

Production Chart:
USSR: $69/54
WE: $27/27
UK: $34/34
USA: $43/41
China:  USSR $8
Arabs:  USSR $0
OAS:  Neutral $0

US 2

Spying:
Rolling 1d6:
(6)

Technology:
1 free @ Nuclear Weapons
:dice: 1d6:
1 @ Air [5 IPCs]
Rolling 1d6:
(1)  
1 @ Armor [5 IPCs]
Rolling 1d6:
(5)

1 free @ Nuclear Weapons
Rolling 1d6:
(4)

Technology Results:
US gains Jets
WE gains half-step towards Jets
UK gains half-step towards Jets

Purchase: [33 IPCs]
6 inf [18 IPCs]
1 IC [15 IPCs]
save [0 IPCs]

Combat Movement:
South Korea [1 inf]

• 1 inf – Midway via 1 bmb Midway

• 2 ftr – Japan SZ

Total: 1 inf, 2 ftr, 1 bmb (cannot attack) vs. 1 inf

Attacker: 1 inf, 2 ftr
Rolls: 1@1 2@3; Total Hits: 21@1: (2)2@3: (3, 2)

Defender: 1 inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (3)

Non-Combat Movement:
1 inf Panama to East US via 1 trn West Panama SZ to East US SZ
1 crz, 1 AC West Panama SZ to East US SZ
2 inf East US to France via 1 trn East US SZ to Irish SZ
5 inf East US to Quebec
1 trn Morocco SZ to Quebec SZ
1 crz Morocco SZ to Irish SZ
1 sub Irish SZ to Morocco SZ
2 inf Iceland to Komi via 1 trn Irish SZ to Komi SZ
1 inf France to West Germany
1 inf, 1 ftr France to Italy
2 inf Philippines to Indochina via 1 trn Burma SZ to Burma SZ
2 inf Japan to Indochina via 1 trn Japan SZ to Burma SZ
1 sub, 1 AC, 1 BB Japan SZ to Burma SZ
2 ftr South Korea to Burma SZ
1 bmb South Korea to Japan

Placement: [6 inf, 1 IC]
1 inf, 1 IC – Japan
2 inf – Philippines
2 inf – Iceland
1 inf – East US

FINAL:
Alaska: 1 inf
West US: 1 AA, 1 IC
East US: 2 inf, 1 AA, 1 IC, 1 trn, 1 crz, 1 AC
Iceland: 4 inf
Philippines: 2 inf
South Korea: 1 inf
Japan: 3 inf, 1 bmb, 1 IC
Okinawa: 1 inf
Hawaii: empty

Irish SZ: 1 trn, 2 crz
Morocco SZ: 1 sub
Burma SZ: 2 trn, 1 sub, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 BB

(Allied territories)
Komi: 2 inf, 1 trn
France: 2 inf
West Germany: 1 inf
Italy: 5 inf, 2 arm, 3 ftr
Indochina: 4 inf, 1 arm

Collect Income:
USSR - 0
USA - 43
Neutrals - 0
China - 0
Arabs - 0
OAS - 0
Saved - 0
Total: 43

Production Chart:
USSR: $69/52
WE: $27/27
UK: $34/34
USA: $43/43
China:  USSR $8
Arabs:  USSR $0
OAS:  Neutral $0

**Round 2
Summary:

Spying/Diplomacy:
USSR purchases 1 spy
UK purchases 1 spy

Technology:
USSR gains Fission Weapons
US gains Jets; WE, UK gain half-step each

Land Battles:
USSR captures West Germany, Pakistan, South Korea
Western Europe liberates West Germany

Naval Action:
Soviet navy controls the Mediterranean
UK fleet rallies in the Persian Gulf
US fleet rallies in the South China Sea (Burma SZ)
NATO fleet in full command of the North Atlantic (East US SZ, Quebec SZ, Morocco SZ, Irish SZ, Komi SZ)

Airborne & Amphibious Assaults:
UK marines & paratroopers capture Komi
UK marines liberate Pakistan
US paratroopers liberate South Korea
US marines land in Komi, Indochina**

Combat Map:
Soviet attacks in dark red
NATO attacks in light blue
Areas attacked by both sides in pink

Final Map:
Holdings at the end of Round 2

Doesn’t look good for the Soviets; NATO marines are on Moscow’s doorstep, and the Red Army isn’t sustaining any gains anywhere.

If the offensive into southeast Asia is successful (starting turn 4 at the earliest) and the USSR can develop Ballistic Missiles, they may yet pull out a victory. But NATO is cashing out high every turn, and that’s bad news…

Commentary:

As is often the case in E&W, diplomacy has played a big role in this game.
The global outrage at the nuclear attack by the US has dramatically changed the face of the game.

My initial strategy for the UK was to rally their fleets in the Red Sea on turn 1, but then to return to the Mediterranean and begin shuttling troops from Africa to Italy, Turkey, or maybe Greece, then to eventually link up near the UK to attack Karelia.

With the Suez Canal closed to NATO, this became no longer possible; all the units in Africa that had been perfectly choreographed for the UK navy steaming across the Mediterranean are now going to be sent to India via Pakistan. This isn’t so bad, since Pakistan is being ignored by the USSR in this strategy (which is generally uncharacteristic in E&W).

As Western Europe, I often rally my fleet in the Mediterranean to keep the Soviets occupied with probing attacks at Greece or Turkey. I decided in this game to instead put as much force behind Norway as possible, knowing that I was planning to send UK ships in that direction anyway. The complete lack of any NATO ships in the Mediterranean has allowed the USSR to keep Turkey and Greece with minimal forces, despite their not being able to gain ground anywhere else.

If the UK or US spies are successful on this coming round, it will be interesting to see what they do. Opening the Suez is a possibility, as is lowering the Chinese contribution to the Soviet war effort. Another option is to steal heavy armor technology from the USSR; in most games, I eventually want the US and UK to both have this tech. Influencing a minor neutral is also an intriguing option; in this game in particular, Thailand would be a good choice for the US, and Sweden is almost always a solid option for the UK.

The US is at a bit of a conundrum in the Pacific; the Soviet air forces are placed in such a way that they threaten the Burma SZ and the Japan SZ. Ideally, as the US I would like to be able to leave 1 transport unguarded in either of these zones to facilitate the shuck-shuck, but if the Soviet forces stay where they are, the US fleet may have to split.

Typically when I play the US, my strategy is to attack heavily into Siberia; this allows you to place directly into Asia, and makes it a lot easier to maximize the number of units you can put on the front lines. With this game, the decision to direct forces towards Indochina means that the US does not have this “release valve,” leading to a weird, unmanageably high income. The US has too many forces currently (more than their transports can carry) but they can’t afford to build more transports, since 1) their income is not expected to increase, and; 2) they already have enough of them for their current unit output. This is why I decided to build an IC in Japan; I’m hoping the US can use this to build Heavy Armor or possibly Fusion Weapons, once they get those technologies, and direct them immediately against the brunt of Soviet forces.

Similarly, it seems clear that the Yugoslavia stack isn’t working for the USSR; it will have to be split so that they can take and hold West Germany. It’s looking like it will be a cat-and-mouse game, with both sides shifting forces back and forth between the France/West Germany border and the Italy/Yugoslavia border. My fear as the Soviets is that the clock is ticking; it’s only a matter of time before the US can start heavily reinforcing Europe. The USSR needs to either crush Indochina before then, or hope for some key diplomatic or technological successes.

I was thinking about E&W again recently, so I decided to look over this playtest one more time.

I think clearly the tactic of not trying to heavily reinforce West Germany sealed the Soviets’ fate, but I noticed a few smaller moves that may have also changed the game:

1. Attacking the North Sea (S1):
I think this ultimately caused the problem of having the UK navy at Moscow’s doorstep. It’s always tempting to get those US transports out of the game (and slow down the shuck-shuck), and I don’t think the USSR can take on the British navy on S1 – but the better move is probably to strafe the North Sea with all your naval units (maybe with your bomber, maybe not) and retreat back to the Komi SZ, to defend against amphibious assaults. This also would likely tie up UK bombers in the counter-attack, meaning they could not be used to shuttle paratroopers to France or Norway. Overall I think this is a more sound tactic.

I think lending the Soviet bomber to the European theatre for round 1 worked out ok, since it really wouldn’t be needed until round 3 – when it can be be well within range of both India and Indochina.

If the Soviets aren’t having to defend Karelia/Komi, it frees up more infantry to shuttle towards West Germany. I don’t think it is valuable for the Soviets to conquer Norway, so long as they can keep NATO out, by distracting them elsewhere. If they let too many NATO reinforcements into the area, it becomes a distraction that forces the Soviets to spread too thin.

2. Recapturing South Korea (S2):
On S1, I think it is important to take out the US armor and fighter on South Korea (ideally with as few casualties as possible.) But while the little extra income is nice, I don’t think it is strategically important enough that the Soviets hold the territory in the long run; it only helps if/when the Chinese withdraw their troops from North Korea, because then you don’t have to worry about the US placing there and walking in, for free.

I think the push towards Indochina did a decent enough job of distracting US forces away from Kamchatka/East Siberia. This keeps the Soviets from losing income in that area, but also causes the US to divert their support towards India. Had the Soviets not attacked South Korea a second time, the 2 armor units used in that attack would have been in position to bolster a strafe of Indochina on S3 – with very good chances of wiping out the defenders completely, and only sacrificing a few Soviet infantry in the process.

This would effectively knock WE out of that theatre, stymie the US, and set up the USSR to push heavily into Indochina on S4, with an infantry stack rivalling the one in India (5 infantry in Inner Mongolia, 8 infantry in Sinkiang, at the end of round 2.) If the UK turtles in India, then the rest of the theatre falls like dominos to the Soviets; if they move their force from India into Burma to salvage the situation in Indochina, the Soviet infantry filtering through Sinkiang can potentially crush India itself.

Ultimately the goal of this strategy in Asia is to try and get exactly this result: to make the UK uncomfortable in the Indian theatre, expand the Soviet economy, and keep the US out of Siberia.

NATO Counter-offensive

So what would be the strategy for NATO, in the scenario of southeast Asia falling to the USSR?

Well, one method I have found successful in the past is for the UK to move their transports from around India all the way up to Western Canada. With the factory in Ontario, you can be consistently producing 4 infantry to send over to Kamchatka; essentially UK forces in the Siberian theatre just serve to absorb hits from Soviet counter-attacks, meaning the main NATO attack (US forces) remains strong and intact, and can continue to push.

Generally the US needs to hold all the territory in the area (North Korea, South Korea, Kamchatka, East Siberia) in order to have the income to sustain this land-grab; if they gain the Heavy Armor tech, it makes this easier – by building heavy tanks from the factory in East Siberia; their extra movement lets you do a “2 steps forward, 1 step back” move from a fortified position in East Siberia, into the territories bordering West Siberia. The UK can potentially snipe a few territories in this same manner, but the US really needs that extra income more; generally the Heavy Armor tech helps the UK more by allowing them to do “2 steps forward, 1 step back” from a factory built in India, through Pakistan, and into Turkmenistan.

The other place that NATO should look for openings is Turkey or Greece. Typically the US naval units from the Mediterranean will move to the Atlantic, but the WE and UK ships may stick around, if they aren’t destroyed by the Soviets. The US would have to extend themselves pretty far in order to be of any help in this theatre, so it’s best left to the WE and UK allies – assuming that US forces alone are strong enough to hold France, and that using NATO forces in the Mediterranean doesn’t compromise Italy in the process.

Soviet strategy

I think the biggest threat that this Soviet strategy presents, is that it forces NATO to choose between defending India, and attacking Siberia – and may still cause them to lose on both fronts. The presence of Soviet air power in China means that the US cannot leave their transports in the Pacific undefended, forcing the US fleet to make some hard choices:
1. sit off the coast of East Siberia, and watch the rest of Asia fall;
2. split, trying to defend the sea zone around Indochina as well as either the sea zone around Japan or off East Siberia, while trying to move infantry to both theatres every round, or;
3. try to keep all your transports covered, while moving infantry from the Philippines to Indochina every round, and from Japan to Indochina every other round.

Now, if China stops giving aid to the USSR, then this strategy is completely shut down. However, I would argue that this is the always case in this game, regardless of the particular strategy used – and in particular, when the US is prepared to attack heavily into Asia. In this game, the result of the nuclear attack was a Global Outrage, which helped cement China’s alliance with the Soviets; it should be noted that “Chinese Outrage” is also statistically more likely than outraging either of the other 2 neutral alliances, so all in all, the Soviets really need only to fear NATO spies swaying China away – until the Soviets start slinging nukes of their own.  :wink:

In terms of technology, the most pivotal advancement for the USSR is to get ballistic missiles. Fusion weapons are nice to have, but not entirely necessary. With the placement of Soviet factories and AA guns as they are, ballistic missiles can easily threaten any place where NATO would be expected to mass their navies – effectively shutting down the shuck-shuck almost permanently, via nuclear deterrence. By contrast, amassing snorkel submarines is too costly, and self-propelled artillery (to win the land war) can take a long time to acquire – and anti-tank guns can prove devastating against them. Long-range aircraft can help expand the umbrella of a Soviet nuclear threat, but generally games will be over before helicopters come into play; they can be helpful for quickly spreading into an undefended Africa, if you for some reason don’t go the tried-and-tested route of treading over the Arab League, to get there.