What's the consensus on a standard bid?

@axis_roll:

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).

Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:

Naah, just kidding! :-D

@Gamer:

@axis_roll:

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).

Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:

Naah, just kidding! :-D

thank goodness, I was starting to get a complex……

@axis_roll:

There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle.  The economics are not the end-all in A&A.

I agree wholeheartedly. I see people talking about TUV and whatnot, but I really don’t see what the point is in looking at units in terms of IPC value instead of logistics.

I tend to say that any battle (in the early or middle game) where Russia can do at least a 1:1 inf trade with Germany is a good idea. This is done to prevent Germany from being able to leverage her non-inf attack power. In TUV-speak you’d say that’s an even trade of IPCs. But looking at it in terms of 1:1 inf already covers that and also gives a tactical reason (anti-Infantry Push). A tactical perspective has very similar standards (because units worth more IPC are generally more important) but gives you a better idea of what to do.

And while tactical analysis will give you ideas of ratios, I don’t really see how one can come up with TUV guide. How much TUV advantage should Russia stand to gain before it enters a battle with Germany? Japan? There’s just so much to factor in. It’s gonna depend on the situation. Gee, sounds like tactical analysis to me.

Honestly, I don’t like any battle where I lose the same or more units then Germany when I’m Russia.  Ditto for Germany.

Do you see that you’re not contradicting TUV as a viable method of analysis? I don’t consider an even trade of TUV as a bad thing. But almost no one would say that trading more units for less is a good thing, unless you’re so far ahead you don’t care or are counting on luck.

The Ukraine attack in my book is viable. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s optimal because not doing Ukraine has the tradeoff of making Japan advance slower, but they’re both even in my mind. You have to think of Ukraine like any other normal battle; would you be willing to take it out before the Germans get a chance to retreat it? In that sense of course you should; there’s no difference between the Germans exposing forces like that later on or on the first turn; in fact it’s better on R1 because you have lots of units and income for a while yet to cushion bad luck.

I would be willing to trade one for one with Germany pretty much with Russia; then the other 2 Allies will massacre the Germans. You should be looking to make even or better trades as Russia, so in that sense the Ukraine attack is the most consistent.

I think Ukraine really comes down to the Allied Strategy for the game.

I don’t see any real cost to Germany for losing it.  It’s easily recoverable by a decent player.  Especially if the bid was 7 IPC to Libya anyway.  I see a cost to Russia, since you’re now down 3 tanks in most Ukrainian battles.  That means you probably have to buy tanks with Russia on R1, and I don’t like that.  I prefer artillery with Russia.  It’s slower, but I think it’s cheaper in the long run.

Bean’s points are well taken.  I would add that, on R1, I’m not too particularly concerned about slowing the Japanese advance – it’ll take a few turns to get going anyway, by which time I will have purchased armor to more than replace the 3 I lost in Ukraine.  Japan also has other priorities – like taking the islands or reinforcing Egypt – which will detract from their advance to Moscow.  Optimally, by the time Japan is a factor in East Asia, British help will have already arrived.

Getting back to Ukraine, it’s either kill those suckers now while you can (and yes, I’ll take the even trade) or hand Germany a stick with which she will repeatedly hit the Allies over the head – namely, that fighter.  Whether it’s Allied shipping or trading territories with Russia, that extra fighter is VERY useful to Germany.

And Jenn, it’s 3 tanks – who cares?  It’s R1 for jeeper’s sake.  You got plenty of time to replace them . . .

You are saying who cares about 3 Russian tanks (15 out of 24 IPC) and then making a big deal about 1 fighter (10 out of 40 IPC)?

It’s just one fighter!  Who cares!  I build one on Germany 1 anyway!  Well, unless mine isn’t dead in Ukraine, then I am more likely to build 5 tanks, 5 infantry. :P

that fighter dead can screw up the battle for the med.

Yes, but I can counter that those armor dead can make the fall of Russia easier for Germany.

In other words, it’s a trade off.  Good arguments for, good arguments against.  IMHO, the better arguments are against for the way I normally attack Germany.

Getting back to Ukraine, it’s either kill those suckers now while you can (and yes, I’ll take the even trade) or hand Germany a stick with which she will repeatedly hit the Allies over the head – namely, that fighter.  Whether it’s Allied shipping or trading territories with Russia, that extra fighter is VERY useful to Germany.

That’s precisely how I feel about it too. Kill those gray-skinned mofos before they become bamfs! And as long as Russia is not losing more value in units than it’s taking out, it’s at least acceptable. There’s nothing really distinguishing the R1 Ukraine battle from any other battle in which Germany leaves 3 inf 1 arm 1 art 1 fig in it. It’s as exposed and as vulnerable on R1 as it would be on R5 if the Germans left it that way.

If Germany replaces that fig then that means 3 less inf than normal or no naval purchase, and if it doesn’t replace it then Allied shipping is simpler by a noticeable amount. An attack that you might go into with 6 fig + 1 bomb doesn’t look as juicy when it’s 5 fig + 1 bomb, especially something like if UK/US go to Alg with 1 bb 4 tran 1 dest 1 sub. You might be tempted to go there with 6 fig 1 bomb, but it becomes too risky at 5 fig 1 bomb.

You are saying who cares about 3 Russian tanks (15 out of 24 IPC) and then making a big deal about 1 fighter (10 out of 40 IPC)?

It’s a fighter + an arm you’re knocking out; the 3 inf 1 art on each side are a wash. 15 for 15, and also the opportunity cost of the fighter. Actually more than 15 for 15 since Germany has to prepare to lose another 2 inf on the way back to taking Ukraine. Trading even is almost I would say a great thing for the Russians to accomplish; if you could suicide Russia’s 24 IPC income to take out 24 IPCs of Germany, that leaves 16 IPCs to defend against the 70 IPCs that UK/US have to bear.

Actually, it’s suiciding 28 IPC for 28 IPC leaving Germany above board by 12 IPC and that’s MORE then England and American can bring to bear.  And that’s presuming you win.  You could lose or have to retreat before you get that fighter.

However, if you attack and stack W. Russia heavy, Germany can still knock you out, but now they’re down almost their entire army, while you still have 2 armor, artillery, 14 infantry, 2 fighters to press the attack after losing 7 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 armor in W. Russia.

The fighter you build on G1 unfortunately cannot help you kill the BB in sz13 or the DD in sz15 or help you take Egypt.  Yes, you SHOULD take Egypt with your bid pieces, but you have a 16% chance of NOT taking it without the fighter (assuming a bid placement of 1 inf., 1 rtl. Libya) vs. only an 8% chance of not taking Egypt WITH the fighter.  And if Germany fails to take Egypt, it’s lights out for the Med. fleet.  It may not happen, but I don’t see any down side in forcing the issue for Germany.  You buy 3 armor on R1 and 1 or 2 here and there in later rounds, and you’re fine.

And for those enamored with the Belo. attack, I would point out it has a 25% chance of failing, in which case you’ve traded 3 infantry for 3 infantry and achieved no net gain in IPC OR position.  That, AND Germany still has that fighter . . .

But if you go BB, Trn to SZ 13 (bringing the Submarine) you don’t need any fighters there.

So you still have 2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter in Egypt.  And you have 4 un-designated fighters and a bomber to use somewhere else.

@Cmdr:

But if you go BB, Trn to SZ 13 (bringing the Submarine) you don’t need any fighters there.

So you still have 2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter in Egypt.  And you have 4 un-designated fighters and a bomber to use somewhere else.

Fine – you’re STILL down a fighter.  Even if you buy one, you only have 6 instead of 7 and, like Bean said, 3 less infantry.  Opportunity cost, m’dear . . .

I understand that, Gamer.  What I’m saying is the opportunity cost to Germany does not exceed or equal the opportunity cost to Russia by losing those three armor.

The cash is equal
The land is equal
Germany’s down 1 Fighter, Russia’s down 3 Armor.

1 Fighter attacks at 3 or less
3 Armor attack three times at 3 or less

I think it’s a bigger hit to Russia.  You have my permission to think otherwise if you so wish it.  But I think Russia’s just asking for abuse.  What do you win that with, 1 tank?  So there’s probably no defense of Ukraine to cost Germany anything. Of course, it means i’m not sending the BB to SZ 13 which means it’s 4 fighters, submarine vs battleship and Ukraine and Egypt may be my only attacks (Karelia if empty) for land, but that’s not a huge deal either.

Lots of people like to try to overpower Egypt with mass forces, like Darth or Akreider. That makes it difficult if Ukraine is attacked since now not only do you have to overpower Egypt (try your best to one shot Egypt), but retake Ukraine and kill the UK BB off of SZ13. You’re probably going to lack fighters in Ukraine which means thinking about saccing a tank, which is ugly. 3 figs to the UK bb with a sub, 1 fig to hit the destroyer or Egypt which is a tradeoff already, and you have 1 fig + infantry to take out the 3 arm + in Ukraine (btw it’s  62% according to frood to take Ukraine with 3 arm or better, and 90% to take it with 1 arm or better…)

And if you don’t overpower Egypt, then you can forget about making any progress in Africa unless you purchase something big in the med, which you can’t really do if you’re replacing the fighter you lost.

It’s best to assume that 3 arm will occupy Ukraine, because that or better happens an obvious majority of the time. In that case remember that those 3 arm are taking out units on their way out and spreading Germany’s attack pattern thin if they’re also taking Egpyt and the UK BB.

Good luck favors the Russians more in Ukraine than the Germans, I think. Even with some crappy luck then Russia has at least cleared Ukraine, which you’re already assuming as a worst case scenario which happens less than 10% of the time, but if the Russians hit the other end of the spectrum you’re seeing 1 art 3 arm in Ukraine, which overtaxes Germany’s coping resources.

I think the W.Russia only opening has merits – I haven’t ruled it out.  But, personally, I prefer a smaller Luftwaffe.  And the odds are actually that you’ll take Ukraine with three armor, not one.  So Germany has to commit some infantry (and at least 1 fighter or 1 armor) to retaking Ukraine.  I/O/W, it ain’t no gimme.  It sucks to lose 3 armor, but Germany has to watch its back door too.  It probably means Russia isn’t taking any other chancy battles in the first few rounds, but an even trade is hardly the disaster for Russia that you make it sound.

There’s about 60% chance for the Russians to take Ukraine with 3 arm or better, which puts the dice in favor of the Russians.

If the Russians get a couple clicks down on luck, it’s ok because clearing Ukraine is acceptable (95% to clear Ukraine if you take that as your bottom line).

But if the Russians get a couple clicks up on luck, suddenly the Germans are in massive trouble. 22% chance to see 3 arm 1 art, and a strong 13% chance to see 1 inf 1 art 3 arm, and now how are the Germans going to compensate for their round 1 attacks?

I’m liking the Ukraine attack more and more that I’m looking at it in ADS, because the good luck swings are much higher and the bad luck swings mostly result in an equal suicide. If you’re so willing to suicide 8 inf 8 arm to kill 10 inf, why not do an even trade with Russia, Jen?

The biggest problem I have with attacking Ukraine is that it leaves the WR attack woefully short of offensive power. If you want to reliably take Ukraine with enough force to not only take it but also have enough units remaining to cause the German player a headache( taking with 1 arm doesn’t annoy me as Germany), then you will have to bring 3 arm, 2 fig. If you only bring 3 arm, 1 fig or 2 arm, 2 fig to give WR more muscle, then the chances of taking Ukraine at all drop a good amount. By attacking Ukraine/WR you are usually taking more causalties in WR that you would if you attacked Belo/WR, as well. I just prefer the more reliable opening of Belo/WR despite giving Germany more freedom in their opening, because Russia can afford for Belo to get ugly and WR never does because of the amount of overkill brought to that battle. In Ukr/WR, Russia can’t afford for either battle to get ugly.