G1 11 inf 2 art VERSUS 6 tank + discretionary, failure states discussed
Any plan has a “failure state”, beyond which failure is almost certain. It should make sense that instead of not discussing what that how that is most likely to happen, not defining what transitional states are likely to occur en route to that failure state, not discussing how to convert a transitional state back into a likely winning state, well, that’s just not thinking.
WARNING
You have been warned.
Of what? That would ruin the surprise. Turn back, or don’t.
ONE FAILURE STATE (IT’S SO OBVIOUS)
If R “stabilizes” then the Axis plan failed. G have to leverage quick pressure into a win.
NUH UH
. . . because a CLEVER G player will make use of tanks DEFENSIVELY, so ACKTUALLLY G1 6 tanks is ALWAYS GOOD
YUH HUH
Someone trying to “acktually” on above doesn’t understand G needs multiple infantry stacks against KGF. Failure state is fail.
TRANSITION TO FAILURE STATE
Hope y’all kids are ready, because this is where it sort of hits the fan.
So let’s say G2 Ukraine, which was the point of G1 tanks, wouldn’t you think? And the line specifies G1 Ukraine, doesn’t it. Without even bleeding out Africa, I’ll mention, at least not that I’ve ever heard or read, and if I didn’t see it, it’s not because I wasn’t looking for it.
So you see that R1 can strafe Ukraine and why not, especially as J fighters can’t reinforce on J1. I wrote a post on these forums about G2 to Ukraine by the way just saying.
So you see especially if Allies fly in fighters, G ability to take on a combined Allied stack becomes questionable. I’m not saying for sure R1 strafe into G1 Ukraine hold is a plus. It really depends. But at least it should be understood there’s something that should be looked at.
This is where it all starts to burn.
So let’s say R1 had good W Rus and Ukr strafe. You can see where this sets the stage for a bad G1 hold potentially.
That’s not even off perfect R1 W Rus, which is worse.
So you can see where it makes sense, G should be looking at the W Rus battle. You can also see where R has line on a decent strafe, which robs G of forward infantry, making it difficult to maintain pressure - this, in the face of Allied fighters to W Rus making it difficult for G to press the Allied stack.
NOT THINKING: THE FIRST SIN
This is a fundamental weakness of the line. You can see where the mathematics supports consideration of R1’s outcomes before committing to G1 6 tanks purchase. Not merely because I say so, no. Look at the above, that is simply the fact.
It is not the supposed author of the line that brings it up. It is aardvark, as ever.
But wait, as Sam Gamgee (of “The Lord of the Rings”) might say. There’s more.
Suppose we say that R1 strafes Ukraine. Remember again, I am saying G1 should play conditional to board state. It is they who argue against and attack this thinking, they that say just go ahead and play blind into the board. That is top platinum strategy for you ladies and gentlemen, as it’s commonly used in meta discussion. Don’t think! Positive anathema.
Well, what does that mean? It means that maybe R has another 3 tanks and and an artillery. Maybe more!
That is really bad. Tweaking the numbers on the attack refining for two round can make it even nastier. You can at least see where a G player should be specifying clearly every infantry towards Ukraine, if there’s to be any possibility of a “bad” R strafe (say a capture) to be countered.
But wait, someone chimes in. If R strafed Ukraine, then Ukraine wasn’t captured, so G can land fighters. And what about the bomber?
INATTENTION TO DETAIL: THE SECOND SIN
Remember. It is me that is saying these details are important, it is me that is bringing these up at all. They say to just play the line, never mind the details. But you should see, the closer you look, the more the details matter. For someone to claim the details do not matter, is that still something that you can seriously entertain?
Besides, what if G1 does land fighters on Ukraine after a fairly successful R1 strafe?
I didn’t even add in as many R units as I could have. Instead of just thinking “4 fighters, that’s GOT to be good”, actually look!
But there’s a less obvious yet still deadly issue.
Where exactly are the G fighters?
See, there was a line of argument that G fighters are good because . . . .one assumes, because they can threaten sea zones. But what exactly do G fighters accomplish towards that end when parked on Ukraine at end of G1? Nothing!
But no, they may equivocate, G air is good against Allied Atlantic shipping, “top platinum” or such, supposedly it is I that does not understand?
Well, let’s get on that a bit. Suppose G fighters are to pressure sz3 (Norway/Finland). What is the Axis plan exactly? Are those fighters on Karelia? NW Europe? Perhaps they may land on Iceland (never mind the Allied counter, or maybe do.) How exactly is G maintaining a Karelia stack without having produced G infantry earlier, and G tanks being at Ukraine/West Russia/Caucasus?
How does the position develop over time? How long will players be reassured by the argument that “top platinum players say it’s okay, number one ranked even.” If a top platinum player said to jump off a bridge, no wait (distant splash) well question answered I suppose.
I’m not even talking opportunity costs, which is another real thing. Just look at a proposed G1 hold, what do the numbers say, should players really ignore board state? I say clearly not.
What of explanations? Should players just buy air because it’s going to be useful against Allied shipping in some vague sense? Doesn’t it make sense that someone should be thinking about where that air is going to park?
IGNORING OPPORTUNITY COSTS AND TIMING: THE THIRD SIN
Well, none of that really matters, surely top platinum players have figured it out. Surely!
But think on it. Suppose G is in a transitional state where it’s weak near Karelia on G5. There’s every reason to think this; if G1 and G2 tanks as I’ve seen argued, and protecting France perhaps, or not, whatever, then suppose we say G3 infantry marched to Baltic States on G4, then Karelia G5 joined by tanks.
Well that sounds . . . pretty good!
But that’s because we’re not looking at things like Allied pressure against France. The G denial of income near Ukraine is assumed to have collapsed. So what exactly does G have to show for its denial of some USSR income? 2 IPC a turn is good, but exactly how much utility may G lose by having tanks instead of infantry?
This is where one really needs to think, not only what was gained, what was paid, but also what could have been paid?
Suppose I said G1 11 inf 2 art instead of G1 6 tanks +. There we don’t see that early denial to R of Ukr income, and there were other things G gained by pressure and aggression. But what were they, really? Notice how supposed proponents of the line are silent on the matter. If these matters are important, which they are, then they should be mentioned. G loses a lot of units by buying tanks instead of infantry, especially if it’s two rounds, especially especially if it’s buying air as well. Something is going to be soft somewhere, and that needs accounting for.
There’s also a question of what particularly Axis has to gain by G1 Ukr hold that wouldn’t be accomplished, by, say, G2 Ukr hold with J fighter reinforcements.
In short, instead of just accepting arguments by whoever at face value, which is “this can be used for this” (I blame the state of modern American football commentating, it just hasn’t been the same since Madden retired) - instead, look for arguments that say “this is what could have been done instead, here are the specific points of comparison, here is why this is better, here is why it is worse.”
WRAPPING UP FOR NOW
G1 Ukr hold with G1 6 tank + build, ignoring board state, look at R2 counter into Ukraine, look at what G really has to gain by G1 Ukr hold, ask yourself if G2 Ukr is too late. Really ask. You really think G1 Ukr was going to lead to G2 W Rus / Cauc stack where R has no vicious counter? (Especially ignoring board state).
Think about speculative recommendations of G air in the G tank build. The Allies know you’re not going to want to send air at fleet which bleeds the G stack. There’s also a question of Axis landing zones.
I haven’t even mentioned what happens if Allies abandon India, how that plays out. Why should I? I’m not even arguing in favor of the line. I’m just saying some things that should be addressed, but which aren’t in meta discussions.
There’s also no talk of transition into J pressure. Plenty of other things.
