Attacking Ukraine

Both West Russia and Ukraine (or the alternate… West Russia and Belo).

WR and UKR:
WR:  INF from Karelia, Arch and Russia (leaving 1 INF in Karelia).  ART from Russia.  ARM from Archangel
Ukraine:  INF from Caucuses, ARM from Caucuses and Russia.  Both FIGs

Belo and WR:
Belo:  Karelia INF, both FIGs
WR:  Archangel and Russia INF, all ARM, all ART

The reason I don’t like attacking Belo is because you have to empty Karelia which allows Germany to blitz into Archangel so if I am feeling lucky I go West Russia and Ukraine because you can also do some damage when Germany counterattacks. And it’s worth more.

If you do Belo, you send 1 INF from Archangel to Karelia for a blocker.

As for risky…
The WR/Ukr is used a LOT on these boards, and it is rather effective.

Problem with Germany blitzing for Archangelsk is they leave an expensive tank exposed.  I’ll give them 4 IPC to destroy 5 IPC.

@Nukchebi0:

It seems a bit risky to me, but thanks.

I think it is risky as well but so is not killing a FTR when you have the chance.

A weird strat that seems to work is the Suicidal British maneuver.  That’s where you slam your brits into the german units regardless of your chance to win, but only to inflict damage. (AKA this is called Attrician)  The idea here is that if W. Europe has 9 infantry on it and you can attack with 2 infantry and a tank you do so.  You hope to kill 1 or 2 units and loose your 3.  (Maybe even getting a BB shot.)

That’s free units for Russia cause now they don’t have as many to slog through.

@Nukchebi0:

I was just thinking about the chance for bad dice to mess you up the next turn.

Bad dice always mess you up for next turn.  :-)

I’ve lost 5 units in WRU on more than one occasion.

I love dice. I hate dice.

But what is good about attacking Ukraine and WRU is that even if you do below average on WRU Germany has to worry about Ukraine.

You need to get the battle lines farther away from MOS.  If you only attack WRU, you leave the northern and southern attack lines open for Germany.  It’s difficult to defend both access routes, when the opposing troops don’t have to fight and stop at one territory at a time.  If you are able to stop Germany’s progress, your Eastern front suffers, and Japan gives it to you up the hoo-haw! :wink:

To attack WRu is smth. like a “must do” for me on R1.
Besides this I prefer to attack Ukr because you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and I´ve also had some situations where Belorus blocked my attack, so it also isn´t unrisky to do this. You also force Ger to counterattack and you destroy the famous “German Fighter in Ukraine” and Caucus isn´t threatened by Germany in the 1st and 2nd round.
If your first combat round goes bad you can still pull back.

Actually the biggest benefit to me about a UKR/WRU conquer is the result of not needing as many forces in Caucasus to defend it.

@Erwin:

To attack WRu is smth. like a “must do” for me on R1.
Besides this I prefer to attack Ukr because you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and I´ve also had some situations where Belorus blocked my attack, so it also isn´t unrisky to do this. You also force Ger to counterattack and you destroy the famous “German Fighter in Ukraine” and Caucus isn´t threatened by Germany in the 1st and 2nd round.
If your first combat round goes bad you can still pull back.

I often see 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf at Belorussia with expected USSR win result; that’s 2 IPC as opposed to the Ukr 3 IPC.  So what you’re saying is that you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and West Russia . . . as opposed to JUST invading West Russia (and doing nothing else).  Isn’t that what you mean?

How does Belorus “block your attack”?  With a German bid of 1-2 infantry there?

Germany counterattacks anyways, always; it’s part of early territory trading.  Isn’t that right?  I don’t think Germany is FORCED to counterattack Ukraine; it’s just a convenient and vulnerable target; wouldn’t you agree?

As far as Caucasus being threatened G1 and G2 - I feel that it is impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G1, and even with a West Russia/Belorussia attack instead of a West Russia/Ukraine attack, I feel that it is still near impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G2.  (Note that under both situations, Germany lost the West Russia forces and three additional infantry).  If Germany attacks Caucasus on G1, even if USSR has nothing there and Germany moves everything in, and Japan sends fighters in, USSR can still counterattack in force, and Germany can NOT hold, or even seriously counterattack the Caucasus forces.  Much the same holds for a G1 attack and hold on the Ukraine; any early attack there risks a heavy hit and run from West Russia.  For that reason, I think the G2 take and hold of Caucasus is not possible, because I believe that any take and hold will require massed German forces in the Ukraine or West Russia on the previous turn, and I don’t see either happening on G1.  I will say that an aggressive G2 attack on Caucasus supported by reinforcing Japanese fighters is possibly feasible, but it will be impossible for that to happen unless Japan makes severe sacrifices in the Pacific, and even then I think any G2 invasion of Caucasus would be risky given a USSR build of infantry, artillery, and tanks, for maybe USSR forces of 12 inf 3 art 4 tanks.

@newpaintbrush:

I often see 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf at Belorussia with expected USSR win result; that’s 2 IPC as opposed to the Ukr 3 IPC.  So what you’re saying is that you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and West Russia . . . as opposed to JUST invading West Russia (and doing nothing else).  Isn’t that what you mean?

How does Belorus “block your attack”?  With a German bid of 1-2 infantry there?

Germany counterattacks anyways, always; it’s part of early territory trading.  Isn’t that right?  I don’t think Germany is FORCED to counterattack Ukraine; it’s just a convenient and vulnerable target; wouldn’t you agree?

As far as Caucasus being threatened G1 and G2 - I feel that it is impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G1, and even with a West Russia/Belorussia attack instead of a West Russia/Ukraine attack, I feel that it is still near impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G2.  (Note that under both situations, Germany lost the West Russia forces and three additional infantry).  If Germany attacks Caucasus on G1, even if USSR has nothing there and Germany moves everything in, and Japan sends fighters in, USSR can still counterattack in force, and Germany can NOT hold, or even seriously counterattack the Caucasus forces.  Much the same holds for a G1 attack and hold on the Ukraine; any early attack there risks a heavy hit and run from West Russia.  For that reason, I think the G2 take and hold of Caucasus is not possible, because I believe that any take and hold will require massed German forces in the Ukraine or West Russia on the previous turn, and I don’t see either happening on G1.  I will say that an aggressive G2 attack on Caucasus supported by reinforcing Japanese fighters is possibly feasible, but it will be impossible for that to happen unless Japan makes severe sacrifices in the Pacific, and even then I think any G2 invasion of Caucasus would be risky given a USSR build of infantry, artillery, and tanks, for maybe USSR forces of 12 inf 3 art 4 tanks.

No I meant its better to take Wru and Ukr. instead of Wru and Belo. Its quite obvious why:
1. The 1IPC more  :wink:
2. The German fighter
3. German Tank
4. prevention of attack in Caucus
5. It makes it harder for Germany to do its attacks (because of the lost fighter)

It sometimes happens because of bad dice that Germany blocks your Belorus attack even without bid and with a bid of 1 Inf the chances get higher for you to be unsuccesful (as Russia I´m not willing to sacrifice my fighter formy Infantry piece if I´m hit to often)

Because of Ukr being such a voulnerable target Ger is forced to attack there, so this goes hand in hand.

With “threaten Caucasus” I don´t mean that Germany can attack it and stay there until the end of the game, but if R looses caucasus in G1 they have to produce in Russia, it decreases Russia´s attack rapidity and they can´t act against the axis so effectively, because they have got to get hold of Caucasus again 1st.

I´ve seen Germany often to reattack and hold Ukr on G1 so this isn´t that complicated. It´s true that R could counter, but in most games they don´t because they would loose the whole Wru stack ( so basically their whole army in the west) either in the attack or next round, after the German counterattack.
Ger is also in most games in TJ in G2 and so you have to defend Caucus from the South and West with a small army only.

if you look at the map attacking Ukraine leaves you with a 3 space front instead of a four space of you attacked belorussia. also to counter attack Ukraine couldn’t you built 3inf in caucus and 3tanks in moscow and move the 2 inf in kazah into caucus instead of Persia to go to India?

The key factors to me are:

1.  The possibility of failure in the Ukraine means the possibility of NO IPCs from Ukraine and the survival of the German fighter, and poor positioning for Russia2.  Bad dice at Ukraine are far more disastrous for Russia than bad dice at Belorussia.
2.  Committing extra forces to a Ukraine victory means the loss of 3 valuable tanks.
3.  Germany’s lost fighter would probably have ended up in Africa or Western Europe on G1 anyways, where the UK and US race to build a navy.  It’s a problem for the UK/US, but I find that quite acceptable in light of the UK/US production of 65-70 IPC.
4.  Losing the Caucasus early is, I still think, not important.  If you produce at Caucasus, you must go to West Russia or Ukraine to go to the German front; Ukraine is, I think, overextension, and West Russia is the same distance from Moscow as it is from Caucasus for this game.  Besides which if Germany attacked Caucasus on G1, against a defending force of 4 infantry, that means Germany will have used valuable tanks, or risked air against the Caucasus AA gun (and weakened its attacks on valuable targets like the UK navy and Anglo-Egypt and its subsequent position for a UK1 fleet build).  Quite acceptable.

If there were a Belorussian infantry or multiple infantry bid, and no bid in the Ukraine, or if the Allies were going KJF, I would probably think of the Ukraine attack as the better choice.  But in a game with no bids at either Belorussia or at Ukraine, I still split about 50/50 deciding between which to hit.

“It´s true that R could counter (Germany often to reattack and hold Ukr ), but in most games they don´t because they would loose the whole Wru stack”

Honestly, I don’t see the point of a heavy Russian counter into Ukraine on Russia2, particularly if Germany is in position to counter the next turn.  It is likely that Germany will have attacked Ukraine with only LIGHT forces, in which case Russia can counterattack with infantry and fighters (not committing the West Russia stack), while hitting Belorussia and Karelia with additional West Russia forces.  Only if Germany hit Ukraine with EVERYTHING should Russia even consider using the West Russia stack (because then there would be no German infantry reserve to counterattack next turn), but only if Germany didn’t build massed tanks at Berlin, but even then Russia has the option of attacking Karelia and Belorussia instead, moving units up from Moscow, and waiting for the Germans to overextend to Caucasus, or to reconsolidate to Eastern Europe.

Attack WR only, with overwhelming odds, winning in 1 round.

Hope to lose only 1-2 units

USSR 2, take back Ukraine, caucus, karelia, archangel, belo.

I find attacking WR only to be risky.  With 3 infantry at Belorussia and another 3 from Ukraine, Germany can attack West Russia or Caucasus, or establish an early forward position at Ukraine.

I think depleting the forward German infantry is a sound idea.