Attacking Ukraine

What!? Attack the Ukraine with Russia on R1???

My favorite line of thinking is finally getting some attention on this board. It’s been the standard opener for me for over two years.

It’s less about what you kill (although the art/ arm/ ftr death is sweet), and more about dictating the tempo of the game.

An aggressive Russia forces more points of engagement for Germany, which increases the chances of one of their many dicey battles to not go so well. A 5 ftr Germany on G1 forces some tough decisions about their allocation. But most importantly IMO, it lets the German player know that you’re going to kill s–- every chance you get. Early psychological advantage- Russia. A passive/ defensive Russia allows Germany to set up their structures without having to react as much. Now Germany dictates tempo.

R1 Ukraine is a bad idea (IMO) if you’re messing around on the perimeter of the board with Britain and the US. You have to be focused on the prize- to make Germany uncomfortable quickly, to take back Africa efficiently and get Germany’s economy under 40 as fast as possible, so that Russia can turn and deal with Japan when Britain and the US take over the fight against the Reich.

If you plan on doing things other than cleanse Africa and embed yourself in the north with the other allies, then by all means be defensive with Russia, and take W Russia/ Belo or just W Russia.

@88:

What!? Attack the Ukraine with Russia on R1???

My favorite line of thinking is finally getting some attention on this board. It’s been the standard opener for me for over two years.

It’s less about what you kill (although the art/ arm/ ftr death is sweet), and more about dictating the tempo of the game.

An aggressive Russia forces more points of engagement for Germany, which increases the chances of one of their many dicey battles to not go so well. A 5 ftr Germany on G1 forces some tough decisions about their allocation. But most importantly IMO, it lets the German player know that you’re going to kill s–- every chance you get. Early psychological advantage- Russia. A passive/ defensive Russia allows Germany to set up their structures without having to react as much. Now Germany dictates tempo.

R1 Ukraine is a bad idea (IMO) if you’re diddling around with Britain and the US. You have to be focused on the prize- to make Germany uncomfortable quickly, to take back Africa quickly and get their economy under 40 as fast as possible, so that Russia can turn and deal with Japan when Britain and the US take over the fight against the Reich.

If you plan on doing things other than cleanse Africa and embed yourself in the north with the other allies, then by all means be defensive with Russia, and take W Russia/ Belo or just W Russia.

If you REALLY wanted to kill stuff every chance you got, you’d do a Norway/Eastern Europe-Belorussia-Ukraine attack.  I far prefer not to just kill stuff, but to gain good overall position.  I think a passive/defensive Russia is a bad idea too.

I typically attack into Europe and/or Africa with UK and US, threatening to the Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe route, and/or Western and Southern Europe, but I find that keeping the Russian tanks early makes for a far stronger counter against Japan late game - which is why I often opt for the Belorussia/West Russia attack instead of the Ukraine/West Russia attack.

Fair enough, and totally legitimate strat. There are lots of great ways to play the game.

I’d just say that when G1 rolls around and I still own the Ukraine (and its fighter), I’m happier than if I didn’t. That says everything I need to know about the effect it has on my opponents when I kill it.

And I would never, ever advocate killing stuff just for the sake of killing them, unless I had an advantage both positionally and economically and my opponent had no hope of regaining ground. But the first turn tells you alot about how you and your adversary will play the game, and an aggressive Russia is a force to be reckoned with when played within the framework of complimentary UK and US strategy. Blood spilled in the Ukraine is like punching someone in the nose. You know you’re in for a fight right off the bat. It’s an attitudinal and philosophical thing, rather than an IPC or game mechanic thing. And that does have an effect on the game- we’re not robots.

1.  I am teh robot!

2.  If Russia committed three tanks to Ukraine, I am very happy as Germany.  Two tanks, moderately so.  One tank and Russia got lucky, gr.

OK…

Russia SHOULD attack 2 territories on R1 in my opinion.  West Russia is a given.

The question is whether to hit Ukraine or Belo.

Now Ukraine has its advantages.  and in most games it pays off well for Russia.
Belo has a lower downside risk if it fails.

But more important than the “odds” is this question…
WHAT ARE THE US AND UK DOING?

If the UK is going to hit Norway on UK 1, and push hard into Karelia, etc., then Belo may indeed be the better move for Russia.  If the US is going to reinforce this northern attack on Germany, then Belo is almost certianly the better option.

If the Allies are heading to Africa, then Ukraine  may be a good choice… weaken the Germans in Africa.

Of course, you can also look at it from the split-reaction view… Allies to Africa on T1, then to Norway on T2, so Belo may STILL be a good option to break up a German consolidation befor ehte Allies land heavy… or the other way, that a Ukraine attack to make Germany weaker in Africa since Allies are only landing htere once.

Anyway, hope that was not too confusing.  Just putting out reasons for why you may want to do either/or…

if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine  russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth.  if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?

Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage

Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia  youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1

@cyan:

if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine  russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth.  if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?

Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage

Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia  youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1

You almost totally did not mention the possibility of German counterattack, sole exception Karelia.

The advantage of Belorussia is that 1) there is much less chance of a disastrous battle, 2) in case the battle does turn bad, Russia’s position will still be strong, 3) Russia preserves its tanks beyond the German counterattack on G1.

I used to be a strong advocate of attacking Ukraine instead of Belo but I recently changed my mind. For 3 reasons.

1. As stated before, an unfavorable result in Belo is a minor setback. An unfavorable result in Ukraine is potentially disatrous.

2. Armor is much more valuable to Russia than it is to Germany. Germany can easily replace the Ukraine losses while Russia can’t. Forcing yourself to have to completely rebuild the Russian armored corps when you should be building infantry is just helping the Axis. As the frontlines close in around Russia, armor located in a central point, such as Cauc or Rus, can threaten many territories at once. Don’t throw away your armor early when you might be desperately needing it later in the game.

3. Most importantly, the payoff is roughly equal. After you consider the gains and losses of unit IPC value, position, and restriction of Germany’s opening turn it all ends up being about the same except Ukraine is just riskier. If you attack WR and Belo, you’re usually going to get a first round kill in WR. If you attack Ukraine and WR, you may come out ahead by winning in Ukraine but it’s mitigated by the fact that you will be allowing Germany usually 2 rounds or more of defense in WR. By attacking Ukraine, you have to count on a good WR attack with far less firepower than if you had attacked Belo. If the WR attack goes poorly, no matter what happens in Ukraine, Russia comes out on the losing end. All the benefits of having Ukraine go well can be wiped out by a round or two of good defense in WR.

Attack Belo. No matter what happens in the Belo attack you’re still in a solid defensible position. Attacking Ukraine can sometimes leave you extended and vulnerable. Let the Axis make the risky attacks. There is no reason to take the chance of shifting the balance of power in Europe to the Axis before Germany even gets it’s first turn.

what about the attack/retreat option in ukr? there are some benefits to that move as well.  ukr is definitly the more strategic position of the two(ukr/belo) and by not attacking ukr on r1 than you are potentially giving up the ability to trade that terroritory.  with smart german play that is.

I understand why Belo is a good option, and less risky. I understand why all armor into W Russia is a good idea.

But honest opinions here- aren’t you all in a slightly better mood when you take Germany’s first turn and have 6 fighters? I know I am, and I assume my opponents feel the same way. Playing a more conservative Russia means that in exchange Germany has a little more offense with an artillery and armor saved, and flexibility with the 6th fighter, which also means more offensive options, shorelines a little easier to defend, etc.

I think that the extra fighter adds up in ways not completely IPC or pip related. It’s a little extra pressure on allied shipping, it sits nicely in France or on a carrier, and it provides one more unit on the front with Russia which won’t get killed if you’re engaging in a trading war. Flexibility is terribly important with Germany- the less options you have the easier it is for the allies to hem you in. I don’t want to oversell the importance of one fighter, but it does have a tangible effect on the game.

Personally as the allies I like to try to deprive Germany of as much of that flexibility as possible, and as Germany gain as much flexibility as possible. I believe that taking out the Ukraine is the beginning of accomplishing that objective.

There’s no point in hitting Ukraine if you don’t kill the German fighter, IMHO; Noob.

@Jennifer:

There’s no point in hitting Ukraine if you don’t kill the German fighter, IMHO; Noob.

That´s true, you neither kill the fighter nor do you get the territorry, all you do is to kil poor inf pieces (or maybe a tank).

If you are planning on attacking Ukraine I think it would be fun to build an AC and Trn on R1 and then Germany has a big problem on their hands  :lol: … either attack the British DST and take Egypt or attack the Russian Navy with almost all you Air Force which would realy mess up their normal plans … but I’m sure there are some critisms and I doubt I would do it …

Or IGNORE the Russian fleet AND Africa, and just slam everything you can into Caucuses, stage everything forward possible, and destroy Russia on G3 or so…

@newpaintbrush:

@cyan:

if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine  russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth.  if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?

Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage

Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia  youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1

You almost totally did not mention the possibility of German counterattack, sole exception Karelia.

The advantage of Belorussia is that 1) there is much less chance of a disastrous battle, 2) in case the battle does turn bad, Russia’s position will still be strong, 3) Russia preserves its tanks beyond the German counterattack on G1.

I  did i gave you the advantage at the end of G1 for option 2 and 3. i was not sure what the based counter attack for option one was so i asked and if i get an answer i will add up the loses

@ncscswitch:

Or IGNORE the Russian fleet AND Africa, and just slam everything you can into Caucuses, stage everything forward possible, and destroy Russia on G3 or so…

You’re right … I tried playing it on TripleA and I had not enough infantry  :| woulda been cool to have a Russian Navy

Even if you did Ukraine and West Russia on R1, it is still an EXTREMELY high risk move likelt to back-fire.

And a well played Germany can exist a long time even if deprived of Africa early

As evidence, see how well Bo is doing as Germany in the Tournament Consolation game.  He lost th Med Fleet on R2, yet still has 42 INF, 4 ART, 6 ARM, 4 FIG, 1 BOM and other than Africa is down only Norway and West Russia in the middle of Turn 5…

Well, the AC is a nice thought, and I don’t think Switch actually looked at what you were arguing before he responded (mainly cause he said hit Caucasus which is impossible if you take W. Russia and Ukraine and put an AC in the SZ next to Cauc (16 I think.))

But there’s some MAJOR problems here.

1)  That’s a huge expense for Russia. (2/3rds of their starting income.)
2)  How does this replenish your infantry and armor?  Without new armor built you have none to use on Russia 2. (I’m assuming W. Russia falls because it’s the worst possible situation for Russia.)
3)  You can’t attack anything with it, so Germany’s not threatened in the Med at all.

@cyan:

@newpaintbrush:

@cyan:

if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine  russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth.  if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?

Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage

Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia  youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1

You almost totally did not mention the possibility of German counterattack, sole exception Karelia.

The advantage of Belorussia is that 1) there is much less chance of a disastrous battle, 2) in case the battle does turn bad, Russia’s position will still be strong, 3) Russia preserves its tanks beyond the German counterattack on G1.

I  did i gave you the advantage at the end of G1 for option 2 and 3. i was not sure what the based counter attack for option one was so i asked and if i get an answer i will add up the loses

I do stand corrected.  But I believe that cost breakdown and careful analysis is most crucial for the first option you listed.  Although your treatment of the second and third options was brief, no extensive analysis is, I think, needed beyond the presence of the West Russian stack.  Cutting off the German counter and the Russian counter-counter, though, is a severe omission for the Ukraine-West Russia attack.

As Germany, I would counterattack with barely enough units to take Ukraine (if Germany doesn’t take Ukraine, that isn’t good, but taking the Ukraine is just a bonus; the key is those 15 IPC of unprotected tanks).  Germany also takes Karelia and West Russia.  Now on R2, Russia isn’t going to commit in force to the Ukraine, because Germany can counter with 1 bomber, 5 fighters, and various infantry and tanks.  So Russia will resort to the usual tradeoff with Germany between Eastern Europe and West Russia, but now Russia’s attack would be 3 tanks weaker, and the consequent reshift of direction against Japan would be significantly weaker.

2 inf 2 art 2 tanks is the standard Ukraine-West Russia build, but I feel that all it does is put pressure on Germany’s fighters that can easily be countered with an African bid

In a game without the Ukraine attack and no African bid, Germany is pretty much forced to run the Mediterranean fleet east to run 2 inf 1 tank (1 inf/art/tank) 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 inf 1 tank 1 fighter at Anglo-Egypt, leaving 1 fighter, battleship, and transport to fight the UK destroyer in the Mediterranean (the fighter’s a safety in case the UK destroyer gets lucky against a German battleship/transport).  Meanwhile, 1 sub and 4 fighters hit the UK battleship off Gibraltar, and Germany makes ground moves against Russia.

But WITH the Ukraine attack, Germany either no longer has the safety fighter against the UK destroyer in the Med, or Germany has 1 less fighter to go against Anglo-Egypt, or Germany has to pull a fighter off battleship duty.  Pulling a fighter off battleship duty is a big risk, because as it is, the 8 IPC German sub is probably going to bite it, but losing a 10 IPC fighter on top of that is going to hurt.  Risking a loaded transport or a battleship is a pretty horrific chance to be taking.  So that pretty much means that the Anglo-Egypt attack will be less powerful, so only 1-2 tanks will survive at Anglo-Egypt, so UK can run 3 inf 1 fighter 1 bomber vs Anglo-Egypt UK1, and the Allied fleet can unite off the west of Algeria (because 5 fighter 1 bomber against 1 battleship 1 destroyer 4 transports is a risky attack for Germany that will deplete its air while the Allies easily rebuild their entire fleet).  And that means that Germany will NOT have the initiative in Africa at all.  To make things worse, to kill the 2-3 Russian tanks in Ukraine, Germany will have to commit ground forces because no air can be spared from all those crucial battles, which means Russia can counter.  (Germany can counter that counter, but it depletes Germany’s forward infantry reserves).

But if there is an African bid, now Germany can send its Atlantic sub, battleship, and transport to unite at Gibraltar with just a single fighter safety from W. Europe.  With two units in Africa that can reach Anglo-Egypt, UK can still counter, but now it is unlikely that the Allies will unite off the coast of Algeria, because of the German battleship there that can soak up a hit and retreat, as well as the powerful German air force.  Germany can still run a fighter and bomber to Anglo-Egypt, and Germany still has three fighters that can now be used mostly at Germany’s discretion to punish Ukraine.  (It’s true that if Germany uses three fighters, it won’t be able to place as many fighters at Western Europe, but the key is that the German fighter at Eastern Europe can be used to hit Ukraine AND fly to Western Europe, and that one fighter saves a whole tank’s worth of commitment, which is quite a lot).  Even if Germany plays it REALLY safe for the eastern front and commits two fighters, that’s still three fighters, a bomber, a battleship, a sub, and a transport that threaten invasion of London combined with the Baltic fleet, or any Allied fleet off Algeria.

What this all boils down to is my personal opinion that:

With no preplaced Axis bid, a Russian attack on the Ukraine is risky but reasonable if it uses two tanks, MAYBE even if three tanks are used (although I think I would have to think very carefully about it), because of the various pressures that are put on German air and the forward positions of German infantry on its southeastern front.  Germany will have to commit valuable air or forward placed ground units to counterattack into Ukraine.

With a preplaced Axis bid in Africa with two or more additional German units able to attack Anglo-Egypt on G1, I think a Russian attack on the Ukraine with two tanks is still risky but reasonable just on view of the chance of trading 2 tanks for 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.  But using THREE tanks is not good, because I want to conserve Russia’s hitting power against Germany early game and Japan late game.  I know it sounds odd to say that three Russian tanks are more valuable than a German artillery, tank, and fighter, but the fact is that Russian reserves are harder to build up than German reserves.  There is no substitute for seven-eight tanks and two fighters at Moscow on R3-4 that can attack Archangel, Karelia, West Russia, Belorussia, Caucasus, Ukraine, Persia, Kazakh, Novosibirsk, Evenki, Yakut, and Ssinkiang.  Combined with a stack of infantry at West Russia and another stack at Novosibirsk, with just 2-3 artillery thrown in (probably towards Germany), Russia can really threaten the heck out of the Yakut and Ssinkiang and anything-adjacent-to-West-Russia attacks.  To be more specific, Russia could ATTACK with the West Russian infantry and Moscow tanks and pull the Novosibirsk infantry back to Moscow (possibly leaving some to block); Japan probably wouldn’t be able to take Moscow, and on Russia’s next turn, it could turn the West Russian infantry around, send the tanks back to Moscow, grab any lightly held territory with infantry and fighters, and threaten the main body of Japan’s forces for the following Russian turn (and note that Germany’s forces would not be in position to counterattack, having been smashed at the expense of the West Russian infantry).

Well Jen, teh original post was for an AC and TRN, so Russia’s ENTIRE income not most of it on R1.

I also clarified in a subsequent post that it is not as immediately disastrous, but still likely to be catastrophic, even if you take Ukraine and West Russia on R1 with the naval build.

Germany moves into Ukraine, HARD.  End of Russian ARM
Takes out Karelia
Stages forward everything else (Balkans, Germany, Southern forces)

On R2, where is Russia going to go?  Caucuses is empty, or nearly so.  They have teh WRS, but it is matched by what is in Ukraine, and is nearly matched by Karelia forces.
Japan may very well have just blasted throguh the Bury forces, or the Bury forces are running away trying to get to Moscow giving Japan Bury for free and startign pursuit from the East.

Russia has ONE last attack with the WRS before they are toast.  And if they do not attack, then they retreat or die.  Eitehr way, Germany has Karelia, Archangel, West Russia, Ukraine after G2 at a minimum, and has a fair shot at Cuacuses unless Allied airpower was flown in.

G3, Caucuses falls.  Germany is down 2 IPC in Africa, 3 for Norway, up 7 from Karelia, Archangel and Caucuses.
Japan is in Yakut, and will move into Evenk and Novo on J3.

Russia with an income of 10 IPC on R4, with Germans on their doorstep in 3 territories, and Japan on their doorstep in 2 territories, and no R1 INF build, so they now have whatever they were able to salvage of the WRS, the 2 INF each for Novo and Kazakh, whatever they retreated from Yak/Bury/SFE, and two builds of 8 INF each.

Moscow’s defense at the end of turn 3 is 20 two’s while Germany has their entire inital forces load perched on their doorstep, plus more armor.