I favor the WR/Ukraine attack, even if Germany places an Inf from the bid in the Ukraine. I want to kill that Fighter.
I buy 3 Arm, 3 Inf on R1 to replace the tanks I lose in the Ukraine on R1 and G1. After that it’s mostly Inf with an occasional Art for the rest of the game.
Yes this may tip off that I’m doing a KGF, but since I come pretty hard at Germany in any case my opponent would know that pretty soon anyway.
I’m less concerned with tipping my hand than with limiting my enemy’s options, newpaintbrush. Killing the German fighter in the Ukraine has a ripple effect that spills over into multiple battes on G1. It also helps to minimize an aggressive German stacking of Karelia on G1, as some forces have to be dispatched to the Ukraine to deal with Ivan’s bold move. Nextly, a Luftwaffe of 6 fighters and a Bomber is pretty formidable, especially in a late game situation. Say it’s turn 14, how many ways have you found to use that fighter from the Ukraine? How about 14 times on offense and 14 times it’s been parked somewhere to provide extra defense. That’s a big deal to this monkey.
I do place my Russian builds as you said, 3 inf/ art in Caucasus, and 2 inf/ arm in Russia. The fighters typically return to the Caucasus region.
My standard UK1 purchase is 2 transports/ 3 inf/ arm to bring maximum pressure to a single theater on UK2. The Ukraine aggression along with a British enhanced capacity to put boots on the ground quickly = a sustainable Russia much of the time, IMO, discounting the fickleness of crazy bad luck.
As far as the 2 armor into the Ukraine goes, that’s a gambit for sure. I play by the odds only, for otherwise you might as well get out your pouch of chicken bones to portend the results. If I can’t depend on math, or live in fear of bad dice, what’s the point? And the odds of that battle yield a Russian victory with 1-2 armor left. Good enough for me. Discounting a German bid placement in the Ukraine of course. If I’m playing a particularly ferocious opponent, I do use 3 armor to make sure they have to dedicate 3-4 infantry to retake the Ukraine.
My final litmus test is my own reaction as Germany to a Russian player’s opening move. Here are my two reactions:
“Crap, the Ukraine is dead…”
“Sweet, I’ve still got my fighter!”
When all else fails, that alone tells me what I need to know.
JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.
@88:
I’m less concerned with tipping my hand than with limiting my enemy’s options, newpaintbrush. Killing the German fighter in the Ukraine has a ripple effect that spills over into multiple battes on G1. It also helps to minimize an aggressive German stacking of Karelia on G1, as some forces have to be dispatched to the Ukraine to deal with Ivan’s bold move. Nextly, a Luftwaffe of 6 fighters and a Bomber is pretty formidable, especially in a late game situation. Say it’s turn 14, how many ways have you found to use that fighter from the Ukraine? How about 14 times on offense and 14 times it’s been parked somewhere to provide extra defense. That’s a big deal to this monkey.
Balance that against greater late game flexibility against Japan, 14 turns of those two tanks threatening and defending territories. I know that losing a German fighter is a pain, but the way I play the Allies, it’s pretty difficult for Germany to make best use of its fighters anyways (the Allied Atlantic fleet gets big pretty fast; if Germany goes east with fighters, the Allied transports offload into Archangel and/or Algeria; if Germany goes west with fighters, the large Atlantic fleet makes the Luftwaffe pay for sinking it - and then, the Allies can rebuilt very quickly. Plus, I’m spending UK and US funds to neutralize Germany’s units in that case; I like that better than using USSR funds to neutralize Germany’s units. Which is not to say that West Russia/Belorussia is SUPERIOR, I think that it is at least equal, though.
I do place my Russian builds as you said, 3 inf/ art in Caucasus, and 2 inf/ arm in Russia. The fighters typically return to the Caucasus region.
Yeah, pretty much like I’ve seen and played (when I do do Russia/Ukraine). I’ve opted out of this line because of the possibility of Germany building 2-5 transports in the Baltic. Moscow placed fighters can reinforce London on R2, allowing the UK in turn to buy 3 fighters on UK1 (possibly inf/tanks instead), while the US moves in 2 inf 1 art 1 tank, reinforcing London (although losing its transports); if Germany went the whole hog on transports, UK can produce inf/tanks and be safe by a considerable margin.
My standard UK1 purchase is 2 transports/ 3 inf/ arm to bring maximum pressure to a single theater on UK2. The Ukraine aggression along with a British enhanced capacity to put boots on the ground quickly = a sustainable Russia much of the time, IMO, discounting the fickleness of crazy bad luck.
As far as the 2 armor into the Ukraine goes, that’s a gambit for sure. I play by the odds only, for otherwise you might as well get out your pouch of chicken bones to portend the results. If I can’t depend on math, or live in fear of bad dice, what’s the point? And the odds of that battle yield a Russian victory with 1-2 armor left. Good enough for me. Discounting a German bid placement in the Ukraine of course. If I’m playing a particularly ferocious opponent, I do use 3 armor to make sure they have to dedicate 3-4 infantry to retake the Ukraine.
But if you commit 3 tanks, haven’t you REALLY killed off Russia’s flexibility, and done a slightly cost-inefficient attack? And if you do run 2 tanks, as I mentioned, it’s risky. Let me be clear, I think that IF the outcome were really in question in the first place, attacking West Russia/Ukraine would be extremely solid, even definitely superior, to West Russia/Belorussia. But just about every game I’ve played Allies (using TripleA ladder rules), I end up throttling the Axis anyways. So my thought is, why take the risk of a Ukraine gone bad, when you can just take the “sure bet” with Belorussia? (You can fail in Belorussia, but rarely “horribly” like you can with Ukraine). I know, you can stretch German air power WAY thinner, and pose a real threat to Germany’s southeastern territories initially, but I think the loss of the Russian tanks makes it at least a fair trade for Germany.
My final litmus test is my own reaction as Germany to a Russian player’s opening move. Here are my two reactions:
“Crap, the Ukraine is dead…”
My reaction, if Russia committed three tanks, is “Yeah, baby, three Russian tanks! I didn’t need that fighter anyways! YEAH BABY!” If Russia committed two tanks, I’m like "oh wellz, now I don’t have a safety for the German battleship/transport vs UK destroyer off Anglo (if I send the Med fleet east), or possibly I don’t have an added fighter punch to Anglo-Egypt (if I send the Med fleet west)
“Sweet, I’ve still got my fighter!”
I do like to have a safety for Anglo-Egypt, or added punch to Anglo-Egypt, but I start building fighters G2 at latest against KGF anyways, so the loss of a single fighter is not horribly disastrous. Really, what I try to do is to just trade territories like mad while Japan builds up for the kill.
When all else fails, that alone tells me what I need to know.
JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.
@88:
JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.
Overall I agree with this, and remember I said 3Inf/3Arm is my R1 purchase, to replace the 3 Arm I’m going to lose in the Ukraine during R1 and G1. After that my Russian purchases are generally “What’s the max Inf I can buy? Plan to buy that. Do I have one or two IPC left over? If so, convert one or two Inf to Art and spend all IPCs.”
Though I do have to say newpaintbrush has convinced me to reconsider the WR/Bel attack as a safer alternative. I too think the Allies have an advantage overall in a long game, so why be too risky R1? Since usually I commit 3 tanks to the Ukraine, I generally do win that pretty decisively. But I’ve seen my WR attack go badly… I still win it, but at the cost of a LOT of Inf. If/When I start playing TripleA ladder games again, maybe I’ll try the West Russia/Belorussia opening sometimes, just to see the difference.
Well that stinks, JamesG just got converted… my only W Rus/ Ukraine ally!!!
Newpaintbrush, you’re persuasive.
Good analysis. It’s hard to shake my conviction, although I haven’t been disappointed when I’ve attacked W Russia/ Belo, I admit. It’s extremely solid. I think it’s probably the safest way to go and I understand why people do it.
But man, I love killing the German fighter…
Hah, you still have another player on your side for WR/Ukraine
It’s good to kill that Ukraine German fighter trust me.
Because they can lose other fighters on counter-attacks.
take my latest tournament game.
In my tournament game I lost it on Ukraine on R1 and when I hit the British BB on G1 with 1 Sub, 4 fgts, I managed to get unlucky and lose another fighter.
down 2 fighters after turn 1, and committed 2 fgts to the Defense of SZ 5 right away, bad way to start a game.
Well 88, I would not say I’m completely off the WR/Ukraine opening. But I’m more willing to consider the WR/Bel alternative now.
TriHero was a major advocate of the WR/Belo opening.
He is the one who taught me the game. But since then I have decided that the Ukraine is a better “hit” for Russia on R1, barring a significant bid to Ukraine (2 INF or better)
newpaintbrush,
When you do a WR/Bel opening, what do you leave in Caucasus at the end of R1?
When I have used it…
Build units (4 INF), 2 INF from Kazakh, 2 FIG, 1 AA, 1 IC
6 Inf + 2 Figs seems like a tempting target to me … it would be possible to wipe out the russian figs would it not?
Of course you would probably have to leave Ukraine for a turn or 2 but still killing the russian figs would be worth it IMO
Perhaps we shall see in our game coming up :wink:
When I do West Russia/Belorussia, I leave Caucasus pretty much open. Like 3-4 infantry. No AA gun.
If Germany wants to stratbomb, great, that’s something else that didn’t get hit (like Anglo-Egypt).
If Germany wants to invade heavily, great, they can attack with everything they have, and I can still kick them out with massed W. Russia/Russia forces next turn.
If Germany wants to invade lightly - well, it’s not easy even then. If Germany wants to attack without committing tanks, it has to use air, and you know how tricky it is to allocate German air on G1. (Even if the Germans send the Med fleet west, if German fighters hit Caucasus, they MUST land in the east, which lets the Allies get a turbo boost on setting up their transport fleets, without the fighters in W. Europe to worry about that first turn). If Germany DOES commit artillery and/or tanks, well, I just traded Russian infantry for German infantry, artillery, and/or tanks. And what’s more - I traded Russian infantry for FORWARD MOBILIZED German infantry, artillery, and/or tanks. Quite nice.
Russian fighters land at Moscow. This deters a German transport build in the Baltic on G1.
@ncscswitch:
When I have used it…
Build units (4 INF), 2 INF from Kazakh, 2 FIG, 1 AA, 1 IC
I don’t do that with W Russia/Belorussia. It is too tempting for the Germans to just say “okayz!”, and send the German army plus air support to wipe out Caucasus. Germany CAN kill those Russian fighters if it has a mind to, and if it DOES do that, it is pretty costly to Germany - but also very costly to Russia.
When I do West Russia/Belorussia, I leave Caucasus pretty much open. Like 3-4 infantry. No AA gun.
I had been thinking 5-6 Inf and the AA Gun (but no fighters), thinking that anything less would make it too easy for Germany to take. But based on your analysis, maybe it is better to tempt Germany into overextenting on G2.
usually leave it at 5 inf, AA gun. (buying 3 inf, 3 arm on R1)
no aa, 1 inf.
Go for it.
no aa, 1 inf.
Go for it.
Naw, because remember that this is after West Russia/Belorussia, not West Russia/Ukraine.
So Germany can attack with some craptastic force like 2 inf or whatever from Ukraine. Germany loses 6 IPC of mobilized units, Russia loses 3 IPC of units, Germany gains 4 IPC from the territory, plus 1 or 2 more expected value for whatever the German infantry may destroy.
And Russian troops have 1 more space to walk to get to germany…
