Ukraine bid

@axis_roll:

More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies.  If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once.  Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost).  Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)

yes, for going KGF attacking Ukraine is something obligatory, except there was 2 or 3 units bided to help defense

than USSR can attack Norway or Belorussia

but some would still try to go take Ukraine
dont know the odds there in that case but

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

@Jennifer:

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

i played only once this strategy and i failed in Eastern

well it can be done
in a good KGF game maybe it isnt needed all three victories
a draw can be fine in Eastern maybe

what is important is that Germany losses full army in three territories, and afcorse USSR will capture at least one of those 3

@Jennifer:

How many have seen W. Russia, Ukraine and E. Europe fall to Russia on R1?

maybe Norway instead Eastern?

What forces would you send to 3 territories and still have a reasonable chance of taking them all?
Without killing all of your offensive forces?

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

It can be done.  It was done to me:

I had another player attack Norway, West Russia AND Ukraine R1:
3 inf, tank, ftr > Norway

6 inf, art, tank > west Russia

3 inf, art, 2 tank, ftr > ukraine

Lucky son of a gun won all three… handily!

Results:
Norway - 2 inf, tank,ftr (lost 1 inf!!)
West Russia - 3 inf, art, tank (lost 3 inf)
Ukraine - tank, ftr (took ukraine!)

This is a tourney game too. I probably would quit a ‘normal’ game at that point, but alas, I played on.

I can consider that the Ukraine attack might be okay, but someone here has said that it is obligatory for a KGF. That’s bollocks.

@Frood:

I can consider that the Ukraine attack might be okay, but someone here has said that it is obligatory for a KGF. That’s bollocks.

Hmmm.  I WONDER whom you might be reffering to?

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

My thinking on Ukraine is influenced also by what I’ve learned in chess. In chess, if one side has more material (pieces and pawns) than the other, then it is to that sides advantage to start trading off pieces, because eventually trading will leave that side with something and the other with nothing

Not to state the obvious, but A&A is not chess.  I know you are using chess as a general reference to strategy, but A&A is different in that you can be rewarded for occupying a territory (IPCs / totally eliminating a defenders units).  In this case, the ukraine ftr is a nice ‘prize’ for russia and will not be achieved unless you can eliminate all defending German units.

More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies.  If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once.  Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost).  Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)

If this (in bold) is the quote to which you refer, please call me out by name and not vague reference “SOMEONE HERE…”

Also, please quote the identified quote properly.  I said you “PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many Germans as possible with all three allies at once” (general strategic statement).  Not sure how this equates to saying “Ukraine was obligatory in a KGF strategy.”

In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though.  So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)

That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move.  Not a strong position to start from.

Though, it IS a risk.  Cannot say it isn’t.  But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?

@Jennifer:

@ncscswitch:

None.

You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.

I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though.  So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)

That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move.  Not a strong position to start from.

Though, it IS a risk.  Cannot say it isn’t.  But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?

Jenn, how about responding to my bid?!  (for the tourney)  I PM’d you the bid # from Frood.

@Romulus:

In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.

BTW, wazup Gamer?  I haven’t been online at home in a little while (I post at work XD)

My thought on that German fighter:

German fighter used to attack Allied fleet.  That’s fine by me; German blood for UK or US blood.

If I commit Russian tanks to Ukraine on Russia1, though, I lose them.  That’s not so fine by me; Russian blood is precious, and I prefer to save every last drop.

I see your point newpaintbrush, but when I attack only West Russia, and thing do not goes perfectly, i.e. I lose more than three infantry, German try always to strafe my troops there (using infantry from Bielorussia and from Ukraine, three tanks and a couple of fighters) then retire in Ukraine and land there as many fighter is possible. I do not like that situation. Being kicked every turn in West Russia while pensky Japanese come from the East it is not comfortable.

Usually I try to strafe Ukraine, but if things goes well I try to get the territory. I usually employ there 2 Tanks and two fighters, using other two tanks in West Russia. This leave me with 5 tanks (I usually buy 5 inf, 1 art and 1 tank in R1) of wich two are doomed to die if they stay alone in Ukraine. But in such way, strafing or conquering Ukraine, allow to keep my stack in West Russia relatively safe (at least until German move her main army to East).
What if there is a bid AA gun in Ukraine? I use the method of Marshal Zhukov when the enemy lay mines on the front line “I attack as there are not mines!”.
So I attack as the AA gun in Ukraine was not there.
If the bid is a panzer and an infantry… maybe I should not attack… ! But Zhukov may not agree! :)

Romulus:  Do you attack Belorussia with 3 infantry 2 fighters and send the rest to West Russia, when you do the Belorussia attack?

@Gamer:

Jenn, how about responding to my bid?!  (for the tourney)  I PM’d you the bid # from Frood.

Was waiting for Amon to get back to me to confirm our bid.  Hopefully that one message in my box is from him

Just curious,

When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?

Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine

@Jennifer:

Just curious,

When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?

Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine

9 inf( Russia, Arhangelsk, Karelia )
2 art( Russia, Caucaus )
3 ten( Russia, Arhangelsk)
2 fig( Russia, Karelia )

@Jennifer:

Just curious,

When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?

Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine

Hm, but I wouldn’t only attack W. Russia, ever.

I believe you can let Germany capture Caucasus on G1.  On R2 you can attack Ukraine from West Russia and retake Caucasus from West Russia and Russia.  Germany can’t recapture Caucasus on G2 because there won’t be any German reinforcements on the front line.  (Actually, Germany can recapture Caucasus if it uses its Med fleet plus fighters, but Russia should easily be able to make that an unacceptable risk)

Amon,

You cannot hold Caucasus if you attack W. Russia with that force though.

NPB:

I agree, Russia can survive the loss of Caucasus for a round, but do you want Germany to have the 4 IPC?