Nit picky German Economizer

I always play with the theory that,
“Your best defense, is a damn good Offense!”
Not a foolish offense, but a well calculated strategy, that intices your opponent to stick his neck out, again and again to take out those 3 infantry pickets so you can crush their remnants with rebuilds next turn. makes for a fun game too, Attack, attack, attack! (wait, that’s another game).
But anyway, Germany has to keep the pressure on Russia for as long as possible to help Japans growth. Then Japan can save their butt in the end.

And Ivan that is how I view the ARM blitz to Archangel.

It makes the Russians stick their neck out… in Karelia, Belo and Ukraine.  Then I cut that head off, and have Russians shoved back and start trading a territory closer to Moscow.

First:  Start with a “traditional” Russian openning of WR and Ukr w/ typical dice.

Then the German counter in Ukraine, and the blitz to Archangel
Combine with a Karelia Stack, and the Med Fleet in SZ15…
Now look at the board at the start of R2…

Do you see it yet?

A good solution to this, if Germany do the “Angel-blitz”, UK can take Archangel.

Peace folks  :wink:

But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.
And this… for not leaving an inf in Leningrad!

Sending any German navy out to block an Archangel landing is not worth while.

The Archangel Blitz is a simple gambit, designed to get the Russians to over-extend (and thus get spanked by Germany)

It is NOT your spearhead to Russia, it is a thorn, an annoyance.

It is not the move itself that is so essential for Germany, it is how Russia Russia counters that is critical because of the huge potential (especially with so many small battles over such a broad front) of Germany being able to create a major advantage on the Russian Front early, increasing Germany’s IPC’s and decreasing Russian IPCs by pushing the trading territories close to Moscow, and forcing a stronger “close in” defense by Russia

In fact I agree with you Switch. The sub in sz5 is only a speculation that I made.
The reason for such example is that I believe that trading territories is not only a question of IPC and units, is principally a Tactical and Strategic question.

My idea about this specific Karelia issue is to alway leave a inf in Kar.
First this avoid German blitzing in and out, gaining 2 free IPC.
Moreover it do not allow German to blitz a tank to Arkangel.
Finally the situation is reversed: leaving an inf in Karelia is the German that have to use units there (at least 2 inf and 1 fig) and spread out their forces, giving Russia a good start.

I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia. I guess it can make Russia spread its forces a little thinner, but Russia can deal with it. It can take it without air support, or the UK can take it, because there’s likely not a lot of German follow-through. At least not in my games - I usually gather everything into EE. I guess you could load Karelia instead, but then farther from Ukraine…

Ultimately, not a big loss for Germany, but I never like to trade an active unit for IPCs (esp. at 5:2) unless I’m also killing an enemy unit.

I never like to lose my Russians to the Germans.  Better to use the limeys and keep my good Vodka drinkers in reserve!

@trihero:

I don’t see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It’s right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia.

That’s what I see too, Frood. I just don’t see how it’s overextending Russia even if you did Ukraine/W. Russia.

Oops, I meant Archangel, not Karelia, but I think you knew what I meant.

I agree with Trihero.

All Russia needs is one inf and it can attack Arch with 1 inf and ALL its armor.
Russia won’t be using its armor to attack Ukr, Belo, or Kar so it is just sitting there doing nothing anyway.  And on R3 that armor in Arch is still within reach of Ukr, Belo and Kar if need be.

Now I don’t attack Ukr on R1 and I’ll buy 3 inf, 3 arm so I’ll have 7 arm available on R2.  I attack Wrus only and typically Germany will counter with 1 inf in Ukr, 1 in Belo, and 1 in Kar.  That means 2-3 inf, 1 ftr to ukr, 2 inf, 1 ftr to belo, 2 inf, 1 rt to kar and 1 inf, 3-7 arm to arch.
I don’t see how this is overextension?
If you block Kar, you’re likely to see this on R2:
Kar:  2 inf (possibly 1 if you hit on def)
Belo:  1 inf
Ukr:  1 inf

Russia still has to commit an rt to one of those battles or ignore one (which is the same as leaving Kar empty).

Essentially it is a wash if the German armor in Arch hits on defense.  Germany gains 2 ipc and kills 1 inf (3 ipc) on defense but losses the armor (5 ipc).  2+3-5=0

But 50% of the time the armor misses on def, so Russia essentially trades Inf for Arm.  I’ll take that as Russia all day long.

@trihero:

But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.

Quick grammar lesson Romulus - it should be

“But what if the Germans still have a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?”

And

“Uk probably can not invade Norway on the second turn, so the blitzing of the German unit hurts the UK.”

Thanks Trihero!
Now I am starting to think that… may be I need a grammar corrector!

Moreover the idea of sending the sub as road block is also not useful.
The sub will be sink and UK may move units in Russia in NCM.

I think the point is to NOT have to do 4 battles on Russia 2 since you only have 2 fighters.

Of course, England could help at the cost of not landing in Africa, reducing it to three battles.  As DM pointed out the one behind the lines if is safe enough to use Armor on reducing you to two battles and you just happen to have two fighters, one for each.

But it still forces the allies to go the non-optimal route, IMHO.

Frood here, just changed my name and avatar, like some others have recently done…

I don’t think landing in Karelia / Archangel is at all sub-optimal for the Allies. The UK has no business in Africa, IMHO. Landing in North Europe ASAP opens a second front on Germany, they now have to contend with UK and Russia, which combined have greater income than Germany.

Landing in Africa opens a second front on Germany and threatens a full 20% of the German’s income (or saves 33% of Englands, depending on how you are looking at it.)

If anyone has a stake in Africa, is it not England???

Yes, Russia can afford to hit all 4 territories on Russia 2. (Karelia, Archangelsk, W. Russia and Ukraine.)  But is it optimal?