That's true switch, but the AVERAGE IPC gain is still around 2. The most common result is killing one inf and dying, that is exactly +2 IPCs gain.

Also, the correct way to look at it is this:

44% of the time you killed one inf, which is a net gain of +2 IPCs (same as blitzing Karelia)
33% of the time you killed no inf, which is a net loss of 1 IPC (3 IPCs worse than blitzing Karelia).

So 77% of the time you are doing the same OR WORSE than simply blitzing Karelia.

You look at it as 66% of the time as doing the same OR BETTER.

We are sharing the 44% in the middle, but when you look at the part we aren't sharing, it's 33% to do worse, and only 22% to do better. How are the odds in Germany's favor? The 44% of the time when you kill one inf is precisely the same net gain as simply blitzing Karelia, it is neither worse nor better. You talk about positioning, but the inf leftoever in Archangel are ready to take back Karelia so it's no loss there.

Needless to say, remember all we're talking about here is if Russia has not defended Karelia. If I were Russia I'd defend it, but I have played people who don't, and in that case I don't think it's worth the German effort to blitz to Archangel, because 77% of the time it is the same or worse.

I betchoo I can do somethin wid da Allies that will rock teh Axis . . . unless you have a really fat Axis bid someplace, so be sure to mention how much the Axis bid and where it went (also the Russian and German moves; I reserve the right to veto any Russian move that I judge to be "on crack").

I didn't say this Axis opener would win the game or even shift the bids much if at all. I said it was the best available option with 0 German naval IPCs, to which I have heard no contradiction. All I hear is YAY the German navy will be sunk so bad, but that's not the point. It's beyond obvious that Germany can't be a naval power, but how do you maximize what you've got? Linking the Baltic + SZ8 sub is a great move that discomforts the Allies much more than any other move I have seen, especially considering that it costs 0 naval IPCs which allows a full land build. Sitting in the Baltic is pretty bad because it lets the Allies deal with the navy on their own time, but running away forces them to do something about it immediately. That's a bomber that can't be used to counterattack in Anglo Egypt, a couple of dead UK transports, and a sacrificed American transport if you use Switch's counter.

I'm not sure you really have an option. Where would you go if you wanted to go towards Russia? Likely Ukraine is massively occupied or has a massive strikeforce ready, so your option is Belorussia? I guess you could go there for 2 IPCS.

It takes 1 round longer for INF to get to ECan, but once established, building in WUS allows the US to defend against an raiding Japan forces in WUS or WCan for no additional cost in units.

True, but misleading. It takes inf 2 turns longer to be able to be transported early in the game, because early on you build a tran in E. US and want to immediately load units from E. US to go somewhere, but if you build the tran in E. US and the units in W. US, then the inf will take 2 turns to get to E. Canada, then on the third turn you can finally transport them somewhere. That's quite possibly too many turns if you're waiting for your full builds to arrive from Western, so are you build partially in Western or what?

That means that 2/3 of the time you will be net AT LEAST +2 IPC to blitz an ARM to an undefended Archangel.

This statement is still misleading, Switch. First, you rounded up to +2 IPCs on average, it's something like +1.9. Just blitzing Karelia still has a greater average result.

Second, no, it's not "at least" +2 IPCs. +2 IPCs is the AVERAGE result. The LEAST result is -1 IPC; +4 from the territories, then -5 from losing the tank without killing anything. It seems like you think the minimum result is that the tank will kill something, and also you look at the 10% result as bigger than it is. It doesn't feel very good at all when you lose a tank without doing anything in return, which happens much more often than killing 2 inf will.

Still sounds like the best Axis opener. For buying 0 naval IPCS, you cost the Allies 3 transports and made the UK buy the carrier. At the beginning of turn 2 the UK only has 1 tran to land somewhere, meaning Germany can get farther in Africa than normal. How's that for an "impotent" Baltic fleet? 

Then drop a build of an AC and TRN in the battle sea zone, land FIGs on the AC, move the Russian SUB to join the fleet and DARE the Germans to come after my fleet on G2 usign only Luftwaffe for the attack (the Med Fleet is getting no where near that battle...)

What're you blocking the med fleet off with? A dest or tran?

It's a great idea to let Russia take S. Europe, they can't make full use of it! 

Been a while since I've seen a topic like this. What general/specific guidelines do you by as the US? 3x3 transport system using excess money on 1-2 fighters per turn, or 4x4 transport system buying a fighter every 2-3 turns? Response to Baltic running away? One or 2 carriers? What kinds of builds do you use in specific situations? Do you attempt to use SZ8 to shuck units into London and use defensive pieces there, or play it safe and use SZ1/2 (whatever those zones are in the top left) to shuck into London, which makes it safe against Luftwaffe but takes an extra turn to get into place? Stack 5 inf from Alaska/W/Central US to W. Canada for token defense against potential Japanese invasion, or depend on them to shuck early? How many tries into Africa?

One of the most challenging things I find is to get the transport system into place efficiently. It seems like I'm always screwing something up >_<

What would be the appropriate response for you, Switch and Jen, if the Baltic does try to run away? I have my own idea which is to strafe the Baltic fleet if it's trying to escape, but it seems like Jen at least would never consider it. Simply allowing the Baltic to run away can majorly impact things later, even if the only thing is to make the Americans overbuild fighters/navy. At the cost of 0 German naval IPCs! : )

Yay, thanks Frood. We both get it!

By the way, who is smiting me -_-? I don't smite anyone!

I'm definitely more uncomfortable when Russia does W. Russia/Ukraine (when I'm Germany), especially when they come out with 3 tanks + 1 aa in Ukraine (very common). Sometimes I just have to avoid counterattacking Ukraine on G1 or get burned out.

But then again, Japan would be in a more comfortable situation without those T-34's ready to counterattack Sinkiang.

Favorite play of mine is to take with England, reinforce with America and put 3 or 4 Russian fighters in to really make an attack painful on Germany.

Besides, British fighters do a better job protecting Moscow then Russian fighters!

Um, how about let the Russian fighters stay on Moscow so they can trade with Japan if need be (likely) and have US fighters reniforce English invasions? The US are going to have more money to spare the fighters O_o

I used to think the same about Russian armor.  Then I noticed my armor did nothing but protect Caucasus and threaten Germans.  They never did anything.  Well, not until Russia fell and they were forced to actually defend some ground.

For once in what seems like I while I agree with you my dear =P  Tanks don't seem to do much early on, that's why I keep it to art to use as a poor man's tank to trade territories.

If the players are of equal skill, i.e. they calculate costs/risks the same way, then the only factor left is luck. Therefore, 100%. There's no amount of skill that can compensate for the Japanese transport taking out both destroyer/carrier off of Kwangtung and surviving, or any amount of skill that compensates for a W. Russia defense that leaves the Russians with no inf on the first round.

If the players are of unequal skill, then luck has less of a factor. It could even be the minority factor if the other player is behind the ball on  assessing/predicting the board.

That means that 2/3 of the time you will be net AT LEAST +2 IPC to blitz an ARM to an undefended Archangel.

What good is it to say that without looking at the whole picture? It costs you 5 IPCs to replace the tank. The 2 inf in Archangel are perfectly aligned to attack Karelia after taking Archangel, which should still be contested by Germany at round 2.

If I'm trying to make life expensive for the Russians, I'm garrisoning with 3 infantry.  That almost forces a 3 infantry attack, usually also tieing up a fighter, sometimes two fighters or even an armor.

It's difficult to get enough infantry out to the front line early in the German game. If you try to do that, you'll strip yourself of infantry quickly, which becomes problematic when the other two Allies jump in. I really like to see Germany sticking out 3 inf in each territory, because it wears out their stack in E. Europe extremely quickly, in a KGF of course.

- Russia on G2 may blitz Karelia as Germany did. Russia is really happy do not lose units, do not have to commit nothing, may use fig elsewhere. Moreover, Russia is focusing all its inf around Caucasus, where they have more value than if they wander in the north.

I'd be really happy to see that with Germany. I don't care if both of us collect the money from Karelia, as long as I as Germany don't have to spend infantry to collect that money. Japan will eventually kick the crap out of Russia; the less inf I have to spend means more defense. I've actually tried this against myself and Germany turned out well since it didn't have to bleed out infantry to Karelia ever, just Belo/Ukraine with mass fighters. If your goal is KGF, you have to lure Germany out whenever you can, and putting something in Karelia is one of many ways to do that.

Now, I'll ignore the British if I am strapped for units.  I'd rather they have the land because they have to move their units into my path.

Actually I'd prefer Russia to gain land, because it means more money for Japan once Japan kills Russia, as well as territories that become duds to the Allies since the Russian capital is gone. I've made many mistakes allowing Russia to gain areas like S. Europe/Balkans/East Europe, when the UK/US could have used the money much better.

And also, the British should be your number one strafing target if you have the units. Choose UK over Russia if they both appear to be valid choices in terms of cost to attack/strafe, because it is the UK that will be dealing your death blow later on; if you can trade 5-6 inf for all of the stuff in their tranports that's great. That makes it that more impossible for them to crack your 50 infantry stack later on, especially since the Allies have to attack individually. Russia stops pushing later on which makes their money worth less against the Germans. Obviously don't just give money to them, but remember it's more awkward for the Allies for the Russians to nab loads IPCs close to the German capital border.

But I'm never just giving Russia land.

Well of course you have to contest Russian land. But it's laughable to think that you can get into a winning situation against Russia with the other 2 Allies on board in a KGF, so I would say focus on economy instead of trying (futiley) to bleed Russia. Spend the least to gain the most.

Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

Not really. Maybe your definition of defensive is retreating indefinitely, and that's how you perceive my argument. That's not it at all. I don't even have a defensive/offensive way to play. I just play conservatively, making sure that I'm not using a bit of effort or money that can't be backed up. Counting on luck is the worst strategy, IMO; hoping that one infantry or tank will take out a bazillion units. Because guess what, it doesn't just happen for your side, and just as often as not your luck could be the other way.

and nearly 4% of the time you kill both INF and the FIG.

I find it simply amazing that you think the Russians will stay when it's one fig versus one tank.