Stollmaster,
8 units was not a lot off the front lines for Russia. It’s all relative. If Germany didn’t purchase a Romanian IC, didn’t purchase a black sea fleet, airbase whatever, than yes, 8 units would have been a lot off the front lines. But in this scenario from my play testing, 8 units was reasonable for Russia. In fact, I could say 9 units when adding the tac. bomber.
Believe me, I want to make this strategy work so don’t underestimate my criticisms.
From play testing last night, I found from the Russia perspective, I was able to move the starting 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 infantry from Rostov, and 2 fighters to the Caucasus and still match the defensive strength required against the German stack that was smaller than normal (due to all of the purchases in the Black Sea and the minor IC in Romania). This is also assuming that Russia isn’t going to attack Iraq because I’m play testing Russia using every piece essential for defense. Also, when play testing, worst case scenario for Germany was me having the US and UK do a KGF plan. Disaster for Germany was going to happen real quick. It was very obvious in my play testing. In other play testing, I’ll try to have Germany do a sacrifice Gibraltar capture followed by more troops from Italy in order to stall and counter that for at least another turn or 2.
As soon as transports are built on the Black Sea, Russia obviously has to start producing in Stalingrad in order to get a chance to move out it’s mobile from the Caucasus and or build more defensive strength there. It obviously becomes a “new” avenue of approach for the defense of Moscow.
Tonight, I will try the airbase, destroyer, and 2 transport purchase on G2 (and the 3 transport purchase plan), then hit Russia on G3 with 2 transports and also play test it with 3 transports (while then adding in the place new units phase a destroyer for extra defense…). I think 2 transports (4 ground) will not be enough. However, I think 6 ground from 3 transports might be enough to either make the Russia player not stack the Caucasus (for fear of losing their air/tanks), so Germany can either walk-in for a NO, or Germany will get to smash units and start a war of attrition much quicker.
I’ve never seen the plan where a “good” UK player retreats into SZ81 with results that produce a better allied situation. I just haven’t experienced that yet. Letting Italy keep 2 transports and their battleship for me tips the Med balance favorably towards the Axis. I’ve successfully made Italy go hog wild in that scenario a few times. Italy grows very powerful as a minor power when and if the UK fails to take out or retreats to SZ81.
Also, It doesn’t matter if fighters are sitting on a UK carrier on SZ81 or they flew to Persia from India en route to Egypt. They could still hit the Black Sea once Russia is at war. I was saying that the only unit that the UK can hit the Black Sea with on UK2 is a bomber because fighters and tac. bombers don’t have the range to land in UK territories. They can’t land in Russian owned territories. Russia is a neutral until Round 4 or when Germany attacks them on Round 3. Well, I guess the carrier could move up to SZ99 from SZ81 to be a legal landing zone for a fighter, tac. bomber combo to add to the UK bomber. But in that scenario, why didn’t Italy land on Trans/Jordan to block the Suez Canal? That’s the obvious solution to help protect the Black Sea fleet.