The battle ship can help defend 112, but so can the 1-3 planes you’d lose in 111, Baltic and Bessarabia. (I’m included those Russian territories as potential losses for planes because without a BB in 111, your eastern attacks are thin. You could retreat when only air is left, but then Russia might have enough to attack E. Poland.)
I haven’t played BM yet, so I’m not familiar with how the new NO’s affect gameplay. It looks like Russia gets an extra 2 IPC starting his second turn for his lendlease in Persia after a Japanese attack. This is assuming Germany has a warship in 125 and Japan also put something in 5 other than transports, else the bonus is more. This extra income from a Japanese attack offsets the losses of Siberia and the Soviet Far East. And he’s likely to take Siberia back since you only have 2 guys there and you haven’t put anything in Amur, in which case his IPC balance regarding the far east is actually in the black. You can put pressure on him to back him up on R3 after you take Amur, but at that point, how much of a difference does it really make? I assume with a G1 dow you’re trying to crush Russia ideally by turn 5 but hopefully by turn 6.
Difference in Russian IPC net with Japan attacking.
R1 moot
R2 +2 Persian lendlease -1 Soviet Far East (regained Siberia)
R3 +2 " -3 “, Siberia, Amur
R4 +2 " -5 “,”,”, Sakha, Buryatia
Germany attacks moscow before R5
The total difference is 3 IPC, 6 if Germany’s push on Moscow comes G6, so one or two inf. In the meantime the far east is sucking up a lot of Japanese resources (i.e. planes) if Japan wants to keep pressure on to make Russia’s +6 stronger stack take a step back. Taking Siberia makes sense in the long run, but with a Crussia strategy in which those losses don’t have the time to significantly affect Russia’s income, is it worth it?
I am of course assuming that Russia’s leaving a token of force of about 4 in Sakha in order to respond to a potential Siberian landing, but even if he doesn’t, or if his attack fails, he only loses 2 more IPC.
Am I missing something in the understanding of these NO’s?