Ukraine bid

[Romulus]

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! :)

[newpaintbrush]

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

[Jennifer]

@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

[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

[Amon-Sul]

@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 )

[newpaintbrush]

@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)

[Jennifer]

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?

[U-505]

The problem with the AA in Ukraine is that while Russia may lose a fighter taking it, Germany will also have the same or worse chance to lose a fighter retaking it. Unless, of course, the Germany player wants it back so bad that he or she would be willing to hang a bunch of armor out to dry for the Russian player to smash in the R2 counterattack.

Barring a bid placement of at least 2 units in Ukraine, if the Russian player wants it, most likely they will get it. Better to put your bid units in Belo to preserve armor in the Ukr counterattack or in case the WR attack goes badly.

[frood]

@Jennifer:

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?

This again shows how your approach is totally different from mine. Gaining a 4 IPC territory for one round is not very significant. Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.

So Germany takes Caucasus. Great - +4 IPCs.

But Caucasus is also a big deadzone, and will get hammered on R3. Any tanks left in there are goners. I’ve seen opponents leave the Caucasus pretty open for me but I recognized it as a trap. For 4 IPCs I am not willing to over-extend myself and put a bunch of valuable units where they will get slaughtered for a loss of 20+ IPCs of frontline units.

Now if it’s empty, sure I’d pop an Inf in there if I had one in Ukraine. But I wouldn’t commit much more than that on G2. Later in the game Caucasus is great to have if you can hold it, but in G2 it’s a bad move for Germany.

[frood]

@Romulus:

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.

That’s why I like to attack Belorussia as well w/ 3 Inf and 2 Ftrs. It gives Germany 3 less Inf to attack WR with, and also gives it something else to deal with, e.g. the EE tank might  attack Belo instead of WR.

[U-505]

@Frood:

@Jennifer:

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?

This again shows how your approach is totally different from mine. Gaining a 4 IPC territory for one round is not very significant. Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.

So Germany takes Caucasus. Great - +4 IPCs.

But Caucasus is also a big deadzone, and will get hammered on R3. Any tanks left in there are goners. I’ve seen opponents leave the Caucasus pretty open for me but I recognized it as a trap. For 4 IPCs I am not willing to over-extend myself and put a bunch of valuable units where they will get slaughtered for a loss of 20+ IPCs of frontline units.

Now if it’s empty, sure I’d pop an Inf in there if I had one in Ukraine. But I wouldn’t commit much more than that on G2. Later in the game Caucasus is great to have if you can hold it, but in G2 it’s a bad move for Germany.

Well, on occasion it may look like a trap but really isn’t. You have to value up the territory and the units involved.

1. Caucasus is worth 4 IPC’s
2. Add that to the value of the units you kill there as well as the units you can expect to kill in the Russian counterattack and subtract it from the value of the German units you would need to take it with.
3. If the calculated value is a wash or positive for Germany then Germany comes out ahead if only because it prevents Russia from building there on their turn.

[Jennifer]

Don’t forget by taking it you prevent Russia from building there.  That means their builds are one more space back from the front.

Honestly, I’d rather be trading Caucasus then Ukraine if I were Germany.

[axis_roll]

@Frood:

Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.

why attack then anyways?

Seriously, if piece perservation is that important to you, you probably rarely (or never) should attack with your units.

What makes an attack ‘worth it’ to you then?  Does it differ if your the axis versus the allies?

[frood]

@axis_roll:

@Frood:

Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.

why attack then anyways?

Seriously, if piece perservation is that important to you, you probably rarely (or never) should attack with your units.

What makes an attack ‘worth it’ to you then?  Does it differ if your the axis versus the allies?

I attack when I can kill more of the enemies units than I will lose myself in the attack and to any counterattack.

I’ll still trade territories with 1 Inf 2 Ftrs attacking etc. just to maintain the front and keep from dwindling, which you have to do to maintain territory, but apart from that I will usually only attack with overwhelming force. Eg. I only advance my main forces when it’s for keeps.

In some games I have almost no major battles until the end, when my massive force becomes unstoppable and finally advances and completely crushes everything before it.

[Romulus]

@newpaintbrush:

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

When I attack Belorussia, I send there 3 inf and 2 fig as you said.
Then in West Russia I use 6 inf, 2 art and 4 tanks (leaving the three inf in Caucasus there)

If I attack Ukraine I sent there 3 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks and 2 fig.
In West Russia go: 9 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks.

But this attack should be ok, or at least be acceptable.
What I was speaking was the fact that in the past I usually attacked only WR in R1. But in that case Germany counterattacked (using infantry from Belorussia and Ukraine) Caucasus or WR (depending were I have less units).

From then I have changed the Russia opening move, choosing from the two I described; WR and Belorussia or WR and Ukraine. And I am convinced that attacking another territory other Werst Russia is very important.

Frood, I have only a doub about your strategy. If you are Axis the one with the bigger stack that push in the enemy capitals may be the allied player.
How do you address a situation, with axis, in wich you are at economical disdvantage?

[DarthMaximus]

I’ve been using the Wrus attack only for at least 6 months now and have yet to see real problems with it.  I’m not saying there aren’t draw backs but I have seen anything that is fatal to the Allies.

You CAN hold both Cauc and Wrus with the Wrus attack only.

I’ll attack with 9 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm, 2 ftrs.  This essentially kills Wrus in 1 rd and you’ll lose 2 inf at most.
If I lose 2 inf, I’ll move the last inf from Kar for the extra defense.  With 1 hit, I’ll leave the blocker in Kar.

So I’ll have:
Wrus:  8-9 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm, aa
Cauc:  7 inf, 3 arm, 2 ftrs, aa
Rus:  4 inf, 2 arm

Germany has to commit too much and does too much damage too themselves if they attack/strafe either target.  Even if they take one they get slaughtered on the counter.

Oh yeah, this is with no units bid to Europe.

This, may not be the best setup and I don’t know the odds of the German attacks, but I do know no one has yet to test those German attacks.

Worst case for Russia (3 hits in Wrus), you can stack everything in Wrus and deadzone Cauc.

As Frood pointed out the one turn of 4 IPC is not that big of a deal.  You can even leave 2-3 inf in Cauc and see if Ger commits a tank, otherwise you get to kill probably 2 inf, 1 rt and maintain a heavy stack in Wrus and Cauc on Rd 2.  Since Ger can’t attack Cauc on Rd 2 (well they can send 2 units from a trn and maybe a couple planes, but that won’t be enough)

[Jennifer]

DM,

I am wondering if it might be worth it to Germany to kill those Russians on Round 1?  You effectively half their standing army and you do have 40 IPC income to their 24 (26 with W. Russia added.)

Just wondering, not advocating at this point.

Frood:

Normally I end up attacking with 2 Inf, 1 Fig vs 1 Inf if I want to possess the territory.  Not 1 Inf, 2 Fig.  A)  Defenders do have a 33% chance to hit.  B) Fighters can’t take land.  C) How often can Russia devote both fighters to a trade territory instead of one each to two trade territories?

[Amon-Sul]

@Jennifer:

DM,

I am wondering if it might be worth it to Germany to kill those Russians on Round 1?  You effectively half their standing army and you do have 40 IPC income to their 24 (26 with W. Russia added.)

Just wondering, not advocating at this point.

Frood:

Normally I end up attacking with 2 Inf, 1 Fig vs 1 Inf if I want to possess the territory.  Not 1 Inf, 2 Fig.  A)  Defenders do have a 33% chance to hit.  B) Fighters can’t take land.  C) How often can Russia devote both fighters to a trade territory instead of one each to two trade territories?

i ve tried it, dont know how this game will end though, but early German attack on Russian forces at least brings a lot of fun in the game :wink:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10105.0

[DarthMaximus]

@Jennifer:

DM,
I am wondering if it might be worth it to Germany to kill those Russians on Round 1?  You effectively half their standing army and you do have 40 IPC income to their 24 (26 with W. Russia added.)

It could for the Germans, I think some type of tank dash could work, but UK can always directly unload to Arch/Kar in that scenerio.

Since navy protection won’t be an issue.

But as Amol says, it’ll probably be a fun game.

[frood]

@Jennifer:

Frood:

Normally I end up attacking with 2 Inf, 1 Fig vs 1 Inf if I want to possess the territory.  Not 1 Inf, 2 Fig.  A)  Defenders do have a 33% chance to hit.  B) Fighters can’t take land.  C) How often can Russia devote both fighters to a trade territory instead of one each to two trade territories?

The key part of your sentence is “if I want to possess the territory”. My interest is in killing the other side’s unit(s). So attacking 1 Inf with 1 Inf 2 Ftrs odds are you’ll kill that unit, and the defender has only a 1/3 chance of killing your unit and preventing you from taking the territory.

As attacker, you want to minimize the length of a battle, not allowing the defenders to fire back more than once if possible, to minimize your losses. That’s what the 2 Ftrs do.

Attacking with 2 Inf 1 Ftr may increase your odds of taking the territory (you have about 93% chance to take the territory, vs. a 62% chance with my attack)
So that’s an additional 30% chance of taking the territory. For a 3 IPC territory that chance is worth about 1 IPC, statistically, but less a if trading a 1 or 2 IPC territory.
+1/3 IPC to + 1 IPC
However, to gain that 1 IPC avg. benefit you commit an extra 3 IPC unit which will be killed.

• 3 IPC
  On the other hand, that extra Inf has a 1/3 chance of killing a counter-attacking unit, which will prolly also be an inf, so 1/3 of 3 IPCs = 1 IPC.

• 1 IPC

So in my view the 2 Inf 1 Ftr attack on average nets the attacking player minus 1 to minus 1 and 2/3 IPCs. If you have 30 such attacks in a game, that’s a loss of 30 to 50 IPCs

I also have to note that the extra avg. 1 IPC from the 3 IPC territory is worth less than an IPC that’s already active at the front line.

@Romulus:

Frood, I have only a doub about your strategy. If you are Axis the one with the bigger stack that push in the enemy capitals may be the allied player.
How do you address a situation, with axis, in wich you are at economical disdvantage?

My view is that the Axis’ economic disadvantage is somewhat of a myth. Yes, they have less production to start with. But consider:

• The axis forces are more concentrated, being divided only between two players. This allows greater strategic flexibility. As an extreme example, imagine if the Allies were divided into 30 countries, each with 3 IPCs per turn. Each of those countries would be useless offensively.

• But the main reason is that while the Allies have more production, they have to commit, at least early on, a sizeable portion of that production to building transports and escort vessels. If you look at how many ground units the Axis produce in the first 2 rounds vs. the Allies, you would think that the Axis had an economic advantage.

Thus the key thing for the Axis is to gain territory early on, while the Allies are still weak on the ground. But those early territory gains have to be solid, which is why you have to preserve your units so that your gains will hold once the Allied onslaught begins.

Once the Allies have built their fleets and are diverting their production solely to land forces, the Axis will be in big trouble if the Allies still have greater production.

And if you are in that situation, you just build lots of units with high defensive value (Infantry) and hope that your enemy makes some mistakes.