I read over what I wrote before. Thought I should clarify a point.
Re: Going second fighter over tanks to trade territories following a R1 2-fighter Norway attack / G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer build. (For those just joining, R1 2-fighter Norway attack drops a Russian fighter as it must land in Karelia and is lost to the German counter; G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer stops an early UK1 landing at Norway as the range the carrier gives fighters creates an invasion threat against London; the destroyer stops the UK from suiciding with UK air to kill the carrier or German fighters. With Allies locked out in Atlantic for a while, my recommendation was a second fighter to trade territory with Germany.)
I just noticed that I neglected to mention after a carrier/destroyer build, Germany’s usually pretty soft. Russian tanks DO allow a Russian player to take and HOLD territory that otherwise couldn’t be held, for R2 at least, and possibly R3.
I realized this is probably what Zhukov was referring to when he wrote about trading territories.
Usually when I think of “trading”, I’m thinking about the setup where Russia has forces at West Russia and Germany has forces at Eastern Europe, and they trade ownership of Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine each turn - That is, territories change hands immediately.
But when thinking of “trading territories” in the sense that territories do NOT change hands immediately - i.e. Russia takes what it can and holds it as long as possible - in that case, you want units that can stay in the territory just attacked. I mentioned that in passing earlier, but when you have a few tanks rather than just one, and a small stack of infantry, the defense can be pretty good.
Personally, I still think R1 fighter buy is superior because you don’t know the German plan. If you DO see carrier/destroyer plus tanks on G1, then if you built R1 tanks, you can’t make an early hard push because of the nasty German counter. If you see carrier/destroyer plus infantry or other naval units on G1, then your tanks COULD be useful, but again, the Russian player can’t control or know what’s going to happen on G1.
'Course, you could make the point that R1 tanks could pressure Germany to build tanks of its own on G1 to stop an early Russian push, thereby neglecting infantry and/or navy. But in any case Germany could consolidate its infantry and hit any forward Russian position with fighter support, slaughtering the cream of Russia’s tanks. But bringing fighters east may leave the Atlantic open.
Lots of good choices.
But I wonder if Zhukov was advocating tanks in general, or tanks specifically after a R1 Norway/West Russia attack.