It almost seems to me that it’s more beneficial to Russia to have the Russian front divided up more, but it’s not very obvious at first glance. Let me back up…
This analysis assumes that Germany is devoting everything to barbarosa (no Sealion), and that Russia doesn’t have to worry about Japan. Also, Germany attacks Russia 4th round, not before.
Ok, Germany should have about 153 ipcs to spend for barbarosa in the first 3 rounds (30 1st round, 70 2nd round, 53 3rd round). After that, any extra income it gets comes from Russian territories. Russia has about 121 ipcs to spend for the first 3 rounds. The differences between games lays in the purchases between the players.
So, why would Germany spend extra money on ICs in places like Finland and Romania? (Actually, I can see the usefulness in Romania, but I’ll get to that in a minute). A major IC and an air base in romania along with transports costs Germany 66-80 ipcs, depending on how many transports. So now, when it comes to units on the fronts, Germany has 73-87 ipcs worth compared to Russia’s 121ipcs (not that the extra 34-48 ipcs for Russia will keep Germany from winning against Russia).
Unless the purpose for a IC in Romania is to exploit the Black sea (which is almost always the case), there’s not much of a use of having it, is there? My reasoning is this:
- the immediate benefit of a ic up at a front is you get to attack immediately
- in this scenario, Germany is attacking round 4
- if the German player has the insight, he could just figure out what units he wants to have up at the front on the turn in the future that he wants them there
- so why spend an extra 12 or 30 ipcs on an ic when you’ll get the same benefit if you do a little extra planning?
conclusion: plan ahead, so that you can buy another 5 or so units to actually do something. (and this goes for any ic that you just want up in the front)
That’s my first point.
My second point goes back to the ipcs that both Germany and Russia have to use in the first 3 rounds. If the Russian player is experienced, he will see that Germany is planning on opening more fronts by putting the major IC on romania. However, Germany still has to work with the ipcs that it has, and the same for Russia. Soooo, why doesn’t Russia invest more in the same area that Germany does? As Russia, just station mobile units in Russia and Volgograd, so that you can get to any place he attacks right away. Russia can do this because Germany is investing less on the other fronts. If Germany sees that the south is more heavily guarded than what he was planning on and so he backs off on those attacks, just take your quick moving armor and mechs up to Western Ukraine or Belarus. It’s not as though just because you now have the opportunity to attack Rostov and Caucasus that you will be able to just move your armies there without a fight. With this in mind:
- by using the black sea, you get the advantage of attacking deeper in, but the ipcs should roughly balance out.
- I would ask if it wouldn’t be more worth it for Germany to instead use the 80 ipcs it would take for a major ic, air base, and 5 trans for other units on the immediate front–you could get 15 inf, 5 art, 3 mech and 3 armor.
Looking back at this little analysis of mine, I do admit that it (probably) breaks down for Russia. But that’s because Russia breaks down for Germany. Germany starts out too strong for Russia, and so Russia is going to have to give up some fronts so that it can properly defend others–it’s going to have to give ground somewhere. Nevertheless, I think that if Germany is going to commit to building a useful IC in Romania, it only benefits Russia (despite the more fronts it has to face), because it removes a lot of German ipcs from units.
note: some of the calculations might be off in this, because I can’t yet see it on the board. I don’t yet have europe 1940 because it’s so dang expensive.