thanks the FAQ is a big help
Attacking Ukraine
-
I was just thinking about the chance for bad dice to mess you up the next turn.
Bad dice always mess you up for next turn. :-)
I’ve lost 5 units in WRU on more than one occasion.
I love dice. I hate dice.
-
But what is good about attacking Ukraine and WRU is that even if you do below average on WRU Germany has to worry about Ukraine.
-
You need to get the battle lines farther away from MOS. If you only attack WRU, you leave the northern and southern attack lines open for Germany. It’s difficult to defend both access routes, when the opposing troops don’t have to fight and stop at one territory at a time. If you are able to stop Germany’s progress, your Eastern front suffers, and Japan gives it to you up the hoo-haw! :wink:
-
To attack WRu is smth. like a “must do” for me on R1.
Besides this I prefer to attack Ukr because you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and I´ve also had some situations where Belorus blocked my attack, so it also isn´t unrisky to do this. You also force Ger to counterattack and you destroy the famous “German Fighter in Ukraine” and Caucus isn´t threatened by Germany in the 1st and 2nd round.
If your first combat round goes bad you can still pull back. -
Actually the biggest benefit to me about a UKR/WRU conquer is the result of not needing as many forces in Caucasus to defend it.
-
To attack WRu is smth. like a “must do” for me on R1.
Besides this I prefer to attack Ukr because you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and I´ve also had some situations where Belorus blocked my attack, so it also isn´t unrisky to do this. You also force Ger to counterattack and you destroy the famous “German Fighter in Ukraine” and Caucus isn´t threatened by Germany in the 1st and 2nd round.
If your first combat round goes bad you can still pull back.I often see 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf at Belorussia with expected USSR win result; that’s 2 IPC as opposed to the Ukr 3 IPC. So what you’re saying is that you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and West Russia . . . as opposed to JUST invading West Russia (and doing nothing else). Isn’t that what you mean?
How does Belorus “block your attack”? With a German bid of 1-2 infantry there?
Germany counterattacks anyways, always; it’s part of early territory trading. Isn’t that right? I don’t think Germany is FORCED to counterattack Ukraine; it’s just a convenient and vulnerable target; wouldn’t you agree?
As far as Caucasus being threatened G1 and G2 - I feel that it is impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G1, and even with a West Russia/Belorussia attack instead of a West Russia/Ukraine attack, I feel that it is still near impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G2. (Note that under both situations, Germany lost the West Russia forces and three additional infantry). If Germany attacks Caucasus on G1, even if USSR has nothing there and Germany moves everything in, and Japan sends fighters in, USSR can still counterattack in force, and Germany can NOT hold, or even seriously counterattack the Caucasus forces. Much the same holds for a G1 attack and hold on the Ukraine; any early attack there risks a heavy hit and run from West Russia. For that reason, I think the G2 take and hold of Caucasus is not possible, because I believe that any take and hold will require massed German forces in the Ukraine or West Russia on the previous turn, and I don’t see either happening on G1. I will say that an aggressive G2 attack on Caucasus supported by reinforcing Japanese fighters is possibly feasible, but it will be impossible for that to happen unless Japan makes severe sacrifices in the Pacific, and even then I think any G2 invasion of Caucasus would be risky given a USSR build of infantry, artillery, and tanks, for maybe USSR forces of 12 inf 3 art 4 tanks.
-
I often see 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf at Belorussia with expected USSR win result; that’s 2 IPC as opposed to the Ukr 3 IPC. So what you’re saying is that you gain much more revenue by invading Ukr and West Russia . . . as opposed to JUST invading West Russia (and doing nothing else). Isn’t that what you mean?
How does Belorus “block your attack”? With a German bid of 1-2 infantry there?
Germany counterattacks anyways, always; it’s part of early territory trading. Isn’t that right? I don’t think Germany is FORCED to counterattack Ukraine; it’s just a convenient and vulnerable target; wouldn’t you agree?
As far as Caucasus being threatened G1 and G2 - I feel that it is impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G1, and even with a West Russia/Belorussia attack instead of a West Russia/Ukraine attack, I feel that it is still near impossible for Germany to seriously threaten the Caucasus on G2. (Note that under both situations, Germany lost the West Russia forces and three additional infantry). If Germany attacks Caucasus on G1, even if USSR has nothing there and Germany moves everything in, and Japan sends fighters in, USSR can still counterattack in force, and Germany can NOT hold, or even seriously counterattack the Caucasus forces. Much the same holds for a G1 attack and hold on the Ukraine; any early attack there risks a heavy hit and run from West Russia. For that reason, I think the G2 take and hold of Caucasus is not possible, because I believe that any take and hold will require massed German forces in the Ukraine or West Russia on the previous turn, and I don’t see either happening on G1. I will say that an aggressive G2 attack on Caucasus supported by reinforcing Japanese fighters is possibly feasible, but it will be impossible for that to happen unless Japan makes severe sacrifices in the Pacific, and even then I think any G2 invasion of Caucasus would be risky given a USSR build of infantry, artillery, and tanks, for maybe USSR forces of 12 inf 3 art 4 tanks.
No I meant its better to take Wru and Ukr. instead of Wru and Belo. Its quite obvious why:
1. The 1IPC more :wink:
2. The German fighter
3. German Tank
4. prevention of attack in Caucus
5. It makes it harder for Germany to do its attacks (because of the lost fighter)It sometimes happens because of bad dice that Germany blocks your Belorus attack even without bid and with a bid of 1 Inf the chances get higher for you to be unsuccesful (as Russia I´m not willing to sacrifice my fighter formy Infantry piece if I´m hit to often)
Because of Ukr being such a voulnerable target Ger is forced to attack there, so this goes hand in hand.
With “threaten Caucasus” I don´t mean that Germany can attack it and stay there until the end of the game, but if R looses caucasus in G1 they have to produce in Russia, it decreases Russia´s attack rapidity and they can´t act against the axis so effectively, because they have got to get hold of Caucasus again 1st.
I´ve seen Germany often to reattack and hold Ukr on G1 so this isn´t that complicated. It´s true that R could counter, but in most games they don´t because they would loose the whole Wru stack ( so basically their whole army in the west) either in the attack or next round, after the German counterattack.
Ger is also in most games in TJ in G2 and so you have to defend Caucus from the South and West with a small army only. -
if you look at the map attacking Ukraine leaves you with a 3 space front instead of a four space of you attacked belorussia. also to counter attack Ukraine couldn’t you built 3inf in caucus and 3tanks in moscow and move the 2 inf in kazah into caucus instead of Persia to go to India?
-
The key factors to me are:
1. The possibility of failure in the Ukraine means the possibility of NO IPCs from Ukraine and the survival of the German fighter, and poor positioning for Russia2. Bad dice at Ukraine are far more disastrous for Russia than bad dice at Belorussia.
2. Committing extra forces to a Ukraine victory means the loss of 3 valuable tanks.
3. Germany’s lost fighter would probably have ended up in Africa or Western Europe on G1 anyways, where the UK and US race to build a navy. It’s a problem for the UK/US, but I find that quite acceptable in light of the UK/US production of 65-70 IPC.
4. Losing the Caucasus early is, I still think, not important. If you produce at Caucasus, you must go to West Russia or Ukraine to go to the German front; Ukraine is, I think, overextension, and West Russia is the same distance from Moscow as it is from Caucasus for this game. Besides which if Germany attacked Caucasus on G1, against a defending force of 4 infantry, that means Germany will have used valuable tanks, or risked air against the Caucasus AA gun (and weakened its attacks on valuable targets like the UK navy and Anglo-Egypt and its subsequent position for a UK1 fleet build). Quite acceptable.If there were a Belorussian infantry or multiple infantry bid, and no bid in the Ukraine, or if the Allies were going KJF, I would probably think of the Ukraine attack as the better choice. But in a game with no bids at either Belorussia or at Ukraine, I still split about 50/50 deciding between which to hit.
“It´s true that R could counter (Germany often to reattack and hold Ukr ), but in most games they don´t because they would loose the whole Wru stack”
Honestly, I don’t see the point of a heavy Russian counter into Ukraine on Russia2, particularly if Germany is in position to counter the next turn. It is likely that Germany will have attacked Ukraine with only LIGHT forces, in which case Russia can counterattack with infantry and fighters (not committing the West Russia stack), while hitting Belorussia and Karelia with additional West Russia forces. Only if Germany hit Ukraine with EVERYTHING should Russia even consider using the West Russia stack (because then there would be no German infantry reserve to counterattack next turn), but only if Germany didn’t build massed tanks at Berlin, but even then Russia has the option of attacking Karelia and Belorussia instead, moving units up from Moscow, and waiting for the Germans to overextend to Caucasus, or to reconsolidate to Eastern Europe.
-
Attack WR only, with overwhelming odds, winning in 1 round.
Hope to lose only 1-2 units
USSR 2, take back Ukraine, caucus, karelia, archangel, belo.
-
I find attacking WR only to be risky. With 3 infantry at Belorussia and another 3 from Ukraine, Germany can attack West Russia or Caucasus, or establish an early forward position at Ukraine.
I think depleting the forward German infantry is a sound idea.
-
What!? Attack the Ukraine with Russia on R1???
My favorite line of thinking is finally getting some attention on this board. It’s been the standard opener for me for over two years.
It’s less about what you kill (although the art/ arm/ ftr death is sweet), and more about dictating the tempo of the game.
An aggressive Russia forces more points of engagement for Germany, which increases the chances of one of their many dicey battles to not go so well. A 5 ftr Germany on G1 forces some tough decisions about their allocation. But most importantly IMO, it lets the German player know that you’re going to kill s–- every chance you get. Early psychological advantage- Russia. A passive/ defensive Russia allows Germany to set up their structures without having to react as much. Now Germany dictates tempo.
R1 Ukraine is a bad idea (IMO) if you’re messing around on the perimeter of the board with Britain and the US. You have to be focused on the prize- to make Germany uncomfortable quickly, to take back Africa efficiently and get Germany’s economy under 40 as fast as possible, so that Russia can turn and deal with Japan when Britain and the US take over the fight against the Reich.
If you plan on doing things other than cleanse Africa and embed yourself in the north with the other allies, then by all means be defensive with Russia, and take W Russia/ Belo or just W Russia.
-
@88:
What!? Attack the Ukraine with Russia on R1???
My favorite line of thinking is finally getting some attention on this board. It’s been the standard opener for me for over two years.
It’s less about what you kill (although the art/ arm/ ftr death is sweet), and more about dictating the tempo of the game.
An aggressive Russia forces more points of engagement for Germany, which increases the chances of one of their many dicey battles to not go so well. A 5 ftr Germany on G1 forces some tough decisions about their allocation. But most importantly IMO, it lets the German player know that you’re going to kill s–- every chance you get. Early psychological advantage- Russia. A passive/ defensive Russia allows Germany to set up their structures without having to react as much. Now Germany dictates tempo.
R1 Ukraine is a bad idea (IMO) if you’re diddling around with Britain and the US. You have to be focused on the prize- to make Germany uncomfortable quickly, to take back Africa quickly and get their economy under 40 as fast as possible, so that Russia can turn and deal with Japan when Britain and the US take over the fight against the Reich.
If you plan on doing things other than cleanse Africa and embed yourself in the north with the other allies, then by all means be defensive with Russia, and take W Russia/ Belo or just W Russia.
If you REALLY wanted to kill stuff every chance you got, you’d do a Norway/Eastern Europe-Belorussia-Ukraine attack. I far prefer not to just kill stuff, but to gain good overall position. I think a passive/defensive Russia is a bad idea too.
I typically attack into Europe and/or Africa with UK and US, threatening to the Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe route, and/or Western and Southern Europe, but I find that keeping the Russian tanks early makes for a far stronger counter against Japan late game - which is why I often opt for the Belorussia/West Russia attack instead of the Ukraine/West Russia attack.
-
Fair enough, and totally legitimate strat. There are lots of great ways to play the game.
I’d just say that when G1 rolls around and I still own the Ukraine (and its fighter), I’m happier than if I didn’t. That says everything I need to know about the effect it has on my opponents when I kill it.
And I would never, ever advocate killing stuff just for the sake of killing them, unless I had an advantage both positionally and economically and my opponent had no hope of regaining ground. But the first turn tells you alot about how you and your adversary will play the game, and an aggressive Russia is a force to be reckoned with when played within the framework of complimentary UK and US strategy. Blood spilled in the Ukraine is like punching someone in the nose. You know you’re in for a fight right off the bat. It’s an attitudinal and philosophical thing, rather than an IPC or game mechanic thing. And that does have an effect on the game- we’re not robots.
-
1. I am teh robot!
2. If Russia committed three tanks to Ukraine, I am very happy as Germany. Two tanks, moderately so. One tank and Russia got lucky, gr.
-
OK…
Russia SHOULD attack 2 territories on R1 in my opinion. West Russia is a given.
The question is whether to hit Ukraine or Belo.
Now Ukraine has its advantages. and in most games it pays off well for Russia.
Belo has a lower downside risk if it fails.But more important than the “odds” is this question…
WHAT ARE THE US AND UK DOING?If the UK is going to hit Norway on UK 1, and push hard into Karelia, etc., then Belo may indeed be the better move for Russia. If the US is going to reinforce this northern attack on Germany, then Belo is almost certianly the better option.
If the Allies are heading to Africa, then Ukraine may be a good choice… weaken the Germans in Africa.
Of course, you can also look at it from the split-reaction view… Allies to Africa on T1, then to Norway on T2, so Belo may STILL be a good option to break up a German consolidation befor ehte Allies land heavy… or the other way, that a Ukraine attack to make Germany weaker in Africa since Allies are only landing htere once.
Anyway, hope that was not too confusing. Just putting out reasons for why you may want to do either/or…
-
if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth. if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?
Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage
Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1
-
if ruusia attacks west Russia and Ukraine russia commits 3 tanks,3 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 fighters it will lose the 3 infantry and the artillery on average. it willl lose 13 ipc opposed to germany’s 28 ipc. so far that is a incresae of 15ipc + the 6 the trade of ukraine is worth. if you take the westrussia attack with 2inf from kareila,and the 3inf from both russia and archangle with theirr artillwry and tank, into consideration then you lose four infantry and are left 4inf1art and 1tank in westrussia. that is a 12ipc lose for you and 18 for germany plus 4 for the trade. this puts russia and a 31ipc advantage for R1. Asumming russia buys 2inf2art2tanks and put the two tanks in russia how would you counter attack?
Option 2 send all units to west russia. tht will leave you 9inf 2art and 3 tank there for a lose of 6 instead of 18. so this is and advatge of 14ipc for russia. thsi is really only a 10ipc advantage beacuse germany will attack karellia and get 4ipc advantage
Option3 attack belrussia and westrussia youwill have 2inf in belrussia for an ipc advantageof 12. then for westrussia you will end with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. and ipc advantage of 9+4. this is a toatal advantage of 25 ong1 in teh counter attack and a blixt ferman will lose sme land units so terrtory wise this is +12 so you have a 13ipc advantage on the end of G1
You almost totally did not mention the possibility of German counterattack, sole exception Karelia.
The advantage of Belorussia is that 1) there is much less chance of a disastrous battle, 2) in case the battle does turn bad, Russia’s position will still be strong, 3) Russia preserves its tanks beyond the German counterattack on G1.
-
I used to be a strong advocate of attacking Ukraine instead of Belo but I recently changed my mind. For 3 reasons.
1. As stated before, an unfavorable result in Belo is a minor setback. An unfavorable result in Ukraine is potentially disatrous.
2. Armor is much more valuable to Russia than it is to Germany. Germany can easily replace the Ukraine losses while Russia can’t. Forcing yourself to have to completely rebuild the Russian armored corps when you should be building infantry is just helping the Axis. As the frontlines close in around Russia, armor located in a central point, such as Cauc or Rus, can threaten many territories at once. Don’t throw away your armor early when you might be desperately needing it later in the game.
3. Most importantly, the payoff is roughly equal. After you consider the gains and losses of unit IPC value, position, and restriction of Germany’s opening turn it all ends up being about the same except Ukraine is just riskier. If you attack WR and Belo, you’re usually going to get a first round kill in WR. If you attack Ukraine and WR, you may come out ahead by winning in Ukraine but it’s mitigated by the fact that you will be allowing Germany usually 2 rounds or more of defense in WR. By attacking Ukraine, you have to count on a good WR attack with far less firepower than if you had attacked Belo. If the WR attack goes poorly, no matter what happens in Ukraine, Russia comes out on the losing end. All the benefits of having Ukraine go well can be wiped out by a round or two of good defense in WR.
Attack Belo. No matter what happens in the Belo attack you’re still in a solid defensible position. Attacking Ukraine can sometimes leave you extended and vulnerable. Let the Axis make the risky attacks. There is no reason to take the chance of shifting the balance of power in Europe to the Axis before Germany even gets it’s first turn.
-
what about the attack/retreat option in ukr? there are some benefits to that move as well. ukr is definitly the more strategic position of the two(ukr/belo) and by not attacking ukr on r1 than you are potentially giving up the ability to trade that terroritory. with smart german play that is.
Suggested Topics
