How often do you hold back attack forces?

I think two of the general considerations are: 1) Is taking the territory worth losing the unit in a possible (or likely) counter attack? And 2) Does sending a unit to a territory take it out of range for an attack where it will be needed on the next turn?

As for Russia specifically, I’ve seen people take West Russia with overwhelming force, and take the Ukraine with minimal force. This leads to the Germans taking back the Ukraine, but being unable to take West Russia.

I’ve also seen people try to take a third territory on R1. The problem is that a failure in the Ukraine could leave the Caucasus open for invasion. If the Axis thinks they can capture and hold the Caucasus, they just might give it a shot. Don’t forget, if Germany captures it, Japan has four fighters they can land there J1. If most of Russia’s units are in West Russia, a German invasion of the Caucasus is what I would call, “Taking the bait.” If Russia is spread too thin and can’t take the Caucasus back, that’s what I would call a, “Catastrophic failure of leadership.”

@football2006:

The most common example that I’ve encountered is when Russia holds back a tank against Ukraine R1.

This is a good Monster in the Toilet example.  What’s the Monster in the Toilet?  Well, this plumber gets a call from his mom, see, and apparently the nice old lady can’t get her toilet to flush.  So he says did you try this and did you try that and she’s like “yep, did that, did that.”  So eventually they can’t figure it out over the phone and he comes on over.  So the plumber opens up the toilet tank and discovers a small gremlin inside that keeps screwing with the tank so it won’t fill up and flush.  The plumber asks his mom why she didn’t mention the gremlin, and she says he never asked.

So in this case - when you say “Russia holds back a tank”, what exactly does that “held back” tank do, what are the combat moves, what are the noncombat moves?  Why didn’t you ask whoever held back the tank why they did it?  If you did, why wasn’t that answer sufficient to explain “why people do what they do”?  If you didn’t, why didn’t you?

Almost never. In fact, one of my specialities is the widdle. I will attack a superior infantry stack if I have enough hardware that can retreat to a safe position.

(This is in response to the clarified situation of a R1 UKR (Ukraine)/WR (West Russia) attack with 2 tanks and 2 fighters at UKR being called “held back” as opposed to the UKR/WR attack with 3 tanks and 2 fighters at UKR.)

If you attack UKR with 3 tanks 2 fighters, you have a great chance of capturing UKR.  But you will lose about 1 more inf at West Russia, and your tanks at UKR will die on G1, being traded for German infantry.  The 2 tanks 2 fighters has a lower chance of capturing UKR, but a bit of good luck results in capture of UKR, and preserving an extra infantry at West Russia, and saving a tank from the German counter.  That’s 8 IPC of units.  On the other hand, Russia capturing Ukraine with 2-4 units puts pressure on Germany to kill Russia’s valuable tanks, so usually will drain additional German ground units on G1, vulnerable to the R2 counter.

By the way, you sometimes see 3 tanks 1 fighter at Ukraine.  The idea is that it’s similar in attack power to 2 tanks 2 fighters, but Russia can afford to “stay” longer (i.e. if there’s 2 Russian fighters and 1 German fighter remaining, the Russians will probably best retreat, but 1 Russian tank and 1 Russian fighter vs 1 German fighter allows Russia to keep going).  The second Russia fighter hits WR to increase hitting power there to help preserve an extra infantry.

That’s the SHORT version.  For the LONG-WINDED version, see below.

3 tanks 2 fighters at Ukraine can leave Russia with 2-4 ground units surviving, which puts a lot of pressure on Germany.  Probably Germany’s best response is to send 2 fighters to the UK cruiser, battleship/transport/infantry/artillery to Anglo-Egypt (fighting UK destroyer on way), fighter/bomber/sub vs UK battleship/Russian sub, fighter to Anglo-Egypt.  The fifth fighter is often sent to UK cruiser in dice games as a “safety” (Germany’s gambling with expensive fighters, and losing both fighters would be awful), but with a R1 build of 2 inf 2 art 2 tank (leaving 4 inf 2 art 2 fighter on Cauc, plus surviving West Russia forces plus 2 tanks from Russia), whatever Germany counters UKR with will die on R2 (even if Japan flies what fighters it can in).  Since Germany won’t have cheap artillery at Ukraine, that means sending expensive tanks, or committing a fighter.  Probably Germany will do best to send a tank and fighter, plus infantry (as opposed to sending a couple of tanks plus infantry, saving Germany a 5 IPC tank).  So in sum, Russia hits hard R1 and loses a few extra IPC worth of units on the German counter, but Germany will probably have to take a few chances on G1 to counter to best effect, and will probably have to drain out 1-2 extra infantry or a tank.  The Russian recapture of Ukraine on R2 will kill those German units, compensating for the loss of the third Russian tank.

2 tanks 2 fighters at Ukraine risks failure.  If successful, Germany can still counter as listed above.  But failure to capture Ukraine on R1 can be a real problem, with Russians possibly losing West Russia, Ukraine, and Caucasus, particularly with bad dice at West Russia and/or Ukraine (esp if a fair number of German units survive at Ukraine).  The easiest Russia contingency plan is probably Caucasus AA gun to West Russia, and 1 Russian infantry at Caucasus to prevent the 1-German-infantry walk in.  The remaining Russian forces stay in Russia.  UK can sometimes recapture Caucasus from Persia (with UK air), and Russia can probably counter decently too.  (But with a German build of 8 tanks, things get nasty fast, and 4 Jap fighters can land on a German-held Caucasus on J1.)

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Almost never. In fact, one of my specialities is the widdle. I will attack a superior infantry stack if I have enough hardware that can retreat to a safe position.

Aw.  Cute widdle infantriez.

It’s all about numbers people!

4 Russian armor/ftrs going to Ukraine: about 80% odds that all G forces will be destroyed

5 armor/ftrs: 90% odds

First scenario, you’re playing roughly with the same odds that a bomber has of being shot down by an AA. Of course, if you lose you risk losing more than just a bomber ;)

@Hobbes:

It’s all about numbers people

Bah, numbers!  There’s too many of them!

@Bunnies:

@Hobbes:

It’s all about numbers people

Bah, numbers!  There’s too many of them!

oo

:-D

When it comes to ongoing trades, I like to err on the side of certainty (if possible). Say if there’s 2 inf on a territory–I’d rather attack with 3 inf arm (99% in low luck) than 2 inf arm (90% in low luck), because the odds of 2 inf arm failing are much higher.  And if the 3 inf arm capture the territory with little or no losses, then they will get to fire on defense.  The payoff for taking the extra inf isn’t just being certain you will win.  You are also less likely to take hits while capturing the territory.  In addition, you will inflict more hits on defense, as well as force the enemy to commit more forces in its counterattack–forces that you will get to attack on the following turn.  Of course, if I know I can’t counterattack the territory again, then I’d rather use the 2 inf arm, in order to minimize my losses.

With regard to the Ukraine trade you describe, Russia used everything to take Ukraine because 1) it wanted to take Ukraine with as few losses as possible and 2) it wanted to inflict as many casualties as possible on defense.

Initially, it seemed like a good idea, because Germany took a big TUV hit in those trades, because it barely took back Ukraine on G2 and you lost a plane to the aa when you did.  However overall Axis was in a good position because it was using a Japan tank dash strategy and those trades weakened Russia’s ability to attack tanks on the border of Moscow.  Those trades enabled Allies to pin down Germany, but unfortunately for Allies Russia was also critically weakened.  So while leaving the 6 inf 5 arm for Russia to counter-attack looked like a mistake to Bunnies and me, because Germany was going to get the worst of the exchange, in the end it worked out fine for Axis because the Jap tanks were in position to capitalize on a weak Russia.  So maybe the correct conclusion is given the Jap strategy Allies shouldn’t have attacked Ukraine.  If not that, Allies should have done more to support Moscow with the UK and find ways to trade Allied infantry for Japanese tanks.

So in conclusion, I feel Russia had 2 choices–attack Ukr with everything, or not attack at all.  The other choice to be made was whether to retreat after the 1st round, and in this case Allies probably should have done so.

If you were buying infantry and transports with Japan instead of factories and tanks, then Russia should definitely attack that 6 inf 5 arm.  But with the kind of pressure you can get with the Jap tank dash, maybe it’s a bad idea for Russia to make big trades with Germany early on.  It’s a good example of how one has to be adaptable to what is going on and not assume anything.

My R1 move is to send everything that I can to Ukraine, and then everything that remains (besides one infantry on Karelia) to West Russia.

Taking a tank from the Ukraine battle to West Russia (which is the other option I am considering) creates:

• a more sizable attack force to retake Ukraine next turn
• less of a chance to lose a bunch of guys on West Russia
• fewer tanks to die next turn

• a lower chance to take Ukraine fully (bad= fighter survives, worst= enough Germans survive to pressure Caucasus… my Caucasus stack after R1 is 5 inf, 1 art, 2 fig)
• less defending units on Ukraine to hurt the incoming German force (nipping an extra infantry or two allows an easier chance to retake Ukraine and have a good stack there after R2)

Any opinions on what I am missing or what you regularly choose given this information?

If you want to read more on this topic, search the Revised forums, because since the Ukr attack is exactly the same in Revised, it was no doubt discussed to death there.

As for my own opinion….  In a dice game, I’ll never skimp on Ukraine.  No way am I going to risk 87% odds when I could have 96% odds.  Ever since I started sending 3 arm instead of 2 arm to Ukr, losing at Ukr has become more and more rare.  But back when I sent only 2 arm, disaster at Ukr seemed relatively commonplace…as it ought to be, since 13% is not such a low number.

Even in low luck, I personally prefer all 3 tanks to Ukraine, because I want to pressure Germany and force them to spread out their forces.  If Germany has to commit 4 inf 2 arm to destroy my 3 arm in Ukr, then that means Russia gets to counter attack whatever remains of that 4 inf 2 arm on R2.

But I certainly agree there is an excellent case for holding back the tank in a low luck game.

@Zhukov44:

But I certainly agree there is an excellent case for holding back the tank in a low luck game.

Me and Bunnies were discussing last night on TripleA that if you are playing LL you should go for broke with Russia and attack Belo, WR and Ukr on R1. It easier for the Russians to replace the additional units lost in Belo/WR than it is for the Germans because of their long supply lines of reinforcements.

@Bunnies:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Almost never. In fact, one of my specialities is the widdle. I will attack a superior infantry stack if I have enough hardware that can retreat to a safe position.

Aw.  Cute widdle infantriez.

Don’t make fun of my spelling and I won’t make fun of your corny jokes.