Russia Turn 2



  • German troops positions:
    E Poland: 21 infantry, 4 mech, 6 tanks, 5 artillery, AA
    Poland: 5 artillery, 5 infantry, 1 tank
    Germany: 9 tanks, 5 tacs, 5 fighters, 1 bomber
    Romania: 5 infantry
    Karelia: 4 infantry

    If he moves his E Poland army forward to Belarus, I could hit them with about:
    31 infantry, 2 mech, 6 tanks, 8 artillery, 1 tac, 2 fighters

    In reserve I would have about 9 infantry and 1 tank, minus purchases for the round. Obviously my advantage is my troops would be right on the front. I also have all (18) of my eastern forces, but will probably make a stand this round against Japan since he vacated the Jap supporting aircraft out of Siberia. My 18 would face 10 infantry and 1 tank. If worse comes to worse I could throw a few British aircraft out of Persia into Moscow for the defense

    Worth it??



  • Something I have been doing with Germany the past few games is prior to war with Russia, I end up purchasing a lot of arty.  I usually have a few more arty than inf after the initial clashes in Russia.  This is great for the Germans because all those reinforcing infantry, and any you build from Lenningrad/Ukraine will have arty support immediately, also any following mech inf….  This keeps Russia from being able to stop my forward progress until I have reached the gates of Moscow, at which time Germany is making sooooo much more than Russia that they can just wait it out and start manning the Atlantic Wall in force.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Rock’n’Roll:

    The point I am making is this:  Either you advance with the Mechanized Infantry, and thus leave your Infantry fodder in the dust, or you use your Mechanized Infantry exactly like expensive Infantry units.  So why bother?

    I have my reasons, what are yours?



  • Hmmm…Aircraft Carrier anyone???


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    If you do not go after England, why get a carrier?  Wouldnt an airbase serve you better?  (in Germany.  Gives you 6 aircraft to protect transports)



  • I’ll jump in for rock n roll when it comes to utilizing mech infantry, and it goes beyond attack/defense numbers, punch, and numbers of units.

    Initiative.

    I frankly couldn’t care less about what is in what stack, and what my opponent bought etc., in relation to the following question:

    Am I reacting to them or are they reacting to me? The answer to that question will usually tell you who is winning a game. You can have less units on the board and be making less money and still be winning, if you’re forcing your opponent to react to you.

    Mech infantry in and of itself is inferior to artillery in many ways… after all, it’s basically just an infantry on wheels… however! If you use them as a way to maintain an advantage through superior mobility options, you limit how much your opponent can dictate terms to you. I can’t overstate how important this is. Mech Infantry is a tool to help create pressure.

    And going back to one of your earlier posts, I would never place armor/mech stacks in position to be killed by infantry in an even swap, unless doing so bought me so much advantage that it was worth it. Armor and mech paired create the ability to exploit weaknesses, by 1) parking themselves in places where they can strike multiple locations, 2) can be used to take and hold ground, or 3) go behind enemy lines to harass and exploit economy and not be subject to a sizable counterattack.

    If I can’t slip behind the lines, or would be subject to a sizable counterattack (that didn’t bring me an equally sizable advantage), I would utilize them for options 1) and 2).

    Infantry/artillery, by the way, are utterly fantastic and worth every IPC… so I defend your math, and the philosophy behind it. But for me, the infantry/artillery becomes the anvil and the mech/armor becomes the hammer.

    Try the mech/armor combo plate! You might just like it.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I am just saying they are situational.  Strategic Bombers are situational too, since a Tactical Bomber is cheaper, defends better and attacks at the same value as a strategic in most instances (because you usually have fighters and armor with them.)  Doesn’t mean I want them out of the game, just saying they are situational.

    If Russia is in Greece, S. Germany, Norway, China and the far eastern reaches, they I could see MI being effective.  America could use MI for racing across the African tundra.



  • I agree with - they are very situational, rather than a standard purchase, whereas artillery should be a standard purchase, because they’re a great piece.

    I’m in a game right now in which I had about six mech infantry with Russia… they (combined with a couple armor and a few infantry) allowed me to strike Japan first in the north and kill a large force, then wheel south the next turn and strafe the Japanese in Kansu. Against Germany, my last few on the front are preparing to die on defense, but they were held in mobile reserve for many turns, able to threaten (again, with Russian armor) multiple spots… I kept them in reserve in Byansk - from there the mobility allows me to threaten Archangel, Belarus, E Poland, both Ukraines, and Bessarabia as long as I stay solvent in Ukraine and in Smolensk, which I have been (I long ago lost Novgorod). That’s six territories threatened! And the ability to wheel around and deal with Japanese forces quickly, if needed. Yes they are 4 IPCs, but I could never get that kind of threat out of straight infantry - their movements are predictable. Not that I don’t buy tons of Inf/Art! You’re right on about that. Just that a mobile reserve for Russia of 4-6 mech to go with their armor is a nice thing to have.

    I agree with US across Africa, and also with Britain in S Africa - they get north quickly.



  • @Cmdr:

    Rock’n’Roll:

    The point I am making is this:  Either you advance with the Mechanized Infantry, and thus leave your Infantry fodder in the dust, or you use your Mechanized Infantry exactly like expensive Infantry units.  So why bother?

    I have my reasons, what are yours?

    i would never leave anyone in the dust… 😉

    but you didn´t get me right. to answer your question i only need one line:
    my reason is fast reinforcement!

    now i ask you: imagine you are on G3 building phase, your troops are in east poland. what do you think you´ll buy? can usual infantry keep up the pace attacking moscow on G6? 😉

    thanx in advance for your answer

    rock`n roll
    p.s. thank you for aiding me, stalingradski! 🙂



  • If you do not attempt sea-lion then Germany should not buy a carrier or pretty much any other surface warship except maybe a destroyer. An air base is the way to protect any vulnurable transports. Though I think one in Norway (if you can hold norway) is a better spot than one in Germany.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Strikers:

    If you do not attempt sea-lion then Germany should not buy a carrier or pretty much any other surface warship except maybe a destroyer. An air base is the way to protect any vulnurable transports. Though I think one in Norway (if you can hold norway) is a better spot than one in Germany.

    The problem is holding Norway.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 3
  • 18
  • 21
  • 8
  • 3
  • 21
  • 24
I Will Never Grow Up Games

47
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts