R1 Indian Factory

@theROCmonster:

G1 Egypt without the fighter is 2 infantry arty tank fighter bomber vs inf tank fighter… not that big of a risk at all.

When I am Germany it is.  :-P :wink:

When I would play Revised more often, I had a penchant for having that battle go horribly wrong. We usualyl had 7 bids for Germany which meant inf/art in Libya

The best example.
With 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 ftr, 1 bmb, I rolled 12 out of 13 6’s the first 2 rounds. He got 4 hits the first two rounds. I wish I still had the screenshots.

I eventually I had ftr/bmb left and I think all he had was ftr, but I still retreated. Sometimes you just gotta know when the dice hate you and it is futile to object.

1.  You can transport units from S Eur to Libya and consolidate so you have 6 German ground in Libya at end of G1.  This allows Germany to make a serious play for Africa regardless of the fate of the Mediterranean battleship.

2.  If Russia wants to spend precious precious air on a shot against my German battleship, they’re welcome to it.

3.  If Russia screws around with anything but inf/art/tank, it opens the door for early German control of Karelia, particularly if Germany abandons Africa.  (They don’t HAVE to abandon Africa, but if they DO, it’s much harder to stop Germany).  One or two units can make a big difference in the balance of power.

–

Re:  German control of Africa:  German control of Africa and preservation of the German Mediterranean fleet can be a big plus.   Germany has more income.  Japan doesn’t need to devote as much power to Africa, leaving it to put more pressure on Russia - and with a KGF in play, Japan’s will be the main attack.

That isn’t to say the Germans HAVE to be in Africa.  But if the Germans can get into Africa without giving up too much position in Europe, it’s something to think about.

–

To answer the OP - if Russia buys any non-ground units on R1, I’m immediately thinking about ways to make major major nasty attacks.  Like “Break West Russia with Germany or secure Ukraine, build 8 G1 tanks, build 2 ICs with Japan, and tank tank tank east and west” - that sort of thinking.  It might not be possible to smash Russia up real fast, but things can be REAL nasty real quick if Russia leaves 6 infantry on Buryatia, or bled strength off towards Africa/India, or did anything else not along the lines of a UKR/WR open.

I have much to learn!  Thank you all very much for your input!

@Bunnies:

@BigPapaSmurf:

Send 5 inf from Kar/Arch, 1 Artillery and two fighters to West russia and stack everything else in Cauc. Leave one Inf in Lenningrad and do your standard moves on the east end.

Don’t you run into Germany taking Karelia and West Russia, and establishing a strong center position from which Russia cannot reclaim Karelia income?

Bunnies is correct. G takes West Russia with units from BR/Ukr. Russia can retake West Russia but will only earn 27 IPC, not being able to contest Belorussia and Karelia. Germany meanwhile can build 5 inf, 5 arm on G1 and put some serious pressure to prevent Russia from stacking West Russia on turn 2.

The main goal of the Ukr attack is IMHO to get the fighter,

Cutting most of Germany’s ability to attack Caucasus is another big big plus.  If Russia lucks out on the Ukraine attack, Germany may either risk fighters on G1 on other targets to send a fighter to Ukraine, or may send valuable tanks to reclaim Ukraine.  Or if Russia lucks out at Ukraine, Russia may retreat to Caucasus to preserve its tanks/artillery.

As equally as important as the fighter is to protect the Russian units on West Russia from being destroyed on G1. If you lose them, you lose any chance of contesting Karelia/Belorussia. Germany may also stack Ukraine like you mentioned, cutting off 3 IPC to Russia (plus the 2 from Belorussia) and both sides get into a war of positions that doesn’t favor Russia (i.e. the Allies better get quickly to help).

I totally agree with the bottleneck problem in Jordan/Persia, in particular with larger valuable targets.  But, with only a few pieces, but a long line of them, you would end up with a dead zone in Jordan/Persia.  The US would/could have air support from Russian territory to help in this dead zone and the Japs tend to have most of their air tied up in Fortress Europe.  If the US 8 or so IPCs ends up being an even trade for Jap IPCs and control over Africa is maintained, I say advantage allies.

I’m not sure if it is easier or that much easier for the allies to get forces to Africa, depends on the philosophy of the players and direction of the game.

I find that the allies tend to play on the edge, that the supply chain cannot be broken and flexibility often costs resources that are not are can not be invested.  Ok, say the game has settled down to a typical rhythm, allied control of Africa, US fleet in Sz2, allied fleet shucking into/onto europe.  At some point the allies make a choice that requires their supply chain of reinforcements to be steady, I find this occurs when they first land in the Karelia area and expect to live a round.  At this point, does the allied fleet have enough strength/flexility/position to now start landing forces in Algeria?  Even there, it takes them a few turns to move up to and take Egypt and move into the rest of Africa unless you move allied transports past Sz12 to Sz17/Sz23, in which case they are out of position to continue to shuck.

The Japs are attacked by the brits and start out with 1 transport typically, and typically build 3 on J1.  A shuck between Sz36 to Sz60/61 develops dropping off 8 units per turn.  An extra transport every round or two means all the output from Japan gets moved and slowly islands have units taken off to the mainland and attacks on Australia and New zealand with threats to Alaska and hawaii perhaps never pursued as lost opportunity of those units in asia is greater than the reward.

By round 5, and IC should be built on FIC and or India.  I find it tempting to wander around with the Jap fleet but I avoid it with anything but the odd lone transport or sub.  So, with a large Jap fleet in Sz34 BBs and CVs you can shuck infantry from India to Egypt that start out in Japan as builds but quickly move to FIC then India.  Tanks that you build in the FIC and Ind ICs just drive there, clear Persia then as non combat moves drive them from India to Trans Jorden.  Tanks there can hit Karelia or allied forces that move up to Lib, and Libya can be hit by the Japanese navy though it takes them out of play and subjects them to attack from Sz12.  If the allies get too strong in Lib, pull back to East Africa and hammer them when they move into Egypt in force.

I’m not sure what the Germans would have to do if the Japs just used an idle fleet to hop from FIC to Egy, the capital ships are often under used, 4 transports must be reserved to offload from Japan and it would only take 2 transports to move meaningful amounts of infantry and artillery from India to Egypt with tanks just driving there.  A large Jap force in Egypt is way more flexible than a large allied force in Algeria.  Mind you, switching gears to Algeria means a jump in threat to Weu but only a 1 turn increase followed by a decrease once this is abandoned by the allies.

Here’s the options for R1, as I see them.

1.  Belorussia/West Russia.  Wipes out forward German infantry, preventing a strong G1 attack against Russian-held West Russia, and keeps Russian tanks at West Russia, where they’re safe.

2.  Ukraine/West Russia.  Wipes out forward German infantry, preventing a strong G1 attack against Russian-held West Russia.  Destroys a German fighter, tank, and artillery.  The German fighter is VERY valuable.  But Russian tanks need to be committed to Ukraine, and will be destroyed in the German counterattack.

2A.  Ukr/WR with 2 Russian tanks / 2 Russian fighters.  There’s about a 19% chance that the Russians will lose one or both fighters on the attack.  There’s about a 12% chance that the Russians will keep both fighters, destroy all German units on Ukraine, but fail to capture Ukraine.  That leaves about a 69% chance of claiming Ukraine with at least one Russian tank.

2B.  Ukr/WR with 3 Russian tanks / 2 Russian fighters.  About a 4% chance the Russians lose both fighters, 2% of losing one fighter, 5% of both fighters surviving but losing everything else. That leaves about a 89% chance of claiming Ukraine with at least one Russian tank.

3.  Norway/West Russia.  Attacking with 2 fighters preserves the UK battleship, but leaves the German infantry at Belorussia and Ukraine intact, allowing the Germans to hit West Russia very hard on G1, and the Russian fighter is lost.  Not discussed in my earlier poll regarding Norway/West Russia was the German fighter depletion strategy.

4.  West Russia/Ukraine/Norway.  Russia attacks at three territories.  Making three attacks instead of two means Russia has to split its forces more, meaning increased casualties when attacking, and leaving the dispersed forces vulnerable to counterattack.  Or, Germany could take advantage of Russia’s weak position by immediately trying to establish a secure forward position, from which it cannot easily be dislodged as Russia’s attacking forces are so weak.  This attack CAN kill 2 German fighters, though, but odds are good that at least one survives.

Let’s elaborate on 4) a bit.

Russia has 2 fighters that can be assigned anywhere, as needed.  Assigning both to Norway means at least one will die, either on the attack, or to the G1 attack on Karelia, where the second Russian fighter must land.

Germans defend Norway with 3 infantry 1 fighter; Russia can hit with 3 infantry 1 tank.  At LEAST one Russian fighter should be committed for this attack to have any chance of real success; 1 Russian fighter leaves about a 60% chance the Russian fighter survives and the German fighter dies.  2 Russian fighters leave about a 89% chance of one Russian fighter surviving (again, even if both Russian fighters survive the initial battle, one dies in the German counterattack).

Germans defend Ukraine with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter; Russia can hit with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 tanks.  Russia has a 62% chance of killing the German fighter even without any Russian fighter.  Adding a Russian fighter brings the odds to about 81% that the Russian fighter survives and the German fighter dies; if the Russian fighter is expendable, it’s about 87% chance the German fighter goes down.  (For this reason, I think when trying to deplete the German air force, it’s better to hit Norway with 1 fighter and Ukraine with 1 fighter, than to send both to Norway).

Germans defend West Russia with 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank.  Russia can hit with 6 infantry 1 artillery.  Without going into it, this spends a lot of Russian blood, with a success rate of about 63% - and usually even if winning, just one or two Russian units are left.  That’s why a lot of players opt to use the second fighter not at Ukraine, but at West Russia, bringing the odds of success to about 90% and an average of about 3 Russian units surviving.

With 60/60/90 attacks, there’s a 64% chance of failure at at least one of the important German-fighter battles.  Germany can rush tanks east and create an early strong position.  However, Germany cannot grab Caucasus early, and with West Russia in Russian hands, Germany doesn’t have the power to smash into Moscow immediately.

It’s also possible to hit Ukr/Norway only, instead of draining Russia’s attack power to try to take West Russia, The Germans can grab a lot of territory on G1, but they can’t hold most of it.  The problem with that is lousy position at the start of R2; Russia doesn’t have any territories to trade.

Comment - Ukraine with 3 tanks/2 fighters has about a 4% “total failure” rate, losing both Russian fighters, with 2% loss of one Russian fighter, and 5% of both Russian fighters surviving, leaving about 89% chance of one German fighter going down.  Compare to Russia committing both fighters to Ukr/Norway (either doing Ukr/Norway alone, or Ukr/Norway/West Russia) with a 8% chance of total failure, not killing any German fighters, 44% chance to bag 1 German fighter, and a 48% chance of whacking both German fighters - but BOTH Russian fighters survive.

Comment 2 - the loss of Russian tanks hurts a lot.  Russian tanks can threaten a lot of different territories, and can dash back and forth between the German and Japanese fronts as necessary.  It’s not that they DO dash back and forth; it’s just the THREAT they pose that’s so nasty.  But losing German fighters hurts Germany a lot too, so it’s a bit of a toss-up.

agreed… also This game is supposed to be a simulation of what you can do with what was available.  also the value and production limits are there to simulate the Time and resources involved in the war effort.  To make a drastic change of unlimited deployment are game breaking changes that will affect further game play.   besides, Ive played many games on the board… and every country has had there share of victory… one game Russia dominated germany, another game japan dominated the US, another Game UK Wiped out Japan, and once the US hammered both Axis into the ground.  Fantastic games…

i was thinking about that if they kept interceptors at the IC then they couldn’t use them on attack runs against you also, but yes, I believe that they choose between the attack and the SBR for defense as well.  Should they choose to intercept the SBR and then loose the territory, they would have the one move point to find a safe landing zone, such as with carriers being sunk and fighters needing to land…