Necessity of Attacking Ukraine (R1)

@Mallery29:

E.Europe as the territory, not as a whole

Let me rephrase: Allies control E. Europe, they control the entire Eastern front and deny its income to Germany and secure it to themselves. Let Japan have Africa (and divert units away from Russia).

@Paulzy:

Question … my typical R1 (ussr) purchase is 2 inf 2 arty 2 tanks or 3 inf 3 tanks.

Dice combat movement is all out for Ukraine and WR … usually sending 1 Fig or tank to WR instead … leaving around 85% odds in kraine and 99% odds in WR.

If these attacks go bad, example … 1G fig left in ukraine … only 2 or 3 russian units left in WR … what is the best move for russia and the allies ?

Surrender. Start the game again :)

@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).

Just to clarify….the OP is referring to the AE gambit in low luck.  So he’s not really risking much by taking one less fig to UKR…he will still take it 100% but just with higher than av. losses.

It’s difficult to judge the efficacy of the gambit because whether it works or not depends on dice and the German player’s reaction.  If Germany ends up skipping SZ2…then it worked.  Or if Germany fails to actually take Egy, it worked.  The main risk is if Germany goes to both 2 and Egy and succeeds…  On the other hand, sometimes Germany will go to both 2 and Egy and get diced up…even 2 is not a sure thing in low luck because of the Russian sub.

Honestly Granada I would have to show you in a game. Not to sound cocky but I am very good and don’t make mistakes. For this strategy to work you have know when you are able to move your infantry stacks out of Germany/southern Germany/Eastern Europe/ and sometime karelia if you are here. You are correct in that germany won’t have much attack power. I almost always build 10 inf 2 tanks R1. Gives Germany some options on R2. Even possibly sending a tank to africa if your fleet was not destroyed. The thing is Germany doesn’t need attack power so much as Stacking power. 6 tanks =30 while as 10 infantry=30 is a huge difference. The more units you can stack in a Certain area the better. I am not a big fan of trying to take an hold western Europe. I Usually give this up very early on in the game and send almost everything at Russia. Germany’s tanks are vital in holding back both russia and US and UK. Try keeping Germany tankss in Eastern Europe. This both protects against a combined stack in western europe from the allies, and also is realy scary to russia and can hit many fronts on your eastern theatre.

Yes, that’s correct.  The move is done after the attacker finishes all battles, but before the attacker makes any noncombat movements.

Thanks. I skimmed through the book one more time before asking, but couldn’t find anything.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

I think this is a question of value… You can chose to ignore transports, allowing Bombardment on the territory, which improves your chances of winning the IPC’s and position from territory.
…OR choose to sink Transports Each costing 7 IPC’s but lose the bombardment option.
I think they did this to force the choice, for strategic purposes and game balance

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

Doesn’t make much sense to me, If an Entire Sea Zone is considered hostile because of any amount of surface warships, any Sea units entering their fire range are vulnerable.  If i were a defending Carrier with planes and i see lots of ships Im gonna try to sink the most valued units, it would help my defense in the land portion. Also, if the attacker could do that then the defender should have some similar balancing option, like maybe the ability to retreat defending planes, to the Land Territ.