1. Sending “all infantry towards Russia” is not a practice I approve of. I prefer to leave 1 infantry at Buryatia. Suppose you abandon Buryatia completely. Japan can walk in with a single infantry, send the remainder to China, and use its lone transport (assuming the Kwangtung transport was destroyed) to French Indochina, preparatory to hitting India or Africa.
True, if you leave 1 infantry on Buryatia, it can be destroyed. But that typically means Japan’s transport stays at sea zone 60 (east of Japan) instead of heading to the French Indochina sea zone preparatory to hitting Africa/Australia/India, or it means Japan diverts units from Manchuria to Buryatia, weakening its infantry base at China, and splitting off a fighter from another attack that is typically at least as important.
To use a chess analogy, it is an almost definite loss of Russian material to leave 1 Russian infantry on Buryatia, but I think it puts enough positional pressure on Japan at the China/French Indochina regions to compensate.
2. I never consider building only a single tank with Russia. Either it’s 2 infantry 2 artillery 2 tanks, or 3 infantry 3 tanks. Granted, I typically do a Ukraine/West Russia attack, but the thinking behind the build of 2+ tanks applies almost regardless of the Russian open - you are building tanks for Moscow placement so you can generally threaten to take and hold ground against Germany early, and specifically threaten a German take and hold of Karelia. (Only if Russia does a triple attack should it avoid a R1 tank build, because in that event Russia almost certainly won’t be able to mount any sort of credible take and hold threat.)
3. In GENERAL - and please remember that each game is different - if Germany decides to try to hold Ukraine on G1
Now what are the German options to hold ukraine during R2?
you abandon Africa. You do NOT hit Egypt. Your typical Med fleet movement will be German battleship vs UK cruiser, and German transport picking up Libya units and dropping in Ukraine. This makes a difference of FOUR units in Europe. Instead of picking up and dropping two units from Europe into Africa (-2 to Europe), you pick up and drop two Africa units to Europe (+2 to Europe); difference is four units! Of course, only two of those units are immediately at Ukraine; the other two are at Balkans for the follow up wave.
BUT THEN AGAIN -
You typically should NOT be trying to hold Ukraine on G1 if you cannot follow up with G2 West Russia then G3 Caucasus!
What? you say.
Okay, let’s look at the possibilities. Ideally you want to hold Ukraine and hit Anglo-Egypt, because that is just so Best of Both Worlds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d93zox1Jqk0&feature=fvst (Miley Cyrus)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQDn5BU0bQ (Van Halen)
But the balance is generally not favorable for Germany in the end - or at least not as favorable as it COULD be.
Take a R1 Ukraine/West Russia open. What ends up happening, even on an unsuccessful Russian attack against Ukraine (allowing Germany to move in fighters for reinforcement to Ukraine at end of G1) is that G1 tank build catches up, but they run into a Russian wall, and Germany ends up having to trade tanks for infantry (and if they don’t, Russia attacks and makes it happen anyways). It doesn’t happen right away, and Germany has interesting attack possibilities particularly off a G1 tank build, and even more so if they decide to attack West Russia (especially with Germany’s huge air power). But in the end, the German attack often stalls. The four unit difference in Europe makes a real difference!
Now, you’re looking at a Norway/West Russia open, which is favorable to the Germans for a G1 Ukraine hardpoint, because Russia sent units towards Germany’s rear, instead of attacking Germany’s front. So Russia is locally weaker, and Germany is locally stronger. So maybe you CAN get away with hitting Egypt and the four unit differential after all?
But I say no, you can’t. The answer to that is - suppose you are boxing, and you have a great jab. As useful as that jab is, though, it is still just a jab. If you can’t follow up a jab with a solid blow, your jab is a mosquito that can be ignored. If you can follow up a jab with a solid blow, though, your opponent has to defend against ALL of your jabs.
So I say, if you’re going to concentrate on your jab, make sure you have a followup for your jab. Evacuate Africa. You are not going to knock anyone out with just a bunch of strong jabs, get a really good and nasty uppercut followup. Forget all these hoity toity naval battles and splitting your forces dangerously, which allows a potentially super powerful R2 counter to Ukraine. If you are going for a jab-combination win, then concentrate on the jab-combination, instead of worrying if your hook is going to make you look fat on camera.
4. You mention in your post that Russia needs to
This means they need to either
1. defend both WR and kaukasus against all G tanks, infantry and airforce.
2. abandon WR, in which case the fork for next round will be russia/caucasus.
OK now, let’s not be silly. That’s like saying Russia needs to either shove its head up its ass and die, or always turn left at a T-intersection.
There is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks that Russia can possibly defend both WR and Caucasus in that setup. You know it. I know it. The can of tuna that I’m going to open for my cat’s dinner knows it, and I don’t even have a cat.
As far as always turning left, you’re assuming Russia will have to abandon West Russia. But they do not have to, not at all. You specified a G1 tank build. That means your G1 build cannot in any way hit West Russia (G1 fighter or bomber builds would do it). Nor did you specify that Germany would try to attack and take West Russia (which I would at least THINK about with Germany). Furthermore, you even specified a bunch of frittery naval attacks and hitting Anglo-Egypt, which further weakens Germany’s position in Europe compared to what it could have been. So you have a UK followup of 2 fighters to West Russia, and general consolidation of Russian forces, and Germany’s threat against West Russia grinds to a halt.
So you are NOT going to easily secure the double prize of a West Russia break, locking in Karelia and Belorussia income for Germany exclusively, while also benefiting from African income. No, at best, the scenario is probably going to be little better than your typical Eastern Europe/Western Russia standoff. Better, yes, perhaps. But not by any means a knockout.
More in my next smexy post.