R/G tactics after R1 taking of west russia and norway?

  • Say R1 attacks norway with 1 tank 2 fig 3 inf, and sends all his other available forces to WR. Takes WR losing 1/2 inf, takes norway losing all infantry and possibly 1 fighter.

    (Builds A. 1 tank, 1 art, 5 inf or B. 3tank,3inf). Noncombat 2 inf kazakh towards caucasus, and all other infantry to/towards russia.
    Now what are the German options to hold ukraine during R2?
    If they take Egypt & leningrad & UK fleet except sz 2, and build only tanks, and move all their infantry and some tanks/fighters towards ukraine, perhaps keeping some tanks in eastern europe, it appears hard for R2 or R3 to take and hold/ effectively strafe ukraine. Especially with build A.

    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.

    Basically: by not taking ukraine R1 but opting for norway, will R be able to hold the lines vs G? Would you recommend a A or a B build for R1, when attempting norway+WR?

  • 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.


    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.

  • The Empire Strikes Back

    Yoda: Yes, run! Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.
    Luke: Vader… Is the dark side stronger?
    Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
    Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
    Yoda: You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.
    Luke: But tell my why I can’t…
    Yoda: No, no! There is no “why”.

    I am a dark side Force-user. And you will note that although Yoda did not say the dark side was stronger, neither did he say the dark side was weaker.  Mwahhahahaha.


    What does that mean? . . .

    Suppose I have two possible counters to an opponent’s move.  One is not particularly (but moderately) risky, and will push the development of the game along quickly.  The other is slightly less risky, but will not push the development of the game.  Unless I am convinced I am up against a powerful opponent, I will choose the one that will push the game along quickly.  (I’m a bunny, not a tortoise.)

    My advice is typically about the quickest and most powerful, most forceful way to quickly secure victory.  If I shoot a hole in a plan, it is typically about the single fastest and most powerful counter that can pose a serious threat to the plan.  If I devise a plan, it is typically about the single fastest and most powerful combination that cannot easily be countered.

    Which is not to say I ignore slower ways to win!  Indeed, against opponents like that despicable light-side user Hobbes (ptui) I must take care not to wave my lightsaber too wildly, lest I be cut down like that fool Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace.  Against such light-side users that are strong in the Force, I must act as Palpatine did in Star Wars I-V (and most of VI as well).

    Considering the initial listed moves for Russia and Germany, the quickest deadly Russian counter is to potentially kill the crap out of German-held Ukraine on R2.  Yes, Japan’s fighter on French Indochina can reinforce, but that’s it, and the Russians will still have huge threat potential against Ukraine.  Considering the listed moves, I think it’s a real possibility that Germany will get attacked and destroyed.

    If you want to exert immediate and horrible pressure against Russia with a G1 Ukraine hold, the best thing is probably some variation of trying to conquer West Russia, fortify Ukraine, abandon Africa, build double Japanese industrial complexes, and push tanks like mad on Moscow.  But as appealing as that is to a dark side user, it is really quite difficult to press a double Axis tank attack without a serious early shift in the balance of power that favors Axis.  What typically happens is the Axis press, press, press, then they stall.  The sacrifices the Axis made to exert pressure against Russia early mean far less favorable placement to protect against early Allied fleet movement, which means the Allies can progress to rapid reinforcement in both Africa and Europe.  At that point, with the Allies possessing a much more powerful economy, and having a powerful defense that has stalled the Axis at Moscow, the Allies start to push back.  At that point, the Allies can start to try to hit Africa and other targets to boost the Axis economy, but with the Allies already having freedom of movement, it’s an upward battle for the Axis.

    Without an early shift in the balance of power that favors Axis, the Axis are typically far better off pressing a mixed attack.  You use elements of dark Force philosophy for early gains and pressure, but you also do not neglect Axis economic development (and conversely Allied economic restriction).  For example, suppose you build tanks with Germany, and use Germany’s forces to hit Anglo-Egypt early, but instead of trying to take and hold Ukraine on G1, you keep the bulk of German’s infantry at Eastern Europe, possibly securing Western Europe as well.  Your followup is G2 fighters on Western Europe to threaten Allied landing at Algeria, to preserve Germany’s Africa income, and consolidation of German forces at Ukraine, followed by Japanese fighter reinforcement to Ukraine.  From that point, you’re looking at a G3 attack on West Russia or Caucasus, again followed up by Japanese fighter reinforcement.

    Granted, the second approach risks a powerful Russian counter.  The German advance is a turn slower, so even with Japanese fighter reinforcement, the Allies can offer a much more serious and threatening attack.

    But think about it this way.

    A G1 Ukraine hold is the typical approach you can use against young and inexperienced Jedi, or perhaps even against more experienced Jedi that have been wounded (i.e. suffered really bad dice rolls).  In that case, you are not holding back.  You have the upper hand; your strategy is to just slam away with your lightsaber until your opponent’s guard breaks and slice him or her or it in half.  Others might say it’s crude.  But it works, and it works well.  Oh, your opponent might struggle to his/her/its knees, or it might use the Force to fling a mug at your head, but by and large, you’re beating your opponent down like a clown, and your intent is to make sure things darn well stay that way.  Your opponent doesn’t have the strength or speed to take advantage of holes in your offense, so the “holes” in your offense are really NOT holes at all.  In fact, if you gave your opponent time to recover, you would be more likely to lose.  So aggression and speed are the way to go.  Let the dark side FLOW through you!

    A G2 Ukraine hold is a more typical approach against a more experienced unwounded Jedi.  You are not flinging yourself into an overly aggressive attack, because if you overextend your reach, your lightsaber arm might get lopped off.  Now, a hole in your offense really IS a hole in your offense.  If you rush your opponent, you could still force him/her/it to his/her/its knees - but in the process, you could easily get your lightsaber arm lopped off!  So you take a more measured approach, because that is what is best to ensure your victory in the end.  Not quite a dark side orgy, but he/she/it who laughs last laughs best.


    In EITHER event, you could still lose, of course.  With a G1 Ukraine hold, you might be swinging away when your opponent lands a lucky blow.  With a G2 Ukraine hold, you might be trying to push your opponent, but then find your opponent starts to push back and even overpower you.  But in both cases, the SAFEST to victory involves some degree of aggression.

  • BTW, the attack you listed is generally along the lines of what Granada (another poster on these forums a while back) called “Norway Gambit”.  That is, 3 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters against Norway.  You can search for older threads that mention it.

    I opposed that Russian attack then, I oppose it now, because I think Germany is advantaged, particularly by the sure destruction of a Russian fighter, and the possibilities along the West Russia/Caucasus/Ukraine position.  Neither forces a clear and definitive loss to the Allied position, but I considered them to be subtly positionally inferior for the Allies.  (You can make your own mind up, of course, about this.)

    Granada cites wins using the R1 two fighters plus vs Norway attack, but I watched some of those games, and Granada’s opponents were often inferior.  My impression was that Granada won because Granada generally had more skill than his opponents, that is, because Granada was the superior player in those games.  NOT because the Norway attack itself was superior.

  • @MrMerguez:

    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.

    Option 1 is suicidal for the Soviets - Germany can focus on crushing either WR or Caucasus. Option 2 sometimes is the only logical move left, but it is better to hold to West Russia and let Germany have Caucasus for a number of reasons:

    1. You keep control of West Russia, and the whole Eastern front and can counter Karelia or Belorussia, gaining precious income.
    2. You can usually retake Caucasus using new builds on Russia and the WR stack and shut off further German attacks by taking Ukraine.
    3. The additional income earned by Germany from Caucasus (+4) is compensated by being able to retake Kar/Belo (+4). However, if you stack Caucasus instead, that means those 2 territories (and income) are secure for the Germans for at least 2 turns and being denied to the Soviets.

    Basically: by not taking ukraine R1 but opting for norway, will R be able to hold the lines vs G? Would you recommend a A or a B build for R1, when attempting norway+WR?

    Norway + West Russia can be suicidal for the Soviets against an experienced Axis player. Even if they focus on sending everything to West Russia and don’t lose a single unit on R1, Germany can still counter attack West Russia on G1 with 86% odds - without losses, the Soviets have 13 units + AA, against a possible German counter of 10 ground units + planes. The deterring factors are the number of Soviet losses while taking WR (2-3 is the average) and the AA shots - Germany is willing to risk it then the Soviet stack will most likely be eliminated.

    After that… Caucasus is up for grabs by the Axis 🙂

  • @Bunnies P Wrath: I like the idea of foregoing africa to increase the effectiveness the follow-up on this strat. But I am not sure whether this is mandatory.

    The thing is, I am not sure that there is a considerable risk of losing/ being effectively strafed in Ukraine R2 after listed moves for R1 (“Norwegian gambit”). By attacking Norway, Russia loses a lot of effective firepower against ukraine during R2 (in comparison to R1 WR + Ukraine). (They focus on Germany’s rear, instead of germany’s front, as you commented).

    I am not sure about initial setup, so please correct me if I am off significantly (and go easy on me with the lightsabre if you do ;)), but I remember something like this:

    Under listed moves they will attack WR with 3 tank+9 inf + 2 artillery. Say they lose 1 inf. That leaves 3 tank+8 inf + 2 artillery at WR. With 3 tank 3 inf build, they will have 6 tank 2 art 13 infantry (2 from Kazakh) and 1 fighter versus Ukraine. Even while taking africa, ukraine will have 11 infantry + 5 tanks + 2 artillery + 2 fighters (+1 J fighter). Russia will not be able to effectively strafe that. (And if they conquer ukraine, their position will be even worse, since they put their entire military in reach of G1 built tanks). So you keep russia from 3 income, and you will be able to effectively strafe either Caucasus or WR G2. You will not be able to do so if you keep back to eastern europe…

    @Hobbes: I read your post regarding a G1 WR attack. If you decide to take WR during G1, after listed moves of R1, they will be able to counter during R2: Since they returned 4 infantry to moskow, and 2 to caucasus, their attack force will be 3 tank+ 9 infantry. Will you be able to take that out G2? I guess it depends on airforce losses G1.

  • @MrMerguez:

    @Hobbes: I read your post regarding a G1 WR attack. If you decide to take WR during G1, after listed moves of R1, they will be able to counter during R2: Since they returned 4 infantry to moskow, and 2 to caucasus, their attack force will be 3 tank+ 9 infantry. Will you be able to take that out G2? I guess it depends on airforce losses G1.

    Soviets are always able to retake WR on R1. As you mentioned regarding G1, the question is how many losses each side has suffered at that point but if Germany can retake it again (and destroy the remaining Soviet army on the process) then it should. If not, just stacking Karelia will do very nicely for G.

  • You’re citing Axis forces of 11 infantry 5 tanks 2 artillery 3 fighters (1 Jap) at Ukr at start of R2.  You can’t get that and also go to Anglo-Egypt on G1.  (lightsaber hum).  I hope you didn’t think a Sith Lord would be fooled by your little tactic of trying to sneak a few extra pieces on the board.  We have the Force, you know.  And a powerful ally it is.

    As far as forgoing Africa - there’s really just four ways to play that don’t typically blow up in your face.  One, grab Anglo-Egypt on G1 and gear up to screw with the Allies to stop them from landing at Africa.  Two, press hard in Europe and try to bust it open.  Three, something that involves control of UK’s sea zones and/or Africa.  Four, get super greedy and take a lot of risks that could otherwise blow up in your face, but have some really incriminating photos.

    Since you didn’t mention you had any incriminating photos . . .

    If you’re going to grab Africa, then you can’t press hard in Europe too.  You just don’t have the power.  Same goes for vice versa.  EVEN with bad dice by the opposition, almost never try for both.  It’s like being up 20 to 6 with ten minutes left in the American football game.  It’s like sure you could try a lot of long bombs and risky plays.  But WHY DO IT, when just playing conservatively gives you a much better chance of winning?  If you’re going to press in Europe, forget Africa.  You’re trying to crush Europe super fast!  If you’re going to press in Africa, forget Europe.  You’re trying for a mid/long economic game!

    As far as G1 WR attack (and in Hobbes’ reply he probably means “Soviets are always able to retake WR on R2” (not R1))

    Germany doesn’t have to break WR on G2.  A G1 WR break puts both economic and military pressure on Soviets, which compensates for the cost to Germany.

  • You can win as the Axis w/o Africa, but the Allies CAN’T win w/o it

  • @Mallery29:

    You can win as the Axis w/o Africa, but the Allies CAN’T win w/o it

    Yes they can. Africa is worth a total of 12 IPCs. Eastern Europe is worth 20 IPCs - control Eastern Europe and you can forget Africa.

  • E.Europe as the territory, not as a whole

  • @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).

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 12
  • 6
  • 8
  • 12
  • 6
  • 8
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys