fair enough. Let’s say you pull the armor back, and toss fighters in? Or one arm, one ftr?
Also it’s not just the german ftr but also it’s armor(s). Plus stalling it for 2 turns (by forcing it to pull back instead of allowing it to build up).
I’m not sure I follow, how does hitting EEuro hurt Germany more than attacking Ukr. It has 1 more armor anyway, and you have more guys to throw in. Further against a good PE bid you’d likely be creating a deadzone in Karelia even with armor there, or I could stack Cauc to force you from Karelia on R2. Either way I don’t see why attacking EEuro is going to hurt Germany more than hitting Ukr would.
Depending on the bid of course, but interesting is
sub vs sub in AZO
2 ftr vs trn, sub in BAL
8/3 vs Ukr
and maybe 5/1 vs Man (only w/1 inf Kwa bid or less)
ncm the trn to NOR and Germany has a tough task.
Yes very much depending on the bid if you ask me. IMO no Africa bid should ever happen unless you are prepared to bid 2 guys into Manch. I assume an Africa bid as against a PE bid this would be extremely risky, and create a potential deadzone out of Karelia. So yes I’d say this would work against only the very worst of bids.
That’s the only reason I’d risk all my tanks in E Euro. At least I know I’ll have another round to build before an invasion. I don’t like it, but in an unRR, no bid game (ie playing by the printed rules) I could see the tactical advantage to taking Manch, E. Euro, Baltic Sea and the sea zone to the west of France with Russia followed by a Kwang attack by the UK.
But herein lies the problem in a no bid no RR game why would Russia need to ever worry about Karelia. I would also question why Russia would need to attack Manchuria as in a no bid game the Allies start with such an impressive advantage they don’t need to do much to win.