(And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)
Because it’s so unrelevant? Or maybe your horse is to slow? ;)
So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded. Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy. Of course it’s not.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that my game will only some dilettantish moving of plastic figures as long I have no planning above the next three moves. Know yourself, know your enemy … all that stuff from all that books.
But I also must take a look on the little decisions I have to make, like that example above. If I make such little things wrong, no strategy can help me. And I think, an strategy must pay attention to the overall board situation (as you said; not a dead horse in my eyes), my own weakenings in gameplay and the player that sits on the other side of the table. To judge that situation right and create the adequate strategy is a thing that I have to do by myself, and all the postings on this board can only help a little. But for that little tactical decisions and tiny precious moves which the game have in store these boards are an eye opener for me. And that’s why I’m looking for such little, delimited solutions for a special problem and hope, I’ ll remember that solution in my next game.
Conclusion: Germany has superior trading ability. Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel). However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.
I’ll try to remember that.
Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.
Known, but noted again. :)
And: thank you for your post.