"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion

The Underbelly of the Beast: Why Invading Neutrals is a Bad Idea

On round 3, our main force should capture India; on round 4, the infantry remaining from this attack can move into Burma. At the same time, the infantry that we moved from East Siberia and North Korea on round 1 will be able to march into Indochina. So what should we do next?

It might be tempting to invade Thailand for the extra income, but that “breaks the seal” on Singapore; if we leave Thailand neutral, it forces the British to commit a transport in order to move any units from Singapore into combat – which means one transport that can’t be used somewhere else. We also need to consider the threat of US amphibious forces. If we take Thailand, it just makes for 1 more territory that we have to defend from invasion, when what we really want to do is minimize our number of vulnerable coastal territories as much as possible.

The same is true of Iran. As I’ve said in the past, it can be a useful corridor for marshalling tanks from Asia into Europe, but if the UK has a strong transport fleet in the area, it opens up a backdoor into Turkey. We want this area to be “closed for business,” so it is better to keep Iran neutral, and thus keep NATO forces out.

That all being said, once everything is locked down (end of round 4) we can potentially look at invading Afghanistan and Tibet, to boost our economy a little bit. Neither territory is subject to naval invasion (and both have fairly weak armies) so the only concern is the threat of paratroopers – keep the ranges of any NATO bombers in mind, when deciding whether or not to leave infantry in either of these territories. In order to make sure we secure this southern coastal region, we’ll want to continue producing infantry in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (and possibly Mongolia) on round 2; they won’t be in range to participate in the attacks on India, but they will be able to help secure the territory on round 4, so that our attacking forces can push further forward.

Our garrison forces should be primarily based out of India, meaning Indochina is the furthest conquered territory from that powerbase. This is what makes it a desirable target for the US; if we aren’t in a position to counter-attack a US landing into Indochina, then they can start to build up forces there, over time. So we’ll need to be moving infantry from India to Burma on a regular basis, to make sure we can outmatch any potential incursions.

Industrial Complex?
I’ve wondered if it would be worthwhile to put an IC into India. If you’re able to put down some transports, you can begin your own shuck-shuck into Africa (by invading Ethiopia) but this assumes the US Pacific fleet and the combined NATO Mediterranean fleet will allow your transports to live that long. Since there’s already an IC in Ukraine, it probably makes more sense to build up a fleet in the Black Sea (with the added protection of the Turkish straits) for such purposes. Even then, it would require a very high Soviet economy, which would probably mean NATO is not far from surrendering anyway.

Oil Rush?
On a similar note, I’ve seen strategies that involve the Soviets invading the Arab League, for a couple reasons. Generally, it’s because neutral forces are far weaker, compared to those of the main combatants, who’ve had a couple of rounds to build up. This makes them easier to attack than a large NATO garrison in France, for example. The other reason is that (obviously) this provides a big economic boost; the problem is that (if it’s a land assault only) the Soviets will be limited in where there can attack. This effectively gives NATO its own boost in economy, until the rest of the territories can be captured by the Soviets.

So while this does give you a gateway into Africa, it also increases the length of coastline which NATO can potentially assault. Depending on NATO’s transport and supply position, you may find the US wading ashore in the Arab states from both directions, as well as WE and UK pushing back hard. Where I’ve had success with this strategy, is by combining conventional attacks into Syria and Iraq, with nuclear strikes against Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the same turn. So, overall I feel like this is only really feasible as a late-game tactic.

War in the North

This post is basically going to be an amalgam of all the possible moves you can make, in order to secure Norway and Sweden; I keep trying to downplay the importance of this theatre, but my mind keeps wanting to hammer out the execution of such moves, so here we go.

As said before, this theatre should be a priority if the enemy begins committing forces to it. The other reason to attack Sweden is to close off the strait; you might want to do this if NATO liberates West Germany, and your “Baltic Wall” is in some way deficient (or insufficient to repel invasions.)

So what should we be looking for? As I’ve said before, the UK probably wants any transports it is using in the Atlantic to convene in the Irish SZ. This is because it’s the SZ from which the US can shuck-shuck into France, and so it just makes sense for NATO to concentrate their naval forces in one zone, instead of two (the 2nd being either the North Sea, or the Komi SZ.) Generally if Norway ends up being reinforced, it’s done by WE placing new infantry there, or the UK landing paratroopers.

Keep an eye out for:

• UK bombers rallying in the home island, for further paradrops
• UK (and potentially WE) transports in the North Sea
• US transports in the Komi SZ (to pick up infantry from Iceland)

Any of these are signs that the Allies want to try and open a new front in the North. Luckily, we can afford to be reactive in this theatre; gauge your opponents actions, and then decide if you should commit forces.

Reserve Group A (armor): Starting in Turkey, I’ve mentioned that you can kind of hedge your bets, and move to Ukraine on round 2 (allowing redeployment to either Karelia or Yugoslavia on round 3, depending on where you want to exert force.) You can also potentially move only as far as Georgia, if you’re sure you want to commit to the north, but also want the tanks in range to counter-attack Turkey if needed; this of course will work best if you committed your “flex” infantry on round 1 to placing in Georgia.

Armor Group B (Balkans): You can use these forces to pacify any landings in Yugoslavia or Greece on round 2, likely rallying in Yugoslavia on non-combat, with infantry coming down from Poland. What you can then do, is split off the heavy armor from this group, reassigning them to Karelia on round 3, while keeping your regular tanks in Yugoslavia (or West Germany.)

“Baltic Wall”: So with infantry moving from Karelia down the Baltic coast, your wall should be set up at the end of the Soviet non-combat movement phase, in round 3. This means that infantry placed in Karelia on or after round 3 can be committed to attacks in Scandinavia, without compromising the wall – so long as we continue to feed our frontline with reinforcements from other territories, such as Poland or Romania. As mentioned before, we’ll want to be maxing out our infantry placement on West Germany, Yugoslavia, and Greece, on any rounds which we control them at the start of our turn.

As you can see, this is all lining up for an assault on Norway in round 4. However, if we want to supplement our northern offensive with new heavy tanks placed in Karelia, we will want to have extra infantry to cover the territory defensively. What this effectively means is that whatever turn we plan to place armor in Karelia, we need to place infantry in Orel, 2 turns prior to that. If we start placing infantry in Orel on round 2, they will reach Karelia (via Komi) on round 4.

Note: By taking Norway, NATO bombers based in France or the UK no longer have a safe landing space, if they were wanting to drop paratroopers into Orel. Therefore, once we take Norway, we no longer need infantry in this territory for deterrence.

If we are planning to place heavy armor in East Siberia on round 3 (to take out South Korea) then the earliest we would want to place in Karelia would be round 4. Like I said, we can speed this up to react to our opponent (potentially ignoring South Korea to do so.) On the other hand…

Reserve Group C (cavalry): If we use this heavy armor to attack India on both rounds 2 and 3, we can reposition it to Karelia on round 4. We might want to consider having our placement of new tanks in Karelia line up with this. By doing so, we have 3 heavy tanks that can potentially move through Norway to attack Sweden (on round 5) in addition to whatever forces we want to reuse from our Norway attack.

Conclusions:
Overall, I think the best option is to wait until round 5 to attack Norway (with the earliest we could attack probably being in round 4.) This allows us an extra round to have Armor Group B able to mop up any shenanigans in the Balkans, as well as an extra round for Reserve Group A to be able to counter-attack Turkey, and still reposition. This also allows us to delay placing new tanks in Karelia until round 5 (to be used on Sweden in round 6) giving us a “breather” in round 4, with which to make sure we place enough infantry on all of our borders (after having deployed new armor in East Siberia, on round 3.) We can speed up the deployment by starting to place in Orel as early as round 2, but if we’re attacking on round 5, it can wait a bit. We can also beef up the attack by committing one of our air groups to the front, once India falls (taking it away from either the India theatre or East Siberia.)

War in the North
Part 2: Speeding up the Timeline

This depiction assumes your 3 “flex” infantry were placed in Georgia.

I’ve been giving some more thought to the proposed attack on Norway (and into Sweden) and here’s what I’ve figured out:

1. This move likely won’t work if you have to counter-attack Greece on round 2
2. You need to place some “flex” infantry in Orel, on round 1
3. You need to be able to place 3 infantry in Poland on round 2 (thus speeding up the “Baltic Wall” tactic)

If you’re unable to do these things, then I would avoid this “accelerated” attack in the north. As you can see on the map, the proposed moves on round 1 leave you with 2 heavy tanks in Romania. These will be used as the main offensive units for this action, which is why the situation of a strong NATO landing into Greece on round 1 has the ability to derail this maneuver, as these tanks will be needed for that counter-attack instead.

On round 2, whatever infantry you gathered in Komi must move to Karelia to support the attack on Norway. This is why we need infantry in Orel on round 1, so that we can move them to Komi on round 2 (replacing those units moved up, for the attack.) Also on round 2, we’ll want to move our heavy tanks from Romania to Karelia; this culminates in an attack on Norway in round 3.

Technically, you can still counter-attack Greece, and then non-combat move to Poland, keeping your heavy tanks in range of Norway, but leaving them stranded there when they do attack. We want to set them up such that they can withdraw back to Karelia after taking Norway. On the other hand, if they can be provided with enough covering infantry in Norway, then they can attack Sweden on the following turn(s), and be repositioned to Karelia after, which would also be ideal.

The reason we want to complete the Baltic Wall early, is so that the Norway attack can coincide with our move out of West Germany and into Switzerland. This might not be a necessary move, so I’ll explain the thinking behind it. Essentially what we want to do is bait NATO into moving their navy into the Baltic Sea, as well as to land their bombers in Norway, so that we can trap the former and destroy the latter.

On round 2, we should be able to place 31 infantry; here’s how I would suggest spreading those around:

West Germany: 4 inf
Poland: 3 inf
[Balkans]: 4 inf
Karelia: 4 inf
Georgia: 3 inf
Kazakhstan: 2 inf
Turkmenistan: 2 inf
[Pakistan if controlled, otherwise Mongolia]: 1 inf
East Siberia: 4 inf
Kamchatka: 2 inf
North Korea: 2 inf

If we do this, and we move our infantry out of Orel on the same round, this leaves that territory undefended. Orel is in range of paratroopers from both France and the UK (where NATO bombers could reasonably expect to be stationed) but only if those bombers fly over the AA gun in Karelia, to land in Norway. This is an excellent situation for us, if we are in a position to attack Norway on round 3. If we keep our reserves nearby on round 2, then we are also well-positioned to counter-attack Orel, with infantry drawn from surrounding territories (primarily Georgia) and without needing to pull tanks away from our main frontline in Europe. Our heavy tanks in Romania (if not used against Greece or Yugoslavia) can also hit Orel on round 2, and end their movement in Karelia.

Now, if we abandon West Germany on round 3, that means NATO can capture the territory (thus re-opening the strait to them) on the same round. If this is done on the WE or UK turn, then potentially UK and US ships can move into the Baltic on the same round. If we retake West Germany in force on round 4, we can trap these ships in the Baltic Sea. As such, we want to be in a position to take Sweden, closing the trap for good, and allowing us to permanently withdraw from West Germany. To facilitate this, we’ll want to place heavy tanks in Karelia on round 3. The placement of these units will be covered by infantry placed in Orel on round 1, moving to Komi on round 2, and then Karelia on round 3. Our combined heavy tank force (potentially including Reserve Group C) can simply move through Norway, to attack Sweden as early as round 4; they can either stay put, or move to Norway on non-combat (if we can get enough infantry fodder to Norway at the same time.)

This means that deployment of heavy armor to East Siberia will be delayed until round 4 or (I would recommend) round 5. Ultimately, South Korea is not much of a prize; we mainly want to concern ourselves with keeping North Korea under Soviet control. We also have to decide early on whether to commit our reserves to this northern initiative, so pay attention to the result of other battles, and be mindful of the global situation at all times; whichever reserves we commit to this plan will miss out on one (or both) of our attacks against India.

Reserve Group A can be moved to Kazakhstan or Ukraine, and still effectively counter-attack Orel; it just depends if we want them to commit them long-term to Europe or to Asia. If they attack Orel from Ukraine, they can be moved to Karelia for a follow-up attack on Norway, if needed. Likewise, Reserve Group C can strafe India on round 2 (ending in Sinkiang) and still hit Orel on round 3, but with no movement left to reposition. Ultimately, it’s a matter of balancing out the amount of force to apply to each theatre, and where you want to commit your units long-term.

@jwlbigdog
Sorry for the late reply – I got distracted by something shiny ;)
Hopefully you see this, and shoot me a reply.

Are you still playing the game locally or anything? Got any war stories to share? I sent you a direct chat as well, we can talk in there if you’d prefer.

@jwlbigdog I tried to get him “out of retirement” so to speak; around the time I started this thread, I actually got ahold of one of the guys mentioned in the instruction book, who passed along an email to Imp – but I never got a response back :(

I’ve got a version of MapView working on my Windows 10 rig right now, so I can look at the starting setup. But without a registration key, I can’t save games.

@motdc Against my typical M.O. I’ve fired off another email to Imp and Co. I’ll post here as soon as I hear anything back.

@jwlbigdog

On the topic of house rules:

As of late, I’ve been reflecting on how essential it is for the USSR to be able to move through China’s territories – to the point where I think that they need a separate rule from the other neutral alliances/major neutrals. (China seems to always get special treatment in A&A games, once you get beyond ‘Classic’.)

Any opinions or suggestions on that?

I’m thinking it might be useful to crib from A&A 1914 (activating minor countries) or A&A Europe’s oil territories; let the USSR freely non-combat move units through China, but only give them income for Chinese territories that have Soviet troops. It would also sort of help reflect the idea (expressed in the rulebook) that the communists hadn’t completely taken control of China in 1948, though it may have been a foregone conclusion at that point; the presence of Soviet troops would have definitely tipped the balance.

@jwlbigdog said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@the-janus it’s been a long time since I played…
I don’t remember, but I was under the impression that if favoring a faction, that faction had right of passage through the neutral’s territory anyway.

This is correct; my point was more that the USSR can’t do without the ability to move through China – so perhaps the rules could be amended to make that easier. In my games, NATO tends to invest quite a bit into spies, just to sway China away from the USSR; it almost feels like a tax they have to pay, that’s preventing them from using their spies for anything more fun.

@imperious-leader
By the way, did you get a physical copy of The Great War’s map?
I seem to recall that there was only one player who ever got their hands on it, and I swore that was you – but maybe I’m misremembering.

I wonder how much of a challenge that getting the custom pieces for it would be, in this age of 3D printing being so much more ubiquitous. IIRC that was the big economic stumbling block, for Imp Games.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Balance Fix: reduced starting forces for NATO

With the game now being available to everyone via MapView, I’ve been able to play and tinker a bit, and I’m coming back to this idea again. The overall intention being to adjust the balance of the two opposing forces, without it being noticeable enough to impact the game’s overall presentation.

One thing I should touch on right away from the previous post, is that I was using the totals for NATO infantry from the “total” column in the rulebook… which has some addition errors; specifically, the total UK infantry is actually 31, not 33. (Their starting income is 33 …coincidence?)

Anyway, here’s my revised idea (after much back-and-forth) that I’d be willing to test out if anyone wants to have a game:

• [unchanged] territories with more than 1 WE infantry start with 1 less WE infantry (France, Italy, Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Indochina)
• UK and US territories with more than 1 UK infantry start with half as many UK infantry (UK, Iceland, India, New South Wales, South Africa)
• US territories with more than 1 US infantry start with 1 less US infantry (East US, West US, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, Philippines)
• remove any NATO fighters from territories with an IPC value of 2, which do not also contain an armor unit (Iceland, Indochina, New South Wales)
• remove any NATO submarines based off the coasts of territories with an IPC value of 2 (Iceland, New South Wales)

The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:

• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2 or more, and with at least 1 starting infantry, each gain one additional infantry (East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Karelia, Belarus, Ukraine, Orel, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, East Siberia, Kamchatka, North Korea)
• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2, which contain an industrial complex, each gain 1 fighter and 1 cruiser (Karelia, East Siberia)
• other Soviet territories which contain an industrial complex each gain 1 heavy armor (Ukraine, Russia)

Final tally:

Infantry:
USSR (+15) / Total: 75
WE (-7) / Total: 21
UK (-8) / Total: 23
US (-6) / Total: 27
[NATO total: 71]

Fighters:
USSR (+2) / Total: 9
WE (-1) / Total: 3
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 6
[NATO total: 12]

Submarines:
USSR [unchanged] Total: 6
WE [unchanged] Total: 1
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 3
[NATO Total: 7]

Cruisers:
USSR (+2) / Total: 6
NATO [unchanged] Total: 7

– Any comments/questions, just shoot me a reply below ;)

Basic Mechanics: The India Stack

Pictured above is the starting setup, highlighting the Indian Ocean and surrounding areas.

Just by placing on land, the UK can add 5 infantry to this theatre every round; 1 in Pakistan, 3 in India, and 1 in Burma. Western Europe (WE) can also add 2 infantry in Indochina every round, but likely won’t have the economy to be able to afford it, after round 1.

However, there are 3 transports that the UK can use to further reinforce India: the one at India itself, another at Italy, and a third by Australia. Since the UK can place 7 infantry per round in Africa, they can easily keep these transports full every round, shucking either from the Red Sea or Mozambique SZ to unload into Pakistan. By linking up the various UK navies in the Persian Gulf SZ, this creates a strong pipeline into central Asia.

2 - South Africa
1 - Rhodesia
1 - Tanganyika
1 - Sudan
1 - Nigeria
2 - Singapore

Now, the UK’s starting income being 33 means that placing 5 infantry on land and 6 more to be moved via transport, would require spending their entire income on infantry, each round. Doing so would necessarily mean not adding any units in Europe.

An alternative is for the UK to place an industrial complex in India, thereby increasing the amount of infantry that they can place by 3, up to a total of 8. It also speeds up how quickly these additional units can reach the front line. The other reason to do this, is to get armor or other units built in-theatre. In either case, this leaves very little income remaining for the UK to do anything else, while also leaving them few options for utilizing their transports.

Now, for the opposite perspective…

To match the 5 infantry that the UK can place on land, the USSR needs to place 2 in Kazakhstan, 2 in Turkmenistan, and 1 in Mongolia – each of these territories being within one space of Sinkiang. The problem they face is that the fighters from Indochina and Australia make for a formidable defense of India; by contrast, the USSR has no offensive units in the immediate area to counter this.

The other areas that the USSR needs to defend in this part of the world, are their coastal territories in Asia: Kamchatka, Eastern Siberia, and North Korea. Since these areas are under threat by the US immediately at the start of the game it makes sense for the USSR to be placing defensive infantry there every round. If the USSR places the maximum amount of infantry on both Eastern Siberia and North Korea every round, this adds up to 6 in total – effectively matching the 6 infantry that the UK can transport to India. This is why I’ve advocated for the “Operation: Underbelly” tactic of always placing these infantry, but always moving them through China towards southeast Asia.

(This is to say nothing of the US setting up their navy off the coast of Indochina, shuttling 2 infantry from the Philippines every round, as well as transporting infantry from Japan every other round. In short, the Soviets need to fight a quick, decisive war in this theatre – the long-term prospects are not in their favour.)

All of which dovetails into topics I’ve covered previously in this discussion thread:

• Reduced starting forces for NATO:
• • cutting down the numbers of units in India, Indochina, and New South Wales gives the Soviets a more reasonable opportunity at success in this theatre, without having to commit so many of their limited resources.
• The proposed overhaul to the rules regarding China:
• • the USSR would always be allowed to move units through Chinese territories
• • the USSR would gain income from China based on the value of Chinese territories which contain Soviet units, at the end of each Soviet turn
• • the influence scale would only serve to determine whether Chinese troops will defend North Korea
• • If contributing 12 or more IPCs to the USSR or giving full support to the USSR on the influence scale, NATO can declare war on China, and attack Chinese territories