What's the consensus on a standard bid?

@Lucifer:

The ukr attack with 2 tanks is almost standard by most LL players. But in reg dice it will fail much more often.
And many reg dice players will only attack WRU in R1.

That’s when you w/d your attacking units… if it’s not going well.

@Lucifer:

Has anyone done a economical calc of the ukr attack?
With 2 tanks, or 3 tanks, based on average dice?
G and R losses etc.?
Compare this with the Arch blitz….?

The issue here is how far to do you go… into G1 counter… into R2 counter to the counter…

There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle.  The economics are not the end-all in A&A.

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).  You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks.  If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory.  That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory).  And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).

Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter.  AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter.  IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position.  I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks.  I think even Ender would concede that.

In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy.  And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter.  And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine.  Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things.  I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.

I’m still pretty undecided about Ukraine lmao!

All I can tell is that it’s pretty give and take. If you don’t attack Ukraine, then you have a significant number of tanks to threaten Japan with, making their advance slower. But if you attack Ukraine, then Germany is down some important gear before it’s retreated, which the Allies should be looking to do every time the opportunity pops up in a KGF.

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).

Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).  You guys worry WAY too much about losing those Russian tanks.  If I’ve killed 3 German infantry (9 IPCs), 1 artillery (4 IPCs), 1 armor (5 IPCs), and 1 fighter (10 IPCs), then my WORST CASE SCENARIO is an even trade in units (28 IPCs for 28 IPCs) PLUS an IPC gain of 3 from taking the territory.  That does not take into account the units killed by my tanks when Germany re-takes the territory (IF Germany retakes the territory).  And if the battle goes badly, I can retreat, which, by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER had to do on these boards (but which would be acceptable if I had to).

Plus, putting Germany down that fighter has significant tactical implications for Germany on G1 especially and thereafter.  AES (or sz15) becomes a riskier battle without the extra fighter, and the Luftwaffe is not as big a threat to Allied shipping without the sixth fighter.  IMO Ender and his like-minded folk are overly concentrated on saving infantry instead of tactical position.  I think his game with CC against Mateo and me is a case in point – he’s preserved his troops all right, but his tactical position sucks.  I think even Ender would concede that.

In short, attacking Ukraine is about TACTICS, not economy.  And as Axis_Roll said, economy isn’t all – tactics DO matter.  And taking Belo does very little tactically for the Allies as compared with taking Ukraine.  Exchanging 3 infantry for 3 infantry simply is inconsequential in the scheme of things.  I’m not saying this opening CAN’T work – I’m just saying it’s less than optimal IMO.

I’m willing to accept your points on Ukraine. However, Belo is not simply about killing the Inf for me. It really reduces the fodder that Germany has for a counterattack on WRus.

My concern about losing the Russian tanks in Ukraine is that while yes it may be at worst an even trade, early on Germany can afford to trade better than Russia can. However, I’m starting to think that I’m not seeing the full picture there - Germany also has to dedicate production to keeping England and US at bay, so perhaps they come off worse in the trade.

Now, with reference to our other game, I concede that my side’s tactical position sucks. I think Germany was doing as well as it could though - Japan had some unfortunate delays and setbacks though, and IMO should have built more TRNs, among other things, but no need to air dirty laundry here…

Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me.  I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!

After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway.  Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)

@Cmdr:

Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me.  I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!

After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway.  Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)

You were probably a huge Infantry Push Mechanics player in second edition (aka Classic) if you played that a few years back.

You are all about saving units and being ultra efficient.

While that is a good principal to operate under, that type of player doesn’t often think outside the box and can be less apt to see and sieze uncoventional opportunities to win a game that skews a bit outside the ‘normal’ outcome.

Uh-huh.  That’s what Switch was counting on when he didn’t defend Caucasus properly and now Russia has no army. (neither does Germany, but that’s less of an issue for me after they failed a KJF then switched gears.)

I was an Infantry Push Mechanic in Classic, I’ll admit it.  It was about the only way to win your games.  Now I’m more of a fighter push mechanic girl.  I like fighters.  I don’t like loosing them, but sometimes you have to realize that losing your fighters, while bad for you, can make it too expensive for your opponent to attack or recover from.

It’s not abnormal for opponents to see me with 9 Japanese Fighters and 8-12 German fighters in a game.  Gives me a LOT of mobile punch without risking my tanks.

@Cmdr:

Uh-huh.  That’s what Switch was counting on when he didn’t defend Caucasus properly and now Russia has no army. (neither does Germany, but that’s less of an issue for me after they failed a KJF then switched gears.)

I was an Infantry Push Mechanic in Classic, I’ll admit it.  It was about the only way to win your games.  Now I’m more of a fighter push mechanic girl.  I like fighters.  I don’t like loosing them, but sometimes you have to realize that losing your fighters, while bad for you, can make it too expensive for your opponent to attack or recover from.

It’s not abnormal for opponents to see me with 9 Japanese Fighters and 8-12 German fighters in a game.  Gives me a LOT of mobile punch without risking my tanks.

A girl after my own heart.  I thnk ftrs are VERY important piece in Revised, at $10 you CAN afford to sacrifice them too.

I especially like them as US since it helps them get into the war quickly since they have so far to go ….

Well, what Jen failed to mention is that she magically made 4 of my INF disappear in Round 3 of combat that she now has to roll for, and then my extra units for Round 4 that are still alive also…

Russia may be losing a lot of forces, but Germany has last 4 FIGs, 13 INF, and 1 ARM so far, with 5 more that Russia plans on killing since I still have INF screen to roll, and at least another round with my FIGs and ARM…

Yup, fixed the missing dudes, lost a tank. :(

But Russia’s effectively out of the game for a round or two while they rebuild.  Cost me half my air force though, not entirely happy about that.  And I suppose England and Russia can liberate Caucasus easy enough removing half my surviving tanks.

But I guarantee you one thing!  Germany never expected a full frontal body blow by Germany in this game!

You STILL have dice to roll…

Going in to Round 5 it is:
Germany:  3 ARM
Russia:  1 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FIGs.

Actually, we thought JWW would talk you out of the Caucuses attack.
And it is looking like he should have…

@ncscswitch:

You STILL have dice to roll…

Going in to Round 5 it is:
Germany:  3 ARM
Russia:  1 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FIGs.

Actually, we thought JWW would talk you out of the Caucuses attack.
And it is looking like he should have…

Yea, I mean, I only had a 75% chance to win that with 5 Armor and a fighter!

For the love of mike.

@Cmdr:

Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me.  I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!

After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway.  Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)

If you attack Ukraine with that BB, then you better pray your bid in Egypt is enough to take it, 'cause if you DON’T take Egypt, your little Med. fleet is dead on UK1, sweetheart! :wink:

Yea, but I’m not overly worried about Fighter, Bomber, 2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter.  I don’t expect to HOLD it, but I’ll probably get it.

@axis_roll:

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).

Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:

Naah, just kidding! :-D

@Gamer:

@axis_roll:

@Gamer:

I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).

Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:

Naah, just kidding! :-D

thank goodness, I was starting to get a complex……

@axis_roll:

There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle.  The economics are not the end-all in A&A.

I agree wholeheartedly. I see people talking about TUV and whatnot, but I really don’t see what the point is in looking at units in terms of IPC value instead of logistics.

I tend to say that any battle (in the early or middle game) where Russia can do at least a 1:1 inf trade with Germany is a good idea. This is done to prevent Germany from being able to leverage her non-inf attack power. In TUV-speak you’d say that’s an even trade of IPCs. But looking at it in terms of 1:1 inf already covers that and also gives a tactical reason (anti-Infantry Push). A tactical perspective has very similar standards (because units worth more IPC are generally more important) but gives you a better idea of what to do.

And while tactical analysis will give you ideas of ratios, I don’t really see how one can come up with TUV guide. How much TUV advantage should Russia stand to gain before it enters a battle with Germany? Japan? There’s just so much to factor in. It’s gonna depend on the situation. Gee, sounds like tactical analysis to me.

Honestly, I don’t like any battle where I lose the same or more units then Germany when I’m Russia.  Ditto for Germany.

Do you see that you’re not contradicting TUV as a viable method of analysis? I don’t consider an even trade of TUV as a bad thing. But almost no one would say that trading more units for less is a good thing, unless you’re so far ahead you don’t care or are counting on luck.

The Ukraine attack in my book is viable. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s optimal because not doing Ukraine has the tradeoff of making Japan advance slower, but they’re both even in my mind. You have to think of Ukraine like any other normal battle; would you be willing to take it out before the Germans get a chance to retreat it? In that sense of course you should; there’s no difference between the Germans exposing forces like that later on or on the first turn; in fact it’s better on R1 because you have lots of units and income for a while yet to cushion bad luck.

I would be willing to trade one for one with Germany pretty much with Russia; then the other 2 Allies will massacre the Germans. You should be looking to make even or better trades as Russia, so in that sense the Ukraine attack is the most consistent.