Just so we are all clear…
No Bid:Â Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF:Â Â Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
I think that is slightly misleading b/c in both cases Russia loses all three armor on the German counter.Â It doesn’t really matter if you take with 1 arm, 2 arm, or all three.Â They are all going to die if you intend to take Ukr on R1.Â Maybe you takeout another Ger inf on their attack with 3 arm left insted of two, but that is not a big deal IMO.Â I think it is a bigger deal that you eliminated the Axis bid (or part of it) without changing anything Russia does.Â If you’re a R1 attack UKR player that is.
Although similar reasoning could apply to any bid placement, eg. placing 1 Inf 1 Art in Libya, Ger can take Egy and come out ahead, so you could add those savings to the value of the bid too.
This is true.
A bid to Lib may very well allow Germany to hold Egy (which right there adds a fictitious 2 ipc to the bid) plus the gain in IPC from an immediate Germany blitz on G2 instead of having to retake Egy on G2.
There are lots of “hidden” things that can add up from bids and it just depends on how you view killing an extra Russia tank that will probably die anyway (again if your playing a R1 Ukr attacker) on a potential R1 attack vs. the “hidden” benefits of any other bid placement.
I like the Afr bid b/c I think it strengthens my hand in rds 4-8 (give or take), whereas I think a Europe bid may make you stronger in rds 1-2 (maybe 3) but can quickly fade as UK and US get rolling.
newpaintbrush last edited by
I experimented over several games with the Libyan bid, and I have to be honest…
Africa is too easilly countered and contained by too many potential Allied moves for that bid placement to be worth it… unless you are German Fleet Unifcation player.
But for non-fleet unification, keep your bid on the front lines of your primary target… RUSSIA.
An INF in Ukraine add the likelyhood of an additional Russian casualty on R1, and increases the odds of a serious loss by Russia dramatically. Also, reducing the force needed to re-claim Ukraine on G1 gives Germany more flexibility on where and how to stage and stack for their main strike… allowign them to choose center or north instead of being forced south.
KEEP YOU EYE ON THE OBJECTIVE!
If your objective is UK, then bid into the Baltic.
If your objective is Russia, then bid into central Europe
If your objective is the US, then bid to Japan.
If you place units in Africa and use the German S. Europe transport, you can often survive with 1-2 inf and 3 arm. Countering that is extremely costly for UK in the Pacific, requiring the commitment of the Indian fighter, the Indian transport, most of the infantry near India and Africa, and the UK bomber.
Restricting your lines of play simply means that the Allies have an easier time countering your strategy.
I think it better to leave different lines of play open, either to exploit an opponent’s mistakes, or - more likely against a skilled opponent - to create more viable threats that must be defended against.
For that reason, I almost ALWAYS bid units at Africa. If the Allies do NOT counter Africa, I gain IPCs. If they DO counter Africa, I gain time on the Karelia/Archangel front.
Guest last edited by
Actually Darth it depends on HOW HEAVY you want to have to ake Ukraine.
Sure, Germany CAN bring enough force to slaughter Ukraine on a G1 counter no matter what force Russia ist left with. The question is, how much do you want to stick out there to in turn die on R1?
Being able to re-take Ukraine against just 1 ARM means a LOT less forces shoved into the killing zone than if you ahve to be sure of killing 3 ARM.
And THAT has value in this game… I think YOU are the one who taught me that
True, it takes a few more inf to kill 3 arm in Ukr on G1, but I think that is all you really have to do, is commit a few more inf (maybe 1 arm) to kill the extra Russian armor. In the end Ukr still ends up being a deadzone and each side is out a few more pieces in rd 1 and 2.
But Afr can be bottled up easier if all goes avg so even if Germany comes out ahead in the Ukr trading (due to ukr bid) they are still stuck fighting for Egy/Trj instead of blitzing Afr and probably top out at 40 IPC (maybe).
On the flip side, you bid a few troops to lib and take Egy on G1 with those couple of extra troops, now the UK is looking at more losses to liberate Egy (if they even can) and the potential for Germany to gain easy ipc from Afr.
I think if I went inf bid to Europe, I might lean toward Belo over Ukr.
I do like the 1 inf, 1 arm to ukr as Jen pointed out, but again I think that telegraphs (as does any Europe bid) Germany’s moves and sort of boxes you in a bit on what you can do. I agree with newpaintbrush, I like to try and leave a few options open for the Axis.
Mateo, I agree with your reasoning regarding Ukraine. I see a lot of people here are working their calculators, but what most of them forget to take into account is the human factor. Just like you point out it leaves the German player with 5 fighters only, he will be “one short” somewhere. It also up’s the ante in the dead zones, with less figs to provide attack power he may have to commit art or arm to territories like Karelia/Belo/Ukraine. On the long term it also means a diminished threat to the allied navies, perhaps enabling them to make landfall one round earlier than they normally would. So not only do you get to lower his odds for the respective battles, you also increase the odds of him making a tactical error.
I do fear the Ukraine strike myself, though. For either side it leaves too much in the hands of luck too early in the game. (IMHO) If I’m playing an opponent who I will likely beat even with a little bad luck I’m not going to risk the Ukraine strike. If on the other hand I’m likely to lose to a skilled opponent given even luck I might just go for such an attack. In any case I will execute it from time to time to avoid being predictable. I’m not going to attack w.rus or w.rus/belo every time and let my opponent safely put his bid into Africa instead.
cyan last edited by
2 INF: Doubtful Russia would even try Ukraine, because they would have only a 52% chance of TAKING Ukraine.
then why did you such a doubtful thing in our game? hypocrite :lol:
Guest last edited by
Because I having be trying to be unpredictable
And I DID get lucky in Ukraine, still taking it with 3 ARM. It was the defeat in West Russia (retreating 1 ARM and leaving 1 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM) that gave me trouble.
Though when you over-extended as a result of that battle, it allowed me to come back for the quick win, since you sacrificed your AF in the attempt to take Moscow on G1.
just in case anyone is curious, I am playing Octopus as the Allies, and was given just the situation where, attacking UKR as RUSSIA, I got very nice first round rolls, with 5 first round hits, and he got 2, so I had 3 ARM 1 INF 1 RTL 2 FTR vs a FTR for a potential round 2, if i chose to continue.
I, over course, did (influenced by the Axis bid.) The German FTR missed (1/3 chance) and now 1 INF 1 RTL 3 ARM hold UKR (I was thinking about reinforcing it with an AA, but decided against it, since GER could then freely bomb Cauc.
This result is not as rare as you would think, sending 2 FTR and 3 ARM at UKR (this or better happens about 20% of the time, and 1 RTL 3 ARM surviving happens about an additional 15-20% of the time.
Lets see how this ends up.
newpaintbrush last edited by
Give Octopus my regards.