The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.
The person who played the bid, switch, said this:
It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.Â Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.
Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.Â Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.
With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.
I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.Â I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.Â Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.
2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.
Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.Â But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.Â I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.Â Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.Â If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.Â If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.Â And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.
The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.
2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.Â I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.Â But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.Â If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.
Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.
3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.Â Not much room for a great defense there.Â And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.Â Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.Â (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)