In my group we generally skip the tech development. To my opinion too it is unbalancing the game for one player. It feels more like a fair fight to play without the tech development.
R1 - To Defend ARC or LEN or not?
-
A lot of good thoughts in there, Switch. But what about from Germany’s perspective?
As Germany, I wouldn’t blitz the armor unless Russia had a terrible battle in Wrus and/or Ukr on R1 (pending their non-com as well).
In this case it may be worthwhile to stretch out the Russians if you can hold Ukr in the process or think you might be able to push them out of Wrus on G2-G3, as Jen suggests, but other then that I like to keep my German tanks safe.
But if they get avg dice or better, trying to stretch out Russia on G1 isn’t very effective since they have 6 inf that boarder Moscow that can easily move West and a buy of 3/0/3 or 5/1/1 gives Russia plenty of firepower to counter with minimal inf diversion to arch.
I just don’t see a gain for Germany in blitzing to arch.
-
I don’t see a gain either. Ater the Russian counter it’s either a wash (you kill an attacking infantry) or you lose 3 IPC’s (you don’t kill anything). Russia usually is in a position to attack Arch and still keep trading dead mans land territories.
And if the Russians have a horrible opening, as DM theorized, then you would probably be better seved using that armor to bulk up Belo or Ukr if you can take and hold one of them. Instead of Germany getting paid for Arch they can prevent Russia from getting paid for Belo or Ukr on their turn. That’s an IPC wash and you don’t have to lose an armor to do it.
-
Honestly, as Germany, I put 1 German infantry in Karelia from Norway and leave my tanks at home.
However, I have thought about maybe putting an infantry, armor from Germany to Norway and blitzing a tank through karelia to norway on G1 if Karelia is empty. Would make it almost impossible for england to take Norway on UK 1. (Inf/AA Gun might work too.)
-
I don’t just give up any real estate if it can be helped however, I would prefer to hold my IC’s both of them are on the front line.
-
Sometimes giving up land is a necessary evil to win the game though. For instance, you can let England land in W. Europe if you need the troops on the Caucasus border faster then if you left units to defend W. Europe.
Or you might let Japan take Hawaii so you can bring more power to bear on Germany. Same for the piddly little 4 territories in the Soviet Far East worth 1 IPC each.
-
I don’t just give up any real estate if it can be helped however, I would prefer to hold my IC’s both of them are on the front line.
Often times it’s best to abandon a position of no hope and fall instead of hoping for the 33% chance of a hit… especially for the allies (defense wins wars) and the russians, early
-
I don’t see the point of leaving an infantry in either. It is just going to get killed. So let’s say you are lucky and take a german with you, that will be a net loss of 1 ipc for germany (-3 for inf / +2 for territory) and a net loss of 5 ipc for Russia ( -3 for inf / -2 for territory). I don’t think Russia can afford to throw away troops or money. Leave the territory open and hope the germans are follish enough to blitz a tank.
-
I put a German infantry in Karelia because I want to keep Russia from blitzing into Norway. Russia does not need the 3 IPC. I’d rather Britian have it, or even better, America. (As the German player, mind you.) Russia with Norway, W. Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine is a nightmare.
-
Yes it would be nightmare for Russia to hold all those territories but not overcomable. If Russia tries to take all those territories they run the risk of stretching themselves thin which (as Germany) I would love to see.
-
I don’t know if I agree. If Russia took Norway using a series of 2 or 3 strafe attacks (if alone) the 3 extra IPC mean Russia gets an extra INF every turn with little to no effort after that b/c there is no new border created after that.
Be advised the only time Russia should consider that would be if Germany didn’t put stock in a Navy.
-
I get that Russia holding norway is 1 inf a turn but if as Russia it takes you 2 to 3 strafing runs to take the territory then as the german player I am happy. Just gives me time to consolidate a rather large army in EE to crush whatever russian held territory gives me the best strategic advantage.
-
No one needs 2 or 3 strafing runs to take Norway.
In fact, most Russian players will ignore Norway unless Germany leaves Karelia open and Norway undefended. Then they’ll run a tank up there for giggles. (Heck, Karelia + Norway = 5 IPC or the price of 1 tank anyway.) And it’s so hard for Germany to get back because you KNOW Germany has no navy at this point, if they had a navy, Karelia would not have been left open. :P
So now you’re looking at a Russia earning as much as Germany. Not a good situation
-
The fact that Germany has no navy at that point and that Norway is difficult retake is exactly why as Germany I write Norway off as a loss. Now I am not saying that as Germany I would love to see Russia controlling Norway, Karelia, WR, and Ukraine, in fact it would be terrible. Then again so would my German strategy if I let Russia control all those.
To me as Germany losing Norway is not going to make me adjust fire. Now as jennifer said Russia having the same amount of IPC as me would definately have me thinking but then again there is always Japan to help out.
-
As Germany I would also write Norway off as a loss, then I would try like h*** to take the Caucasus worth 4IPC’s and it also has an IC for more convenient troop deployment.
That’s my two cents,
-LT04
-
Norway is a loss. The trick is to lose it to America if you can. England if you must. And NEVER Russia, under any circumstances…I don’t care if you have their capital, do not give the Russians Finland! There’s bad blood there man! (Okay, that last bit may be an exaggeration - historically accurate, but an exaggeration.)
Caucasus is a good goal. Japan can threaten from Persia (if the Allies let them.) And germany from Ukraine. And you can always move Persia to Kazakhistan and Ukraine to W. Russia to threaten Moscow and make him chose between Stalingrad or Moscow.
-
jennifer you’re right. It is bad mojo to let the russians have Norway. When I write it off it is usually to the UK. The UK is usually so strapped for cash they convince the other allies that they need it most. Most times they are right.r
-
I agree. England is usually the nation that takes it. Though, I have gotten allied players to take it with America, which makes me giddy! Because I too write it off as a lost cause and, let’s face it, of the three nations, America is in the least need of the 3 IPCs. Russia, I feel, is in the most need. England is in a very close second. America is in so far a distant third place as to almost not even be in the running!
-
Jen your exactly right in theory, but If the US player is the “babysitter” for the less experienced UK, and Russia player US might need every extra IPC it can get to hold all 3 allied capitals. Food for thought.
-LT04
-
Yea, maybe. But odds are, the allied nations are all being played by one player - at least on the boards. And even if it is multiple players and America is the “babysitter” (to use your word) then isn’t the babysitter probably telling them what to purchase and what combats to make?
-
touche Jen, touche :-)
Suggested Topics
