I can consider that the Ukraine attack might be okay, but someone here has said that it is obligatory for a KGF. That’s bollocks.
Hmmm. I WONDER whom you might be reffering to?
My thinking on Ukraine is influenced also by what I’ve learned in chess. In chess, if one side has more material (pieces and pawns) than the other, then it is to that sides advantage to start trading off pieces, because eventually trading will leave that side with something and the other with nothing
Not to state the obvious, but A&A is not chess. I know you are using chess as a general reference to strategy, but A&A is different in that you can be rewarded for occupying a territory (IPCs / totally eliminating a defenders units). In this case, the ukraine ftr is a nice ‘prize’ for russia and will not be achieved unless you can eliminate all defending German units.
More importantly, you can not look at one countries goals in a vacuum, especially with the allies. If you intend to bleed Germany dry (as in a typical KGF strategy), you PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many germans as possible with all three allies at once. Germany can not do everything with her limited resources (opportunity cost). Again, here is a strategic option that chess can not represent (3 on 1)
If this (in bold) is the quote to which you refer, please call me out by name and not vague reference “SOMEONE HERE…”
Also, please quote the identified quote properly. I said you “PROBABLY WANT TO kill as many Germans as possible with all three allies at once” (general strategic statement). Not sure how this equates to saying “Ukraine was obligatory in a KGF strategy.”
In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.
@ncscswitch:
None.
You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.
I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though. So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)
That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move. Not a strong position to start from.
Though, it IS a risk. Cannot say it isn’t. But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?
@ncscswitch:
None.
You can;t even get above 50% for 3 battles if you go for all 3.
I’ve seen it succeed against me 3 times though. So you cannot always go with odds. (Success to my mind means Russia clears the territory without losing any Fighters.)
That’s a full third of Germany’s fighters gone before Germany can move. Not a strong position to start from.
Though, it IS a risk. Cannot say it isn’t. But with 50/50 odds, exactly how much of a risk is it?
Jenn, how about responding to my bid?! (for the tourney) I PM’d you the bid # from Frood.
In my limited experience West Russia attack is mandatory, but Ukraine attack is highly recommended.
It may be substituted with an attack in Bielorussia, but I prefer to get one more IPC and also to have to possibility to trade Ukraine every turn.
In a KGF it fits very good, if it is succesfull Germany lose a fighter and this is very good, because this reduces the number of fighter German will use in Russia in G1, if he/she do not want to reduce the fighter sent in the naval battles. Also a strafing may work.
In a KJF it fits also good because if Germany advance in Ukraine in G1 (reconquering it) he/she can not land fighter there, leaving to the Russian player a possibility to strafe the German army, before being strafed. So normally German player will not take Ukraine en masse.
BTW, wazup Gamer? I haven’t been online at home in a little while (I post at work XD)
My thought on that German fighter:
German fighter used to attack Allied fleet. That’s fine by me; German blood for UK or US blood.
If I commit Russian tanks to Ukraine on Russia1, though, I lose them. That’s not so fine by me; Russian blood is precious, and I prefer to save every last drop.
I see your point newpaintbrush, but when I attack only West Russia, and thing do not goes perfectly, i.e. I lose more than three infantry, German try always to strafe my troops there (using infantry from Bielorussia and from Ukraine, three tanks and a couple of fighters) then retire in Ukraine and land there as many fighter is possible. I do not like that situation. Being kicked every turn in West Russia while pensky Japanese come from the East it is not comfortable.
Usually I try to strafe Ukraine, but if things goes well I try to get the territory. I usually employ there 2 Tanks and two fighters, using other two tanks in West Russia. This leave me with 5 tanks (I usually buy 5 inf, 1 art and 1 tank in R1) of wich two are doomed to die if they stay alone in Ukraine. But in such way, strafing or conquering Ukraine, allow to keep my stack in West Russia relatively safe (at least until German move her main army to East).
What if there is a bid AA gun in Ukraine? I use the method of Marshal Zhukov when the enemy lay mines on the front line “I attack as there are not mines!”.
So I attack as the AA gun in Ukraine was not there.
If the bid is a panzer and an infantry… maybe I should not attack… ! But Zhukov may not agree! :)
Romulus: Do you attack Belorussia with 3 infantry 2 fighters and send the rest to West Russia, when you do the Belorussia attack?
Jenn, how about responding to my bid?! (for the tourney) I PM’d you the bid # from Frood.
Was waiting for Amon to get back to me to confirm our bid. Hopefully that one message in my box is from him
Just curious,
When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?
Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine
Just curious,
When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?
Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine
9 inf( Russia, Arhangelsk, Karelia )
2 art( Russia, Caucaus )
3 ten( Russia, Arhangelsk)
2 fig( Russia, Karelia )
Just curious,
When you attack W. Russia and W. Russia ONLY for R1, what do you attack with?
Trying to think if there is a way to take W. Russia and hold Caucasus if you don’t attack Ukraine
Hm, but I wouldn’t only attack W. Russia, ever.
I believe you can let Germany capture Caucasus on G1. On R2 you can attack Ukraine from West Russia and retake Caucasus from West Russia and Russia. Germany can’t recapture Caucasus on G2 because there won’t be any German reinforcements on the front line. (Actually, Germany can recapture Caucasus if it uses its Med fleet plus fighters, but Russia should easily be able to make that an unacceptable risk)
Amon,
You cannot hold Caucasus if you attack W. Russia with that force though.
NPB:
I agree, Russia can survive the loss of Caucasus for a round, but do you want Germany to have the 4 IPC?
The problem with the AA in Ukraine is that while Russia may lose a fighter taking it, Germany will also have the same or worse chance to lose a fighter retaking it. Unless, of course, the Germany player wants it back so bad that he or she would be willing to hang a bunch of armor out to dry for the Russian player to smash in the R2 counterattack.
Barring a bid placement of at least 2 units in Ukraine, if the Russian player wants it, most likely they will get it. Better to put your bid units in Belo to preserve armor in the Ukr counterattack or in case the WR attack goes badly.
Amon,
You cannot hold Caucasus if you attack W. Russia with that force though.
NPB:
I agree, Russia can survive the loss of Caucasus for a round, but do you want Germany to have the 4 IPC?
This again shows how your approach is totally different from mine. Gaining a 4 IPC territory for one round is not very significant. Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.
So Germany takes Caucasus. Great - +4 IPCs.
But Caucasus is also a big deadzone, and will get hammered on R3. Any tanks left in there are goners. I’ve seen opponents leave the Caucasus pretty open for me but I recognized it as a trap. For 4 IPCs I am not willing to over-extend myself and put a bunch of valuable units where they will get slaughtered for a loss of 20+ IPCs of frontline units.
Now if it’s empty, sure I’d pop an Inf in there if I had one in Ukraine. But I wouldn’t commit much more than that on G2. Later in the game Caucasus is great to have if you can hold it, but in G2 it’s a bad move for Germany.
I see your point newpaintbrush, but when I attack only West Russia, and thing do not goes perfectly, i.e. I lose more than three infantry, German try always to strafe my troops there (using infantry from Bielorussia and from Ukraine, three tanks and a couple of fighters) then retire in Ukraine and land there as many fighter is possible. I do not like that situation. Being kicked every turn in West Russia while pensky Japanese come from the East it is not comfortable.
That’s why I like to attack Belorussia as well w/ 3 Inf and 2 Ftrs. It gives Germany 3 less Inf to attack WR with, and also gives it something else to deal with, e.g. the EE tank might attack Belo instead of WR.
Amon,
You cannot hold Caucasus if you attack W. Russia with that force though.
NPB:
I agree, Russia can survive the loss of Caucasus for a round, but do you want Germany to have the 4 IPC?
This again shows how your approach is totally different from mine. Gaining a 4 IPC territory for one round is not very significant. Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.
So Germany takes Caucasus. Great - +4 IPCs.
But Caucasus is also a big deadzone, and will get hammered on R3. Any tanks left in there are goners. I’ve seen opponents leave the Caucasus pretty open for me but I recognized it as a trap. For 4 IPCs I am not willing to over-extend myself and put a bunch of valuable units where they will get slaughtered for a loss of 20+ IPCs of frontline units.
Now if it’s empty, sure I’d pop an Inf in there if I had one in Ukraine. But I wouldn’t commit much more than that on G2. Later in the game Caucasus is great to have if you can hold it, but in G2 it’s a bad move for Germany.
Well, on occasion it may look like a trap but really isn’t. You have to value up the territory and the units involved.
1. Caucasus is worth 4 IPC’s
2. Add that to the value of the units you kill there as well as the units you can expect to kill in the Russian counterattack and subtract it from the value of the German units you would need to take it with.
3. If the calculated value is a wash or positive for Germany then Germany comes out ahead if only because it prevents Russia from building there on their turn.
Don’t forget by taking it you prevent Russia from building there. That means their builds are one more space back from the front.
Honestly, I’d rather be trading Caucasus then Ukraine if I were Germany.
Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.
why attack then anyways?
Seriously, if piece perservation is that important to you, you probably rarely (or never) should attack with your units.
What makes an attack ‘worth it’ to you then? Does it differ if your the axis versus the allies?
Again, units are much more valuable than territories - that’s my view anyway.
why attack then anyways?
Seriously, if piece perservation is that important to you, you probably rarely (or never) should attack with your units.
What makes an attack ‘worth it’ to you then? Does it differ if your the axis versus the allies?
I attack when I can kill more of the enemies units than I will lose myself in the attack and to any counterattack.
I’ll still trade territories with 1 Inf 2 Ftrs attacking etc. just to maintain the front and keep from dwindling, which you have to do to maintain territory, but apart from that I will usually only attack with overwhelming force. Eg. I only advance my main forces when it’s for keeps.
In some games I have almost no major battles until the end, when my massive force becomes unstoppable and finally advances and completely crushes everything before it.
Romulus: Do you attack Belorussia with 3 infantry 2 fighters and send the rest to West Russia, when you do the Belorussia attack?
When I attack Belorussia, I send there 3 inf and 2 fig as you said.
Then in West Russia I use 6 inf, 2 art and 4 tanks (leaving the three inf in Caucasus there)
If I attack Ukraine I sent there 3 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks and 2 fig.
In West Russia go: 9 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks.
But this attack should be ok, or at least be acceptable.
What I was speaking was the fact that in the past I usually attacked only WR in R1. But in that case Germany counterattacked (using infantry from Belorussia and Ukraine) Caucasus or WR (depending were I have less units).
From then I have changed the Russia opening move, choosing from the two I described; WR and Belorussia or WR and Ukraine. And I am convinced that attacking another territory other Werst Russia is very important.
Frood, I have only a doub about your strategy. If you are Axis the one with the bigger stack that push in the enemy capitals may be the allied player.
How do you address a situation, with axis, in wich you are at economical disdvantage?
