Moscow retreat

[Colt45554]

@Ichabod:

I think a retreat south is just as good as dieing in place. For the sake of my post, since Moscow fell, I’m going to assume that the US went at least 90/10 spending or more for a KJF strategy and Japan has been economically knocked out of the game. The Pacific Allies plus whatever US stuff there (no more US builds) can continue to push Japan back and the game is around round 9-11 (typical timeframe of a Moscow fall).

Basically was the situation in my match

I don’t think the US should be focused on Normandy or Norway, ect. in the event Moscow has fallen whether dying in place or evacuating. If for instance the allies do choose to invest a ton of money into getting Norway to hold it, than they better get Leningrad real soon and keep building because the allies must liberate a VC. However, I think those adventures are mostly just irritating for Germany, and don’t protect the remaining easiest VC that Germany needs to win which is Cairo. Germany will have more than enough money to spend on 2 factories in the east to keep driving towards Cairo while simultaneously purchasing ground in Leningrad and it’s major ICs. I think the US and the UK should be focused on defending Cairo which at times could mean the US purchasing 8 fighter 2x in a row. AFTER Cairo is very secured, then the focus could shift to landings at European weak spot areas.

Poland must be repeatedly defended/counter-attacked by Axis after Norway falls too

Who cares about China if the lone remaining VC (Cairo) is secured; if secured, no way the Axis can win the game. If China is overrun than this game is an axis victory anyways which makes this discussion threat a mute point. The Allies have to do good at least on one side of the board.

True, I included China b/c poll gave me five options that i could put so figured why not

This is my opinion based upon playing a far superior player who demonstrated this against me in a game.

No disagreement coming from me but have you faced/done a retreat north and the results were poor? I think it is a little more viable than it initially looks

[Cow]

Once I Putin I never pull out.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Cow:

Once I Putin I never pull out.

I wish I had two more hands so I can give that joke four thumbs down.

[Ichabod]

@Colt45:

@Ichabod:

I think a retreat south is just as good as dieing in place. For the sake of my post, since Moscow fell, I’m going to assume that the US went at least 90/10 spending or more for a KJF strategy and Japan has been economically knocked out of the game. The Pacific Allies plus whatever US stuff there (no more US builds) can continue to push Japan back and the game is around round 9-11 (typical timeframe of a Moscow fall).

Basically was the situation in my match

I don’t think the US should be focused on Normandy or Norway, ect. in the event Moscow has fallen whether dying in place or evacuating. If for instance the allies do choose to invest a ton of money into getting Norway to hold it, than they better get Leningrad real soon and keep building because the allies must liberate a VC. However, I think those adventures are mostly just irritating for Germany, and don’t protect the remaining easiest VC that Germany needs to win which is Cairo. Germany will have more than enough money to spend on 2 factories in the east to keep driving towards Cairo while simultaneously purchasing ground in Leningrad and it’s major ICs. I think the US and the UK should be focused on defending Cairo which at times could mean the US purchasing 8 fighter 2x in a row. AFTER Cairo is very secured, then the focus could shift to landings at European weak spot areas.

Poland must be repeatedly defended/counter-attacked by Axis after Norway falls too

Who cares about China if the lone remaining VC (Cairo) is secured; if secured, no way the Axis can win the game. If China is overrun than this game is an axis victory anyways which makes this discussion threat a mute point. The Allies have to do good at least on one side of the board.

True, I included China b/c poll gave me five options that i could put so figured why not

This is my opinion based upon playing a far superior player who demonstrated this against me in a game.

No disagreement coming from me but have you faced/done a retreat north and the results were poor? I think it is a little more viable than it initially looks

I do recognize that I might not be a very good player and most people on the forum do beat me, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt! But I have played probably around 150 now albeit with a bad winning ratio :)

When you say Poland is contested every turn, do you mean that the Allies have a secure fleet with transports in the Baltic or the Russian stack made it all the way to Leningrad. At a walking pace that’s 3 moves? This sounds like a foregone allies win. My comments are based on the assumption that the Allies went after Japan and pretty much left Germany alone. If the Allies went strong enough to do what’s described here, than what the hell did Japan do? If Japan is also trashed and the allies can contest Poland every round, then here again, this discussion is mute. It’s an allies victory already.

Yes, I’ve faced a Russian stack going north. Poland is right next to the Berlin Major IC. 3 turns of straight infantry and some artillery ground builds for defense to get up to about 40+ ground, then start pushing forward with tank/mech builds catching up. As an Axis player, if it was my choice for the Russian stack to evacuate and go north or go south, I would request it go north. I’d rather kill it in place of at Moscow of course, but the debate is which direction is best. Post Moscow, whether or not Norway is taken, usually Germany can fill most relevant factories whereas the UK has to fill the middle east/Cairo factories or spend to keep supporting the Norway/Leningrad route. Can’t fully do both.

[Ichabod]

Colt 45,

This song is for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtiEcT9W6M

[Colt45554]

@Ichabod:

Colt 45,

This song is for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtiEcT9W6M

Oh yes, I get that a lot  :-D

[JDOW]

The answer is, as in most cases, "it depends!:)

If e.g. the Allies have Norway, marching Northwest to unify the troops in Novogorod can be an option too.

In A&A there are no clear answers on those questions in the vacuum, although retreating to Samara and then South is the most likely scenario.

[PainState]

On this subject I think there are only two choices,

#1 Retreat south to link up with the UK, protect the middle east and hopefully make a last stand at Baghdad/ Cairo.

#2 Retreat East or North East.

IMHO you always choose #2. Make Germany have to split their forces to chase a large Russian stack east and split to offer resistance to a stack of UK units in the south.

IF the USA is in Norway that is even better. USA to the North, large Russian stack that retreated from Moscow in the East and a UK land force in the South.  IF Russian retreats south then you just eliminated one threat for Germany. Instead of three fronts it is now only two. Why allow Germany an easier path to victory? Make them choose between 3 options instead of 2.

** Side Note **

If the game gets to this point it is imperative that a Western Invasion happens, does not matter where or in what strength. The Allies need to open up the 4th front on the Western side. Either directly at Germany on continent or going into Italy. Even if the initial invasion is thrown off make sure you have a second invasion ready.

** Foot note **

On the poll question the proper response is not a answer. You retreat East and then North east. Make Germany push units to the top of the board, way out of position. Japan you ask? Do you think Japan has any intentions of pushing 20+ land units to the top of the map and be totally out of position to attack the Russians?  It is not just forcing Germany to make a hard choice you are also making Japan make a even harder choice. Japan can ill afford to be putting a large stack in the north of Russia to contend with them, they have larger concerns in this scenario.

[larrymarx]

As Germany I would leave a defensive force in Moscow to dissuade the Russians from coming back and send enough to the middle east to crush it and become an economic beast. If the Russians move to the top of the map they have put themselves out of position.

[PainState]

@larrymarx:

As Germany I would leave a defensive force in Moscow to dissuade the Russians from coming back and send enough to the middle east to crush it and become an economic beast. If the Russians move to the top of the map they have put themselves out of position.

Well, your response is the ‘point’ of what Iam saying.

IF Russia goes East, you *(Germany) have chosen to split your force and send some South and keep some in Moscow. At least Russia made you make a choice. This is very important. When you force your foe to think and make choices there is most likely a opportunity later on that your foe miscalculated and messes up. Left to much in Moscow or pushed to much towards the Middle East.

IF Russia goes south then there is no choice. Germany takes their stack, follows the Russian stack, they tango on down to the Middle East and at some point a climatic mega throw down happens and Germany still becomes a economic beast. There is no chance that Russia can capitalize on a German mistake because there is 0% chance of a mistake if all Germany is doing is pushing their stack next to the Russian stack and moving south to the Middle East and towards Cairo.

There is always the chance that Germany splits their forces and still plays a sound game and wins. Then again you never gave your self a chance to exploit a mistake by just forming one huge stack in the Middle East and roll some dice and hope it comes up good. I would rather rely on the human aspect of the game to look at a tactical situation and make something out of it instead of just loading up the big stack battle in a calculator and hope that I win the 97.28% Battle that I should lose. I will acknowledge that sometimes the best tactic is to just form a huge stack and see if your foe has the guts to actually attack it and if he does hope the dice are kind. I do not think this discussion falls under that dire scenario yet.

[larrymarx]

In general, I agree with what you are saying. My theory is that it’s better to take two equal but losing positions on separate areas of the board than to take one position of strength. The problem in this case is that the northern Russian stack and British-held oilfields, although in separate areas of the board, aren’t equal positions - Britian is much easier to take down and the reward is much higher. Therefore, in this case there is no alternative but to take one position of strength.

The assumption behind my first comment was that if the Russians link up with the British, the combined stack would actually be enough to create such a position and keep the Germans at bay. In a game where it cannot, what have the Allies been doing for 8+ rounds?

The two scenarios I can think of where the Allies still have a chance after Moscow falls, but the British are weak in the Middle East are 1) Japan does something like an India crush that targets Britain or 2) Britain and America have been making landings in Western Europe. In either of those scenarios, if Russia is to retreat, I agree they should not go down south.

If neither scenario applies, and the British have been attempting to build strength in the Middle East, yet it isn’t enough to stop Germany even with the entire Russian stack, the appropriate move is to concede.