Russian Basics

[newpaintbrush]

@ncscswitch:

Also, there is no real threat of amphibs in Western for the first turn.  4 units from UK is all that can be dropped in Western on Turn 1.  And Germany can easilly reinforce Western with a couple of INF a turn.  To make a serious attempt at Western, you need the RAF, which means a living Baltic Fleet that can come out of the Baltic and attack the UK fleet (or invade London if UK built all navy).

You can use the AF to reinforce Ukraine on G1, then depending on Allied moves either keep it there for use against Russia, or send it to a more central location.  And with 6 FIGs, you can do a little of each…

Well, we differ on particulars, but I think we agree on the essentials.  I don’t think the RAF is necessary to Western, but I think the Allies should have at least 4 UK transports and 6 US transports in the Atlantic before things really get rolling; 5-6 and 6-8 far better, and even then, I’d send infantry to Archangel/Karelia/Norway/Eastern Europe or Algeria for quite some time.

The problem with staging fighters at Ukraine rather than Western Europe is the combined Allied fleet off Gibraltar at the end of Russia2, with UK recapturing Anglo-Egypt on UK1.  Germany can retake Anglo-Egypt on G2, but by that time, the Allies are set to push through Africa.  Fighter range doesn’t let them land in the Balkans but cover Africa efficiently, unless you’re talking about a German Med aircraft carrier, and that’s another plate of potatoes.

Note that I’m not saying that Ukraine/West Russia is not viable.  By no means do I imply that.

I do say, though, that Ukraine/West Russia is not necessarily the “right” move.  I wouldn’t think of it as the “wrong” move by any means, but I don’t think it is the clear superior choice, it has its own set of advantages and drawbacks.

So let me ask you, DO you think that Ukr/West Russia IS the superior choice?

[Guest]

Let me say it this way…

I started as a WR/Belo player.
Then I shifted to WR/Ukr.
In my current game I went WR only, and I have not yet decided if I like how that works.

[DarthMaximus]

I went through a similar progression.

I liked Wrus/Belo until I got “diced” two to three times in a row.  It is unlikely, but it really left a sour taste in my mouth and left me saying “hey if I’m going to risk a dice job why not just attack Ukr instead”.  So…

I started doing the Ukr attack (even if bid units placed there), and while it worked well, there were of course times were the battle went south and again I was left wonder does Russia have to make a second attack to win"
I also didn’t like losing the 2-3 tanks.

Which led me to the Wrus only attack.  I’ve had pretty good success with it thus far, and kind of figured I’d keep using it until I start getting in trouble consistantly, but that hasn’t happened yet.

I do think you need to buy 3 inf, 3 arm with it or 2/2/2 b/c you want to make sure Ger can’t hold Ukr.

I will have to continue to look into the threat of the tank dash (with 8 arm buy), but I’ve yet to see it used against me.

I do find all three openings good with their own draw backs as you guys pointed out, but right now my preferece in the Wrus only.

[newpaintbrush]

This is my view:

I think that there is an excellent chance a 2 tank Ukraine attack will succeed. If the Ukraine attack succeeds, the Allies are in very good position.

There is a small chance that the Ukraine attack fails.

There is also a small chance that the battle in West Russia will go badly because Russian forces that could otherwise have hit West Russia were diverted to Ukraine.

IF the Ukraine attack fails, and IF the Russians take more casualties in West Russia than expected, the door is opened for a very nasty Tank Dash to Moscow scenario.

IF I succeed at the Ukraine attack, and IF I succeed at West Russia, I have made the Allied advance in the Atlantic a bit easier, and taken out a tank and an artillery that could have caused me real problems in about four or five turns.

–

On the other hand, if I attack Belorussia and West Russia, I now have more units attacking West Russia, so I can anticipate fewer Russian losses.  And if I fail to take Belorussia, the Russian goal of depleting the front line German infantry is still accomplished, unless the Germans somehow perform spectacularly and kill 3 Russian infantry for 0-1 German infantry.

IF the Belorussian attack and the West Russian attack both go badly, Germany STILL won’t find the door open for a tank dash (barring REALLY horrible dice, and I mean far more horrible than you need for Ukraine/West Russia to go wrong).

IF I succed at Belorussia and West Russia, I haven’t improved the Russian situation much, but I haven’t given Germany any chances to knock a hole in the Russian defense.  I will have to deal with another German artillery and tank in about four or five turns, but by that time, the Allies should have their transport chain set up, so I shouldn’t really have to worry about that artillery and tank anyways

–

As profitable as the Ukraine/West Russia attack is, it gives a small chance that the Axis will get an opening for a tank dash.  Since I think the Allies have an advantage over time, I say why take chances, no matter how small?

[djensen]

Posted to website.

[Ranor]

I’m currently translating the article of Dart Maximus and there occured a problem concerning the attack values.

“(Note: an alternative aggressive buy would be the 2 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm buy. 6 units, 12-attack, 14-defense <– I like this one as well.)”

In this case he valued the strength of inf and art independendly (2x1 + 2x2 +2x3 =12). In an example above he messured the inf as 2 if combined with an art.

“The middle of the road play (5 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm). 7 units, 11-attack, 15-defense”

(4x1 + 2x2 + 1x3 =11)

I thought I would just state it as 14 attack in th first example, but since the article is already published, I just wanted to ask.

[DarthMaximus]

You’re right.  It would be 14.  I forgot to give the inf their bonus.

I’ll edit the first post and thanks for pointing that out.

[Guest]

Translation AND technical editing.

Fantastic!
:-D

[My Lord]

I think that the dissenters to “Russian Basics” have a strong case.  However, I do believe attacking only West Russia is a very strong move for the USSR.

1. The army attacking West Russia is both too large and too small.  Medium sized attacks on the Eastern front are a terrible strategic mistake.  Either the attack must consist of a mimimal attacking ground force to minimize losses to a counterattack, or it must consist of all forces that can be spared to hold the territory to inflict maximum casualties in a foolish counterattack.  Therefore, I see absolutely no point in keeping 2 tanks and 2 infantry that could attack in reserve, at Karelia or Moscow.  Indeed, no infantry should be left in Karelia.

2. Germany can counterattack at West Russia in the after scenario of “Russian Basics” and inflict far graver losses on Russia than losses it would suffer.  By sending 6 planes, 3 tanks, 1 artillery and 6 infantry, Germany can expect to capture the territory, lose a plane to AA fire, and lose all land units in a Soviet counterattack, but would inflict losses of 9 inf, 2 art, 2 arm.  The simple truth of Revised is that Germany outbuilds Russia but the Allies outbuild Germany (at the beginning at least).  There is no reason why Germany (with Japan’s help) cannot defeat Russia because it has vast superiority in tanks and planes, plus rough parity in infantry and artillery, plus economic superiority, unless Germany takes its time.  If I were Germany I would always make this attack if Russia played this way; I could land 4-5 planes in Ukraine with 4 infantry and 3 tanks, which is more than enough to resist the counter of 6 infantry, 5 tanks, and 2 planes that could follow (and don’t forget the Russians must retake WRus).

3. The fact of the matter is that if Germany and Russia are both taking very large and roughly equivalent losses early in the game, Russia is losing badly.  The whole point of attacking only WRus is to kill the most you can while losing only a couple of infantry for the entire first turn.  By making this mid-sized attack, you are allowing Germany to essential recreate the losses as if Russia had attacked all three of WRus, Bel and Ukr, except this time Germany ends up with WRus by the end of its turn.  It is usually worth it for Germany to lose a fighter to AA fire, as German loses in EXCESS of Soviet loses in IPC value, after taking into account all lands units lost to the Soviet counter and the 2 IPCs gained through capture is precisely ZERO.  Besides, on the Eastern front, which should be Germany’s top priority, a fighter to Germany is worth only slightly more than a tank: similar firepower, similar flexibility, different uses (one takes territories, the other flies back to defend well after the fight).  I know Germany needs all the fighters it can spare against the UK/US, but if Russia falls a turn before Berlin is seriously threatened, the loss of the entire Luftwaffe doesn’t matter; it can be rebuilt as easy as taking Karelia.

In sum, as Russia I would build 4 inf, 3 art or simply 8 inf.  I would attack WRus with 4 inf, 1 art, 2 fig, that’s it.  Although I appreciate that the Russian main army’s best position is WRus, I do not think that is has the ability to move there en masse and survive for the first turn and sometimes the second.

I would usually end with (assuming 4 inf 3 art purchase):
WRus 1 inf, 1 art
Cau 10 inf, 3 art, 4 arm, 2 fig
Rus 7 inf, 1 art
Yak 6 inf
Persia 1 inf (if India should fall, it plus 1 tank retake it and UK goes again before Japan)
Sinkiang 1 inf (fighters may follow on turn two if necessary)

Notice the incredible strength poised to muster at WRus for good on turn 2 or 3.  If 8 inf were purchased, there would be 11 inf in Russia and 11 inf but only 1 art in Caucasus, which is also strong.  The case for the artillery placement at Caucasus exists because an all-too-common mistake for Germany is to retake WRus with a small force, mass prematurely at Ukr without sufficient forces to counter on Germany’s first turn; in that case the USSR can give Germany a rough beating at Ukr the second turn, always ready to have its grand union at WRus and stay put until the US/UK are ready to attack.

[Jennifer]

I assume we are talking Russia ONLY attacking W. Russia?  Why would Russia do that?

[DarthMaximus]

@Cmdr:

I assume we are talking Russia ONLY attacking W. Russia?  Why would Russia do that?

To maintain a strong defensive base and keep all your initial rt/arm alive.  Also to take out as many Germans with as few Russians as possible.

@My:

1. The army attacking West Russia is both too large and too small.

I would agree that that could be a problem, however, You can attack with 10 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm, 2 ftrs and be safe from counter.

I’ve found as long as you take with 7-8 inf + other troops, Germany won’t counter.  You can even bring in a third arm.
You can also attack with 9 inf + other troops and then Non-Com an extra 1-2 inf in if you lose too many.

Worst case is you can move everything to Wrus (if you had horrible rolls) and deadzone Cauc.

I’d rather trade Cauc than Wrus early.

@My:

2. Germany can counterattack at West Russia in the after scenario of “Russian Basics” and inflict far graver losses on Russia than losses it would suffer.

It was just an apporximation.  I’ll often leave Kar empty and have about 9 inf in Wrus.  Even with 8, while Germany may attack, chances are they won’t.
CLARIFICATION:  I would play LL differently.

But in ADS if Germany wants to roll the dice against and AA and 12 ground units, I’ll take that.  I don’t think Germany gains here, given the Russian counter ability.  I’ve been using Wrus only open for awhile and I’ve yet to see someone risk the G1 attack when Russia has 11-12 units left.  Again worst case you beef up Wrus and invite Germany into Cauc.

@My:

3. The fact of the matter is that if Germany and Russia are both taking very large and roughly equivalent losses early in the game, Russia is losing badly.  The whole point of attacking only WRus is to kill the most you can while losing only a couple of infantry for the entire first turn.  By making this mid-sized attack, you are allowing Germany to essential recreate the losses as if Russia had attacked all three of WRus, Bel and Ukr, except this time Germany ends up with WRus by the end of its turn.  It is usually worth it for Germany to lose a fighter to AA fire, as German loses in EXCESS of Soviet loses in IPC value, after taking into account all lands units lost to the Soviet counter and the 2 IPCs gained through capture is precisely ZERO.  Besides, on the Eastern front, which should be Germany’s top priority, a fighter to Germany is worth only slightly more than a tank: similar firepower, similar flexibility, different uses (one takes territories, the other flies back to defend well after the fight).  I know Germany needs all the fighters it can spare against the UK/US, but if Russia falls a turn before Berlin is seriously threatened, the loss of the entire Luftwaffe doesn’t matter; it can be rebuilt as easy as taking Karelia.

I would agree that trading unit for unit early is usually bad for the Russians, but I would disagree that 10 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm, 2 ftrs is a “mid-sized” attack.  This technically should get 5 hits and clear the battle in 1 rd.  I have no prob bringing in the 11th inf or a 3rd arm or bringing the extra inf in Non-com if needed.  I just don’t see Germany attacking a stack with ~12 units there.

Essentially Germany could be risking the game on Russia AA-fire.  If Russia gets more than one hit and Germany rolls down, it is game over.  Whereas even if Germany rolls up, UK can land in Arch, Non-Com to Cauc from Per and Russia can still counter Heavy on R2 as well as take Ukr.  I just don’t know if the risk-reward is there for the Germans.

@My:

In sum, as Russia I would build 4 inf, 3 art or simply 8 inf.  I would attack WRus with 4 inf, 1 art, 2 fig, that’s it.  Although I appreciate that the Russian main army’s best position is WRus, I do not think that is has the ability to move there en masse and survive for the first turn and sometimes the second.

I would usually end with (assuming 4 inf 3 art purchase):
WRus 1 inf, 1 art
Cau 10 inf, 3 art, 4 arm, 2 fig
Rus 7 inf, 1 art
Yak 6 inf
Persia 1 inf (if India should fall, it plus 1 tank retake it and UK goes again before Japan)
Sinkiang 1 inf (fighters may follow on turn two if necessary)

Interesting.
But with 4 inf, 1 rt, 2 ftrs - I’d be too afraid to pull that attack off.  :-)

One set of bad dice and Germany may hold Wrus, which is a whole new problem.

I’d still probably rather take the risk of leaving 8-9 inf, 2 rt, 2 arm in Wrus then the chance I might not take Wrus on R1.

[Jennifer]

That would be a horrible quandry for me.

Russia buys Carrier, Submarine for SZ 16, putting two fighters on it.
Russia puts all her eggs in W. Russia

Hell, do I sink the Russian navy and air force, or destroy the Russian army with every last piece of firepower I can mass on them?!

[Guest]

The problem with MyLord’s analysis is that he is only evaluating value over a full turn… declaring that the WR trade is an even IPC trade after R2 even with the loss of a German FIG.

The simple fact is that the value of that FIG is NOT measured in a single battle, but should be measured in terms of the number of hits it will inflict over 10-15 turns of game play.

The loss of air power early is a HUGE shift economically that is cumulative over the course of the game, and cannot be dismissed by a simple 1 turn analysis.

[newpaintbrush]

@ncscswitch:

The problem with MyLord’s analysis is that he is only evaluating value over a full turn… declaring that the WR trade is an even IPC trade after R2 even with the loss of a German FIG.

The simple fact is that the value of that FIG is NOT measured in a single battle, but should be measured in terms of the number of hits it will inflict over 10-15 turns of game play.

The loss of air power early is a HUGE shift economically that is cumulative over the course of the game, and cannot be dismissed by a simple 1 turn analysis.

If Germany sends its air east against Russia on R1, it’s a pretty sure bet that the Axis player DOES NOT THINK THE GAME WILL LAST 10-15 turns.

(Note - with a G1 heavy air attack on Russian territories, Germany is probably gunning for Caucasus or Moscow early, with or without Japan’s help.  Strong Axis play following an opening in the Russian defense means the Allies need to play far more passively (i.e. building fighters to reach Moscow), which allows Germany/Japan to make later game plays for Africa, and in a KGF to switch Germany’s focus from Ukraine/Caucasus to Eastern Europe/Karelia, while Japan takes over the offensive in Asia, with Germany and/or Japan covering the slack in Africa.  In any event, the German player isn’t IGNORING the value of a German fighter, the German player is PAYING for what the German player gets.  The price is German air blood, but it could well be worth it.)

[Corbeau Blanc]

Fighters lasting 10-15 turns… why do you guys let your ennemies swap unhindered with their fighters???

I’m I the only one to use AA guns on the front line and swap with artillery?

If i know my opponent is an air force fan, I won’t hesitate to buy an additional AA on the first round at caucasus and move the one fom moscow to West Russia to be in position to cover the entire front line on R2. I’ll have my artillery ready to swap where needed.

There is just no way i’m letting germany trade the front line with their whole aviation without risk. You need to bleed them even if it’s mean trading artillery for artillery. AA guns cannot be destructed, you will recapture them a t worst but at least you don’t need to compete with 2 red fighters vs 6-7 planes. I’d rather use my planes on the Japanese front.

[ABWorsham4]

What’s your thoughts on the U.S.S.R taking out german units in Norway/ Finland? Do you consider this a russian goal or the U.K?

[DarthMaximus]

I’m not a big fan of this on R1.  Now I certainly don’t have a problem if it is an option for Russia in round 2 or 3 (where Ger counter of Kar failed).

I think it is an unnecessary risk on R1 that draws troops away from the Belo/Ukr/Wrus/Cauc area, but again after round 1 and esp after the Ger tran is sunk and it is safe to use a tank or two, then sure take it out with Russia assuming UK doesn’t need the income or want the spot for an IC.

I’ll usually take it with the first available troops once the Ger trn is sunk which could be as early as UK 2 (or US 2 if I plan a US IC).  But I typically go to Afr in rds 1 and 2 so I think I usually take Nor with the UK in round 3.