Ukraine was overpowered, now what Commander? (hypothetical)

[trihero]

I like your answer switch, couple questions:

1. Would you do this even if the Russians didn’t take Ukraine that hard? It seems like you could; if the Russians take with an average 1-2 tanks then the German Ukraine stack would be that much harder to contain.

2. As for “no AA guns” I have to point out that the Russians would probably retreat their one in W. Russia on R2, and the UK could have their AA in Caucasus on UK2.

[Jennifer]

Yes, but Russia’s still down an AA Gun and now Germany won’t need to build a 4th, which for some reason, I usually end up buying in my games at some point. (Like Germany 4 or 5 when I’m earning 50+ IPC with Germany a round.)

[trihero]

now Germany won’t need to build a 4th, which for some reason, I usually end up buying in my games at some point.

What the lol! What do you need a 4th for? I usually have to retreat the W. Europe one :/

[Jennifer]

W. Europe, S. Europe, Germany and 1 to follow my army marching on Moscow.

I don’t “normally” have to abandon W. Europe.

[trihero]

W. Europe, S. Europe, Germany and 1 to follow my army marching on Moscow.

I guess Russia must have enough fighters to scare you when your army is marching? O_o?

[Jennifer]

I’ve had my Russias up to 4 Fighters.  But then there’s American and British fighters and they are usually the more prevalent.  Since both England and America usually lean more on Infantry and Fighter builds instead of armor.  Can help when England and America decide to suicide against you to save Moscow.

[Guest]

Yes, with the scenario you post Wes, I would probably make a go for Ukraine Dominance.

As far as AA guns… I am like Jen in that regard… I tend to litter Europe with AA guns as Germany over the first 5 turns, with Germany usually having 5 guns total.  They come in handy against an Allied FIG build up in Moscow, and also serve to neuter any attempts at a Russian “Yak Attack” (my own name for Russia with way above average numbers of FIGs, which were YAK Fighters in WWII)

[trihero]

Yes, with the scenario you post Wes, I would probably make a go for Ukraine Dominance.

Well Ike I was asking more like, you could probably go Ukraine dominance no matter the result in Ukraine. Just because the Russians had a lot more than usual there after R1 just means that normally a Ukraine stack would be that much harder for the Russians to dislodge. I know your response to the situation I set up, but I was asking one step further would you pretty much do this if Russia had less forces in Ukraine as well?

As far as AA guns… I am like Jen in that regard… I tend to litter Europe with AA guns as Germany over the first 5 turns, with Germany usually having 5 guns total.  They come in handy against an Allied FIG build up in Moscow, and also serve to neuter any attempts at a Russian “Yak Attack” (my own name for Russia with way above average numbers of FIGs, which were YAK Fighters in WWII)

LOL O_O! I don’t find I can make any more AA guns work, because it’s not normal for the UK/US to use fighters just to trade territories, they usually only use them for defense and to punch a tough territory; I’d just rather have another inf or arm. I’ll have to try it though to really see.

[Guest]

Whether or not I would actually do Ukriane Dominanc ein a game depends on the forces in Russia and the amount of Japan pressure on Russia.

If Japan is coming hard, then yes I will go for it.  If Moscow is light (usually due to having the Siberian units stay in the east) I may go for it.

Otherwise, it is a tough forward position to hold, and I am more likely to trade Ukriane while I build up forces, especially INF.

[trihero]

So in other words you do not naturally prefer to do Ukraine dom early on, but you think you would have to if Russia got a huge lead there in R1 and when Japan is coming in hard?

[Guest]

Yep.

If Japan is coming hard, then I am going to give Russia too many targets to dominate and trade…

[Jennifer]

This is the problem when discussing strategy in this game.  It is very hard to do so with confidence except in regards to Russia 1.  (Getting progressively harder with each subsequent country turn and game turn.)

[trihero]

This is the problem when discussing strategy in this game.  It is very hard to do so with confidence except in regards to Russia 1.  (Getting progressively harder with each subsequent country turn and game turn.)

But apparently you’re confident enough to say that blitzing Archangel will give you the long term advantage over blitzing simply Karelia!  8-)

[Jennifer]

Cause that’s Germany 1.  It’s not 100% like talking about Russia 1, but it’s pretty gosh darn close!

[Sproit]

Attack back with everything you own,

Blitzing Karelia is a good one, but do not enter Archangel,
You do not have enough inf to reach that (0), so you have only tanks there, and they get shot right away, for those 2 IPC, getting 2 tanks shot = 10 IPC, that ain’t worth it.

On G2, if you’ve taken back all those teritory, you could have an easy shot at Archangel, pushing Russia backwards more, hopefully you didn’t lose everything.

I would spend all my units on getting back at least Ukraine, and taking Karelia is just a gift. ;) (and if you can mange to hold it, a victory city! )

[Magister]

@Bean:

On Russia 1, they struck W. Russia with 9 inf 1 art 1 arm, and Ukraine with 3 inf 1 art 3 arm 2 fig.

They wind up with 5 inf 1 art 1 arm in W. Russia, and, unfortunately for you, 1 art 3 arm in Ukraine. To complicate things, they move both of their AA guns - one to W. Russia, and one to Ukraine. Their build was 4 inf 3 art, so now they have 5 inf 1 art in Caucasus and 5 inf 2 art in Moscow at the end of the turn. Both Karelia and Archangel are abandoned.

Your bid was 1 inf 1 art in Libya.

Initial scenario not evil enough ;-)
If Russia built 4inf 3art they will place 3art 1inf in Caucasus and 3 inf in Moscow.
So now they have 3inf 3art in CAU, greatly increasing counterattack threat to UKR !

In that case, I wonder if I’d do instead an one-round-raid to WRU then mass in a safe® position in Karelia or BEL.

[Jennifer]

Sproit,

You know, I have to say I hate the VC idea.  Most games are conceded with the fall of Germany, Japan or Russia.  In most cases, that is NOT 9 Victory Cities which has come to be a standard of most games played in most of the clubs IN MY EXPERIENCE. (just to clarify so we don’t get some nut job who says that in the Uzbekistan Club of Male Purse Carrying Turtle Lickers they use the 12 VC system as standard.)

Germany’s fallen with the Allies only having 5 VC.

+1 Germany
-1 Karelia
-1 India

6 (Starting) - 2 + 1 = 5

The Axis have had games given to them in concession with only 8 VC.

+1 India
+1 Russia

• None

6 (Starting) +2 = 8

VC is really a way to give the allies a chance to win the game without winning the game.  They don’t have to take any nation, they only have to take some territories and make sure not to lose any.  For instance, they can take Kwangtung, S. Europe and W. Europe.  Even if the axis have a 2000 IPC army and the allies a 12 IPC army, the allies win with the VC system in place.

I guess the original idea was probably (notice the hypothetical statements, no nut jobs allowed to say “no, I talked to Mr. Soinso who told me they came up with it so that People wearing purple bikinis on Wednesday in Ice Land could eat Cherry toppings on their Sundaes”, please!) to help end games before they became 100 Infantry 30 Armor, 6 Fighters defending vs whatever was attacking games like happened A FRICKIN LOT in classic!

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
Oh come on Jennifer, tell us how you really feel.  :?
Not that it could have happened mind you, but if the Axis had conqured the Soviet Union, all of Asia, the sub-contenent and All of Africa, I can see the UK and USA sueing for peace.
      :roll:

[NoMercy]

I doubt that, using UK as a staging ground i’m sure they may have considered using the “nuke” more often to make the axis sue for peace.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
  Actually, from what I’ve read Germany was the first choice for an A-Bomb. If they had tried to keep fighting after the fall of Berlin, they would have gotten it first.
The trouble was, we could not make them very quickly, we used the only two that we had to end the war with Japan, who was already trying to capitulate with some form of dignaty before we obliterated two of their cities, and thousands of its’ civilians. They were both beaten and reduced to ashes already by this time.
My “what if” scenario had them as veritable masters of the world, except for Britton and the Western Hemisphere.
IMHO, They could still afford to absorb a couple of A-Bombs and press the attack.
      :roll: