"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion

[barnee]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

tanks that fought in combat can move out of the territory during the noncombat movement phase if they have movement remaining, just like a fighter.

This would be a good Feature request. Seems as if it might not be too hard to do. Idk. My understanding of java is almost zero.

Anyway, can make a request with a git issue if you’d like.

https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues

[The_Good_Captain]

@barnee I don’t think there is anyone left there to do the work even if they were interested enough to do it. That’s been my experience anyway. Sorta backed up by panther as well. Roger doing whatever he is doing for East & West right now is a random miracle imo.

[barnee]

@The_Good_Captain

Been some deveopler activity lately is why I mention it.

[RogerCooper]

@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.

[The_Good_Captain]

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.

For completeness, there are two tank types: the tank attacks at three and defends at two. The heavy tank attacks at four and defends at three. The soviets start out with access to both tank types.

[The Janus]

@The_Good_Captain I’ve watched your first few videos about A&A: Europe (1999) and your comment about the game being a 6-round affair sort of struck a chord with me.

I think E&W is similar, except that it’s “1d6 rounds” owing mainly to how soon the USSR can get the first nuclear bomb tech. Granted, their economy needs to be strong enough that they can afford to build a bomb while maintaining parity in terms of land units.

The issue is that NATO generally can’t counter-attack anywhere on rd1; if the Soviets spread their Pacific fleet properly, they can insulate Korea as well as Kamchatka. The only place that’s usually left open is Yugoslavia. The adjunct to that is generally the USSR spends all of rd2 attacking neutrals, which NATO can do nothing about; since there is no “Pro-neutral” type of mechanic within the designs, NATO can’t lend support/deterrence to neutrals that are vulnerable to attack (i.e. on the Soviet border.)

If the strongest weapon in NATO’s arsenal is the US attack in the far east (which takes til rd3 to reasonably get new transports involved in a landing) you’re at least halfway along the doomsday countdown by that point.

Even if NATO is splitting their fleets to mitigate the effects of a nuke, I think that having to rebuild, say, 3 transports in the Pacific is more cost-intensive than the USSR having to crank out another nuke – particularly if their income is anywhere in the 70 IPC range. If India is bottled up, you end up in a situation of the UK basically throwing good money after bad, just to maintain the status quo, with no real potential of ever swinging the momentum, from that position. Never mind the costs NATO is going to incur trying to keep up on spying.

I think the Kamchatka landing can absolutely work, but it’s a lot easier if NATO can sway China (hard, if not impossible) and they absolutely need to be pushing past Eastern Siberia within “1d6 rounds.” Otherwise the game just deteriorates until NATO slowly dies to nukes. Even when I’ve had NATO making grand offensives to try and keep the economics of the game from stagnating, they either can’t sustain it because the USSR absorbs and counter-attacks everything, or they’re forced to pivot off of one position to bail out another, and all momentum is lost in the process.

NATO has time in which to gamble, but they don’t have the economic edge in this game – and they have all the drawbacks of the Allies, always needing to build up their logistics chain (and spying!) before they can really even act. They’re on the back foot from the word ‘go’ and they have only a handful of rounds to do something decisive.

[RogerCooper]

@The-Janus I have almost finished, the preliminary version of East & West in TripleA.

The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.

[The Janus]

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

The TripleA AI does not make good use of nukes and generally will not buy them. I do see that Russia has an advantage with its cheap infantry and central position.

Not sure how you would code it as such, but the Soviets should view the nuke as an anti-ship weapon; never mind just raw “TUV swing” numbers, but taking out 5 transports is way more valuable than only taking out 5 infantry.

As for the infantry cost and such, the start of rd2 typically should have the cash on hand as something like:

• USSR: 65 = 32 inf
• WE: 21 = 7 inf
• UK: 33 = 11 inf
• US: 41 = 13 inf

So already, the Soviets are ahead of the allies by 1 infantry – but that’s not taking into account that the US likely needs to put down about 4-5 new transports at the start of the game, as well as up to 3 spies for the NATO alliance, and as many as 3 more transports for the UK.

The rd1 attacks should more or less even out the units on the board (if it’s implemented in TripleA we can get an accurate accounting of TUV, but even a mock-up of the typical battle results would likely bare this out) so from rd2 onward, the USSR should be edging ahead. It isn’t even really advantageous for NATO to attack (in most cases) because unless they can take out planes or armor, or guarantee an infantry kill ratio of 3:2 or better, they’re just spinning their tires and likely weakening themselves in the overall calculus of the game.

In rd2, the USSR typically builds on their lead by taking Iran and Sweden, with Finland, Pakistan, often Afghanistan (and Switzerland, depending on the circumstances) falling in rd3. In that time, NATO might be able to counter-attack a weak West Germany position, and the US might start to land in Asia. But the alliance is most definitely behind the 8-ball from the outset.

[The_Good_Captain]

@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper

[The_Good_Captain]

@The-Janus I agree with about 80% of this. The rhythm and flow sound right. Where I disagree is that I think the game is significantly NATO favored pending a fairly extreme result in the spying/tech arena (which doesn’t have such cataclysmic outcomes as tech in Anniversary/Global - a plus imo). The Soviets have to really make gains early with tech/spying or the USA comes through the back door. In my experience, WE and UK can reasonably expect to hold down the fort and USA can reasonably be expected to kick in the back door via Kamchatka.

When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts. Also, if NATO is playing (imo) efficiently - they can shrug off the first nuke and lose five naval units with almost no disruption or replacements needed (losing subs, cruisers or WE transport - fodder units). To rinse and repeat as the soviets (20 infantry total now) is crippling.

I still feel this game is so solid and on point that it deserves to be considered canon and the Axis and Allies answer to a cold war variant.

[RogerCooper]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper

This is going be more inspired by East & West than a port of East & West. The complex tech & espionage rules can’t be done in TripleA. I am just randomly giving out tech & neutrals through events.

The major neutrals are also an issue. I think that it works better to make them distinct powers rather than awarding their units & territories to the major powers. Having China as Russian ally and OAS as Western ally seems natural. The problem is that whoever gets the Arab League wins. My probable solution is to give the Arab League to the Eastern alliance and suggest playing the West with an income bonus.

[The Janus]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

When NATO buys a nuke, the opportunity cost is 6 infantry and two IPC. When the Soviets buy a nuke, the opportunity cost is 10 infantry - that hurts.

I think you need to ask the question, “why would NATO buy a nuke?” because you’ve always based the entire cost/benefit analysis on how many infantry a nuke costs. Why would NATO spend 20 IPCs to kill 10 IPCs of infantry? Even with the upgraded nuke, it’s still only a break-even proposition for NATO.

I think if the USSR can pull ahead by, say 3 infantry per round over/above what NATO can put out, they can afford a nuke every 3rd round while still maintaining parity on land units. If they can get the “10 IPC free SBR” of a spy kill, that helps their economic prospects even more.

If you take the standard chunk out of NATO (Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, South Korea) on rd1, they’re down to 94 IPCs (31 infantry, rounded down). If the USSR can add Sweden, Finland, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (usually doable by rd3) they’re at 69 IPCs (34 infantry, rounded down) without any contribution from China – already putting them ahead 3 infantry per turn. If NATO loses any more territory than that, they’re completely behind the 8-ball economically (never mind militarily, because that would probably mean losing/trading Italy or India, or both.) So yeah, by rd3, the US had better have put together a landing that can sustain itself; if the Soviets are able to push that back either militarily or with nukes, I don’t see a path to victory for NATO.

As for the naval units, I find I tend to burn through most US and UK subs in the first few rounds, mopping up the Soviet navies; by the time nukes start flying, I usually don’t have any/many left – and this is coming from a guy who prioritizes using the US starting nuke on navies, whenever possible. I also find the WE navy very useful, so I’m not in the habit of just parking it by the UK to soak nukes; maybe I’m too aggressive as NATO but I feel those transports are valuable in opening new fronts around the Mediterranean (and that’s probably the best assignment for the UK’s carrier, too).

It also takes the UK a long time to consolidate their ships from around the Indian ocean into either the Atlantic or Pacific, if you spend any amount of energy gathering up units from Australia, Africa, and/or putting down extra transport loads of infantry at Singapore.

---

That all being said, I do think it is hard to defend Kamchatka (…unless the USSR has an amazing Tokyo Drift – which seems to happen about 50% of the time). The problem is mainly that the USSR has such a low production capability in/around the region, that even having 2 rds to build up doesn’t always amount to much. And the other problem is that aside from what starts in the region, all Soviet equipment is basically 2+ rounds of movement away from being able to help out. One of the things I’ve looked at is trying to get the tanks (or infantry?) from Moscow over to East Siberia ASAP, rather than stranding them in Turkey – but 2 tanks worth of offense is basically impossible to replace, on rd1.

This is why when I gameplan as the USSR, I’m always trying to squeeze as much non-combat movement out of my S1 attacking units as possible. I look at things like, can I get a fighter into my Scandinavia attacks, instead of a tank? or even a heavy tank instead of an armor? Can I get another fighter into Turkey and use the heavy tank somewhere else? etc.

The other thing I’ve tried to hammer out is, where should the USSR be producing more infantry, to send to the far east? Having a defensive line at Turkey/Georgia/Kazakhstan and maxing out placement in those areas, while marching them eastward seems like a good idea. The problem is the USSR is so tight on cash, that they need every scrap of territory in order to be competitive; not taking Iran, and also just abandoning Turkmenistan doesn’t seem to be viable. But if you dip too far down into central Asia, those units are effectively stranded for the duration, and can’t be used elsewhere. It’s a catch-22.

Basically, I’m taking the principles of the Orient Express where units do “double duty” as both offense and defense, and trying to apply that to the Soviet’s supply chain into the far east. For example, would it make sense to be placing infantry in Orel every turn? They could be used to counter-attack landings in Karelia or Komi, but also moved to defend Moscow and then continue eastward. But is that really better than just placing as much stuff as close to the front lines as possible? It doesn’t seem to pan out that way, and it actually seems like it’s not maximizing the value of the placement rules, for the USSR.

[The_Good_Captain]

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper I forgot there even was an option for AI in TripleA. I think you’re doing the lords work just to make the TripleA align with the rules. WELL DONE @RogerCooper

This is going be more inspired by East & West than a port of East & West. The complex tech & espionage rules can’t be done in TripleA. I am just randomly giving out tech & neutrals through events.

The major neutrals are also an issue. I think that it works better to make them distinct powers rather than awarding their units & territories to the major powers. Having China as Russian ally and OAS as Western ally seems natural. The problem is that whoever gets the Arab League wins. My probable solution is to give the Arab League to the Eastern alliance and suggest playing the West with an income bonus.

I have a request then. Can you make the random tech and neutrals being handed out through random events an optional rule? Or just leave it out? In this way, we can use the EDIT mode and layer them in using an independent dice roller.

Same with the Major Neutrals. Edit mode to the rescue is A-okay with me.

[The_Good_Captain]

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

I think you need to ask the question, “why would NATO buy a nuke?” because you’ve always based the entire cost/benefit analysis on how many infantry a nuke costs. Why would NATO spend 20 IPCs to kill 10 IPCs of infantry? Even with the upgraded nuke, it’s still only a break-even proposition for NATO.

Great point. You don’t even need to buy a nuke as NATO while the USSR has to blow holes in its economy to build the two needed to make something you might call a difference in the naval war.

@Ragnell804 response to the problem of being the Soviets is to both buy a spy with the pregame IPC and dump the rest into going whole hog on Italy AND Germany round 1 and essentially banking the game on a coin flip.

That’s the most interesting answer I’ve seen to (again) what I feel strongly is a significant imbalance.

[The Janus]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

buy a spy with the pregame IPC

What’s the implied game-ender that the Soviet spy provides? Spain?
I’ve said it upthread, but I think that’s also the strong counter-point to saying, “US can go all in on the Pacific, and there’s literally no downside.”
Leaving France susceptible to that stab in the back is what makes me think the Kamchatka push is less of a sure thing. I feel like a split focus between Europe and Asia for the US is often warranted.

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

the USSR has to blow holes in its economy to build the two needed to make something you might call a difference in the naval war.

The situation in the Pacific is really a gambit, just because the US has the option to potentially retreat up to 2 subs, out of the Soviet attacks. But like I said, I’ve often seen the US lose all of the naval units that are attacked on S1.

That leaves them with 1 bb, 1 crz, 2 CV for the Pacific (generally assuming they’ll lose the Hawaii sub in mopping things up.) If those get taken out by a nuke (even if you lose some fighter aircraft to save ships) the remaining transports are pretty vulnerable to a kamikaze-style attack. If nothing else, that would cause a player like myself to consider pivoting my navy somewhere out of fighter range (i.e. perhaps supplying India instead.)

If the Soviets get the nuke tech early enough, I know that the US can’t really afford to have their navy out of position if/when the nuke arrives – that’s why in games where that early tech happens, I’ll often just focus on the southerly route, with an IC in the Philippines.

[RogerCooper]

I have a request then. Can you make the random tech and neutrals being handed out through random events an optional rule? Or just leave it out? In this way, we can use the EDIT mode and layer them in using an independent dice roller.

Same with the Major Neutrals. Edit mode to the rescue is A-okay with me.
I will probably handle as a separate scenario without tech & gaining minor neutral control.

[The_Good_Captain]

@The-Janus

That leaves them with 1 bb, 1 crz, 2 CV for the Pacific (generally assuming they’ll lose the Hawaii sub in mopping things up.) If those get taken out by a nuke (even if you lose some fighter aircraft to save ships) the remaining transports are pretty vulnerable to a kamikaze-style attack. If nothing else, that would cause a player like myself to consider pivoting my navy somewhere out of fighter range (i.e. perhaps supplying India instead.)

Imo, you should never sack CV. Drop subs first, then cruiser(s) then the battleship (since those are all now useless but for soaks at this point - a critical acknowledgement) and then and only then, lose transports. USA loses one, maybe two transports at best (the only units that matter imo) - a net loss for the Soviets (again, as long as you acknowledge that BB, CA and subs are useless). On the next USA turn, replace lost transport(s) and force the USSR to build another bomb. It’s too much (in my experience) for their exhausted economy to eat.

If the Soviets get the nuke tech early enough, I know that the US can’t really afford to have their navy out of position if/when the nuke arrives – that’s why in games where that early tech happens, I’ll often just focus on the southerly route, with an IC in the Philippines.

I feel that building IC is not good strategy - especially one in the Philippines. There might be an exception for the British in India if the Soviets are neglecting that front and the British can take the offensive (in which case they will have a need for a few tanks they can’t get from anywhere else in a reasonable time or manner). The ability of territories with an IPC value to produce infantry really, really waters down the efficacy of IC in this version of AnA imo. A “knock on” effect of this is it increases the value of transports for pulling infantry off of outlier territories and bringing them to the front line.

In my experience, the soviets getting the bomb early doesn’t help much. The opportunity cost of 10 Russian infantry is unworkable until round 3/4 at the earliest. The demand for infantry and spies is just too great in those first critical turns.

[The Janus]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

You don’t even need to buy a nuke as NATO

Correct, the US and UK instead need to add how many transports to the board, to even be viable? Compared to how many the USSR needs?

You’re trying to do the “crying poor” argument as the USSR, and it doesn’t wash because I’ve already laid the numbers out.
If the USSR “needs” 2 nukes and 2 spies to win the game, that’s 60 IPCs
If NATO needs 3 spies and at least 4 transports just to be competitive, that’s 62 IPCs already. So let’s call that a wash, for the sake of argument (maybe it’s 2 spies and 5 transports, etc.)

If the USSR is collecting 70 IPCs at the end of their 2nd turn (which, they are) that’s already putting them at 35 inf compared to a (reasonable, but generous/rounded up) 32 for all of NATO; if that trend holds, the USSR can basically afford to not purchase 3-4 infantry for 6 rounds, build 2 nukes with that money instead, and put the game out of reach – while still being at parity w/r/t ground forces.

And that’s to say nothing of the fact that after turn 2 they can likely/reasonably still boost their economy by invading:

• [one of] Sweden or Finland
• Switzerland
• Afghanistan

…at a time when NATO is maybe maintaining parity in France, and often is struggling or failing to hold onto Italy.

Prior to rd3 NATO is only ever nibbling around the edges of the USSR, and at best they’re “trading” those territories – meaning both sides cash them in. The problem is that trading territories is a losing proposition for NATO, because their infantry cost so much more.

If NATO spends 2 infantry to kill 1 infantry and take a 2 IPC territory, and then the USSR spends 2 infantry to kill NATO’s 1 surviving infantry to take back the territory – guess what? We’ve both lost 6 IPCs in units for 2 IPCs in territory… but the USSR started with the territory, and also ended with the territory.

This is why the game stagnates; there’s no point for NATO to attack, unless they can either a) catch the USSR with their pants down, taking out tanks or aircraft with a nuke or paratroopers or similar, or; b) make a big enough landing that it can’t be pushed back, and also can be continually resupplied. Yes I’m talking about Kamchatka.

The problem fundamentally is that nukes are a hard-counter to anything NATO is doing involving transports, while the hard-counter for nukes is…? There isn’t one. If anything, the only counter is to be winning the game militarily/economically, which I think I’ve pretty clearly established that NATO is not the faction which is in the driver’s seat, in that regard… in addition to being at a disadvantage in spying, too!

[The_Good_Captain]

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

You’re trying to do the “crying poor” argument as the USSR, and it doesn’t wash because I’ve already laid the numbers out.

I think games played and demonstrated is the acid test for this type of discussion. I don’t typically go down these rabbit holes but I will here because there is something missing that is very clear to me so…

You’re not entirely wrong, you just don’t have all the information or a hugely critical component is left out: the total unit value of each sides armies/airforces on the board. You appear to be assuming they’re equal after the Russian opener. They’re not.

Most TripleA players will know what board TUV is. After a stock opener as the Soviets the TUV is usually 102 IPC in favor of NATO with land/air alone - to say nothing of the navy. This is an imbalance that is not made up for by the 40 or so IPC “transport tax” that NATO ends up paying in the early game.

Worse, while the Russians claw their way up to parity with NATO in the opening turns in a manner similar to what you describe, they’re all the while further suffering a TUV tax for all the neutrals they’re forced to attack further deepening the TUV divide. I don’t see you address this anywhere. Total Unit Value (TUV) is a very common tool used on TripleA to measure overall performance/balance. That’s why I mention it.

If I play seven games as NATO, I might lose one. My mind can be changed if I lost two out of seven games (I think I’ve lost as NATO…once in the last two years having played 7 or 8 games in that time - and that was that crazy game @Ragnell804 and I played).

Further, I’ve never seen a game of E&W stagnate. I think I’ve had one or two go up to turn 7 or 8? I would say one of this game’s strengths is that it doesn’t go on forever like so many other AnA game titles - perhaps I’m misinterpreting your use of the word though.

[The Janus]

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

I’ve never seen a game of E&W stagnate.

Like I said, there’s generally some nibbling around the edges, but for the majority of the game, the territory that NATO controls is essentially stable by the end of the 1st Soviet turn; the USSR creeps ahead in territory by taking neutrals.

I guess while we’re talking about neutrals, maybe it’s time to question whether paying that tax is worth it, as the USSR. For every infantry that you lose taking Finland (for example) you need to hold the territory for 2 rounds, just to break even. Sure, a 2-IPC territory will pay itself off sooner, but in a game only lasting 8 rounds (and invading neutrals only really starts on the 2nd and 3rd rounds), we might need to rethink whether the juice is worth the squeeze. The other thing is that Scandinavia in particular is so far out of position for offensive units, particularly if the biggest area of concern is holding off Kamchatka.

@The_Good_Captain said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Most TripleA players will know what board TUV is. After a stock opener as the Soviets the TUV is usually 102 IPC in favor of NATO with land/air alone

You have a point, but you’re also completely discounting the fact that NATO can only really act at 1/3rd efficiency with those units. If we have the “fruity pebbles” situation in France, the USSR typically can’t outmatch NATO’s defense, but likewise even all 3 NATO powers acting in concert can’t evict the Soviets out of West Germany, either.
(In an Axis & Allies game where each side is split between 2-3 factions, this dynamic is more balanced out. Come to think of it, this might be why the Pacific 1940 game is so tilted towards Japan, because their opponents are split into China/UK/ANZAC/US whereas the Japanese are just one unitary behemoth.)

I mentioned it earlier in the thread that the total infantry of both sides is relatively even after the Soviet opener, meaning it’s only the rd1 purchases keeping NATO ahead; after that, there’s a big drop-off for WE from their starting income. (In fact, one of the house rules I had proposed back in the day is that their rd1 income should reflect only the territories they start their turn with, but that’s another conversation.)

Off the top of my head, (after S1) typically the US has 5 fighters, UK has 3, and WE has 2 – compared to 7 for the USSR.
For tanks, it’s in the same ballpark; USSR has 12 (+3 heavies) vs. 5 for the US (one that’s stranded on Okinawa, of all places), 4 for the UK (scattered across the globe), and 2 for WE.

If there’s one obvious place where NATO is ahead, it’s bombers (5 to 1) but again, outside of naval combat I find myself mainly using them for paratrooper transport; granted, SBR can really sting the Soviets, but a bomber lost to AA basically isn’t getting replaced – so that stings pretty hard, too. I should also add that the US is essentially always at risk of losing one bomber to deliver a nuke, because ballistic missiles have such a limited range – and if you try to fire a nuke from anywhere in Europe (to get closer to the juicier Soviet targets) you’re risking a costly detonation, even if you did ship over an AA gun to do it without risking a bomber.

(Another point worth mentioning is that the ballistic missile tech works like a tonic for the USSR, because all of their coastal ICs/AA guns are basically exactly where you would want to launch a nuke from, if you’re gunning for NATO’s ships – meaning they effectively don’t require bombers for their nukes once they get the tech, unlike the US.)

So even if NATO is ahead by 102 on TUV, if 60 of that is just bombers, and another 34 of that are WE’s tanks+fighters…? I’m not sure there’s as wide a gulf as the numbers would seem to demonstrate. We’re both on record as saying that total infantry / infantry production is something we pay close attention to in E&W – I think that metric might be more telling than TUV in this game. Case in point, the USSR can be behind by ~100 in TUV and probably still be competitive, but if they’re below NATO in infantry production, their goose is cooked.

---

As our current game hopefully illustrates, I think there’s a case to be made that NATO needs to focus on building their logistics up in order to get all that TUV to where it actually needs to be; if this means building transports ahead of spies, that also opens a window for the USSR. Generally I think the randomness of tech and spying make for a bad balancing mechanic, but it’s not nothing at least.

I think it’s safe to say that both sides are on timers of their own. The USSR needs to come up with ways to disrupt the naval situation ASAP (as well as throughout the game) while patching up their defense enough to at least counterattack (if not repel) any/all likely invasions.

NATO on the other hand needs to make landfall before the USSR can spin up their nuke production. If the NATO fleet is bombed, the remaining transports are sitting ducks; if there isn’t another nuke in the pipeline, then sure, they can just keep on keeping on for a while – but my sense is it’s better to preserve those units by redirecting them out of range, rather than just feed them into the wood-chipper and replace them afterwards.

This is why I point to a Philippines IC as a way to keep some flow of US units into Asia if/when nukes make the Kamchatka route unsustainable. But this sort of begs the question of “if NATO loses the naval game, do they just lose? or is their 2nd-best strategy still a viable option?” Having tried non-Kamchatka strategies as the US, I’m inclined to think that the shortest/fastest supply chains for NATO are the only ones that work – so if the USSR develops a hard counter to that, then NATO just can’t win. The followup question then becomes, is 6-8 rounds enough time for the USSR to leverage nukes and defeat the navy? I think shy of them shooting way under on their opener, it should be doable.