@FM7:
1. In these smaller battles you are advocating for there isn’t anything mentioned regarding the use of attacking pieces along with the russian infantry. A small stack of only russian infantry inflicts limited damage (rolling at 1) and may not yield as effective a “whittling process” on the German infantry stacks as hoped for. Bringing in Russian fighters helps and they can then return to safety, but I am thinking about the use of armor in these battles and either losing them or exposing them to counter-attack. Killing German infantry at a loss of armor (maybe artillery?) seems too high a risk? The Russian player would have to be quite crafty at both engaging the Germans approaching AND not lose more expensive pieces.
AA guns should be important (for both sides) to get the opponent to use artillery/armor instead of planes, or risk the planes being shot down by AA.
aa guns are important, they don’t attack for germany so yeah you want to lose them if you are the german player.
Having a response to allweneedislove’s -Iron Blitz- strategy, would require more specific information. But I think his strategy is quite beatable, even if he doesn’t. :P
i am not familiar with an “iron blitz” strategy, it sounds like some sort of tank maneuver.
if you are referring to the allweneedispush strategy, it is most efficient and unstoppable in taking moscow g7. i am not sure if the strat as a whole is unstoppable but moscow does fall on g7.
I named it the Iron Blitz for you :) It sounds so much better than push…
Heavy Mech and Tank builds. Followed by aircraft, ending with the G7 smash!
It’s good against a player who’s going to have a knee-jerk/conventional approach. But there are unconventional solutions.
And you were within 1 move (which the other player simply didn’t see) of losing that game. :P
I named it the Iron Blitz for you :) It sounds so much better than push…
Heavy Mech and Tank builds. Followed by aircraft, ending with the G7 smash!
It’s good against a player who’s going to have a knee-jerk/conventional approach. But there are unconventional solutions.
And you were within 1 move (which the other player simply didn’t see) of losing that game. :P
it sounds like you do not know the allweneedispush. no tank buys and zero blitzing, just a straight push one territory at a time until moscow.
does not matter the reaction, moscow falls. there were mistakes made in that game by all in the multiplayer game. however you could see that there was no saving moscow on g7.
I think the idea of smaller forces being effective against an attack is probably most valid when thinking about the USA navy in both the Atlantic and pacific. Having say three small navies in a “V” formation gives then the advantage of options should one be attacked, while having one large navy would be a stalemate for the most part in the Pacific and usually a loss there. In the atlantic it gives the Axis something to worry about, where a UK fleet parked in one zone can be dealt with quickly and decicivly an multi-zone fleet makes you wonder what he’s up to. Just look at all the resources needed by Germany R1 vs UK, and this is a relatively small fleet compared to what USA can produce.
Good points Gargantua.
