agreed on those points, but if UKR is taken Germany is then put in the predicament of trying to take EGY, kill the DD, kill the BB and retake UKR with only 5 fighters.
4 with SS are just about guaranteed to kill the BB without loss of FTR. But with 3 FTR, there is decentchance of losing a FTR.
1 BB can take out the DD by itself, about 85% of the time, except for the 15% of the time there is a DISASTEROUS result. (TRN lost, Retreat, but TRN cant unload its cargo, and EGY battle may fail or have higher casualties with out the extra 2 units, especially with a small bid. So do you send one FTR to help?
How bout EGY? is one bomber enough? or do you need that potential 6th FTR?
Finally, if UKR is taken, and all the FTR are busy elsewhere, Germany has to send at least one ARM, which Russia can then kill Turn 2.
Just my 2 cents.
Mateooo
Most players just assume they’ll loose Ukraine to the Russians on R1 and plan their bids accordingly. So taking it or not is not going to have a crippling effect on Germany and, in fact, I’d wager it has a null effect on the Axis plans since they already assume the forces won’t be there.
After all, retaking Ukraine is super easy. You have 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 9 infantry and armored units to use if you want too. And considering we’re talking 1 or 2 tanks left, on average, you really only need 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 fig leaving you 4 fig, 1 bomber for other activities. Karelia’s usually a walk in. So you have 1 fig, 1 bom for Egypt, 3 fig, 1 sub for SZ 13 and 1 bb, 1 trn for SZ 15.
Most players just assume they’ll loose Ukraine to the Russians on R1 and plan their bids accordingly.
like 2 infantry to ukraine?(that kinda bid?) plus other junk for japan
My personal opinion is if you are going to bid anything into Ukraine, bid 1 infantry, 1 armor. Then you shift the dynamics of the attack results in your favor. 2 Infatry in Ukraine is just two more dead infantry with Russia still owning the land with at least 1 armor left. THat’s like taking the Axis without a bid, IMHO.
1 bom for Egypt, 3 fig, 1 sub for SZ 13 and 1 bb, 1 trn for SZ 15.
Thats 19% chance to lose 1 or more FTR against the BB, and 13% chance to lose at least a loaded TRN… I dont like those odds.
Mateooo
“Basically, if you could have 3 Russian ARM retreating to CAU leaving 1 GER FTR in UKR, or 3 Russian Arm holding UKR, which would you choose?”
I do not do Ukraine.
If I attack Belorussia and West Russia, I have good odds at both places, a few bad rolls will hurt neither battle, and I preserve Russia’s attack strength.
–
If you do Ukraine, and face the situation described, you KNOW Germany is going to retake. So you are trading 3 tanks for a fighter and an infantry. (You can probably kill something of Germany’s as they retake). 15 for 13, sounds good. But it isn’t so hot. That fighter probably isn’t going to be aimed at Russia anyways, and even if it was, I would far rather preserve the 3 tanks attacking at 3. You can threaten FAR more territory with tanks; you can pull tanks back into Moscow and threaten any number of Axis contested territories, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Losing tanks means you lose flexibility as to where you will attack, as well as attack strength.
I would choose to conserve the tanks.
1 bom for Egypt, 3 fig, 1 sub for SZ 13 and 1 bb, 1 trn for SZ 15.
Thats 19% chance to lose 1 or more FTR against the BB, and 13% chance to lose at least a loaded TRN… I dont like those odds.
Mateooo
Even if I have 6 fighters, I do 3 Fighters, Sub in SZ 13. I just add more fighters to Egypt since the odds of loosing units are MUCH higher there.
And you know, I have never seen, both being attacked and attacking, any fighters lost in SZ 13 if you do 3 fighters, 1 submarine. Seen it with 2 fghters, but never 3 or more.
And you know, I have never seen, both being attacked and attacking, any fighters lost in SZ 13 if you do 3 fighters, 1 submarine. Seen it with 2 fghters, but never 3 or more.
And I had never lost a loaded TRN when I attacked the british DD with the BB and TRN… that is, until I lost a loaded transport attacking the DD with the BB and TRN.
And odds are, about 1/3 of the time, one of those events will happen, and 1/30, both.
But thats what happens when we roll dice
Mateooo
My personal opinion is if you are going to bid anything into Ukraine, bid 1 infantry, 1 armor. Then you shift the dynamics of the attack results in your favor. 2 Infatry in Ukraine is just two more dead infantry with Russia still owning the land with at least 1 armor left. THat’s like taking the Axis without a bid, IMHO.
IIRC, Ukraine has 3I 1Art 1Arm 1FÂ (15)
USSR brings 3/1/3/2 = 21
2 Inf bid is now 21 vs 19 instead of 21 vs 15.
R1 USSR 3.5 hits, Germ 3 hits.
Now its art/3 arm/f vs 1-2I/art/arm/f
So its USSR 14 vs 11-13. (Lets take worst case)
2.33 hits USSR and 2 hits Germ
Now its 9 vs 9.
Unless you get that extra hit USSR 1, its about even.
I think 2 bid inf makes a difference.
Point being also that Ukraine R1 with bid is a 50/50 kinda attack. It could go well, but it could backfire in your face. Is it worth it on R1 ???
I do agree that a successful strafe (if you could guarantee it) is a good strategy. But you cant guarantee it (except in LL games)
I experimented over several games with the Libyan bid, and I have to be honest…
Africa is too easilly countered and contained by too many potential Allied moves for that bid placement to be worth it… unless you are German Fleet Unifcation player.
But for non-fleet unification, keep your bid on the front lines of your primary target… RUSSIA.
An INF in Ukraine add the likelyhood of an additional Russian casualty on R1, and increases the odds of a serious loss by Russia dramatically. Also, reducing the force needed to re-claim Ukraine on G1 gives Germany more flexibility on where and how to stage and stack for their main strike… allowign them to choose center or north instead of being forced south.
KEEP YOU EYE ON THE OBJECTIVE!
If your objective is UK, then bid into the Baltic.
If your objective is Russia, then bid into central Europe
If your objective is the US, then bid to Japan.
My last two games UK has retaken Egy on UK1 - but the advantage is that you take out UK units that would otherwise slow Japan down. Especially killing that Ftr.
So Switch are you saying you can live without African Income? This seems like a big change from the advice you gave me in my game v. Darth, IIRC (which I won without any African income).
I think the Russian attack on Ukr is a bad move personally - it costs Russia a lot of expensive units. Much better is to take WRus solidly, which is key to Russia’s game. As long as WRus stands, Russia doesn’t have to keep too much back in Mos or even Cau - all the approaches are deadzoned - at least until Japan comes rapping gently at that window…
Against Jenn and Frimmel CC and I put 2 Inf in Ukr, and Russia left it alone. But Russia also kept most of its force in Mos for much of the game.
Against Sime I placed a TRN in the Med, which allowed me to bring extra to Egy w/o a Libya bid, plus the TRN provides extra mobility against Russia - can hit Cau from SE, which is nice. You then have the choice on G1, depending on Russia’s play, which way to send extra dudes. So far I like it. It also made the retake of Egy on G2 easier, and bringing 2 more Arm to Afr allows you to blitz a lot of African income very early.
@froodster:
Against Sime I placed a TRN in the Med, … So far I like it.
That’s the first time I’ve seen that bid, and I must say that I like it too. It gives the Germans a lot of flexibility within the Med.
Using LL numbers to prove the value of a bid is a bit off when arguing an ADS game.
I have never seen two infantry in Ukraine result in anything more then Russia being reduced to 1 or 2 armor instead of having 2 or 3 armor after they kill your fighter. And the odds of that happening seems pretty similar to NOT having two infantry in Ukraine.
As I said, you want Ukraine, then put an infantry and an armor there. Or just an armor. At least you have a very good chance of obliterating the Russians without much intervention.
As for Africa, you have to have Africa at the start of the game. It’ll take the allies 5-7 turns to get you out of Africa.
Using LL numbers to prove the value of a bid is a bit off when arguing an ADS game.
I have never seen two infantry in Ukraine result in anything more then Russia being reduced to 1 or 2 armor instead of having 2 or 3 armor after they kill your fighter. And the odds of that happening seems pretty similar to NOT having two infantry in Ukraine.
As I said, you want Ukraine, then put an infantry and an armor there. Or just an armor. At least you have a very good chance of obliterating the Russians without much intervention.
As for Africa, you have to have Africa at the start of the game. It’ll take the allies 5-7 turns to get you out of Africa.
I would rather have 2 at 2 than 1 at 3. But thats just me.
As for “odds”, it is somehwere 55/45 ish. Slight USSR advantage. You hav to consider it before doing the move. And it will backfire. I’ve seen it often enough. And when an already weaker USSR loses its tanks in a bad roll, its over…
2 Inf make a huge difference in a medium size battle like that, on defence or offence. 2@2 is 1 more punch than 1@3, but the perhaps bigger advantage is a whole additional “hit point”. Try imagining a tank that rolled 2 2’s on defence, and after one hit could still survive at half strength. Everyone thinks about punch, but “hit points” are also important.
Consider this: Offensively, 3 inf are more powerful than a ftr. Both start with a total punch of 3, but after one hit, the inf force is only reduced by 33% while the fighter is eliminated.
Also, 2 Arm are more than twice as powerful as a fighter. On punch alone, they are twice as good, but they are also twice as good in longevity.
Not that I want to educate my current opponent of course…
It boils down to this though - ESPECIALLY with 2 extra Inf, but even without, Germany can more easily than Russia replace the units lost in a Ukrainian battle, and the units that are lost in the counterattack.
Just so we are all clear…
Ukraine:
No Bid: Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF: Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
2 INF: Doubtful Russia would even try Ukraine, because they would have only a 52% chance of TAKING Ukraine.
So, that 1 INF bid to Ukraine is a GOOD BET for Germany. On average it results in a net effect of adding $2 to the value of Germany’s bid.
Suddenly $7 bid is now $9…
And it is not so strong that Russia would “abort” the attack. Call it a minor sucker play :-)
Interesting analysis. So what would you do with the other 4 IPCs of a 7 IPC bid, Switch?
Although similar reasoning could apply to any bid placement, eg. placing 1 Inf 1 Art in Libya, Ger can take Egy and come out ahead, so you could add those savings to the value of the bid too.
Hey, just passed 700 posts - w00t! Fighterdom, here I come. My life has meaning!
@ncscswitch:
Just so we are all clear…
Ukraine:
No Bid:Â Russian win 96.6% with a median result of 3 ARM, 2 FIGs
1 INF:Â Â Russian win 88.2%, with median result of 2 ARM, 2 FIG (a 3 IPC bid results in a net 5 IPC gain for Germany)
2 INF:  Doubtful Russia would even try Ukraine, because they would have only a 52% chance of TAKING Ukraine.So, that 1 INF bid to Ukraine is a GOOD BET for Germany. On average it results in a net effect of adding $2 to the value of Germany’s bid.
Suddenly $7 bid is now $9…
And it is not so strong that Russia would “abort” the attack. Call it a minor sucker play :-)
52% sounds about right.
@froodster:
Interesting analysis. So what would you do with the other 4 IPCs of a 7 IPC bid, Switch?
Well, I usually do the $1 to Japan, but I ahve been working on some options after the clobbering I took a few games back from becoming so predictable…
Other things I have done…
1 INF Belo
1 INF Libya
1 INF Manch
2 INF Libya
1 ARM Libya
