Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me. I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!
After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway. Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)
@Cmdr:
Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me. I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!
After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway. Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)
You were probably a huge Infantry Push Mechanics player in second edition (aka Classic) if you played that a few years back.
You are all about saving units and being ultra efficient.
While that is a good principal to operate under, that type of player doesn’t often think outside the box and can be less apt to see and sieze uncoventional opportunities to win a game that skews a bit outside the ‘normal’ outcome.
Uh-huh. That’s what Switch was counting on when he didn’t defend Caucasus properly and now Russia has no army. (neither does Germany, but that’s less of an issue for me after they failed a KJF then switched gears.)
I was an Infantry Push Mechanic in Classic, I’ll admit it. It was about the only way to win your games. Now I’m more of a fighter push mechanic girl. I like fighters. I don’t like loosing them, but sometimes you have to realize that losing your fighters, while bad for you, can make it too expensive for your opponent to attack or recover from.
It’s not abnormal for opponents to see me with 9 Japanese Fighters and 8-12 German fighters in a game. Gives me a LOT of mobile punch without risking my tanks.
@Cmdr:
Uh-huh. That’s what Switch was counting on when he didn’t defend Caucasus properly and now Russia has no army. (neither does Germany, but that’s less of an issue for me after they failed a KJF then switched gears.)
I was an Infantry Push Mechanic in Classic, I’ll admit it. It was about the only way to win your games. Now I’m more of a fighter push mechanic girl. I like fighters. I don’t like loosing them, but sometimes you have to realize that losing your fighters, while bad for you, can make it too expensive for your opponent to attack or recover from.
It’s not abnormal for opponents to see me with 9 Japanese Fighters and 8-12 German fighters in a game. Gives me a LOT of mobile punch without risking my tanks.
A girl after my own heart. I thnk ftrs are VERY important piece in Revised, at $10 you CAN afford to sacrifice them too.
I especially like them as US since it helps them get into the war quickly since they have so far to go ….
Well, what Jen failed to mention is that she magically made 4 of my INF disappear in Round 3 of combat that she now has to roll for, and then my extra units for Round 4 that are still alive also…
Russia may be losing a lot of forces, but Germany has last 4 FIGs, 13 INF, and 1 ARM so far, with 5 more that Russia plans on killing since I still have INF screen to roll, and at least another round with my FIGs and ARM…
Yup, fixed the missing dudes, lost a tank. :(
But Russia’s effectively out of the game for a round or two while they rebuild. Cost me half my air force though, not entirely happy about that. And I suppose England and Russia can liberate Caucasus easy enough removing half my surviving tanks.
But I guarantee you one thing! Germany never expected a full frontal body blow by Germany in this game!
You STILL have dice to roll…
Going in to Round 5 it is:
Germany: 3 ARM
Russia: 1 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FIGs.
Actually, we thought JWW would talk you out of the Caucuses attack.
And it is looking like he should have…
@ncscswitch:
You STILL have dice to roll…
Going in to Round 5 it is:
Germany: 3 ARM
Russia: 1 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FIGs.Actually, we thought JWW would talk you out of the Caucuses attack.
And it is looking like he should have…
Yea, I mean, I only had a 75% chance to win that with 5 Armor and a fighter!
For the love of mike.
@Cmdr:
Losing the fighter in Ukraine isn’t too much of an issue for me. I plan for it to be dead, and I drool over the chance to kill off 75% of Russia’s starting armor!
After all, my bid is normally in Libya, so if I just add a bomber and a fighter and ignore the DD in SZ 15, then I’ll still win probably anyway. Meanwhile, if Russia’s down to 1 tank in Ukraine (a good possibility) I can kill it with my battleship (another good possibility.)
If you attack Ukraine with that BB, then you better pray your bid in Egypt is enough to take it, 'cause if you DON’T take Egypt, your little Med. fleet is dead on UK1, sweetheart! :wink:
Yea, but I’m not overly worried about Fighter, Bomber, 2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter. I don’t expect to HOLD it, but I’ll probably get it.
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).
Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:
Naah, just kidding! :-D
I have to agree with Axis_Roll (did I say that?).
Was it THAT painful? :cry: :cry:
Naah, just kidding! :-D
thank goodness, I was starting to get a complex……
There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle. The economics are not the end-all in A&A.
I agree wholeheartedly. I see people talking about TUV and whatnot, but I really don’t see what the point is in looking at units in terms of IPC value instead of logistics.
I tend to say that any battle (in the early or middle game) where Russia can do at least a 1:1 inf trade with Germany is a good idea. This is done to prevent Germany from being able to leverage her non-inf attack power. In TUV-speak you’d say that’s an even trade of IPCs. But looking at it in terms of 1:1 inf already covers that and also gives a tactical reason (anti-Infantry Push). A tactical perspective has very similar standards (because units worth more IPC are generally more important) but gives you a better idea of what to do.
And while tactical analysis will give you ideas of ratios, I don’t really see how one can come up with TUV guide. How much TUV advantage should Russia stand to gain before it enters a battle with Germany? Japan? There’s just so much to factor in. It’s gonna depend on the situation. Gee, sounds like tactical analysis to me.
Honestly, I don’t like any battle where I lose the same or more units then Germany when I’m Russia. Ditto for Germany.
Do you see that you’re not contradicting TUV as a viable method of analysis? I don’t consider an even trade of TUV as a bad thing. But almost no one would say that trading more units for less is a good thing, unless you’re so far ahead you don’t care or are counting on luck.
The Ukraine attack in my book is viable. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s optimal because not doing Ukraine has the tradeoff of making Japan advance slower, but they’re both even in my mind. You have to think of Ukraine like any other normal battle; would you be willing to take it out before the Germans get a chance to retreat it? In that sense of course you should; there’s no difference between the Germans exposing forces like that later on or on the first turn; in fact it’s better on R1 because you have lots of units and income for a while yet to cushion bad luck.
I would be willing to trade one for one with Germany pretty much with Russia; then the other 2 Allies will massacre the Germans. You should be looking to make even or better trades as Russia, so in that sense the Ukraine attack is the most consistent.
I think Ukraine really comes down to the Allied Strategy for the game.
I don’t see any real cost to Germany for losing it. It’s easily recoverable by a decent player. Especially if the bid was 7 IPC to Libya anyway. I see a cost to Russia, since you’re now down 3 tanks in most Ukrainian battles. That means you probably have to buy tanks with Russia on R1, and I don’t like that. I prefer artillery with Russia. It’s slower, but I think it’s cheaper in the long run.
Bean’s points are well taken. I would add that, on R1, I’m not too particularly concerned about slowing the Japanese advance – it’ll take a few turns to get going anyway, by which time I will have purchased armor to more than replace the 3 I lost in Ukraine. Japan also has other priorities – like taking the islands or reinforcing Egypt – which will detract from their advance to Moscow. Optimally, by the time Japan is a factor in East Asia, British help will have already arrived.
Getting back to Ukraine, it’s either kill those suckers now while you can (and yes, I’ll take the even trade) or hand Germany a stick with which she will repeatedly hit the Allies over the head – namely, that fighter. Whether it’s Allied shipping or trading territories with Russia, that extra fighter is VERY useful to Germany.
And Jenn, it’s 3 tanks – who cares? It’s R1 for jeeper’s sake. You got plenty of time to replace them . . .
You are saying who cares about 3 Russian tanks (15 out of 24 IPC) and then making a big deal about 1 fighter (10 out of 40 IPC)?
It’s just one fighter! Who cares! I build one on Germany 1 anyway! Well, unless mine isn’t dead in Ukraine, then I am more likely to build 5 tanks, 5 infantry. :P
that fighter dead can screw up the battle for the med.
Yes, but I can counter that those armor dead can make the fall of Russia easier for Germany.
In other words, it’s a trade off. Good arguments for, good arguments against. IMHO, the better arguments are against for the way I normally attack Germany.
