Russia, round 1!

Because you will not KEEP $30 IPC.

Even if you did, that is 10 INF a round, split 3 ways trying to defend Archangel, West Russia and Caucuses.  3 INF per territory per turn.  Gemany WILL be punching holes in a front that thin, and when they do, you have no offensive punch to repair the hole.

UK can’t start major landings before UK3 for the most part.  They can grab Norway if Germany vacates it to take Karelia on UK1, but then they need to do some logisitcs and build up so that they can maintian landings AND keep London secure from the German Baltic Threat, eitehr by killing the Baltic Fleet, or building up more naval units for transport.  If they rush it, they can attack Karelia with 4 units a round starting in UK2, but they risk being cut off from london by the Baltic Fleet if they do, interupting the transfer of forces and forcing a naval battle against Germany where the German fleet has the advantage of being on the defensive.

Germany also still has their Med Fleet… a TRN and a BB to land in Ukraine or Caucuses, with air support.

There is no doubt that if you are successful in all 3 combats you will have some nice income as Russia, and you will get to build up your forces.  BUT, your offensive power is gone.  Russia’s gains in R1 then are temporary.  Germany’s gains from G1 forward against Russia will be permanent.  Just a nice steady flow of forces east overwhelming each Russian held territory and then advancing again the next round.  And all Russia can do is pour INF into the next meat grinder…

At least that is how it looks to me.

The original premise of this has been revised to include a WRU attack in R1?

Yes, Amon posted a 3 territory R1 strike.  That was what my last response was in regard to.

ok switch, but to continue this discussion
we need to go step by step

so if i play these R1
what will you buy on your G1

when you tell me this than i will tell you the UK story
beacuse my play with UK depends heavily on your buyings in G1

My board is tied up right now with a game against Mech, and to do more than speak in general terms and actually “test” it, I need to have my board free.

As soon as I finish my current game, I’ll drop you a note and we can play test 2 rounds or so of that move…

I should have time for that before the next round of the Tournament :-)

If I find out that Mech is going to be down a while longer due to PC issues, I will record my current board and set up for the test then.

That way you will get an honest and accurate response to those moves over the entire board.

Sound fair to you?

just tell me when you are ready
i ll be glad to test it

Such a strategy will unquestionably lead to the, for lack of a better term, “turbo death of Moscow”.

1.  You have lost just about all of USSR’s hitting power.  Now the Germans can attack with total impunity without fear of a USSR counterattack.  It is like a blessing from God.  Or a miracle, maybe.

2.  Loss of fighter means no trading territories.  Two infantry and one fighter attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a good idea.  Two infantry and a tank, or even one infantry and a tank, attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a bad idea.  (In the first case, you gain 2 IPC from the territory and kill 3 IPC of units immediately, have 1/3 chance of losing a 3 IPC unit for immediate net gain of around 4 IPC; the surviving 1-2 infantry can kill 3 IPC units with 1/3 chance, giving 2 more IPC worth.  Two infantry are lost, making the trade supposedly even, but USSR has a positional advantage in that its infantry don’t have to move as far, and Germany has to commit forward placed infantry to retake the territory.  Change the equation to a tank and an infantry, and the cost efficiencies are changed.  Not good.

3.  Japan cracks Burytia with fighters and Japanese transport.  Soviet Far East is now wide open.

@Jennifer:

Grr, Switch, re read it.

That was not my post you were responding to.

With a more traditional Russian open, Germany is out 1 FIG, 2 ARM, 2 ART, 6 INF

That is $46 IPC’s of units.

Excluding the INF, it is still $28 IPC’s… $1 difference.

And, Russia would NOT lose their ART in a more traditioanl open.

So now that open is $7 WORSE for Russia.

my god, mistaken for ncsswitch

my life is over

:-o

Test Game set up for detailed review of Amon’s version of the 3 territory attack on G1.
(Eastern, West Russia, Ukraine):

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7414.0

A test game will not reveal the optimal strategies for both sides unless both players do the right moves.

I strongly advise that Germany ignore everything else, and use fighters to smash USSR’s offense immediately, using infantry and transport and fighter production (transport in Med), or tank and fighter production.  Caucasus should be smashed by the third turn with Japan fighter reinforcements, Allied fleet fended off by the additional German fighters.

I’ll review each potential move after combat occurs.

But on first thought, I disagree with a total Russia smash by Germany; for the same reason that it is ill advised in any other game… it lets the Brits and Yanks run havoc elsewhere.

And this is not to determine optimal strats.  It is just a test to see if a 3 territory attack is viable.

yeah, of COURSE us gets it if possible
usually not workable though

uk is usually better placed to take it initially, and shutting that 3 IPC off for Germany is good to do early.
Late game Germany usually won’t divert units from the attack on Moscow to retake Norway.

Sometimes USSR takes it early, same thing.

Rarely do you get to hold it with the US.

Sounds good but two things.

1.  If US does not go to Algeria first turn, Germany runs free in Africa.  If US commits to Norway second turn, that seals the deal.  You could theoretically put three tanks and three infantry into Algeria on the same turn that you put two infantry, artillery, tank into Moscow, but then one of the fleets is going to be underprotected.  Both of the sea zones you’re unloading from will be vulnerable to W. Europe fighters, and either the Baltic and/or Med fleet.

2.  A US Norway is worth taking back, because it is so cost-efficient.  Think; US takes.  USSR will not reinforce (it has to get through Karelia, which is usually a deathtrap).  Then Germany retakes on its turn from Karelia and/or German transports.  The mechanism is usually UK takes, US reinforces.

Combine those factors, and what do you have?  Very unlikely that the US will hold Norway until late game.  If US does hold Norway, it is because Japan was left almost completely alone.  In that case, Germany builds infantry-fighters, and Japan goes crazy in the east.