G2 hold of Ukraine with Japanese fighter reinforcement came up in a Discord chat, and I figured instead of writing a bunch then seeing it all disappear (as things do on Discord over time), I’d stick it on a forum post.
Short version: It “works” but there’s a lot of small problematic bits.
Details to follow.
What is “main stack”?
Suppose Moscow is protected by 8 tanks.
Now say Germany attacks with 8 tanks. Germany has a 50% chance, does this make sense? 8 tanks against 8 tanks, same attack, same defense, same unit count.
Now say Germany attacks with 4 tanks, then Japan attacks with 4 tanks. Low Luck really isn’t how dice work, but for the purposes of this example we’ll use it to simplify. After one round of Germany attacking, German tanks are wiped out and Moscow has 6 tanks remaining. After one round of Japan attacking, Japan has 1 tank left and Moscow has 4 tanks; the second round of Japan attacking sees Japan’s tanks wiped out and 3-4 USSR tanks remain.
This, roughly, is the idea of “main stack” for attackers. You try to preserve the units of a single power, so you have a big “main stack” to attack a defender’s stack. Opponents try to “bleed” your stack by making attacks elsewhere; if you respond then you likely leave units vulnerable to counterattack, and have less units to put into any final decisive battle.
A) UK/US bleed Germany at Karelia.
When Karelia is open to UK/US troops, UK and US troops attack Baltic States, Belorussia, and such. If Germany allows UK/US to keep those territory, Germany loses income. If Germany counterattacks, Germany bleeds its stack.
B) UK/US add to Moscow’s defensive stack with cheap effective ground units.
Both Germany and Japan must contend with the additional cheap ground units UK/US can stream into Moscow through Karelia. This is why the Axis try to defend Karelia in some games; if the Allies cannot break through, it makes it much harder for a cut-off USSR to be defended. (Typically the Allies try to bring various pressures to bear so Allies end up in control of Karelia, and Axis counter in various ways, but I won’t get into that here.)
C) Positional issues for Germany
So let’s think about what happens, what really happens, what exactly happens when Axis try to hold Karelia. Suppose Germany abandoned France to have a main infantry stack on Berlin, a medium infantry stack on Baltic States, and a main infantry stack on Karelia. (This is optimistic for Axis.) But you can see where even if Germany withdraws from Karelia, it’s still poised to crush any Allied move in force to Karelia. And any major Allied landing in France or NW Europe can be hit by the Baltic States tanks. Holding Baltic States allows Germany to keep feeding infantry to Karelia.
But now imagine Germany has tanks at Ukraine. Those tanks are not in range of France or NW Europe. This gives Allies additional tactical options. It’s not a disaster, Axis have plenty of options, but it is one of these things where that’s just how the map is, and a decent Allies player will try to do something about that opening.
D) Loss of Karelia’s industrial complex
Sometimes you get weaker players that think Karelia doesn’t make a difference, and on some level that makes sense. After all, Germany can be stalled out against West Russia, and what difference does a few units at Karelia make? They don’t see a difference. And when Allies start dumping ground units via transport into Europe through Mediterranean, that seems like something really major that needs to be dealt with. What’s a couple units here or there?
But actually, depending on dice and player decisions, Karelia’s industrial complex can be vital to timings. Holding it means cost-effective infantry can get to the front two turns sooner than if they had been placed on Berlin. And though there may not be obvious consequences, an Axis player should be looking for whatever advantage, however small, that may contribute to victory.
It’s okay for Axis not to have Karelia’s industrial complex. But it’s just one of many things that add up.
E) Allied freedom in Atlantic.
When Axis air is near Ukraine, it’s not in range of north Atlantic. So the Allies really don’t need as much transport escorts; they don’t need to buy them, so they can do more transports, more ground.
Again, not a disaster, and if Axis move air power in range later, that can disrupt Allied shipping. But the Axis position can be expected to be just that little bit worse because of the Allied pressure, and that’s something that has to be balanced again whatever gains may come from Axis pushing Ukraine.
F) Japanese logistics.
Japan has terrible logistics against Moscow. Anything on Tokyo can’t just blitz straight to Moscow; they need transports to make it to the mainland; air is expensive, ICs are expensive, capturing India is difficult.
If Allies are going KGF, often Axis want Japan to become the major stack controller. If that happens, then Japan wants to hold Caucasus. It is very difficult for the Axis to engineer this, especially against an Allied player that is very conscious of the dangers of Japanese-held Caucasus. So imagine what happens when Germany controls Caucasus, and the Allies just refuse to recapture it. Go on, keep that 4 IPC, denying Japan the industrial complex is more important.
Besides the main mechanical issues of G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighter reinforcement and subsequent weakening of Axis Karelia / France / NW Europe, there’s also a problem of Allied counterplay specific to fast Axis development near Ukraine. Some of it can be figured from reading previous post, others should just make sense, here’s some additionals.
A) Protecting Japan’s fighters can bleed Germany.
Suppose Axis stacked Ukraine with German ground and Japanese air. Now suppose UK has 3 infantry on West Russia and 4 fighters and a bomber on India.
If Germany moves its main stack, UK destroys the Japanese fighters before Japan can move to safety.
So Germany has to leave behind a chunk of infantry. But after Japan moves out, that chunk of infantry can be destroyed at expected net IPC advantage to attacker, by US or USSR.
This is especially the case if the UK player is deliberately trying to set up these situations. Players know I typically try to move some UK ground from India/Persia into Europe in any game, for this and other reasons.
B) UK can abandon India. It is not a hard Allied “counter”, it’s just an option. But it is an option that the Allies decide to initiate or not.
C) Allies can maintain stack on West Russia and trade Caucasus. Again, this is not a hard counter, it’s just an option. But again, it’s an option the Allies decide on. And the collapse of West Russia does not end the game for the Allies. If Germany moves into West Russia by force, typically that stretches Germany’s logistics; it’s one more turn away from Germany’s main IC at Berlin. But it shortens USSR’s logistics; it’s one turn closer to USSR’s main IC on Moscow.
Of course, it’s not all or nothing. Germany can threaten any major Allied push to Karelia while holding Ukraine even without vastly favorable dice. There’s a lot of counterplay. And though it may seem small to stack Ukraine, denying USSR income, it’s just these sorts of small advantages that can end up to a game-winning position.
So I’d say definitely look for early German hold of Ukraine with Japanese fighter reinforcement, why not?
But be careful of Allied counterplay; G2 Ukraine hold is good, but not game-ending. The way it can play out, Allies main stack is bigger, Germany gets bled out so can’t make good on really pressuring the Allied combined stack on Moscow, game transposes to Japan trying to be the major stack controller in Europe but Japan is denied the Caucasus IC because Germany controlls it (and maybe the Allies just won’t recapture Cacuasus to deny Japan the use of the IC).
(BTW I think G2 Ukraine hold is a bit less popular because apparently the meta favors J1 to Hawaiian Islands fleet, which leaves a couple fighters destroyed / out of range of reinforcing Ukraine on J2.)
A nice post about the G1 or G2 Ukraine stack AP.
I am a bit surprised/disappointed that there have been no questions or replies to this tactic by Axis concerning the details and Allied counterplay to this situation yet.
A weakness of this open by Germany is that UK is free to drop a fleet to sea zone 7 round one as there will only be 2 fighters and maybe a Bomber in range. This would be a poor odds attack for Germany even under ideal circumstances such as successful attacks on sea zone 7, sea zone 10 and sea zone 13.
To stack Ukraine with reasonable odds for it to hold requires the med transport to drop 2 units to Ukraine, which would be an easy kill for Allies unless the Battleship also goes to sea zone 16 to defend it, which means no attack on the cruiser in sea zone 13 by the Battleship, or a coin flip attack by fighter in Berlin, which means it won’t be able to land in Ukraine if it does survive.
UK will be able to drop a fleet round one. Maybe building a 2nd transport instead of a Destroyer as well if it has the destroyer from sea zone 10 or the cruiser from sea zone 13 available to join the carrier build.
The UK fleet can begin contesting Karelia as soon as round 2 possibly, or at least take Scandinavia and be ramping up to take Karelia.
Germany can put 4 infantry and 1 AA gun in Karelia round one, which is vulnerable to attack by Russia, however if Russia attacks Karelia it may not be able to hold West Russia or Caucus vs Germany Ukraine stack. It’s a delicate position for both sides here.
The details of this need further examination and there are variables here in regards to the number of units Russia has available in West Russia and Caucus compared to what Germany has in Ukraine, as well as follow up in range from Poland and Berlin.
One of the Germany round one builds to synergize with G1 Ukraine stack is 3 or more tanks, with the 4 tanks moved from France, NW Europe and Italy, that’s 7 tanks which could potentially counter attack Karelia if Russia does attack there. A block in Belarus can prevent the Ukraine tanks from reaching Karelia round 2, but not the other tanks still catching up.
So it’s a risky move on Russias part to attack Karelia, but Russia may still choose to do so, and in some situations doing so might be considered optimal.
However there are risks involved with this besides Germanys counter attack to Karelia, it also leaves Russia with fewer units to hold West Russia and Caucus. Even without an attack on Karelia one of these two territories may be compromised by German attack from Ukraine. You know how even one or two units can tip the scales making a even attack become favorable. Japans aircraft are in play here as well and it is unlikely that UK has units in Caucus or West Russia yet to punish Japans air or force Germany to hold units back from attacking West Russia or Caucus from Ukraine because there are follow up reinforcements still moving in from Polland, Romania, Finland as well that have not reached the front lines yet.
I think the scenario where 3 UK units being in play has not developed yet this early in the game and may never happen because Japan is also putting pressure on India and setting up for J3 timing.
That is part of the strength of the Ukraine stack is that its putting more pressure on the center that has cascade effects into India as well. German fighters may land in Burma to cover Japan Burma stack if needed just as Japans fighters are supporting in Ukraine then West Russia or Caucus if Germany decides to stack one of these territories.
UK could pull its forces from India to Persia and this would cause a temporary bulge or reinforcement surge in Caucus from these units to hold Germany back, but this still takes 2 rounds and Japan will be nipping on UKs heels from India then or potentially attack the fleeing UK units in Persia with its transports if UK pulls from India early.
UK fighters if supporting Russia in West Russia are at risk of being attacked by Germany if Russia decides to attack Karelia or pull from West Russia to Caucus.
UK fighters won’t be there if UK built Atlantic fleet round one, but India forces are also more vulnerable to Japan because of this build, instead of other units with higher attack or defensive power that may have been placed in India instead.
If Russia does not attack Karelia then Germany gets to build there and 2 more units from Finland reinforce as well. German fighters can land there to help hold it as well as tanks moving in if needed.
Now the tanks may want to reinforce Ukraine instead or may be used for attack on West Russia or Caucus, but Germany has options here about how to manage its stacks.
If Karelia holds this is additional forces that combined with Ukraine stack can pressure and force Russia to abandon West Russia forming combined stack in Caucus as an alternative.
If Russia abandons West Russia for Caucus stack then Germany can combine its Karelia and Ukraine stacks in West Russia with Japan attacking India and possibly landing fighters on West Russia as well round 3 depending on their position.
If UK pulled from India with intent to counter attack India German fighters can land on India to help hold it.
Allies are getting sqeezed out of India and West Russia simultaneously.
If German units in Karelia move to combine stack in WR they still dead zone UK capture of Karelia, possibly with Baltic stack threatening as well. This depends on if Germany is still sending a reinforcements to Poland and then Ukraine and also if there are now landings in France or Italy that need to be traded, thus stopping some of Germanys eastward push.
Yes, I know, there’s the whole 6-0 discussion, but you take my meaning. Germany wants to bleed its stack early vs UK in Atlantic so it can’t challenge Allied Europe? Okay.
There’s lines with G1 2-3 bomber but those are another matter. As usual lots of discussions not being had here. Ah well.
G1 10 inf 2 art, G2 Berlin stack to Poland, G3 to Ukraine.
G1 3 tanks 4 inf 2 art, G3 stack is 5 infantry 1 artillery short.
But G1 tank build prevents G2 collapse? So does J1 fighters on Kwangtung; J2 6 fighters to Ukraine, before the R3 counter. And G2 tanks to Ukraine is against the R3 counter. I don’t imagine it’s claimed that 6 Japanese fighters is assumed, and Germany also needs 3 tanks.
UK contest Karelia round 2? That’s a bit optimistic. The threat to Karelia is from USSR, really. UK shouldn’t have mass transports as early as round 2; a lot of lines play out even 2 transports by end of UK1 should not be taken for granted. But let’s say Allies northwest is an issue earlier than in other lines. Sure. But the tradeoff is Axis play for actual sustained control of Caucasus early, when the line is played through. It’s not to be expected the Axis can play for that sort of prize but not need to pay anything for it.
G1 4 inf AA gun gets ground strafed for loss of AA gun and forward German infantry. In the G Ukraine press, Germany should not give odds-on for USSR to alleviate pressure (by putting additional dice on a potential strafe point). In other games G Karelia is logistics advantage, but in G Ukraine press, Ukraine pressure is the game, so Karelia becomes just another trade territory. Bonus for holding, of course, but that’s unlooked for.
I wouldn’t say G1 4 inf AA on Karelia is strictly wrong. But it’s the sort of situation where, you want West Russia to be so shaky, even odds-on of USSR strafe is still losing, and that’s just not the expectation.
It isn’t stipulated that G1 broke the W Rus stack or anything like that. COULD be, yes, if we WERE saying G1 broke W Rus stack (not necessarily capture, but just really messed it up pretty hard), then G1 4 inf AA on Karelia is winning pressure. But if W Rus expected to hold, and UK1 London fighters / US1 Szechwan fighter on, plus other possibles? Then USSR has some flexibility to run strafes.
It’s not like USSR strictly loses either in the Karelia strafe scenario. USSR can still use fighters to trade Belorussia, and income loss from not capturing Karelia could arguably be said to be offset by destroying deployed forward Germany units.
i.e.
The 2nd UK transport round one happens because Germany fails to kill transport in sea zone 10 and there are not enough German attackers on sea zone 7 to cause UK to need to build an additional escort. As Germanys fighters are in Ukraine.
Germany could have 2 fighters in Finland after round 1 sea zone 7 attack, and it could build a Bomber, but 3 attacker not enough vs 4 or 5 UK defenders in sea zone 7 to force UK to build additional destroyer.
Germany could do sea zone 13 attack on cruiser to force UK to build additional escort. But then it can’t defend med transport that wants to drop 2 ground units to Ukraine.
Maybe the med transport is a lost cause anyways. Germany building a destroyer in sea zone 15 to make killing the Battleship in sea zone 16 more difficult may not be worth it. These are decisions to be made.
My thinking on this may be off, I just don’t like allowing Allies an easy kill on the German battleship round one. Which Allies will have if the UK destroyer in sea zone 17 is available for 3 attackers on it in sea zone 16 or 3 US attackers on it in sea zone 13 if Germany does not use transport to land in Gibraltar to prevent the fighter in East US from reaching.
Now as I said maybe the German med transport is a lost cause. Even with a Destroyer block in sea zone 15 UK can still send fighter and bomber vs the Battleship in sea zone 16.
This is a 60% chance one of these aircraft survives and 81% of mutual destruction. However the transport does have a 39% to survive this attack. Which then means Germany gets to use the transport possibly on Round 2 still or Russia has to use one of its fighters to finish the transport off.
UK could block sea zone 15 with its destroyer in 17 or with its India carrier if it brings it to sea zone 17 as the canal is open and/or the cruiser in sea zone 13 as well.
However Germany can have ground units in Romania the transport could pick up and drop to Caucus if Germany is going for Caucus stack round 2 or Germany could air strike those ships with its fighters in Ukraine and then bring ground units to Ukraine on non combat move from either Italy or Libya.
So there are a lot of decisions to be made here on both sides and I am undecided about what is most optimal.
If UK fails to kill the Battleship in sea zone 16 or is too risk averse to try to do so with the sub optimal attack being offered, well a 2nd transport drop on round two very useful. Maybe the German battleship has attacks of opportunity on sea zone 15 backed up by its fighters (possibly a bomber if Germany built one) vs any UK ships that decided to block or that remain after attacking the German destroyer built in sea zone 15.
If German attack on sea zone 10 is successful then UK will not have a Destroyer to attack any surviving subs in sea zone 7 (if any) and this may prevent UK from building a transport in sea zone 7 round one as it has no destroyer to deal with the sub and Germany may now have 4 attackers in range of sea zone 7.
So I think the sea zone 10 attack makes sense in conjunction with G1 Ukraine stack. We just know that it will fail half of the time. It is well worth the risk I think though as it could prevent UK from having 2 transports on Round 2 in a couple different ways.
What to do with the German battleship and transport is more the decision my mind is not set about.
Saving the 8 IPC that would be spent on the destroyer for sea zone 15 is great of course and killing the cruiser in sea zone 13 plus a destroyer on hit back when they attack may all be better overall than trying to keep that Med transport alive in round 2, which is not garunteed by any means.
I could get behind letting that go.
I have had a few games where the battleship transport and destroyer survive in the Med, and that is very nice to keep shipments coming to Ukraine and Caucus. Honestly though the chance of that is pretty slim unless opponent gets scared or does some other silly thing like attack sea zone 37 or something.
Now with that out of the way and acknowledging that UK might have 2 transports available on Round 2 some of the time we can talk about the Karelia mini stack.
Let’s assume Russia had average results in WR and they moved 2 infantry to Archangel. Let’s also assume that Germany did 2 tank 4 infantry build round one as this is Meta or what I most commonly see Allies do. Also let’s assume that the reason Germany can stack Ukraine is because Russia elected to retreat from Ukraine saving some tanks and that they did not just fail to clear it. Let’s say they saved 2 tanks instead of 1 or 3.
Russia is certainly able to attack Karelia if they want to and with favorable odds to do so, or to attempt a strafe there. The strafe is risky of course, too little and they may just lose TUV in the exchange, too much and the strafe may fail and they end up capturing it.
The question however is can Russia attack the mini stack in Karelia AND hold West Russia?
Well the Ukraine stack is 8 infantry 1 AA gun 5 tanks 4 fighters + anything else that may have survived the initial strafe attack on Ukraine. At a minimum the Ukraine fighter is there, the tank might be too which brings that number up to 6 tanks.
There are 4 tanks in Poland and 3 (or more) tanks built in Berlin as well. 1 infantry in Belarus.
So you suggested Russia attack Karelia with 5 infantry 2 artillery 1 tank. 2 of those infantry can come from Archangel. So Russia is leaving 3 infantry in West Russia 4 more can move in from Caucus 1 from Russia that’s 8. 2 AA guns 4 tanks from Russia and 2 from Caucus that were saved in the Ukraine strafe round one and 2 fighters. + anything that might survive if the Karelia strafe is successful and they retreat to West Russia. Let’s assume 1 round strafe as defender has 95% to survive that. 2 rounds only 50% this kills 9 IPC on average while Russia loses 4 IPC on average. So 4 infantry 2 artillery 1 tank retreat to WR.
That’s 12 infantry 2 artillery 2 AA guns 5 tanks 2 fighters.
This leaves Germany 80% odds to capture WR if Germany built a Bomber round one. 93% if it’s willing to sacrifice aircraft for that attack. Average profit of 21 IPC.
This is against nearly ideal conditions for Russia.
If Germany had AA gun die first in Karelia instead and Russia does 1 round strafe that is one more German infantry that can attack and odds to capture WR are now 87%
Let’s say Russia does not strafe Karelia and just tries to hold WR. That’s 91% for Germany to capture WR. So the strafe does help. The reason Germany has AA gun in Karelia is to prevent strafe attack with its fighter support. I note you did not suggest risking Russian fighters vs the AA gun.
Germany reinforces Ukraine with 3 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks from Poland Romania and Berlin. (The 3 tank buy). 2 infantry from Finland and 2 built in Finland plus fighters that survived attack on WR landing there or Ukraine vs whatever Russia built in Caucus.
Then there is the small possibility that German transport survived and can reinforce Ukraine as well with 2 units, either from Italy or Libya.
“The 2nd UK transport round one happens because Germany fails to kill transport in sea zone 10 and there are not enough German attackers on sea zone 7 to cause UK to need to build an additional escort. As Germanys fighters are in Ukraine.”
Well, you did say “the G1 or G2 Ukraine stack”, so I do see that you’re following up on an earlier point. But the thread topic is “G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighter reinforcement”. It really isn’t about G1 Ukraine hold into G2 Ukraine hold with Japanese fighters. It can be G2 push into USSR-controlled Ukraine and J2 reinforcement.
Or let’s say Russia wants to attack the Ukraine stack on Round 2. They are looking at 16% chance to capture. 21% with sacrificing fighters.
But if Germany does not drop the extra infantry and AA gun via Med transport then its odds are 43%
I will let you think about if there is a better course of action here.
8 infantry build round one with Russia? 4 infantry 3 Artillery? UK does not drop fleet and sends fighters? US sends its fighters to West Russia?
These things could reduce Germanys odds on West Russia enough perhaps that Germany does not attack, but I do not think they can be reduced enough for Russia to capture Karelia without giving too strong of odds on West Russia.
The 3 tank build is a contingency against Russia Karelia stack somewhat.
I have seen players stack Karelia and Belarus thus blocking the tanks in Ukraine from counter attack, but 7 tanks from Poland and Berlin makes such a move risky as well, although Germany will lose higher TUV in this battle due to not much infantry shield. Usually 2 infantry from Finland and one from Baltic is all that is available for that counter, and maybe this is the way for Russia.
But such a move then opens up G2 Caucus stack with Japans fighters landing on.
