Hey Guys, a couple of comments…
1. Yes,russia will be down a fighter. But if you build a fighter on R1 then you have recoved the lost fighter that has to land in Karelia.
a R1 buy of fig, arm, 3 inf will allow for 2 spaces to be traded. (Karelia,Ukraine/Bellorussia) Im not sure Russia can afford to be trading more than 2 zones anyways. NP your points about it being much easier for 2inf 1fig are correct. I hate having to attack 1inf with 1inf,1art(see it fail too many times)
2. Norway can easily be defended against 2 trns let alone 1. With a defense in Norway of: 3figs(1from WE, 1from EE, 1from NOR), 2arm(1bridged, 1 from EE), 4 INF(3 starting, 1bridged). That makes a G1 attack of Norway a very uphil battle.
I love holding Norway for as long as its feasible. Keeps 3 IPCs out of UKs pocket. Puts pressure on the SZ to the north west of UK. And also lets you stage just as close to most of Russias holdings as EE would.
You shouldn’t do it, IMO.
Every russian unit is needed in the battle v/s Germany. Attack Ukraine or West Russia first., but leave Norway to the UK, the british can get Norway much easier than you. Plus, Germany’s main preocupation won’t be that fighter attacking London.
Hey Guys, a couple of comments…
1. Yes,russia will be down a fighter. But if you build a fighter on R1 then you have recoved the lost fighter that has to land in Karelia.
a R1 buy of fig, arm, 3 inf will allow for 2 spaces to be traded. (Karelia,Ukraine/Bellorussia) Im not sure Russia can afford to be trading more than 2 zones anyways. NP your points about it being much easier for 2inf 1fig are correct. I hate having to attack 1inf with 1inf,1art(see it fail too many times)2. Norway can easily be defended against 2 trns let alone 1. With a defense in Norway of: 3figs(1from WE, 1from EE, 1from NOR), 2arm(1bridged, 1 from EE), 4 INF(3 starting, 1bridged). That makes a G1 attack of Norway a very uphil battle.
I love holding Norway for as long as its feasible. Keeps 3 IPCs out of UKs pocket. Puts pressure on the SZ to the north west of UK. And also lets you stage just as close to most of Russias holdings as EE would.
1. You haven’t “recovered” the lost fighter. You just built a new fighter, which cost you 10 IPC. Russia cannot afford to buy tons of fighters, even one fighter is pressing it, and two is right out. Russia needs cost-effective infantry and tanks, with a late all-artillery buy when Germany or Japan presses on Moscow.
2. You want to trade 3 zones. No question. Why trade? Because 1) if you hold the territory, you can get IPCs from it. 2) Germany has to counterattack because Germany can’t just let you hold on to IPCs at no cost. 3) When Germany counterattacks, if it attacks with a light force, you can COUNTER-counter attack and wipe out the German forces. 4) When you wipe out German forces, it depletes their forces for when they DO attack you.
Let’s say that you attack 1 infantry with 2 infantry and 1 fighter. If you get lucky, you keep BOTH infantry, if you have moderate luck, you keep one infantry, if your luck is not so hot, you lose both infantry.
Now what happens if you keep BOTH infantry? Say Germany counters with overwhelming air plus two infantry. That means Germany moved its fighters out of position (good for the US/UK fleet), and that you killed 2 IPC expected of units (say each of your infantry has a 1/3 chance of killing a 3 IPC infantry). SO - you killed 3 German IPC (an infantry) to take the territory, plus you got 2 IPC from the territory itself, plus you got 2 more IPC from the expected kills that your surviving infantry got. Of course, you lost 6 IPC of units (your infantry). So you got SEVEN IPC worth of units and IPCs, while losing SIX. And since all YOU have to do is defend, you have a considerable positional advantage.
Same thing if you only have 1 infantry surviving, but now you get six IPCs for your six IPCs. Still quite good, considering that positional advantage - you sapped Germany of one of its forward placed infantry, while not losing any.
What if you lose both infantry and don’t take the territory? That’s unlikely, but even then, if you kill the German infantry, a single UK infantry can march in and take the territory.
Germany COULD attack with mass ground early in the game, but that usually gets wiped out by the Russian counter, so the Germans won’t do it in the first place.
3. Holding Norway prevents early infantry pressure on USSR.
You won’t hold Norway anyway.
Germany has a Transport and plenty of fighters to get there. And I’d much rather spank Russia and cost if 100% of it’s offensive starting forces then play around with naval attacks.
I can take care of England and America’s navies after i set up a puppet government in Red Square.
Russia should take Ukraine and WR. It leaves the troops near the front they need to be, and it leaves NORWAY for the UK who is supposed to take it. Same IPC’s for each territory, but your success rate is better with the UKraine attack. Plus, the counterattack is eminent from Germany on Karelia and on Norway with the dormant Trannie in the Baltic.
I think by this point, anything new sounds interesting, and can even look good on paper. :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :| :wink: :wink: :wink:
A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.
sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?
No, SUBs can NEVER attack aircraft
(OK, one exception… an attacking aircraft carrier has an allied FIG on it… the defending SUB score a hit on the AC, the Allied FIG dies with it since it is cargo).
@ncscswitch:
No, SUBs can NEVER attack aircraft
(OK, one exception… an attacking aircraft carrier has an allied FIG on it… the defending SUB score a hit on the AC, the Allied FIG dies with it since it is cargo).
Can’t the Allied Fig hit back? and why would it die because it is cargo
If an allied FIG is carried IN to combat by an AC, it is CARGO. If the AC is sunk, so is the FIG. This is part of the rules clarification that came about with LHTR 1.3. The Allied FIG is considered the same as INF, ART, etc, on a TRN.
Now, if that same AC is attacked, then yes, the Allied FIG can defend.
A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.
sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?
That was “counterattack”. It’s probably in reference to USSR using its fighters against German navy on USSR1 before Germany can go, then having to land one of those fighters in Karelia. Germany can crush Karelia on its first turn regardless of what the Allies do. So the USSR doesn’t lose the fighter on the USSR turn; USSR loses the fighter on the German turn when the Germans take the terrritory that the USSR fighter landed in.
