Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Attrition combat Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ebpxnv.xu3x9p1967a42N%mehawk@teleport.com>... In a couple of my articles I have referred to bleeder attacks, or air supported infantry attacks. I think a good name for the general category of these attacks is Attrition attacks. What are the characteristics of an Attrition attack? 1) The level of forces involved is small compared to the total forces within 1 or 2 moves. 2) The territory being attacked is dominated by an enemy stack, is within an enemy dead zone. Any units which are moved in will be subject to enemy counter attack. 3) The ground troops are mostly infantry, with some artillery, and very rarely a single tank for the firepower. 4) The attack is often assisted by air units. 5) The attacker has a significant edge in combat power. For example, 2 fighters and 2 infantry versus a territory guarded by a single infantry. It is a good idea to attack with at least as many ground troops as the enemy, so that an exceptional enemy die roll doesn't kill a precious plane. When there are three or less units in a territory, strafe attacks are impractical. A force large enough to consistently get two hits is likely to sometimes get three, which exposes the would be strafing force to a major counter-attack. On the Russian front, Russia will eventually be forced to only engage in Attrition combat for as many territories as she can hit effectively with air units. This means leaving small German stacks in East Poland and Baltic states unmolested, and hitting Ukraine each turn to prevent a tank breakthrough to the Caucasus. While engaging in Attrition combat, the German units are spread out quite a bit, backing up the frontline. The entire German tank force should be capable of hitting any area where Attrition combat took place, and significant infantry forces should be available to soak casualties. At some point, the Germans will want to concentrate their forces at a single point. If on some turn the Russians didn't attack East Poland, for example, the Germans would want to be able to move all of their forward infantry, fighters and tanks to East Poland. If the Russians attack East Poland, great, they will lose as many IPCs as the Germans. If they pull out of Belorussia, then Germany can move into Ukraine, conducting Attrition combat in Belorussia and possibly Leningrad. Once the Germans can attack Belorussia, the Attrition combat can escalate, because the Russians really can't afford not to retake Belorussia unless they are defending only Moscow. Germany can move 5 or 6 Infantry in, instead of 2 or 3, and Russia can't afford to just strafe them. Of course, Germany could be running out of time by now. If the air force is committed against Russia, the Allies can do things like land troops in the Bay of Biscay, where it is harder for German planes to reach. They can have more transports running back to the US for more troops. They can clear the British convoy zones. Losses from attrition combat will rarely exceed Russia's builds. Equal losses favor the Germans because while 50 Germans vs 40 Russians gives the Russians a lot of tactical room, 30 Germans vs 20 Russian constrains the Russian's options more. Attrition combat, by definition, isn't going to be decisive. It is a way for Germany to take territory and kill Russian units in good ratios without depleting his striking arm. It is a way for Russia to retake territory without risking the core of her army in a decisive battle. Attrition combat is the set up for the decisive battle. Here is a cute trick. Russia just moved a large force into Ukraine. Too many to hit. You have a large infantry force in Bessarabia and Russia has 4 ground troops in East Poland, while you have two infantry in Baltic States. Attack East Poland with _just_ the infantry from Bessarabia and 1 infantry from the Baltic States. Attack for one round and retreat to the Baltic States. You now have most of your infantry in the Baltic States while most of the Russian strike force is concentrated in Ukraine. This is a cute and sleazy way of moving infantry two moves in one turn. Your tank forces can move from Bessarabia to Poland, allowing them to attack Leningrad in force next turn. Russia may have to concede Leningrad entirely rather than move his infantry stack from Ukraine to Belorussia, where the Germans now have enough infantry in position to soak off casualties. Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Sub tactics Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ebouzm.162jhjcv4ftx0N%mehawk@teleport.com>... monte wrote: > You may be right. I will have to apply the strategy in a real game, or at > least set up a couple of different scenarios to try it out. My opponents > response should be interesting. > > I'll giver a go. > > monte If you want this tactic to work really well, you should probably sink the British forces in the Davis strait. One of the keys is killing all the British Destroyers so they can't sink the German sub on their turn, allowing the Americans to ship troops as planned. However, if the Brits sent their entire airforce to Russia then they won't have anything to support their Destroyer with. I normally reserve the British bomber for supporting attacks on subs and only send it to Russia if it doesn't have any good targets in the Atlantic. The good places to use this tactic are: East Coast USA Davis Strait Denmark Strait South Atlantic and English Channel, North Sea, Danish Sea vs the Germans. I expect this tactic will see a lot of miles in Axis and Allies Pacific, where islands will be taken simply to have a safe place to stow ground units. The US might ship 4 transport loads to Hawaii, expecting to ship them on to the Phillipines the following turn only to find a lone sub blocking them. The alternative, leaving the troops on board the transports, means that if the Japanese attack in force the US will have to choose more expensive casualties. The cost of a transport should be broken down into how many troops it transports. If a transport will only be used once then the effective cost of the troops she transported is increased by 4. If out of 6 transports, 3 carry a second load of infantry, then the effective cost of the troops are increased by 2 2/3 IPCs each. So, the longer the expected game, the more likely a second load of troops will be carried by a transport. If you had 3 transports off the East Coast, and you delayed them by a full turn with only 4 turns expected left in the game, that should be worth 1/4 the transports build cost. If it made the difference between the transports being reused once and not being reused, that is effectively _half_ the transports worth. > Michael Sandy wrote in message > news:1ebmy6o.pav62f10ivrggN%mehawk@teleport.com... > > monte wrote: > > > > > Page 26, last paragraph of left column, "Submerged submarines are not > > > considered to be present in a sea zone in which they are submerged. > > > Transports may move into or through that zone and load/unload during the > > > non-combat movement sequence. > > > > > > Sorry, > > > > > > Monte > > > > True, but in Action Phase 6 of the Germans, the sub resurfaces. > > Also, if you are referring to the Allies forcing the sub to submerge, > > if the transport was in the sea zone at the time of combat, it can't > > move afterwards. > > > > If a sub moves into the East Coast zone and submerges, the US > > is _not_ going to be able to get troops to the British Isles > > that turn. > > > > The transports can move to the Davis Straits, load, and move, but > > that only gets them to Greenland. > > > > Michael Sandy Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Sub tactics Michael Sandy wrote in message <1eblbzh.bu59uvydndseN%mehawk@teleport.com>... I came across an interesting tactic for German subs. A sub can move into a sea zone containing enemy ships and submerge immediately. Why bother? After all, subs are better on the attack than the defense? Because transports can't load troops in a sea zone containing an enemy ship. So, if Germany slips a sub into the East Coast USA sea zone, the US can't load its transports that turn! Likewise, if the Allies use Greenland as a base to invade Norway, one sub could prevent them from loading their transports! Fortunately, it is harder to bottle up the British Isles. A transport can move into a sea zone without enemy ships present, load, and then move into a sea zone with enemy ships present, and after a naval battle, conduct an amphibious landing. The Allies have a couple of options for dealing with this stalling tactic: 1) Sink the sub on the British turn, that enables the Americans to run their transports as normal. 2) Don't unload the American transports in Greenland unless there are no subs within two movement of the Denmark Straits. This means that if the Germans attack this transport fleet for real then the Allies would have to take Destroyers as casualties instead of fully loaded transports. 3) Engage in combat with the sub, then load the transports. The transports will not be able to move yet, but the Germans won't be able to prevent you from moving the loaded transports next turn. You can't move transports after engaging in combat with them, but you can do one of load or unload troops. This tactic can be particularly nasty when the Germans plan from turn 1 to invade England. That is three fewer ground troops that can get to England on turn 1. On the other hand, the British can pull the exact same tactic back at the Germans, moving a sub into the Danish straits and submerging immediately. If they also build a sub in the English Channel then the Germans will have no place to load troops from the continent for invading England. They could sink the sub and _then_ load transports, but that would present an _extremely_ tempting target for the Allied air forces. Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Getting to D-Day tcarvin@my-deja.com wrote in message <8h8fu7$mt8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... If I recall Germany has quite a bit of infantry scattered about in Europe. If the German player consolidates these forces into France, Belguim, etc (all the territorries that border the Atlantic) then it represents alot of initial defense. If the Germany then places his existing fighters in these territories they become almost impossible to take early in the game. The continual production of subs allows Germany to strike at any navy without loss of the airforce. Also, every turn Germany should send one infantry to re-enforce the western front. This will slow the advances against Russia, but will put Germany into a better situation in terms of ability to stay alive in the long run. To make up for oppurtunity lost against Russia, Germany can conquer all of Africa and the Middle East. The Med. is easy for Germany to control as long as the Battleship is not destroyed in the first turn. The minor British fleet protecting the Middle East can be destroyed fairly easily in the second or third turn with losses of only a sub or transport or two. Unlike A&A, in A&AE Germany has more time and flexibility. There is no need to try for a fourth turn kill on Russia. Tom In article <1ebhn1s.1xoopx617goi74N%mehawk@teleport.com>, mehawk@teleport.com (Michael Sandy) wrote: > > While staying up last night with a cranky 2-year > old, I thought a bit about the mid-game and end-game > of A&AE. My previous posts have mostly covered the > initial IPC bonus and the first couple of years. > > D-Day is the invasion of France, and hopefully > for the Allies, the decisive blow against Germany > that will win the war for the Allies even if > Russia is on the ropes. > > What can Germany do to defend Western Europe? If > he puts no units in France and Belgium, then > England can cheaply take them from Germany. If > Germany puts one infantry there, the Brits still > take it and the IPC value of the territories will > justify any infantry lost. > > If Germany puts a _lot_ of Infantry in France or > Belgium then they can be worn down by shore > bombardment dinks, 4 DD + 1 INF each turn. > > To my mind, the best way to defend Western Europe > is to sink the transports. To do that you need > fighters and/or bombers within reach of all Allied > landing sites. > > Then, to protect the fighters and bombers, you > stack a bunch of Infantry with them. The airforce > protects the territory and the Infantry protects > the airforce. > > I would also seriously consider moving the Northern > Italy AA unit to help protect your Western Europe > air base. > > One of the Allied options is to do a turn 2 or turn 3 > invasion of Africa followed by shipping those troops > to the Bay of Biscay to attack France. > > Why the Bay of Biscay? Because if the Allies take > out the German airforce there and take France, > German fighters in Germany or Norway will be unable > to attack the transport fleet. Only fighters > adjacent to France could attack the Bay of Biscay. > > However, the Germans have a simple counter. If > the Allies have an invasion fleet in the Southern > Atlantic which they can't hit or don't intend to > hit, they should move their airforce from France to > either Vichy or Belgium. > > Vichy would cover the Mediterranean lines of threat, > while Belgium would make it harder for the Allies to > rendevous in the Celtic Sea. > > The Germans should be alert to amphibious threats > against their air force. If their airforce is > positioned forward, for use against British fleet > builds, they need a lot of Infantry under them. > Otherwise, they should move their fighters inland > so they cover the sea zones off the beaches instead. > > If the Germans lose their airforce then the Allies > can park a US transport fleet off Western Europe, > load with British troops one turn, and offload on > the next British turn. Normally the Allies don't > want loaded transports next to Europe on Germany's > turn, but once the German airforce has been suppressed > it is fairly safe. > > I'm pretty sure that the British can not load troops > onto US transports the same turn that British troops > from those same transports did an amphibious attack, > but the Allies could alternate between using US > troops and British troops to invade, conserving > their transports. > > Every other turn the continent would be hit by > a full transport load of both US and British troops, > using exclusively US built transports. Casualties > from German attacks would come off the fighters > on the Allied Carrier in the sea zone. > > If the US has 3 transports in the English Channel or > North Sea, then 3 more transports will be needed to > ship new US troops to England every other turn to > supply the invasion transports. > > The question is whether the Western Allies can start > to apply effective pressure before two turns of > Germany Infantry and Artillery builds followed by > two turns of tanks get to Moscow on turn 6. Those > two turns of Infantry production match closely with > 4 turns of Russian output. If the Germans have been > careful with their troops they will have experienced > about even or better losses against the Russians. > > The Germans have to decide on their turn 5 builds > whether to build tanks or defenses against the West. > Alternately, they could build lots of subs and send > the airforce against Russia, using subs to reduce > the Allied transports instead of the airforce. > > By this time, there will probably be German armies > in Leningrad and Stalingrad, with the Russians > hunkered down in Moscow, threatening to strafe the > Germans if they combine in Belorussia. Unless the > Allies took Norway early, it will probably be > impossible to reinforce Russia at this point. > > I believe that Belorussia is where the biggest > and most critical land battles are likely to be > fought. I also believe that without two turns or > more of German Infantry (+Artillery) production > dedicated to the Russian front the Germans will > not be able to stand up to Russian strafing attacks, > especially if the Russians received at least three > Lend Lease planes by the end of turn 2. > > One of the advantages for the Allies of a Norway > campaign is that it is easy for Allied planes to > hit Norway or Finland as part of an amphibious attack > and land in Karelia or Archangel (if flown off of > a Carrier in the North Sea), thus having the least > amount of down time for Allied planes. > > Michael Sandy Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Malta Michael Sandy ... One of the neat things about Axis and Allies (Europe) is this dinky little island in the Mediterranean called 'Malta'. On a per square inch of board map basis it is the most important area of the board. :) Seriously, Malta is very critical. It starts with a valuable unit, an unguarded fighter. A bomber can fly from England to Malta and attack one of the potential sea build zones of Northern Italy. It can reach Malta completely by sea zones if the Axis move the Northern Italy AA to Vichy or France. Potentially, this one square can swing the whole Battle of the Mediterranean. At stake are 4 German IPCs and 8 Middle Eastern IPCs. All based on what happens in Malta, surely I exaggerate? Well, okay, a bit, but bad luck attacking Malta can have an amazing cascade of effects. Suppose Germany spends its bonus IPCs against Russia, and the Allies spend 3 IPCs to give Malta an Infantry. Germany decides to launch an amphibious attack on Malta while Libya is either occupied by 1 Inf or left vacant. If the Germans use their Battleship against Gibraltar, the Malta attack is fairly likely to fail. Maybe I am prejudiced, I have never seen a successful shore bombardment roll against Malta. That means the British can hit the Germans in the Maltese Sea with a Bomber, a Fighter, a Destroyer and a transport if they really want to. If the Germans left Libya vacant, the British could blitz, hit Libya with a tank, an Art, an Inf and a Fighter, hitting the DD and transport with a Bomber and Destroyer. One little goof. And the Germans lose all of their troops in Africa, their transport and half their African possessions. And all because the Germans didn't take Malta. That is pretty much a worst case scenario. Okay, so what happens if the Germans don't attack Malta, and avoid the Maltese Sea entirely? If the Germans transport their troops to Libya, the British can launch an amphibious attack, and hit 5 ground troops with: 1 tank, 1 Art, 3 Inf, 1 Fighter and 1 shore bombardment. 15 1st round attack vs 10 first round defense. If the defense kills two and the attacker kills three, the next round is 10 to 6. Odds are that the British take Libya with a tank and a fighter. Not bad, but not great, the Germans can transport more troops over and fly their bomber from France to Eastern Med and land in Crete. The Brits could attempt to sink the German DD and transport _and_ hit the German army in Libya in as good odds as they are likely to get. The odds aren't great, 9 attack vs 10 defense, two 3's vs a 3 and a 1, but good dice rolling here could end Germany's African hopes. Another sequence of events: Germany attacks Malta and fails to take it. Germany builds a transport in the Med. The British attack the German fleet in the Maltese sea. On turn 2, the German Battleship returns from Gibraltar to escort the transport to Malta to take out the Bomber and Fighter there. On the British turn, the German sub in the Central Atlantic is sunk or submerged. The British Transport carrying two American infantry makes a non-combat move to the South Atlantic. On the American turn, possibly aided by an American bomber or another transport, the Americans invade Morocco without fear of retaliation from the German Battleship. The initial bonus IPCs can easily swing the initial Battle for Africa, because the starting units are so evenly balanced. If the Germans invest a lot on taking Africa, the Allies have to consider whether to match it or to concentrate on delaying tactics. If the Germans invest their IPCs in Russia, the Allies should give serious thought to a major investment in the Middle East. If they can sink the German transports and preserve a force that can attack new built German transports they may be able to take and hold all of Africa when Germany needs every IPC to build troops to fight Russia. If the British start with a sub in the Celtic Sea, this affect the Mediterranean. Only two German planes can hit the Celtic Sea, the Bomber and the fighter that starts in France. If the fighter that starts in France hits the English Channel, it can land in Northern Italy, and hit the Eastern Med and land in Crete. So if the British start with a sub in the Celtic Sea, either the Germans send a lot of subs to attack the Celtic Sea, or they send in the France fighter, thus not being able to use it in the Med. The Celtic Sea is a Dead Zone for German subs, with two destroyers and lots of airpower available to hit them. Linked to Malta is the debate over whether to use the German battleship to protect the Med navy or to take Gibraltar. I think that the difference amounts to one Convoy zone per turn versus Germany taking the coastal Middle East by turn 3. If the Germans start with an extra transport in the Med, and the Allies respond by building ground troops in Russia, Germany should consider transporting 4 ground troops to Libya by way of the Central Med. That way, the British can't stall amphibious attacks on Syria by placing their transport in the Central Med! The British could still attack Libya, but if they can't sink the German fleet as well they lose their defense in depth. The Germans could send the Destroyer versus the British Destroyer at Gibraltar, perhaps with a fighter or sub to help. The Battleship + 2 two transports is enough to prevent the British from taking Libya _and_ sinking the German fleet. It is an interesting dilemma; when the Germans have 1 hit point left, do they keep the Battleship or the transport? The Battleship isn't going to get anything useful done for several more turns, but the transport could speed up the conquest of the Middle East... Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Strategic Questions Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ebtevv.6z5ishzvmmcqN%mehawk@teleport.com>... I do not believe that there is a single best opening strategy for Germany or the Allies, where deviation from this strategy always results in worse results. For one thing, no plan survives contact with the dice. Both high rolls and low rolls can doom a strategy. Suppose the Germans attack a stack of 10 Russian Infantry with 12 tanks and 6 Infantry, intending to only fight for one round. By the numbers you expect to kill 7 units. If you kill 10 then your tank column gets butchered by a Russian counter attack. So a good player has to learn how to deal with both good and bad luck, as well as unexpected gambits by their opponents. There are a number of good German openings, and a good player should be familiar with all of them, their strengths and their weaknesses. These openings can be characterized and analyzed by their different responses to strategic questions, or different strategies for using a particular resource. Question 1) How does the German intend to deal with the prospect of Russian counterattacks on turn 1? Answer 1) Concentration of power. Hits one of Baltic States or Eastern Poland with overwhelming infantry, while only doing a marginal attack on the other. The German transport is used to transport extra infantry from Belgium to make it easier to hold Baltic States, for example. Russia starts with the ability to hit Baltic States with 6 Infantry, 1 Art, 2 Tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, for 22 Attack points. If the Germans get more than 12 ground units into Baltic States, Russia is probably not going to be able to strafe it down. Russia can hit Eastern Poland significantly harder, with 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 tanks and the airforce, for 30 attack points. Germany would need at least 16 ground units in Eastern Poland to survive a pounce like that. If Germany started with 4 extra Infantry in Hungary or Poland, for example. It is also important to note that first round losses will reduce the defender's firepower faster than the attacker's firepower because the attacker is losing 1's while the defender is losing 2's. The defender needs an extra infantry for every 3 1's the attacker has for it to be an even fight. It is probably sufficient to deny the Russians an advantage sufficient to strafe your large stack at good odds, rather than to have enough for outright victory if the Russians attacked it all out. Answer 2) Germany attacks Baltic States and Eastern Poland without intending to move in. Germany doesn't leave Russia an opening for Ukraine to strafe Rumania by only moving 2 Inf to Rumania, and the Yugoslavian Infantry to Hungary. The following turn, Germany has a lot more Infantry available to protect his attack force. This strategy revolves around never giving the Russians a stack that they can attack effectively. The German transport would be likely used to transport infantry to Finland for defensive purposes. In this case the Germans would not attack Vyborg on turn 1. Answer 3) Start with 3 Artillery in Rumania, and attack Ukraine. With fewer infantry to play with, the Russians will only have one good counter attack one turn 1. The Germans lose a few tanks, but the Russians lose more infantry on turn 1 this way. The bad news is that the odds for each of the German attacks go down. Answer 4) Use German air force to augment the German attack so that Germany can move only cheap infantry into the contested territories. In my opinion, this is a complete loser strategy for turn 1, because German planes can make so much more of a difference attacking British ships, but it is a good strategy after turn 1. Remember, the Best Offense is a Good Defense! If the other guy can reduce your attack force, you can use it again and again. Question 2) How does Germany divide his resources between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic? More specificly, German Battleship to Gibraltar, Maltese Sea or Central Med? These three options are greatly affected by how both sides used their bonus options. A German Battleship in Gibraltar can keep the southern three British Convoy zones nicely menaced for several turns, especially with the threat of a German bomber or sub or two joining in. A German Battleship in Gibraltar and Bomber in France is a potent combination. With a Battleship menacing the Celtic Sea and 4 German fighters in Norway, the Allies may find it difficult to build up a fleet to invade anywhere. However, if Germany wants to take the Middle East in time to do any good, and especially if he doesn't want to keep rebuilding his transports, then using the Battleship in the Central Med has a number of benefits. For one thing, the British have no chance of invading Northern Italy! This means that Germany doesn't have to divert builds to protect Northern Italy. Germany can also adopt the perspective that the Mediterranean is _not_ a critical area, but that killing the British fighter is important. Question 3) In the Atlantic, how much weight should Germany give to the following three goals: 1) Sinking the Allied fleets 2) Disrupting the convoy system 3) Maintaining a blocking force of subs to delay the shipment of US troops. Obviously, the most permanent way to delay the shipment of troops is to sink the transports, but one sub can prevent transports from being _loaded_ by moving into their sea zone and immediately submerging. I would put a much higher priority on sinking _British_ ships and convoys for a number of reasons. One of the biggies is that the British fleet can unblock the American fleet by attacking the German subs on its turn. This is one of those rare cases where it is an advantage for the Allies that they are separate powers. If Germany uses up his subs destroying the Allied fleets, they won't be able to slow the Allies getting troops to Europe or to block the Allies from retaking the convoy zones. If the Germans destroy all the fleets, take all the convoy zones, but lose all their subs, then the Allies just build a bunch of subs and DDs and retake their Convoy zones. Question 4) How much effort is the Soviet Convoy Zone worth? 1 sub? 2 subs? 2 subs and a fighter? One sub can deny the Convoy zone for 1 turn, guaranteed, but with low odds after that. A fighter hitting the Russian transport increases the odds significantly, and an extra sub in the Barents could deny the Soviets their convoy zone for 3 turns. Maybe more, depending on what the British build. Diverting an extra sub and fighter versus the Russian Convoy Zone greatly increases the odds of the Germans taking more casualties or even failing to knock out completely a British fleet. It is also likely that the British will regain their convoy zones sooner. Question 5) Unless Germany gets lucky and the Russians blow themselves up in a bad counterattack, the German attack will soon stall, to the point where Germany is just conducting Attrition attacks wherever he can reach. In order to do well with Attrition attacks, the Germans need an infantry stack adjacent to Ukraine and another one adjacent to Baltic States and Eastern Poland that aren't exposed to a large Russian stack. At some point, Germany will want to bring these two stacks together and unite to march towards Moscow. When does he do this, how does he do this, and what is this stack going to be composed of? All these decisions interact with each other. What happens in the Ukraine can determine whether Russia can afford to send infantry south to guard the Middle East. What happens in the Middle East can affect the Battle of the Atlantic. Decisions made in the Battle of the Atlantic determine the vulnerability of Norway and Finland to a Russian tank assault, and how many Allied planes can be sent to Russia. Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Strategic Questions Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ebukkx.16k72o6a6ws5cN%mehawk@teleport.com>... Last article I mentioned, almost offhand, an opening for Germany that I really hadn't thought much about. Germany taking 4 Infantry in Poland is a fairly powerful strategy. It is also difficult for the Allies to counter directly, more on that later. Germany can attack Baltic States with 12 Infantry, (2 convoyed from Belgium) and 5 tanks, hit Eastern Poland with 3 Inf, 2 Art, Bessarabia with 3 Inf and 1 tank, pushing two infantry into Rumania and two into Hungary. German will probably have 15-17 units in Baltic States. Russia could attack this with 6 Inf, 1 Art, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, for an attack value of 22 among 11 units, or an attack value of 31 among 14 units if the Allies take 3 Artillery in Leningrad or Belorussia. Russia could conceivably lose the game immediately by attacking and taking heavy losses. Assume that Russia doesn't attack Baltic States, Germany can hit Belorussia with 10-12 Inf, 7 tanks. If two of the fighters which attacked the North Sea landed in Finland, Germany could hit Belorussia with an additional 2 fighters and a bomber, for a total attack value of: 21 + 10 + 10 = 40. If the Russians put less than 20 ground troops into Belorussia, the Germans can strafe it down. Also, Germany has a similar powerful threat against Leningrad. Russia doesn't have enough troops to stack _both_ Leningrad and Belorussia that high, so he will have to concentrate on one of them. If he stacks them in Belorussia, the Allies will not be able to ship Russia fighters to Leningrad. If he stacks them in Leningrad, Germany can hit Belorussia with a small force and shift everybody into East Poland. I haven't run the numbers to see if Russia would be able to effectively strafe the Germans on turn 2 if they concentrate everything in Belorussia. I strongly suspect that Germany will have to pull back his main force to keep it from being strafed. However the Belorussia strategy has some serious weaknesses for Russia as well. The Russians may have to hit the German transport with their Bomber because there is no safe place to land a fighter. If Russia can't hold Leningrad, it might try defending Vyborg in force, landing her fighter there, or having the Allied fighters land there. Under the proposed Errata, Russia will only be able to convert Allied Lend Lease to Russian units in a territory with an industrial complex, but Vyborg is not a bad place for Allied planes to be, if they have enough Russian infantry under them. Germany's build gives it an alternate turn 1 strategy as well. Germany could hit Baltic States with 2 Inf + 2 Artillery (by transport), this means, incidently, that Germany can't retreat from this marginal battle if it goes wrong, and hit Eastern Poland with 11 Inf, 2 Artillery and 5 tanks. Of course, the Russians have more force available to hit Eastern Poland, 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 tanks, 1 fighter, 1 bomber for 30 attack points among 16 attackers, and the Russians could have more artillery for this battle as well. However, if the Allies put the bonus artillery in Leningrad, or decide to get their advantage on other fronts, then Eastern Poland has a number of advantages. First, it is a more powerful strike force. 9 tanks + 2 Artillery instead of 7 tanks. (I assume that the Russians launch a bomber assisted attack on Bessarabia if the bomber isn't used for anything else.) Second, it can strike into Ukraine, a valuable territory which the Russians _have_ to take back or let the Germans blitz into Caucasus. Under the Baltic States strategy, the Russians can hold Ukraine strongly enough that it won't even be a good strafing target. This strategy has different build requirements from other German strategies. Germany may want to consider building 8 tanks on turn 1 in order to defend her attack stack in East Poland. Germany is likely to have a lot of Infantry with her attack stack, but unless she has a truly large stack, the Russians will strafe it down. If Germany can't get a big enough stack to come out ahead versus a Russian strafing attack then he will have to pull his infantry and tank stack back out of range. A stack of 15+ Infantry 2-4 artillery, 19 tanks and 4 fighters should be sufficient to stop a Russian strafe attack into East Poland (or Baltic States) on turn 2. Of course, this level of air force commitment to the Russian front allows the Allies to speed up their invasion of Western Europe a bit. And Germany won't have an infantry reserve to speak of. Michael Sandy