Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Pursuit of Glory» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Is Russo-British Assault as bad as Persian Push? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the Allies, I mean.

This is inspired by my current stats of games played by me (which includes some games previously cited in stats).

67 games so far. 37 won by the Central Powers (21 Auto 13 marginal 3 lost data) 30 won by the Allies (25 Auto 5 marginal).

In 24 games Russo British Assault was the opening. 17 of those games were CP wins and 7 Allied wins.

In 23 games Persian Push was played before Secret Treaty or Persian Push was played and Secret Treaty was never played. 17 of those games were CP wins and 6 Allied wins.

Now, regrettably I didn't collect the stats in such a form that you can tell how much overlap there is between the two groups of games, although there certainly is some (for example my most recent game falls into both groups).

There may be some statistical biases creeping in. I stopped opening R-B Assault after the first few games, so most of the games featuring R-B assault were played with my opponents as Allied. Statistically speaking, I tend to win games (45 out of 67). So maybe R-B Assault is underpeforming because it is facing my CP play. On the other hand, maybe I'm winning more games because I often face R-B Assault!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools

Russo-British assault should be fixed as a card ( starting with counting it as AP MO ) because it is defenitely to weak as opening card. Only under very special circumstances would I use it because the alternative is so much stronger.
The problem of your data is that we dont know if the AP couldnt or wouldnt play secret treaty before Persian Push.
I think as the AP you should play ST as fast as possible. If you happen to get the 1 in 4 chance that PP is played before ST its similar to but I believe a little less severe than a turn 3 Parvus.
So yes in 1 out of 4 games you will be trying to come from behind as the AP.
May the godess of the cards always be with you.

Best regards.

Jürg

P.S. I think that under normal circumstances you cant play ST after PP because of the Jihad penalty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems to me most players don't have an issue with what the card does so much as it doesn't fulfill the MO. It makes sense that it should, but that's up to the powers that be.
From what I've read, the "Abadan Mandate" is certainly different but is it that much better?
I have changed the way I play "Assault" now in one way. I used to always permanently eliminate the [Cav] in Eleskirt but now I always hit Koprukoy instead. A roll of 4+ eliminates that corps but even so will give the CP pause as a follow-up MO there is looming regardless of the result.
If a Sandstorm doesn't stop your attack on Basra, you can end up in decent shape by the end of Action one.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
I've gone back to RB Assault too. The Abadan offensive can leave you quite vulnerable down there and the turks can reinforce by SR more than you can. Ultimately the only advantage of the Abadan option is to allow a good set up (flanks at Khoy and Suj Bujak) allowing a full invasion of persia from tabriz. But its not worth the loss of the 2 war status by not playing RBA first impulse.

After all if you don't have Secret Treaty then its irrelevant, and if you do you can still use it 2nd impulse if they get a cav div to suleymaniye first impulse. Admittedly its not a very good invasion as you have to leave units in tabriz and mianeh conceding Khoy to Khermanshah but you get Hamadan and can get to the jihad in qum first.

So either way, Abadan or RBA, the allies should get Persia 75% of the time, which is ahistorical (or at least, historically they rolled the 25%) and does give the Allies a huge boon in vps.

We play a house rule* that tehran and Athens start as uncontrolled allied victory cities (only the cp player can get the vp when they first enter, after that it changes hands normally) and Hamadan and Isfahan start as uncontrolled CP victory cities (only the Allies can get points on first entry), but even so it gives the Allies a +2 VP bonus 75% of the start as opposed to -2 25% of the time.

Ultimately though even that doesn't often matter because, as the Allies, you lose by points but you win by crushing. If it comes to a VP win you will often lose as the Allies so to guarantee a win you simply use your Russian steamroller to crush the Turks. Its use em or lose em so you do both, and you can smash the turks pretty quickly. Each attack with a typical 5 +1 (after mod for mtn) will usually give you 2-2.5 rps damage to the turks (and 1-1.5 to you). So you do 14 of those in a turn and you can put the hurt on the turk.

Which brings us to the worst part of the game which is the luck of the russian revolution. If it doesn't turn up till late the Turks are really toast but even if it comes in early you can trash the russian army in a turn if your trying and it doesn't particularly matter which turn it is. The only advantage of late is you give the russians a chance to rebuild so they can do it twice before they go down.

In every game the turks do real well till their army disappears which should start happening around turn 14 or 15 after their replacements have dried up. The last 2 turns become a victory lap.


* ~ we actually play two other house rules.

(a) You can't conquer territory belonging to an ally at the start of the game, only liberate it (e.g. Constanta when allied must always be Rumanian not Russian, even if recaptured from the CPs, and similarly with Meshed and Simla can only ever be British while AP controlled; reasoning is it makes defending these places absurd as far better to let the CP take them, then recapture them solely to delay russian revolution, while also being historically absurd as if the British wouldn't have gone absolutely ape if Russians conquered India while blithely saying they were after tribesmen)

(b) when you take spaces at the end of the turn that are isolated from the owner, it goes to the ally which can trace a supply path to the space, if there is a choice then allies can choose (e.g. Russia occupies Hamadan, Brits in Ahwaz, end of turn all persia falls to allies, Isfahan can trace to both, the Allies give it to Russia).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
a) The Russians can't take Simla anyway, they can't enter India
b) There is actually a rule for allocating these types of spaces, which is very similar to your house rule.

As for the signficance of Parvus, of 15 games (in the 67) where Parvus was played in turn 3, 11 were won by the CPs and 4 by the Allies. Of 18 games where Parvus was played in turn 6 the CP 8 were won by the CPs and 10 by the Allies. While the first statistic is reasonable evidence for bias to the CPs in the event of early Parvus, the second is hardly a decisive margin.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I assume the CP 8-10 record is Parvus Turn 4 or later?
I just want to see an end to Turn 3 Parvus/Turn 7 Revolution. Just one turn later (4/8) makes a big difference.
Even a change as simple as the Revolution can begin no earlier than Turn 8 would be fine. This allows the CP to hold Parvus to Turn 4 if needed as some players have written about.
The AP's biggest problem is their ability to fight requires a lot of Event play and most of those (Invasion cards) don't start showing up until Turn 3. Winter turns also throw a wrench into an all-RU attack strategy.
It's happened to me in many games. By the time I'm ready to make a push somewhere the Russians are bowing out with possibly 10 more turns to go.
Let's be real. The BR and IN simply don't have the Corps to fight in Egypt, Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia, AND Russia with any effectiveness.
There are too many RU VPs for the Turks to take the AP can do little about that nothing less than a draw is the likely outcome every time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have now edited my above post to make it clear that the 8-10 record is for Turn 6.

For Turn 4 or greater the record would be 24-24. And there were 4 games when Parvus didn't happen and the record for them is 2-2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
If you need a 50 % chance ( no Sandstorm ) to have a decent opening you play the wrong opening.

Harry:
Even if the CP goes all out to roll you back in Mesoptania it gives you the chance for Warmwater Port ( except with your house rule ) and you have always the chance for a heavy counter attack with one of the invasions. In the meantime I imagine some other CP fronts might be in trouble.

Best regards

Jürg
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
haeberich wrote:
If you need a 50 % chance ( no Sandstorm ) to have a decent opening you play the wrong opening.


Not necessary at all but a bonus if it isn't used.
Perhaps the percentages for the be-all, end-all opening of "Abadan Mandate" are better? Hoping to have both "Project:Alexandria" and "Secret Treaty" is worse I'd say.
Just be sure anyone using that opening chooses their Beachhead (Abadan) before drawing any cards. I've had a couple FtF battles where I suspect this was conveniently forgotten.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
You can use the alternative opening with a 3 ops card instead of project Alexandria.
If you dont have ST you at least force the CP to react, answering to your opening like you had it.
I would also think that drawing cards for your opening hand before positioning your beach head in the Persian Gulf would improve the game since it makes R.B.-Assault stronger/more probable.

Best regards

Jürg

P.S. How do you quote from a post ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Anderson
United States
Elk Grove Village
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
haeberich wrote:
P.S. How do you quote from a post ?


You mean like so? Use "Quote" instead of reply. If you wish to trim down the quote then repostion the q="name" and /q, both in brackets, [ ] to the front and back of the desired part.
Example: [/q]
If you're dead set on Mandate then I imagine you want Russo/British Assault for a War Status play in the Winter when the Russian front is likely quiet and it won't hurt you to "lose" an action.
Reminds me of "Oberost" in Paths.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
Thanks for the quote tip.

I usually use RBA as ops during Mobilisation since there are so many other events I have to play and all the other war status events are "must play".
During limited war I find it easyer to squeeze RBA in.
From time to time it happens that you could go to total war and dont want to because some crucial card ( Lawrence comes to mind ) is hiding at the bottom of your deck.
If of course you want to go to total war and RBA hides as the last card in your limited war deck you are out of luck.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.