Saint Petersburg: Is it worth the cost? [GW Ukraine]

And the problem is the second richest city of russia zone, Saint Petesburg. Right now I dont know if there is 1 Air Transport expancion that use full marines, but for my knowledge, you need two air transport: one for moscow and other for saint Petesburg.

However, does Saint Petesburg wort the cost? Check out the cost calculation:

ok. so Saint Petesburg is 214 income. You need at least 7 marines and 1 air transport. This is, a cost of 750 + 7(70) = 750 + 490 = 1240 cost.

Cita:

For recover your initial investment on the city (1240 cost) you will need:

Turn 1: You earn 107 from the city.
Turn 2: You earn 160 from the city. Total: 267 returned.
Turn 3: You earn 214 from the city. Total: 481 returned.
Turn 4: You earn 214 from the city. Total: 695 returned.
Turn 5: You earn 214 from the city. Total: 909 returned.
Turn 6: You earn 214 from the city. Total: 1123 returned.

Still 116 money to go, but I did not count the collateral and income rate after 100% so I did not incluide it. I did not incluide the units left as well because you will need them for another country. 4 of the 8 miltitias can compensate 120 cost, and 3 are used to wall, so you are earning 1 militia = 30 cost.

By turn 6, you will recover your investment + an irrelevant amount of money(Which is probably negative, if we count the upkeep cost of the ATS). But does theses 6 turns wort it? I think not.

What you guys think about GW ukraine? Saint petesburg wort the 6 turns or not?

I think yes, because cost isn't the only thing to take into consideration.

St Petersburg allows one to reach Finland and the Baltic states by turn 3, which gives you the marine production you need, as well as showing strength in the area. If you're playing against Germany, stacking Berlin and pressing with turkey to take out Ukraine early (when GW Ukraine is weakest) is common. While Germany is weakened in the west, turkey will usually win. St Petersburg prevents a simple north/south pincer movement which is hard to defend against.

Also consider that you will need to build 2 ATs with GW ukraine anyway, because 1 just makies you too slow to block an initial turkey rush. Whether you use it to capture St Petersburg or not, it will have to be built sometime. (People say you don't all the time, but preventing turkey simply rushing you is then relying on distraction and tbs, which have considerable risk attatched. Ofc a really strong turkey rush will probably win against any GW defence, but not many players can do that).

The value of the buffed GW militia you will get from the capture, which can quickly be redeployed to the Baltic states. The value of the free militia's use is vital to GW success.

Finally GW needs to pump out marines lategame to dominate, and not taking St Petersburg initially will be detrimental when you have money in excess and not enough production.

GW ukr expansion I thought of in a minute since I have no experiance with gw ukr. One AT and no extra spawn. With extra spawn I probably coudve gotten Poland. Im confused how you say there is no one AT expansion; there must be. I just did. :/

Did you make this thread just because i said rc and rnw are essential to almost every ukraine expansion?

Escrito por The Tactician, 16.10.2014 at 14:38

GW ukr expansion I thought of in a minute since I have no experiance with gw ukr. One AT and no extra spawn. With extra spawn I probably coudve gotten Poland. Im confused how you say there is no one AT expansion; there must be. I just did. :/

You used bombers? because if so then it does not count xD.

Also the infantry are for prevent turkey from rushing you in turn 3, you need to wall odessa and theses stuff with it. ( but I think you can skip moscow cities and do it right? )

Escrito por EndsOfInvention, 16.10.2014 at 14:21

I think yes, because cost isn't the only thing to take into consideration.

The reinforcements in this chase is pointless. You can easy retribute it. In my chase, the marines that should be taking saint petesburg I used them for take lithuania, belarus and belarus city. Sometimes I also take one of moscow cities.

Ukaine GW with germany enemy would be bad though... Ukraine gw should probably be used only when germany ally. But with germany enemy and assuming you got poland in first turn then there is nothing to fear as you can defend against most of turkey initial rush. I can get 51 units at kiev by turn 4, And this without count the 20 marines that I used for take hungary in that game.

But while you stack 51 on kiev, let say, germany ignores west and you are forced to use your marines for attack him... Then turkey will have advantage but still, germany ignoring is not a good idea because if uk takes whole scandinavia and hamburg then germany is basically fucked up. Even if turkey recaps, the ukranian player can give his northern territories to uk and uk can easy cap ( or take other territories from) germany.

This is, of couse, if turkey cap you. If you survive to turn 5 with most of your territories... then basically stack kiev and GG, you won.

I think distracting the player from rush (i.e, letting him take hungary, breaking all walls and attacking ealier with marines) can be a good way for survive. Even if they cap you, you can easy get over 40+ marines for recap kiev. Assuming he ignored you in balkans for rush then you should have at least everything exept greece and maybe bulgaria. Some cities on turkey as well.

---

Btw, my expancion incluides: Hungary, lithuania, belarus, belarus city, Moscow and russia south. Sometimes I skip russia south and send 2 militias 2 marines to moldova.

I only use the infantry in liviv for send them to hungary. The rest of infantry are all walling somenthing. I wall moscow sometimes as well. And my wall in odessa and stuff made by the infantry hold my kiev wall till turn 4.

By turn 3 I will have full baltic, saint petesburg, moscow with cities....
poland if not taken, poland with full cities if I choosed to skip hungary, and if I went hungary then croatia, slovakia, and theses small cities...

Bridge to Scandinavia and 8 reinf. Good arguments to go for St. Petersburg.

Yea i did use bombers, clearly im not experianced with gw ukr.

And yea you could use units that are for vorenzeh and one in sevastepol to wall odessa or smthn.

I will try one AT with 3v3 spawn later but I think its still worth it anyway since you can walk to Finland and Baltics.

Lol..

Escrito por Permamuted, 16.10.2014 at 14:39

Did you make this thread just because i said rc and rnw are essential to almost every ukraine expansion?

Of course he did because everything revolves around you

Escrito por Silent One_deleted, 24.10.2014 at 14:02

Escrito por Permamuted, 16.10.2014 at 14:39

Did you make this thread just because i said rc and rnw are essential to almost every ukraine expansion?

Of course he did because everything revolves around you

trinig... do have some issues that you would like to discuss with me or something? Or are you just going to settle for haughtiness and snide remarks in almost every interaction.

Escrito por V-dog115, 24.10.2014 at 14:43

omg i love this XDD

Escrito por Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 14:29

Escrito por Silent One_deleted, 24.10.2014 at 14:02

Escrito por Permamuted, 16.10.2014 at 14:39

Did you make this thread just because i said rc and rnw are essential to almost every ukraine expansion?

Of course he did because everything revolves around you

trinig... do have some issues that you would like to discuss with me or something? Or are you just going to settle for haughtiness and snide remarks in almost every interaction.

Me? I saw a question and tried to give a very brief answer in the affirmative. I really could not find any other logical reason for clovis to make thread so I was forced to answer in the affirmative. I also noticed it was posted a while ago and clovis may have been too busy having fun and trying new ideas or working on some future threads he would like to post so I just tried to save him the trouble and just say yes ! My bad...(I am not clovis so I really do not know)... I did not want to say no,to disagree with you is not good. I do not have so much time to spare , could not afford 11page threads or more back and forth. I have said no in the past, I have said nothing for a reasonable period, so this time I tried saying yes, just to have to complete set of responses.I do not know what to do.

To the actual topic,having played in a few games with clovis where he experimented with an expansion without St.Petersburg, I find the idea quite interesting.This is just my personal opinion(hope I am not wrong just for even thinking this)

Escrito por Silent One_deleted, 24.10.2014 at 21:46

Me? I saw a question and tried to give a very brief answer in the affirmative. I really could not find any other logical reason for clovis to make thread so I was forced to answer in the affirmative. I also noticed it was posted a while ago and clovis may have been too busy having fun and trying new ideas or working on some future threads he would like to post so I just tried to save him the trouble and just say yes ! My bad...(I am not clovis so I really do not know)... I did not want to say no,to disagree with you is not good. I do not have so much time to spare , could not afford 11page threads or more back and forth. I have said no in the past, I have said nothing for a reasonable period, so this time I tried saying yes, just to have to complete set of responses.I do not know what to do.

To the actual topic,having played in a few games with clovis where he experimented with an expansion without St.Petersburg, I find the idea quite interesting.This is just my personal opinion(hope I am not wrong just for even thinking this)

My post was a joke to clovis, nothing to do with you, yet you come in with this catty little response. Do i hear a bee in someones bonnet?

If you do not wish to engage in back and forths, you perhaps should consider acting as your name describes.

For russia to be effective, you need lots of mobility. Mobility is increase by ports or ait trans. Therefore, there are more effective strat then gw, because gw in a ukraine would be less effective then sm ukr

Ok logic is simple in this one.
gw ukraine does not rush.
gw ukraine aims for a medium to long game.
gw ukraine needs reinf close to cap for early kiev protect.
rnw is a great country for many reinf close to cap early and for income over a medium to long game.

conclusion:
rnw is a must for Ukr, especially gw!

GW in Ukraine would be less effective assuming that both strats are played the way they should be.


Marine range capacity is enough to where one can manuever from Volga to Kiev with the right array of marines.

Expansion does require transports, at least 1, in most cases. However, GW is intended to be a low-cost strategy. Once expansion is up and your militia are transported to Kiev or Odessa (or maybe Belarus, whichever is safest for you?) you can leave a small city neutral and suicide the trans on it.

Within a couple of turns of the trans being gone and good unit movement, your economy will be fine.

GW Ukr

I think I didnt explained correctly the point of this threat.

The reinforcements are not taken into account since I can easy send them to another target ( In my chase, Minsk and the other belarus city).

@Trinig you are right. I made a part of my guide about cost, so I just tried applying it here.

@Sasori and Cthulhu:

The mobility in ukraine is a very good argument for not go GW in the country. However, I disagree, because even though the militias are a short-range units, the marines were made for surprice attacks and this often require a distant target.

In ukraine's zone, russia is very far from the capital (kiev). And along with GW nerf on transportation, this is a very bad combination.

However, in the other side, there is a paradise just in front of you: Turkey's zone.

And Turkey features poor countries but with very high reinforcements. Here is where the long distance comes in game: You can move big amounts of marines from russia south and caucasus to turkey. You can also move them from belarus and poland to balkans.

SM ukraine may be better than GW, but only in early game. After turn 5, if not capped GW ukraine can come in hand with his cheap and stealthed power. The income is also a factor: GW deal less collateral, therefore, more money. Same with the cost-efficiently units.

From my test playing GW ukraine in both 3vs3 and scenarios without saint petesburg, I can assume the country + strategy only work outstanding when Germany is your ally.

With germany enemy, skipping saint petesburg, as it was explained adove, is a terribly idea. Actually pick gw is a terribly idea with germany enemy.

GW Marines are used like any other unit, not just for one thing.

They aren't specifically made for surprise attacks. More and more I've found different ways to utilize marines in order to support.

GW Germany is a prime example of the potential GW has. On the 3rd turn, Rome is either semi-stacked or undefended. A Germany - Spain team could easily plan to knock France on it's ass by keeping Rome WFed and pressure on French lands. In faking a rush on France, Germany can take Italy himself.

In a 3v3, this could prove deadly.


The same idea can apply anywhere else with GW. With the right maneuvering, you can have all of EU Russias by turn 4. Turn 2 you can take RNW from Belarus - Latvia using a general and marines.

These are just examples. Marines cannot be restricted to surprise attacks. I normally use marine stacks to help funnel militia stacks into a given place.

In Ukraine, with the use of Submarines, you can disable Turkey's ability to move units from that country just under Russia South (I forget it's name, but it has a port and Turkey often uses it to f'k up Ukraine).

There is a lot of potential. I feel that it hasn't been explored enough to accurately judge it.

Though, it is a right conclusion that GW Ukraine is less effective than PD or SM. GW Ukraine also can't function with an enemy Germany.

Escrito por Dr Lecter, 27.10.2014 at 13:02

GW Marines are used like any other unit, not just for one thing.

They aren't specifically made for surprise attacks. More and more I've found different ways to utilize marines in order to support.

GW Germany is a prime example of the potential GW has. On the 3rd turn, Rome is either semi-stacked or undefended. A Germany - Spain team could easily plan to knock France on it's ass by keeping Rome WFed and pressure on French lands. In faking a rush on France, Germany can take Italy himself.

In a 3v3, this could prove deadly.


The same idea can apply anywhere else with GW. With the right maneuvering, you can have all of EU Russias by turn 4. Turn 2 you can take RNW from Belarus - Latvia using a general and marines.

These are just examples. Marines cannot be restricted to surprise attacks. I normally use marine stacks to help funnel militia stacks into a given place.

In Ukraine, with the use of Submarines, you can disable Turkey's ability to move units from that country just under Russia South (I forget it's name, but it has a port and Turkey often uses it to f'k up Ukraine).

There is a lot of potential. I feel that it hasn't been explored enough to accurately judge it.

Though, it is a right conclusion that GW Ukraine is less effective than PD or SM. GW Ukraine also can't function with an enemy Germany.

I agree in part with you, but still the basic use of marines are, exactly, long-range assaults. With the knowledge I have, GW and only GW marines can be used effectively for:

•) Suicidal attacks, since the GW marines have one of the best cost-efficiently units in-game. This incluides attempts to TB's, or just for break all the walls and suicide somewhere there.

•) Overstacking. With their cheap cost, again, they can be stacked easy.

And of couse, the stealth automatically gives them the surprice factor, the maneuver for long-range attacks, and the ability of taking down a whole continent if well-used. You are right when you say the marines have a lot of potencial, but some strategies and countries boost certain factors over others. And with ukraine 10k, the long range assault are, in my opinion, the best way for use marines. The second one would be suiciding them.

In other words, what I mean is that with ukraine 10k, the fact that you can take a country and reinforce it with militias is just excelent.

My theory about Saint Petesburg is that if you skip it, you will have more money. This is perfect for a happy late-game. And since the reinforcements is redestributed to other countries, it does not affect me as much as some players explain.

In recently 3vs3's many players has proven my wall to be inefective, and I was forced to defend kiev turn 3 many times, a very bad desicion which ruin completely my economy. I am thinking about this now: What if I dont defend kiev in turn 3?

This at least work outstanding with DS ukraine. You let turkey to cap you in turn 3, and in turn 4 you can recap easy. I think this can work for GW ukraine because the marines are cheap. Just a though for now, will experiment. But for sure, the money that I save up by skipping saint petesburg will help me a lot on this.

I am also thinking about making a palace wall with all the infantry for defend only kiev till turn 4, but this would leave my ukranian cities unprotected. But oh well, I can retake them with marines later.

OH I see what you mean.

I was misguided.

But yeah, everything you've said is sound.