Here are links to my first two strategy primers for InsideGMT:

Churchill Strategy and Tactics Tips

Churchill Strategy Primer #2: Defeating the Axis

My topic for this strategy discussion is to focus on the asymmetric staff abilities of each side and highlight strategy themes that I have not seen yet in the general discussions on BGG.

First here is a general analysis of the each sides asymmetric capabilities. The decks were constructed to align each sides capabilities with my view of how they operated during the conferences. If you were to do an analysis of the staff with values and attributes assumed to always be played on the proper attribute you would find that the total strength of the decks lays out as follows:

US: 99
UK:92
USSR: 83**

**=Nyet national characteristic situationally adds 1 to Soviet staff cards.

In each case I assigned the CoS as a 1 value plus their attribute, so there is some variation based on the strength die roll. Clearly this is not exactly how it would ever play out, but it demonstrates each staff’s strength if played efficiently to maximize a cards value.

Now on the surface you would think that the Soviets are way outclassed, so I will begin my analysis with Stalin.

Stalin

Strengths
With a total value of 83, 9 points inferior to the UK and 16 points behind the US, they would appear to be the weakest side. Appearances are deceiving here as the Soviet deck has 7 cards that give an Offensive Support bonus when played on a Directed Offensive issue, plus they have two additional staff members who have a strength attribute bonus for a total of 9 cards focused on Directed Offensives.

This is a critical piece of how you need to play Uncle Joe. The Soviets want at least one and better yet two directed offensive issues on the table every conference. If only one it needs to be the UK who are the likely early bane of Stalin’s path to victory. As I stated in the first primer, you need to focus on getting 9-10 offensive support markers on the Eastern Front as your main leverage in the game is you are the one fighting the Nazi horde in the bloodiest campaign in human history, own it. You should expect to gain two to three offensive support from your staff cards, 3-4 from production (Arctic theater), and at least 2 from a UK or US directed offensive.

In addition you are very strong on Production issues with 5 staff cards with a total value of 19 or 22% of your total strength. So, coupling a US/UK production issue with a directed offensive issue is good strategy for the Soviets.

Regarding the other issues you have a decent ability to use Stalin and Beria to win the A-bomb issue. The key Soviet capability is their national characteristic on timing the use of their cards to debate versus advancing an issue. This debate advantage will be offset at times by the early use of Stalin and his becoming paranoid, so roll well.

Weaknesses
The Soviets have no staff cards that give them advantage on the leadership issues and only one card for Global and Strategic materials. You only have one weak card for Pol-Mil although if Stalin is used in this role he gains a bonus Clandestine network. So, Stalin will have to pick off these issues when circumstances or debating give him some advantage. The other major Soviet weakness is they have three cards that are based on whether Stalin is active or not. Since Stalin has a special ability to gain the A-bomb he is often used early in a conference neutering two of these three cards. The upside of using Stalin is Budonny is advantaged when Stalin is inactive.

If you want to play to your strengths you need to focus on ensuring that directed offensive and production issues are present in most conferences, but especially in the early conferences. Stalin is a major force in any strategy as long as he does not become paranoid. Of all the leaders, the Soviets need to use Stalin selectively to gain leverage, but this is a two edged sword. in the end, Stalin wins if the Soviet East front advances, especially if you can win the race for Berlin, so never ignore this until Germany is defeated.

Churchill

Strengths
The UK national characteristic (Imperial Staff) is the most obvious to understand and use. Assuming that the UK uses one of their 5 cards every conference they should win 9 out of 10 agenda segments during a campaign game. The problem with this tactic is three fold. First, it typically yields 12 points to the Soviets for A-bomb espionage. Second, the two most powerful UK Pol-Mil cards (out of three) are invested in two of their four 5 value cards (Eden and Bevin). This reduces the UK total for Pol-Mil from 15 to 4, so this will weaken your ability to win Pol-Mil if followed as a strict doctrine. Third, it sets up the US national characteristic by removing Stalin from the tie breaker equation (prior A-bomb use).

On other issues, the UK is the only player with a European Leadership attribute card (Cunningham) and they have Mountbatten for the Pacific to oppose King. In the area of military bonuses the UK has three cards (Anderson, Tovey, Noble) that offer a balanced portfolio of offensive and naval support.

An analysis of the remaining UK staff strengths shows that 3 cards are impacted by Churchill’s presence, although one of them gains strength by his inactivity (Atlee). Beyond that the UK is competitive with the Soviets on directed offensives, particularly their own.

The 800 pound gorilla in the conference room is Churchill’s leverage over the conditional issues if the UK wins all or most of the agenda segments. It is critical that the British are faced with poor last card choices by having their directed offensive and production issues within reach or they can dictate the nature of the final victory condition (no Axis surrender), which assumes that they have a commanding lead.

Weaknesses
Churchill is the lynchpin for UK strategy as he is the only card that gives the UK any benefit on the Global issue (bonus Political Alignment marker). Churchill is strongest if the US misplays the use of Roosevelt. While the UK has two relationship staff (Portal and Dill) they only offer leverage with the US. Then there are two cards without Churchill whose value drops from 10 to 7 if the PM is inactive. The other players need to exploit Churchill’s weakness on Pol-Mil and the Global issue to offset his going last with the Imperial Staff.

Roosevelt

Strengths
The US is the Arsenal of Democracy. Roosevelt has the strongest staff and the most organic production. The US needs to control the tempo of a conference to offset Churchill and the Imperial staff. As a basic tactic I do not use Roosevelt except to neuter Churchill especially on the Global and Pol-Mil issue. The ability to neuter Churchill causes him to remain active and unused in many conferences until the close. The US needs to create a situation when going into the last round they control one more issue than the UK, with an active Roosevelt if Churchill is still active. This sets up the Arsenal of Democracy characteristic that offsets the Imperial staff. If you have used Roosevelt with an active Churchill or you are not ahead in issues on the last round of the Meeting segment, then things will not go well for you.

The American staff is very balanced with no real weaknesses. The US is the strongest across all three players in production, strategic materials, and Pol-Mil. They are competitive in all other areas. If you use Roosevelt only to neuter Churchill or win ties, you have three strong cards (Ickes, Walker, Byrnes) to play on any issue. If you add in Harriman the US should be able to dominate the conversation (advance issues) in any conference. As a basic tactic, it is often best for the US to have many issues on a low value on their track than focusing early on locking up an issue. This is important as a foil to the Imperial Staff last card play. One thing to remember is the US dominates the Production and Strategic materials issues with 3 cards for each with a total value of 28 (representing 28% of your balanced strength). During any conference where you have two or more staff cards in the production area, you should not be afraid of playing counter intuitively and putting the US production issue on the table, so you can win it. The US should regularly place the strategic materials issue as your three cards are a factor of three better than the British and Soviets.

In the area of Pol-Mil the US is dominates with 21 staff points versus 15 (UK) and 2 (USSR). The US should own this issue and it is often best for the US to have two Pol-Mil issues on the table and get them both on their track, so the last British play can only recover one enabling parity in this area.

It goes without saying that Roosevelt is your strongest capability to control the tempo of how a conference resolves. It is often best to use him defensively to block Churchill and win the tie break. The other advantage is by using Roosevelt in this manner his probability of living to his historical date keeps Truman out of the game until the A-bomb is completed (Trinity) or close to completion (Los Alamos). An early Truman appearance can be a major issue for the US as you lose the natural foil to Churchill one sixth of the time, although you are not effected if Truman is used as a conference tie breaker.

Weaknesses
The US does not have any overt weaknesses if they are mindful to keep a tight reign on the British. Although the US and the UK are natural partners in the military game, do not let Churchill structure the post war world. If the US finds itself losing the Global issue to the British you are probably using Roosevelt too aggressively. The Soviet staff card Molotov is your biggest threat here.

Churchill Math
Here are some math relationships that you might find useful. First off Churchill is a zero sum scoring system, so it is the differential scores in each area that matter. If you are deficient in one arena you need to find compensation in another. I hope to offer some thoughts here.

The basic VP unit is 3VP for a political alignment marker. There are 22 countries/colonies in the game, so assuming that most locations become controlled try not to fall more than 3VP behind your opponents or failing that gain them in other places.

There are three outcomes for the global issue, so if each wins one, then zero differential. Worst case is one player wins two and gains a 10 point advantage over the player who won none and 5 points (slightly less than two political alignment) over the other player. Typically the Soviets will win at best one of the global issues, so they need to find compensation in other areas.

Think of it this way the Soviets winning the race to Berlin is equal to 5 political alignment markers. If the US/UK make it into West Germany they reduce this to 10 VP differential or approximately 3 political alignment markers.

The big swing for the Soviets is A-bomb espionage, which is worth 4 political alignment markers and assuming Trinity is a net 3 political alignment markers. As you can see if the Soviets win the Race for Berlin and gain 12 VP for espionage it is worth 8 political alignment markers (assumes Trinity) if not offset by commensurate Western Allied gains.

For the US the Pacific is a source of military VP and potential disaster. Achieving the historical position (Okinawa and Philippines plus Emperor surrenders) is forth 10 VP, none of which are shared with the UK or the USSR and the denial of 8 VP for preventing ISR and not recapturing the Philippines. The US must be prepared to invade Japan or have their partners dictate the end game. If the UK or the USSR is vetoing the conditional issues by winning them, then the US must have a Pacific first mentality, get the two US fronts into Okinawa and Kyushu for 10 VP differential or just better than 3 political alignment markers. If Germany has surrendered the US then has the option to invade Japan and gain 13 VP differential over the USSR and 5 VP differential over the British. More importantly it takes the ability of the other two players to force a conditions 3 (no axis surrender) outcome to the war off the table. For the US the game is often lost or won in the Pacific, assuming all else is equal.

Strategy Conclusions

UK comments
Each of the three players has different strengths aligned to their historical counterparts. The UK is dominated by solid staff work and the outsized personality of the games namesake, Churchill. Letting Churchill dominate the conversation through his ability to get in the last word (last card play when winning the Agenda segment) is a recipe for US/USSR defeat. Therefore do not let this happen. The Soviets need to force the British to support their military efforts, while the US needs to keep the PM under control by precise card play during a conference and when necessary a Pacific First strategy to remove the British leverage over the two conditional issues.

Going last only matters if it scores, so the US must have more issues on their track as you enter the last round of a meeting segment. Remember the British can only go for a condition 3 victory if they are in the lead, so do not let them gain a commanding lead. Block them from Pol-Mil and the Global issue or offer it up when you need the conditional issue to resolve and enable D-Day/Manchuria.

Soviet Comments
The Soviets are in my opinion the easiest to play in the early going. Stalin needs to get the Eastern Front rolling by gaining at least one directed offensive per conference. The UK yielding 12 VPs to the Soviets each game through uninspired agenda segment play will set up Stalin for the end game as these points unlike political alignment are permanent once acquired. On the other hand opposing the Soviet military has ramifications for the Western Allies. If Churchill helps to impede Soviet military progress they are likely giving the game to the US.

The UK is weaker than the US in the Pol-Mil area and the US can score significant military points in the Pacific that the UK does not share. Of all of the players the UK needs a Germany VP split amongst the Big Three using their Imperial staff to win Global and Pol-Mil issues through timing finesse rather than brute force. If they squander this advantage on wrecking conditional issues, they should find themselves in third place and out of the running no matter which victory condition is resolves. The fact that this is not happening is evidence to me that the US is not being played well at this point in the Churchill metagame.

If all the Soviets do is win the race to Berlin, gain 12 VP for espionage, and some late political alignment in Eastern Europe, they should be well positioned for a win. If the Western Allies gang up on the Eastern front, then try and finesse an early USSR declaration of war on Japan. One interesting tactic is for the Soviets to put both conditional issues on the table. If the Western allies block the Far East, resource D-Day with a directed offensive and offensive support and take pressure off of the East front for an easier advance on Berlin. If they block D-Day advance on Korea for 8VP, just as good as Germany. In the end you win with the Soviets militarily, so play to your strengths.

US Comments
The US is the most powerful side to play. The US has the strongest staff and the most production. This means that they do not have to play aggressively, but smartly to control a conference. The US should play Roosevelt defensively during a conference to block Churchill. If Churchill is being obdurate about the conditional issue, then go with a Pacific first strategy and make the British finance Europe alone. Without US aid, the UK will not score many military points and will find it hard to compensate in other areas if the US plays to their staff strengths and wins conferences denying another source of UK VPs. On the other hand, if Stalin wins the race to Berlin the US could have a bigger problem unless they dominate the Pol-Mil arena and the Pacific where they are strongest. If you blindly align yourself with the UK to oppose Stalin you are likely to find yourself congratulating the PM for his victory.

I think that covers enough ground for this installment. Please post your strategy comments so we can continue this dialog.

Happy gaming,

Mark

---

Articles in this Series: Part 1  Part 2  Part 3