Agressive Russia

[Weezer 410]

Although the Usual Russian Strategy of, one space back huge armies of infantry and artillery, usually is quite effective against the usual German onslaught. Perhaps the Russians should not be so predictable because it seems that though this strategy might work the first few times you are giving the German player the power to be creative with is Barbarossa.

Therefore I was thinking, assuming a G3 or G4 attack, mass 3 large armies. The biggest in Eastern Poland, the 2nd largest in Belarus and a smaller but powerful force in Karelia. This is assuming Germany has massed forces in the east and has some infantry in finland. Now the German player will be forced to divert the bulk of his forces to Eastern poland, as it would be impossible to bypass. The russian player would almost assuredly lose eastern poland but at a very high cost for the germans. Now the russians can succesfully counterattack the germans massed in Eastern poland and force the germans again to take out the large stack imposing on their front lines. As Russia do not defend Leningrad or the southern regions as they are relatively unimportant. With the Karelian infantry take finland and Norway to hopefully meet up with some brits or americans by 2 or 3 turns after war has been declared, from there Germany is doomed!

[allweneedislove]

an aggressive ussr is a bad idea. germany will crush ussr if it gets aggressive too early

[JamesAleman]

Dividing your forces permits Germany to hit and retreat, inflicting more losses then you respond with, or it permits them to destroy a good portion of your army while incurring fewer losses then they would receive attacking a larger force.

Unless Russia has many artillery, the Germans would rather defend and force you to attack at 1's instead of attacking you when you defend at 2's.

[SgtBlitz]

Why?  Why do you need an aggressive Russia when you can just sit back and let the US's IPCs win the war for you?  You're just STALIN for time anyway.

The only time you *might* get away with being aggressive is when Germany pulls off a successful Sealion attack; then its absolutely necessary.

The way I see it, it looks like the Axis and Allies 1940 ruleset was designed with a dedicated Sealion attack in mind; the Allies are just too damn strong 4-5 turns in if you don't take out the UK early on in the game.  Japan is much farther away than before with a turtling India already in place, so there's hardly any help there, where in previous games the Japs helped out in the Med and Europe all they could get away with.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Russia can be aggressive in the east easier than against Germany.  A couple mechs and tanks in China are loads of fun and can last the whole game to liberate lightly defended Chinese territories if used carefully.

Against Germany Russia needs to be careful if Germany has built many mech inf.  My current opponent is good about not loosing Moscow or any of the factories to an Italian can opener move but I was able to isolate then kill 20+ units of his Lenningrad defense force for a minimal loss.

[RedHunter]

an aggressive ussr is a bad idea. germany will crush ussr if it gets aggressive too early

Not always..it depends on the Russian builds and the rest of the world's situation. Also dice rolling of course. If America goes all out on Japan then Russia can afford to be aggressive because even if they fail they can pull back and wait 2 turns for America to come bail them out.

[allweneedislove]

germany has more units on the front and will crush the smaller ussr stacks.