Do people see Italy as an Axis minor? I don’t, I know it’s the poorest major power in the game but it’s still a major power. My two cents on this debate is you either take Italy and have it support Germany when it invades USSR or you use Italy as a naval power to keep India and UK from linking up or you can take a more questionable route and try to do both.
The "Red Tide" Strategy
-
A good rule of thumb for Russia is that if Germany builds tanks/mechs then you build tanks/mechs. The goal is to stall them at Bryansk while the Siberians walk home and the allies get in the game and fly in reinforcements. Sometimes it is to your advantage to attack their ground units rather than be attacked by combined ground and air units, especially if they bought mostly tanks and not enough mechs.
-
That is a good point variance
-
I bought a bunch of artillery in Game 165, as AK points out, eventually, you are reduced to only 10 production and that is getting bombed. Russia is probably going to fall if they smash all your money and bomb Moscow–I had to get creative and only buy tanks and fighters later on to optimize the production slots left.
Next game plan 166 is to scale back the southern force; 1 mech. UK takes Iraq. Russia may enter China probably with the mech and armor not air. Everything else is going to protect Moscow, and the US bombers are going to go to Scotland (or London if unsafe) this time. Modest goal is 30 infantry by G5.
I think you can do some small actions to push back and block german forces, mostly mopping up whatever just got you (artillery etc), but even with the artillery, I don’t think the turtle stack can risk pushing out of Moscow until Russia is basically producing nothing. Any risk attacks or attempts to stack may slow Germany down but at least against Maphead, I have to dissuade an attack on Moscow at all costs and so its bombers, infantry turtle, and fighters.
-
A good rule of thumb for Russia is that if Germany builds tanks/mechs then you build tanks/mechs.� The goal is to stall them at Bryansk while the Siberians walk home and the allies get in the game and fly in reinforcements.� Sometimes it is to your advantage to attack their ground units rather than be attacked by combined ground and air units, especially if they bought mostly tanks and not enough mechs.�
It isn’t too hard to calculate what non-starting units can hit Moscow on G6:
*Slow movers built G1
*Fast movers built G2 & G3
*Planes and strategically built fast movers on G4-G5If you add up all of those units, the only way for Moscow to hold on G6 is to focus primarily on infantry since two of those units is so much better than a single tank on defense. If you get too cute as Russia, the math is very simple for your opponent. If you play smart with primarily building infantry with additional support from Allied planes, Russia should hold for at least a while longer. At the very least the final battle should be very costly to Germany.
-
Anything other than opinion must be factually accurate for the topic and must be supported by expert consensus where such consensus exists. That being said, the general consensus of the Russian strategy is to purchase mainly infantry, and stack Moscow. However the opinion of some AA players, is that the infantry stack of Russia is not the only strategy that can be used. This is where the “Red Tide” topic has surfaced, evaluating the effectiveness of a strategy other than the standard Russian moves. By no means does the “Red Tide” strategy replace the overall consensus strategy, but merely offers players an alternative to the standard play. Being that a game of AA is extremely fluid, the turn by turn purchases or moves differentiate, and can deviate from an original plan, however a “strategy” will be your overall game plan for any given army or armies during the length of an entire game of AA.
-
Purchasing artillery in the first 1 or 2 turns may not be such a bad idea for Russia. You can at least strafe attack any German army coming in at Leningrad or Ukraine. A strafe attack will subtract vital units from the German stack that will be used against Moscow later.
-
Anything other than opinion must be factually accurate for the topic and must be supported by expert consensus where such consensus exists. That being said, the general consensus of the Russian strategy is to purchase mainly infantry, and stack Moscow. However the opinion of some AA players, is that the infantry stack of Russia is not the only strategy that can be used. This is where the “Red Tide” topic has surfaced, evaluating the effectiveness of a strategy other than the standard Russian moves. By no means does the “Red Tide” strategy replace the overall consensus strategy, but merely offers players an alternative to the standard play. Being that a game of AA is extremely fluid, the turn by turn purchases or moves differentiate, and can deviate from an original plan, however a “strategy” will be your overall game plan for any given army or armies during the length of an entire game of AA.
If improving Russian play for combo with Bright Skies is what you are after.
Look no further! It sounds like what you guys need is to use my RED BLITZ strategy. I’ve spent a long time developing it; and in the face of MAX moscow crush offensives against expert players.
RED BLITZ gives Russia the best defense, counter-offense options, and sealion punishment possible.
R1, 6 tanks, (Siberian forces hail mary for Moscow, arrival R6/R7)
R2, 8 mech, 1 tank
R3, Probably all Mech again
You won’t get into Artillery until round 4 or 5+
Infantry/Artillery on your last few turns whilst the germans on the doorstep.TRUTH:
The russian’s can’t go toe to toe on defense against a fullscale superstack german invasion each round; but what the russians can do is build counterattack potential capable of delaying the german stack or slowing them down. If the germans do move up, they’ll get pounded man for man or better. This is what russia needs to do.If you stop the german offense for 1 or ideally 2 turns; your siberian forces will arrive in time; and you’ll have a beast of a force for the germans to try and crack; whilst also having the offensive power to strike back; as well as the mobility to hit back at outward territories like stalingrad etc.
The Eastern front needs to be viewed by Russia as a race; about which side can get as many units in range as possible, as fast as possible.
Also NOTE - that every turn you are delaying the germans, you are holding onto a few more petty $; and your capital; making up the difference for the more expensive units you’ve built. Which is why infantry are your late purchase, and not your early one.
Don’t believe me?
Check it out Ripley. (And of course it was implemented at TG6Con)
PROOF:
Review these games at your liesure
Karl7 - http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40229.255
Variance - http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40237.0
Wittman - (Game In Progress) http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40611.60Like any strategy, it can be defeated, but average or better players will have more success with Red Blitz then with slower inf/art stacks. Your enemy will have fought an army, and not just a plastic mound of infantry.
(I originally posted RED BLITZ theory last year)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38080.0;prev_next=prev -
Responding to a few of the comments:
@Dauvio:
RED STRATEGY
**BUY INF, AND NOTHING ELSE. KEY TERRITORY EASTERN POLAND. YOU NEED TO BUY TIME FOR THE ALLIES. DON’T HAVE A COWBOY ATTITUDE, AND DON’T BE A WANT A BE HERO WITH RUSSIA. WORK AS A TEAM WITH OTHER ALLIE PLAYERS IF THERE ARE ANY. **
If you still want to have a capital after G6, and buy even more time for the allies; don’t buy all infantry.
In short, the mechanized infantry allowed me to be everywhere on the right time, which made the Axis attacks very frustrating as even while he attacked me on all flanks, I could be where needed because of my mobility and good use of Russia geography.
This is what RED BLITZ is all about!
-
Thanks for joining the conversation Gargantua! We have been discussing the Russian strategy, and I have found that there are many different opinions on how Russia should use it’s IPCs. I believe that reactionary play is the most suitable, while also including some diversity in your purchases. All infantry is a poor build giving only one effective mean, while purchasing artillery or mechanized infantry can provide you with several options. Now if there is an obvious Moscow push from Germany with solid German purchases, more and more infantry is important.
-
The Allies in general, but particularly Russia, should adapt their purchases each turn based on what the Axis powers are doing.
On turn 1, there are three types of builds that Germany can make.
- Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
7 artillery
3 tanks, 3 mech
1 bomber, 1 fighter,
2 mech 1 major factory
To me a great Sea Lion purchase is 6 artillery / 2 infantry. Some of my best Sea Lion games were with that purchase.
- Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
-
The Allies in general, but particularly Russia, should adapt their purchases each turn based on what the Axis powers are doing.
On turn 1, there are three types of builds that Germany can make.
- Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
7 artillery
3 tanks, 3 mech
1 bomber, 1 fighter,
2 mech 1 major factory
To me a great Sea Lion purchase is 6 artillery / 2 infantry. Some of my best Sea Lion games were with that purchase.
Build 6 tanks next time, and your mind will be blown
- Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
-
Or 5 tanks for 30 IPCs?
I get your point…next think you know the UK is buying stuff on SA and a factory in Cairo on UK 1.
-
Or 5 tanks for 30 IPCs?
I get your point…next think you know the UK is buying stuff on SA and a factory in Cairo on UK 1.
No, buy 6 tanks, and try to pull one over on your unsuspecting friends! :-D :-D :-D
Kidding of course
-
I think Garg means for Russia to buy 6 tanks in Leningrad and Ukraine. Every game.
-
Oh. Well if that is the case, my comment is even more irrelevant than it already is. Darn
-
That makes for an interesting conversation. A 5 tank purchase with Russia… I have never even considered that possibility.
-
I have not considered that either. My group rarely ever does anything aggressive with Russia; the most aggressive I’ve ever seen someone play Russia (myself included) is buy 7 inf 4 art on the first couple of turns before they are brought to war, but it is usually just turtle turtle turtle. It’s boring but somehow effective. Maybe that’s just a testament to a need for improved German play, but I digress. I will consider trying one of these “new & different” Russia strategies the next time I play that nation.
-
Gargantua alluded to a concept in his original 6/21/2016 post that I think all of us have been overlooking: strategies that have a 50/50 shot at success are good for the Allies.
Given that the Axis are viewed as having an edge overall in the game, reducing things to a coin flip should be viewed as a success for the Allies just as a draw can be seen as a good result for black in chess. In Axis & Allies, the Allies are the black pieces.
Though we say the game as a whole favors the Axis, what it really boils down to is the Axis having an edge in the key battles that the game hinges on. Normally, this means the battle for Moscow. However, that particular battle doesn’t have to be the one that the game hinges on. Aggressive Allied play can force the game to be decided on earlier battles. If the Allies are the ones choosing which battle will be decisive, then they can simply choose battles with better odds than the final Moscow battle will have and this will be good for them. The Axis can respond by following through with their plan as normal and exposing themselves to the reduced-odds decisive battle, or they can prevent the Allies from obtaining this advantage by playing more defensively so that any given battle will not have greater odds than the final Moscow battle. If the Axis play more defensively, then the Allies are compensated for the extra IPC’s they spent on offensive units.
-
since russia cant declare war on germany, the germans could still get ready with everything stand at the border and the italians could still can open to attack the stack so they have to hide +2 the lines.
-
Let’s consider an optimum offensive Bryansk stack on R3. If the Russians pour everything they have into being able to threaten any units that step up to Bryansk, they can have the following available on R3 for an R4 strike:
27 infantry
21 artillery
12 mech
2 tanks
2 fighters
1 tactical bomberLet’s take a German Sealion feint as an example. Suppose the Germans build two bombers and a sub and lose one infantry and two fighters on the first turn. Then, on the second turn, they build 8 mech and 6 tanks. Italy will can open, which means that there’s no hope of stopping the German air force from landing. Not counting Italian units or the 7 Scandinavian infantry, Germany can step up on G4 with the following:
27 infantry
5 artillery
12 mech
15 tanks
6 aa guns
3 fighters
4 tactical bombers
4 bombersMy battle calculator shows that the defender wins 100% of the time. If I swap sides and have the Germans attack the Bryansk stack, they win 87% of the time.
It really doesn’t look too good for the Russians. I think this confirms that if the Germans pour everything into the Russian front, there is no Red Blitz or Red Tide.
However, if the Germans pour less than everything in, the Bryansk stack can hold. If I remove the planes and the 6 AA from the calculation, suddenly the Russians win 53% of the time. Also, if I build 6 tanks, 1 mech instead of 10 mech on R3, the odds are now 58%. I’m not sure the extra 5% justifies the sacrifice in the defensive power of the stack, but this is certainly open to debate. In any case, I think the R4 Bryansk gambit is worth considering in any game where the Germans are doing something less than full-bore Barbarossa.
Suggested Topics
