Yeah, it’s odd the game refers to it properly but the fans don’t.
Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?
-
If the Soviet player doesn’t counter attack they’re going to lose, simple as that. This has been seen countless amounts of times in the previous years of 2017-2019 of people trying all sorts of defensive techniques and losing all the same. Germany makes much more money, mobilizes much faster, and packs a far bigger punch than that of which the Soviet Union can handle by just defending. You can turtle up on Moscow but all that would do for you is it will win you the battle, but it won’t win you the war. Because you’ve won the battle of Moscow, but you’ve taken severe casualties as well as quite literally losing your entire Western half of the country to the Germans.
You have to look at it from a broader perspective, tons upon tons of people said the same thing as you did that “You can’t throw away Russia’s defensive units” or “Russia HAS to defend Moscow because we think that’s the best option”, people tried a counter attacking strategy and it worked marvelously. The bottom line is, I think you’re trying to convey that Russia should focus on taking minimal losses on the front, and unfortunately that just isn’t possible. The Soviet player will be taking tremendous casualties, simply defending or counter attacking, it’s the latter of these 2 options though that will give them the benefit of the doubt on the Eastern Front. They’ll take tons of casualties, they just will, that’s what’s going to happen, and you won’t stop it, so if you’re men are going to die, take the enemy down with them.
-
@thedesertfox said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
people tried a counter attacking strategy and it worked marvelously.
I have never seen a Russian counter attack strategy that worked. You must be seeing different games than I have. Show me a game where the Russians killed MORE of the Germans than they lost via a counter attacking strategy. With the one caveat the German player was not an idiot. Any strategy works against poor play.
@thedesertfox said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
hey’ll take tons of casualties, they just will, that’s what’s going to happen, and you won’t stop it, so if you’re men are going to die, take the enemy down with them.
I disagree with you here too. It is not inevitable that Moscow falls. Given enough help from the US and Brits Moscow can hold. Even if they can’t hold losing Moscow is not the end of the game as long as the Germans have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort taking it. As long as Japan is beat up the Allies can stop the Axis from getting to Egypt.
By using a counter attacking strategy as Russia you are increasing the battle tempo on the Russian Front which is good for Germany and bad for Russia as the faster Russian units die the easier and quicker it is for Germany to knock Russia out of the game.
Assuming German movement played properly the Russians cannot kill more German units than they lose via a counter attacking strategy. Thus it is not a wise choice.
-
@andrewaagamer said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
I have never seen a Russian counter attack strategy that worked. You must be seeing different games than I have. Show me a game where the Russians killed MORE of the Germans than they lost via a counter attacking strategy. With the one caveat the German player was not an idiot. Any strategy works against poor play.
Is that because it’s never done the job to fight off Germany alone? In that case, yes you’re absolutely correct. There is not a Russian Counter Attacking strategy that has succeeded to single handedly push Germany back to Berlin. Now, I can confirm to you that an assisted Allied invasion of mainland Europe to assist the Soviet Union’s counter offensive has worked, it’s worked well. Like I had previously stated before, “you’re going to take tons of casualties as the Soviet Union.” Fact of the matter is, as the Soviet Union, you won’t be killing enough German units on the board, it won’t be enough, and it won’t ever be enough. People have known this for years know, hence why nobody has tried to find a way for the Soviet Union to single handedly hold on by themselves against Germany, because it’s not possible. What is possible, is for the Soviet Union to hold out until an Allied landing is made by the British in Norway and Finland, and the Americans in Southern France and Italy.
I disagree with you here too. It is not inevitable that Moscow falls. Given enough help from the US and Brits Moscow can hold. Even if they can’t hold losing Moscow is not the end of the game as long as the Germans have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort taking it. As long as Japan is beat up the Allies can stop the Axis from getting to Egypt.
I don’t think you quite understood what I said here, I’m not referring to the Fall of Moscow here, that’s not even close to what I’m relating this to. What it is that I’m conveying here is the inevitability of losing mass amounts of troops at the cost of protecting your given victory cities and industrial hubs. It’ll take 6+ turns to properly execute Barbarossa on the Soviet Union and completely defeat the Soviet Presence as a whole, so I can only assume that what you are referring to is the Germans potentially taking to G8-G9 to get to Moscow, in which case yes, this is behind schedule and too little too late to have taken them out. Granted, losing Moscow isn’t the end of the game, but let’s quit the fruit picking and face the idea that it may as well be. What are you going to do against a Germany that’s now making probably twice as much money as the UK, and more often than not just as much money as America? You’d have to tell me that one. As for Japan, if ‘beating them up’ was so simple the Allies wouldn’t be having a problem at all, but it ain’t so simple as speaking the word, how do you plan to stop Japan? Do you have a plan to properly eliminate the Imperial Japanese Navy? Overall, do you know how to eliminate the Japanese sphere of influence?
Assuming German movement played properly the Russians cannot kill more German units than they lose via a counter attacking strategy. Thus it is not a wise choice.
As I previously stated, you won’t be killing enough German units, you won’t ever be killing enough German units. It will NEVER be enough, but sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad and play the risk, otherwise you’re pretty much handing them the win. If your units don’t die attacking those Nazis they’ll die defending, nothing’s changed.
-
@thedesertfox said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
Is that because it’s never done the job to fight off Germany alone? In that case, yes you’re absolutely correct. There is not a Russian Counter Attacking strategy that has succeeded to single handedly push Germany back to Berlin. Now, I can confirm to you that an assisted Allied invasion of mainland Europe to assist the Soviet Union’s counter offensive has worked, it’s worked well. Like I had previously stated before, “you’re going to take tons of casualties as the Soviet Union.” Fact of the matter is, as the Soviet Union, you won’t be killing enough German units on the board, it won’t be enough, and it won’t ever be enough. People have known this for years know, hence why nobody has tried to find a way for the Soviet Union to single handedly hold on by themselves against Germany, because it’s not possible. What is possible, is for the Soviet Union to hold out until an Allied landing is made by the British in Norway and Finland, and the Americans in Southern France and Italy.
I am not asking to see Russia push Germany back to Berlin. Assuming no Sealion that is not possible. I have never had that happen to me in a game where I was the Axis. I have seen other games where the German Player turtles Russia then runs either to Norway or the Middle East, or both, and then lets the Russian stack move against Berlin. That is just a flat out mistake. Or once the Russian stack retreats from Moscow the German Player screws up and gives them the shorter path to Berlin; I have seen that too though I have never let it happen to me. Another major mistake. With no major mistakes it ain’t gonna happen. If Germany ignores Sealion and goes for Moscow the Russians cannot push them back even one territory. At best they may hold a territory; like Bryansk, for a Turn or two or more depending on how many Allied fighters can help them.
Whether or not the Allies are making landings on Germany’s west flank is irrelevant to what Russia does. No matter how many resources the Allies force the Axis to play defensively with it still comes down to are the Russian units better off playing defensively or counter attacking. Give me an example where the Russians kill more units than they lose. If you can’t then it is better off that they turtle.
BTW that is some pretty optimistic Allied goals having UK take Norway and Finland while the US takes Southern France and Italy. Is there no money being spent in the Pacific? Having to build two separate fleets capable of withstanding the Luftwaffe is some pretty major bucks.
@thedesertfox said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
I don’t think you quite understood what I said here, I’m not referring to the Fall of Moscow here, that’s not even close to what I’m relating this to. What it is that I’m conveying here is the inevitability of losing mass amounts of troops at the cost of protecting your given victory cities and industrial hubs. It’ll take 6+ turns to properly execute Barbarossa on the Soviet Union and completely defeat the Soviet Presence as a whole, so I can only assume that what you are referring to is the Germans potentially taking to G8-G9 to get to Moscow, in which case yes, this is behind schedule and too little too late to have taken them out. Granted, losing Moscow isn’t the end of the game, but let’s quit the fruit picking and face the idea that it may as well be. What are you going to do against a Germany that’s now making probably twice as much money as the UK, and more often than not just as much money as America? You’d have to tell me that one. As for Japan, if ‘beating them up’ was so simple the Allies wouldn’t be having a problem at all, but it ain’t so simple as speaking the word, how do you plan to stop Japan? Do you have a plan to properly eliminate the Imperial Japanese Navy? Overall, do you know how to eliminate the Japanese sphere of influence?
Moscow, without significant help, will fall on G7. So everything you are talking about is from G3 to G6. How are you proposing that via your counter attacking strategy you can stop that? If you can’t are you killing more units by counter attacking versus turtling or not? If you are not then it is a worse path to follow. Again, give me an example, any, of a Russian counter attack that makes any sense.
As for Japan that depends on how much the US is spending in the Pacific. If the Russian Far East troops do not move towards Moscow and the US spends heavily in the Pacific Japan is toast. It is very difficult for Japan to knock out China if they have 10-12 units pinned in Manchuria/Korea. Add in an aggressive India killing ground units and it is tough for Japan to get enough ground forces onto the Mainland to fight China and India. With ANZAC and the US trading the Money Islands it gets even worse for Japan. My experience is that the key is for Japan to get low enough in monies that the US can then go whole hog in Europe to stave off a win by Germany. If Germany gets over $100 then yes the Allies are in a world of hurt. Which is why Russia has to hold long enough for the Allies to beat down Japan till they are out of the game so they can shift focus to Europe. Thus a defensive strategy that extends Moscow falling is better than an aggressive one that doesn’t kill as many German units and quickens Moscow’s death.
@thedesertfox said in Turtling vs Counter-attacking as Soviet Union?:
nothing’s changed.
What has changed is time. Time favors the Allies as they are collecting more money.
In summary - again - provide me with an example - an attack - via this counter attacking strategy where more German units die than Russian in any given instance. And I am not talking one versus none for some dead zone battle.
-
Andrew… I’ve said this now a few times. You won’t be taking off enough units. In other words to answer your question, it really doesn’t matter if you take off more units than that of which you’d want or less, ultimately that’s up to the dice rolling, and that of what Germany does anyway.
I already have a counter strategy set in stone as Germany to stop them in the event that they attempt General Hand Grenade’s counter attacking strategy, but here and at this moment in time, I’m telling you that this is the latter of the 2 options. Germany will snowball, be left unharmed and unattended to if you turtle your forces onto Moscow, and it’ll be a pyrrhic victory for you. (a victory at which you lost so much that it could be conveyed as a defeat).
I’m not gonna give an instance of when the Soviets kill more Germans than that of which they lose because that’s a scenario that is COMPLETELY up in the air to which the dice decide if they lose more or lose less, maybe German units will be leftover, maybe none will be leftover, that’s the cost. Turtling or Counter attacking won’t completely stop Germany, but in terms of delaying them until the Allies arrive, counter attacking works effectively. Look at the countless amounts of games that have happened at the Grasshopper tournament, you’ll see Russian players turtling their forces onto Moscow with a decently formidable force, but that of which you lost everything you had around you, leaving you with a pyrrhic victory.
In the end, you pick your poison. Do you wanna atleast do some damage to the impending German army that comes to Moscow and bog down their force before it even arrives or not kill any of them at all and let their superior mobilization do the talking over your pitiful 37 IPC’s of units? Ultimately that’s up to the player.
It’s getting pretty late for me so we’ll have to pick this up in the morning, I’m enjoying this conversation so far.
-
@thedesertfox With respects, Young Grasshopper’s tournament uses house rules. This forum is for actual Axis & Allies Global 1940.
-
I found the solution. I won’t have time today, but I found an allied strategy that has a good chance of winning the game. It includes Russia building only infantry with 1-2 artillery, slowly retreats to places like Bryansk, Tambov, and when it gets too hot finally to Moscow. British airforce will move after Taranto Raid to Persia, to either help against Japanese Calcutta Crush or fly up to Moscow. In my solo Low Luck games Germany cannot attack Moscow, as they have just a bit more combat factors. Even when Germany pushes towards the Middle East and starts getting like 80 income, they still dont have enough power to take Moscow, and they will finally bleed to death.
-
@victoryfirst that’s similar to my strategy and I really like it. I like to do some of Tan Skies with GHGs middle earth and then Russia retreating back. And the US just causing issues to the West. Ofc they also need to put up a fight against Japan I like them to build up a large navy and strat bomber force around Europe. With Middle Earth, defending Cairo and Calcutta is very easy, and fighters can get up to Moscow in a single turn from Persia with Tanks/Mechs taking 2 turns. Seems to work quite well because if the Europe Axis can’t take London or Cairo they can’t win and if Japan can’t take Calcutta or Honolulu they can’t win.
-
@tincanofthesea I actually don’t understand why people think Axis have the advantage, as I see no chance of beating this Allied strategy. I have to admit, I am using a more balanced rule for interception. Bombers attack at 0. Escorting Fighters attack at 1. Intercepting Fighters defend at 2. This way you have to have air superiority to bomb the crap out of places, so bombers are no longer overpowered and they still cost 14. This is maybe the cause of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, as in the OOB rules the only way to take Moscow is to bomb them hard. That way Moscow will fall, but not with this balanced rule.
I like when I play with the US to follow my own floating bridge composition, and spend the rest of the money in the Pacific. This will hamper Japan’s ability to fully move west, as they have to keep some fleet home to defend. I’ve played a lot of games of E40 solo, but only one game ofG40. In that game I used this allied strategy but I mixed up Japan a bit… I gathered a lot of fleet and transports around the Carolines, and on turn three I took Hawaii. The American fleet backed off earlier, but they had a bomber on E. US that could help with the counter attack. I lost the Japanese fleet, and from that point they couldn’t move well west enough, but they did manage to defeat China, just before allied landings on the Chinese coast later in the game.What I wanted to say is that I will have to test more games of G40, with a lot of good German and better Japanese strategies than the ones that I have. Because good Allied strategy can also mean just bad Axis strategy.
-
So while I agree with the generic overall Allied strategy you mention (Russia turtles, Taranto, push hard in Middle East, send air and ground to help Moscow) there is not a winning strategy against the Axis without a hefty Bid in OOB Global 1940 2nd Edition. $50-$60 IPCs is needed to balance the game as the Axis have quite an advantage.
As you mention I figure you just haven’t figured out how to play the Axis efficiently yet.
BTW your House Rule of hacking of bombers actually helps the Axis, not hinders it. While I have seen some people use bombers against Moscow I have never done that myself and I take Moscow eventually 98% of the time. On the other hand the Allies bombing the crap out of the Axis as they take minors and Germany proper is definitely part of the Allied strategy. As someone who likes being Axis I would certainly enjoy playing against someone using your House Rule.
-
@andrewaagamer I definitely agree, I was horrible at playing the Axis but it just took a few games and some new strays to see the unbalance. And I too don’t like nerfing strat bombers because it seems to unbalance it more.
Suggested Topics
