Its probably worth remembering as the Russians, that if you play to concession (as many do, without regard for the stated VC wins) then it is possible to play on after Moscow falls.
This has been true of every A&A board, and it has to do with the way that Western units can liberate originally Russian territories from the Axis and gain direct control over them if Moscow is in Axis hands. On the older boards, the deep endgame after Moscow falls, had everything to do with the Naval situation. If Axis controlled the Center, but the Allies achieved Naval dominance, then it was still possible to play on under these conditions. An example of the this would be Super G vs Super USA (post KJF), or Super J vs Super USA (post KGF), which were some of the most satisfying endgames to play out. Here, Axis control of the Center is not necessarily the guarantee of ultimate victory that it might seem at first, if the Allies have achieved complete Naval/Air superiority in one theater and can still take a shot on the weaker Axis power (whether Berlin or Tokyo).
A few Russian plays that were interesting back then were the Air evac from Moscow, and also the timely stack launch off Moscow either towards the North (Baltic region) or South (Med/India region), with the aim of continuing to harass Axis while the Western Allies try to trade Capitals (Moscow for an Axis capital) within the same round, or 1 round out. And then of course there is always the stand up defense of Moscow, all-in, where you gun for max hits, knowing full well that the capital will be taken in the end. Many of these endgames are still playable for Allies, even after Moscow has fallen, and can be a lot of fun if both players are willing.
Some players will just concede defeat after the first critical capital falls, normally as an expedient way to say who won (or because people just don’t have the time to continue). I think the courteous way to play though (if playing to concession) is to allow at least a Victory lap, to see how G or J will use the captured Russian purse. I think the more games you play out this way (after Moscow falls), the more apparent it is that, in order for Axis to truly win, the dominant Axis power needs to maintain continuous Naval/Air parity with the dominant Allied powers.
Without a Navy or at least a massive Air armada, just holding the Center isn’t enough, since Allies can spring board with their transports, and sometimes achieve a pretty close income balance through liberating former Soviet territories to still contest the board.
Part of me thinks its a little unfortunate in G40, that Anzac wasn’t more potent as an alternative objective to Moscow for the Japanese. If Japan had a pacific endgame, with more springboards onto North America, and a legit chance of capturing W. US, that would have been cool. But Anzac isn’t really enough of a long term threat to Japan to prompt a full commitment there by the Japanese, and its not really worth enough production to risk the Center over it. Traditionally, Australia is usually regarded as a distraction from the main event, and an Allied boon if Japan goes after it. Maybe if Sydney was worth like 8 ipcs instead of 2! Or if it had a major IC rather than a minor, Japan would have a real reason to drive south pacific vs North America, instead of overland towards Moscow as a way to mess with the Allies, but alas, the set up doesn’t favor it. Kind of a missed opportunity to have a viable 3rd capital objective in the Pac there.
But even still, as the Russian player, same as in the older A&A boards, you can use this to your advantage. The more force Russia draws onto itself, and the longer they can keep Axis bogged down on the principle objective of the Center, the more time it gives USA/UK to establish Naval/Air dominance in at least one theater.
The more games you play out after Moscow falls, the more you can see possibilities for Allied recovery, and why holding Moscow for as long as possible is so important.
I’ve seen a couple schools of thought on Russian play, over time, on several different boards.
There is the 1 fighter per round school, (which works for most other player nations really, though perhaps not as strong with the Soviets) and it says, buy 1 fighter a round every round, no matter what, and eventually you will have a fighter stack large enough trade territory or deadzone with your infantry alone, and which can be flown to support Western Carriers, or onto key territories for defense in the round before Moscow collapses. This can be a fun strategy, though it also invites a stomp drive from the Axis on your capital.
The artillery and armor school, which has the Russians launching as many attacks as they can from the get go, and driving forward as hard as possible, knowing full well that the odds are likely against them, and their capital will eventually fold. Here the goal is to tie down and destroy as many Axis units as possible, preferably in large stack strafes. Usually aiming to keep the armor stack explicitly for use in favorable strafes, and for defense of the capital. Here you use the inf/art combo + air support to trade territories with G or J, while retaining the armor to threaten medium to large size stacks. Back when armor was pretty cheap at 5, it made a bit more sense to throw the tanks forward, but now that they cost 6, the incentive to keep them alive and strafe rather than take is pretty strong. I think artillery is the best buy overall, for forward attack with Russia, but I’ve seen armor used to great effect in the endgame, especially if it has a break out route.
And of course the final and most popular has been the Infantry grind, stack at the center school. Here the goal is likewise, to draw down as many Axis units as possible, and to see one climactic battle for control of Moscow (using W. Fighters, and every pip you can, as much Russian fodder as possible.) Basically it comes down to stacking deep and hoping that the first round of combat in the final battle for Moscow favors the Russians. I think this strategy, which was dominant in Classic Revised and AA50, is rather less dominant now, because the center is more involved (there are almost twice as many territories there now) and the distances between the production facilities is increased. Still, its pretty hard to argue against the potential of a nice roll, and lots of 2s, for the final battle on Moscow.
Whether to evac the air, or trade it can be a hard call to make. But sometimes if you keep it, you can still play out a pretty fun endgame after Moscow is toasted.
G40 is such an involved game in terms of the playtime and the set up, the number of sessions to completion, in my FtF experience, lots of players would rather just continue on for another few rounds in the deep endgame, than reset the board and start another! hehe you know, on account of how this game takes like 10-20+ hours of dedicated play to resolve ;)
