• The spring 1942 version as now been released for a while and I’m sure everyone’s strategy as now changed a lot with the 1942 rules. So it seems like a good time to review strategy !

    To put my Russia strategy in context I have to say that I am really not a fan of KJF.

    So here it goes, for buyings I usually buy only ground units with the russians, buying mostly infantry at the beginning to be able to put a good pressure on the Germany/Russia deadzone if the Germans starts to build too many navy. I switch to more tanks havey buyings when the deadzone situiation dictates so.

    I also don’t like sending a lot of units to Asia even though i like the early 6 unit stack in Bur. My point is that Japan will kill everything easily if you don’t put pressure on them by atleast building a US navy in the pacific and an english IC in India. Therefore I think it is easier to stall them at Yak and Sin since you can have tanks in Rus halping for both deadzones.

    As for first turn strategy (which is obviously very important) I think both WR+Ukr and WR+Nor is very playable as long as you send both fighters when attacking Nor (so you get one that will die on G1 at Kar). The Nor attack helps a lot to get early english units in Nor to help you with the Germany/Russia deadzone, saving the english battleship compensates for your IPC loss in comparison to the Ukr attack. The Ukr attack on the other hand delays the help you’ll get from your allies but you kill more Ger offensive units, remove one Fig for the Egy attack, and you don’t lose a fighter which is very helpful for not sending too many units in the Germany/Russia deadzone and is very expensive to replace. For buyings I buy 8 Inf whatever the attack I’m doing.

    Finally I think that for Russia your responsability is to be able to hold the germans deadzone for at least 4 turns, hopefully more. I for that reason prefer slighly the 2 Fig Nor attack, to get much needed backup as early as possible to be able to handle the japanease when they get able to attack Yak or Sin.


  • @GCar:

    For buyings I buy 8 Inf whatever the attack I’m doing.

    Not meaning to read your whole post and only comment on 1 sentance  :lol:, but I don’t think purchasing 8 inf for R1 under, perhaps, any circumstances is the build I would make - not in Spring42. I did not play Classic but twice, but my understanding is that an all infantry build under Classic is, I’ve heard, somewhat standard. Whereas, in Spring42, R really can mess it’s ability to trade territories up and quickly crumble (No tank builds AND an assualt on Norway?).


  • @dustwhit:

    @GCar:

    For buyings I buy 8 Inf whatever the attack I’m doing.

    Not meaning to read your whole post and only comment on 1 sentance  :lol:, but I don’t think purchasing 8 inf for R1 under, perhaps, any circumstances is the build I would make - not in Spring42. I did not play Classic but twice, but my understanding is that an all infantry build under Classic is, I’ve heard, somewhat standard. Whereas, in Spring42, R really can mess it’s ability to trade territories up and quickly crumble (No tank builds AND an assualt on Norway?).

    I agree and disagree.  :roll:
    Would you say I’ve got a problem with commitment?  I can’t even commit to a breakfast cereal . . .

    I disagree that Russian tanks are used to trade territories with Germany.  Let’s say you use Russian tanks to grab a territory.  Germany grabs it back.  You lose your expensive Russian tanks.  Far better is to use FIGHTERS to trade territory; the fighters can land out of range and avoid being lost in the “trade”.

    BUT Russian tanks ARE useful.

    If you do NOT build Russian tanks, then Russia has LESS possibilities for a powerful attack and hold, and Germany has MORE flexibility in what it chooses to do, including what units Germany chooses to purchase, and where Germany puts its fighters at the end of G1.  Germany just doesn’t have to worry as much about Russia, which makes Germany’s life easier.

    If you DO build Russian tanks, Germany either has to respond appropriately, or let Russia do what it wants.  If Germany uses its resources to best counter the Russian tanks, that’s resources that will be diverted from other areas, which frees up UK/US to some extent.

    I’m not saying that you SHOULD build R1 tanks.  I’m saying they’re worth THINKING about.  A Russian fighter’s worth thinking about too, as crazy as it sounds, particularly after a R1 Norway/West Russia attack.

    In Revised, Russian infantry was almost always the way to go because Germany’s options inevitably came down to infantry push on Moscow.  But Germany has far better options in Spring 1942.  Russian tank pressure prevents Germany from exercising some of those options.

    The idea that R1 Norway/West Russia facilitates UK landing in Norway is not necessarily true.  I think that German carrier/destroyer plus possible transport in Baltic prevents UK1 landing at Norway.  (Just a German carrier/transport risks a UK1 suicide air attack forcing a decision of loss between German fighters and German carrier) - (German Baltic subs don’t work as UK can pop a destroyer apart from its main fleet).

    Granted, countering R1 Norway/West Russia this way, and preventing an Allied landing in Norway is expensive for Germany in that it forces resources to be spent on naval units, but with the Allies held off at Norway, Russia will feel the lack of its fighter as it’s forced to trade territory at the start of R2.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Bunnies:

    @dustwhit:

    @GCar:

    For buyings I buy 8 Inf whatever the attack I’m doing.

    Not meaning to read your whole post and only comment on 1 sentance  :lol:, but I don’t think purchasing 8 inf for R1 under, perhaps, any circumstances is the build I would make - not in Spring42. I did not play Classic but twice, but my understanding is that an all infantry build under Classic is, I’ve heard, somewhat standard. Whereas, in Spring42, R really can mess it’s ability to trade territories up and quickly crumble (No tank builds AND an assualt on Norway?).

    I agree and disagree.   :roll:
    Would you say I’ve got a problem with commitment?  I can’t even commit to a breakfast cereal . . .

    I disagree that Russian tanks are used to trade territories with Germany.  Let’s say you use Russian tanks to grab a territory.  Germany grabs it back.  You lose your expensive Russian tanks.  Far better is to use FIGHTERS to trade territory; the fighters can land out of range and avoid being lost in the “trade”.

    I disagree, Russia rarely has enough fighters that it can avoid using tanks or artillery for trades.  If you compare attacks with 2 inf 1 arm or 1 inf 1 arm to 2 inf 1 art or 1 inf 1 art, you find that not only are the attacks with armor more likely to succeed, they are also more likely to inflict casualties on defense.  The math is complicated, but arguably these advantages are worth the sacrifice of 1 ipc.


  • @Zhukov44:

    I disagree, Russia rarely has enough fighters that it can avoid using tanks or artillery for trades.  If you compare attacks with 2 inf 1 arm or 1 inf 1 arm to 2 inf 1 art or 1 inf 1 art, you find that not only are the attacks with armor more likely to succeed, they are also more likely to inflict casualties on defense.  The math is complicated, but arguably these advantages are worth the sacrifice of 1 ipc.

    Usually, I would agree that Russia does not need more fighters.  But in the context of a R1 two-fighter attack against Norway, followed by a G1 carrier/destroyer at Baltic (the OP mentioning the R1 two-fighter Norway attack, and myself mentioning the G1 carrier/destroyer at Baltic), you’re looking at R2 and R3, at the least without UK/US support at Norway, and Russia with a single fighter.

    If you’re setting up at West Russia to trade Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, imagine 6 trades involving tanks rather than fighters.  You’ll inflict about 9 IPC worth of extra damage to the Germans when they recapture (because the tanks do contribute to the defense of the territory), but lose 30 IPC worth of tanks doing so.  You’ll hit those 6 trades pretty fast with only 1 fighter to work with.  I think I’d prefer to blow 10 IPCs to cut a 21 IPC differential to 10.5.  Would I buy TWO fighters, no, because I’d prefer to wait to see what was happening with UK/US.  After all, if they can get in and trade territories for me, I don’t need an expensive third fighter.

    This ignores the scenario that when attacking with 1 Russian tank against 1 German infantry (after earlier rounds of combat), that Russia can choose to keep attacking with good chance of good results, but that with 1 Russian fighter against 1 German infantry, the Russians should almost always retreat.  So there are some advantages to tanks vs fighters.  But I can’t just ignore the IPC differential either.


  • @Bunnies:

    @Zhukov44:

    I disagree, Russia rarely has enough fighters that it can avoid using tanks or artillery for trades.  If you compare attacks with 2 inf 1 arm or 1 inf 1 arm to 2 inf 1 art or 1 inf 1 art, you find that not only are the attacks with armor more likely to succeed, they are also more likely to inflict casualties on defense.  The math is complicated, but arguably these advantages are worth the sacrifice of 1 ipc.

    Usually, I would agree that Russia does not need more fighters.  But in the context of a R1 two-fighter attack against Norway, followed by a G1 carrier/destroyer at Baltic (the OP mentioning the R1 two-fighter Norway attack, and myself mentioning the G1 carrier/destroyer at Baltic), you’re looking at R2 and R3, at the least without UK/US support at Norway, and Russia with a single fighter.

    This ignores the scenario that when attacking with 1 Russian tank against 1 German infantry (after earlier rounds of combat), that Russia can choose to keep attacking with good chance of good results, but that with 1 Russian fighter against 1 German infantry, the Russians should almost always retreat.  So there are some advantages to tanks vs fighters.  But I can’t just ignore the IPC differential either.

    I like the flexibility of using fighters and infantry. But of course, this strategy depends a lot on what happens with the other players. If things are going poorly for the Allies, then Russia will definitely like having the fighters for defense in the later rounds. This is especially important in a protracted game. If things are going well for the Allies, then I think tanks are a better purchase. I don’t always use this strategy, but I like it.


  • I read over what I wrote before.  Thought I should clarify a point.

    Re:  Going second fighter over tanks to trade territories following a R1 2-fighter Norway attack / G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer build.  (For those just joining, R1 2-fighter Norway attack drops a Russian fighter as it must land in Karelia and is lost to the German counter; G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer stops an early UK1 landing at Norway as the range the carrier gives fighters creates an invasion threat against London; the destroyer stops the UK from suiciding with UK air to kill the carrier or German fighters.  With Allies locked out in Atlantic for a while, my recommendation was a second fighter to trade territory with Germany.)

    I just noticed that I neglected to mention after a carrier/destroyer build, Germany’s usually pretty soft.  Russian tanks DO allow a Russian player to take and HOLD territory that otherwise couldn’t be held, for R2 at least, and possibly R3.

    I realized this is probably what Zhukov was referring to when he wrote about trading territories.

    Usually when I think of “trading”, I’m thinking about the setup where Russia has forces at West Russia and Germany has forces at Eastern Europe, and they trade ownership of Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine each turn - That is, territories change hands immediately.

    But when thinking of “trading territories” in the sense that territories do NOT change hands immediately - i.e. Russia takes what it can and holds it as long as possible - in that case, you want units that can stay in the territory just attacked.  I mentioned that in passing earlier, but when you have a few tanks rather than just one, and a small stack of infantry, the defense can be pretty good.

    Personally, I still think R1 fighter buy is superior because you don’t know the German plan.  If you DO see carrier/destroyer plus tanks on G1, then if you built R1 tanks, you can’t make an early hard push because of the nasty German counter.  If you see carrier/destroyer plus infantry or other naval units on G1, then your tanks COULD be useful, but again, the Russian player can’t control or know what’s going to happen on G1.

    'Course, you could make the point that R1 tanks could pressure Germany to build tanks of its own on G1 to stop an early Russian push, thereby neglecting infantry and/or navy.  But in any case Germany could consolidate its infantry and hit any forward Russian position with fighter support, slaughtering the cream of Russia’s tanks.  But bringing fighters east may leave the Atlantic open.

    Lots of good choices.

    But I wonder if Zhukov was advocating tanks in general, or tanks specifically after a R1 Norway/West Russia attack.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Bunnies:

    I read over what I wrote before.  Thought I should clarify a point.

    Re:  Going second fighter over tanks to trade territories following a R1 2-fighter Norway attack / G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer build.  (For those just joining, R1 2-fighter Norway attack drops a Russian fighter as it must land in Karelia and is lost to the German counter; G1 Baltic carrier/destroyer stops an early UK1 landing at Norway as the range the carrier gives fighters creates an invasion threat against London; the destroyer stops the UK from suiciding with UK air to kill the carrier or German fighters.  With Allies locked out in Atlantic for a while, my recommendation was a second fighter to trade territory with Germany.)

    I just noticed that I neglected to mention after a carrier/destroyer build, Germany’s usually pretty soft.  Russian tanks DO allow a Russian player to take and HOLD territory that otherwise couldn’t be held, for R2 at least, and possibly R3.

    I realized this is probably what Zhukov was referring to when he wrote about trading territories.

    Usually when I think of “trading”, I’m thinking about the setup where Russia has forces at West Russia and Germany has forces at Eastern Europe, and they trade ownership of Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine each turn - That is, territories change hands immediately.

    But when thinking of “trading territories” in the sense that territories do NOT change hands immediately - i.e. Russia takes what it can and holds it as long as possible - in that case, you want units that can stay in the territory just attacked.  I mentioned that in passing earlier, but when you have a few tanks rather than just one, and a small stack of infantry, the defense can be pretty good.

    Personally, I still think R1 fighter buy is superior because you don’t know the German plan.  If you DO see carrier/destroyer plus tanks on G1, then if you built R1 tanks, you can’t make an early hard push because of the nasty German counter.  If you see carrier/destroyer plus infantry or other naval units on G1, then your tanks COULD be useful, but again, the Russian player can’t control or know what’s going to happen on G1.

    'Course, you could make the point that R1 tanks could pressure Germany to build tanks of its own on G1 to stop an early Russian push, thereby neglecting infantry and/or navy.  But in any case Germany could consolidate its infantry and hit any forward Russian position with fighter support, slaughtering the cream of Russia’s tanks.  But bringing fighters east may leave the Atlantic open.

    Lots of good choices.

    But I wonder if Zhukov was advocating tanks in general, or tanks specifically after a R1 Norway/West Russia attack.

    Generally speaking, I would argue that Russia’s cash is better spent on tanks than fighters.

    That said, I routinely build a fighter/sub R1 (this is part of a normal WR/UKR R1, kill Med fleet R2 strategy).  Kill the Med Fleet R2, and then normally there are 3 figs left for the rest of the game.

    I haven’t given much thought to what I’d buy if I was going to go Nor/WR…probably 3 inf 3 arm or 5 inf art arm.

    German naval is doomed imho.  If Germany were to go naval, I’d probably build mostly inf for a turn or 2 and then start going heavy with the tanks.  I’ll be putting tons of pressure on the German fleet with my Allied air from the start, so Germany will have to spend 80%+ of its income on dds/acs/figs to keep its fleet in the water.  Some of that air will be bombers that will start hitting German industries.  Eventually the Russians advance into Ukraine with an aa gun and start forcing Germany to trade EE and Bal.  Once that happens, Germany will no longer have financial superiority and will have to abandon the fleet.


  • Buy tanks. They work well with offense and defense, and they move 2 instead of 1. I also reccomend buying 1 fighter per turn to stock up and destroy Germany. Stay defensive until you have a monster military and then attack Germany.


  • @nutbar:

    Buy tanks. They work well with offense and defense, and they move 2 instead of 1. I also reccomend buying 1 fighter per turn to stock up and destroy Germany. Stay defensive until you have a monster military and then attack Germany.

    Another nutbar quote:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22573.15

    Yes, Japan’s setup needs to be changed in order to weaken them. Germany’s setup should be weakened OR the allie’s setup be strengthened.

    No wonder you think Japan and Germany need to be weakened if you think a plan of 1 Russian fighter a turn is a good one.  If I could make the Russians spend 10 IPC on a fighter every turn, I’d agree Axis have an advantage.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 4
  • 4
  • 9
  • 13
  • 6
  • 34
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

15.4k
Users

36.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts