Russia giving up and putting everything in the Major Cities

It seems like a viable plan if the need would arise. The only big problem with this plan is the fact that you will loose your income very fast making it extremely hard to protect your cities. What I tend to do is protect the german boarder, than pull my forces back evenly with one force towards Leningrad, the other Stalingrad. I do this till i am backed up to both cities. The reason I don’t fall back to moscow is the fact that its IC is a 10 which allows a large defensive force to be built faster, and the fact that it is much farther away from germany than the other two.

But if you give up all your territory you won’t have any money left to fill that big factory. I don’t see much benefit retreating that way at free will.

Well, by this I mean exactly that. you only fall back when its profitable which means you grudgingly lose territory. By this strategy you are able to hold you economy for as long as possible and defend the vital VCs. Thats why I didn’t like the initial plan of complete retreat. this gives the germans way too much money. So in a way you make it cost the german war-machine for every advance seeing as if you play well you will have mostly infantry which are maximum profit unit v. tanks and mech. infantry which can cost a person.

Often Allied in this game is strategy is “holding out until the USA can move enough troops in”, so you’ll experience this particular strategy a lot.

Well its the obvious strategy, wait for the power with limitless IPC to come along and save the day.

bad idea
if russia would defend both moscow, leningrad and stalingrad i’d go straight to moscow with the wehrmacht.

I believe Stalingrad is two away from Moscow which allows for quick re deployment of troops into moscow if they are moved to the adjacent territories between Moscow and Stalingrad. Another thing you have to take into account is the fact that if the Wermacht is steaming for Moscow, than the forces at leningrad can begin a push for Berlin. This will force a recall of troops. So  a distributed force of russians in every major city would allow: quick redeployment from Stalingrad to Moscow if germans ignore the Leningrad forces, and counter attacks if their forces ignore the mass of troops.

@Endeer:

I believe Stalingrad is two away from Moscow which allows for quick re deployment of troops into moscow if they are moved to the adjacent territories between Moscow and Stalingrad. Another thing you have to take into account is the fact that if the Wermacht is steaming for Moscow, than the forces at leningrad can begin a push for Berlin. This will force a recall of troops. So  a distributed force of russians in every major city would allow: quick redeployment from Stalingrad to Moscow if Germans ignore the Leningrad forces, and counter attacks if their forces ignore the mass of troops.

In my experience, Stalingrad isn’t too useful and is often given away to the Germans with little or no resistance (as holding Moskou is more important).
Leningrad depends on the situation in Scandinavia and the German fleet. The threat of going to Berlin is nice, but when there are German transports you just know they will get Leningrad behind your back. Also, it’s 3 steps to get to Berlin, so after their first, the Germans have 2 turns to reinforce the heimat. No real need to recall many troops (unless the Leningrad army is huge, which i doubt). Also Leningrad is 2 steps away from Moskou, so they probably will be needed to go and help out there instead…
In the older games the Caucasus was important since Moskou could spawn 6 and Stalingrad 4 units, but in the new system with major IC’s that for me has changed.

Well, i do find Stalingrad useful to get troops to the Middle East

I look at cities form the axis view point. The most economically feasible cities to take are: Paris, Lenin/Stalingrad, Moscow, and Cairo. this giving them 8 including Warsaw, Berlin, and Rome. Troops in Stalingrad will protect from a blitzing devision of tanks to take the city. This would protect the allies from defeat for a turn at the least. And by this I mean bear minimum forces to get the job done (this would be done by calculating threats. So in my opinion I would put ENOUGH troops in Stalingrad, Rest in Moscow, and your mech. Infantry, and tanks in the middle of two cities so they can react to the threats that apply too the cities as they come. Another point is that Moscow will always be a priority over Stalingrad. but you have to realize, if the Axis hold Stalingrad, they can put three tanks a turn within blitzing distance of moscow. Any comments?

@Endeer:

I look at cities form the axis view point. The most economically feasible cities to take are: Paris, Lenin/Stalingrad, Moscow, and Cairo. this giving them 8 including Warsaw, Berlin, and Rome. Troops in Stalingrad will protect from a blitzing devision of tanks to take the city. This would protect the allies from defeat for a turn at the least. And by this I mean bear minimum forces to get the job done (this would be done by calculating threats. So in my opinion I would put ENOUGH troops in Stalingrad, Rest in Moscow, and your mech. Infantry, and tanks in the middle of two cities so they can react to the threats that apply too the cities as they come. Another point is that Moscow will always be a priority over Stalingrad. but you have to realize, if the Axis hold Stalingrad, they can put three tanks a turn within blitzing distance of moscow. Any comments?

3 axis tanks a turn is not good, but not as bad as it sounds too. Stalingrad is a little bit out of the way for Germany, taking it is 1 turn, the next turn it can place 3 tanks, and then the next turn those 3 tanks can come into action. That is 3 turns, a long time in a game like this. In fact, after 3 turns, Moskou might have fallen anyway, so for Russia i can live with that.
Now if Moskou falls, there won’t be any extra units being built and Stalingrad will probably be burned to the ground soon after.

Tanks in the middle of 2 cities is great, but when the Germans have come within reach (and you may expect them to come with too many to counter-attack, especially if they have come from a Rumenian Major IC) those tanks will need to decide where to move to, and most likely this will be Russia. And if there are italian can-openers the way might be opened fast.

A lot depends of course on the situation of the moment.

Edit: for me (talking as Allies) Cairo is the key.

I’ve done this.

Granted, it was after I couldnt possibly hold out any longer and just had to retreat to maintain any semblance of a fighting force.

You bring up valid points, but I hate the fact of giving up a major city, even if it is one that is out of the way. By the way FIRST GLOBAL GAME TONIGHT!!!

@Endeer:

<snip>By the way FIRST GLOBAL GAME TONIGHT!!!</snip>

Good luck :)

any game reports?

LOL this concept is ridiculous.

I mean, what else is Russia supposed to do?  NOT put units in thier major cities?

That’s like saying, “Hey we’re in the NFL, we’re going to win by scoring some points”

It’s not even a comprehensive strategy.

I took it more as a recommendation for Russia to yield the city and retreat the army when defense was no longer an option.  This in contrast to standing there and hopeing to inflict serious damage to the Germans in exchange for losing your army and the city.

Russia is all about buying time, being a nuisance, destroying equipment, and living to fight another day whenever possible.

However you do it is irrelevant.

@Gargantua:

Russia is all about buying time, being a nuisance, destroying equipment, and living to fight another day whenever possible.

However you do it is irrelevant.

Now that I would disagree with!  Too often do I see Russian units in control of Poland, Norway, Hungary and Romania and even, at times, S. Germany.  I feel Russia is a real contender.  Not necessarily as powerful as America, Germany, Italy or Japan, but certainly not as weak kneed as France, England or Australia!