Is it possible for Russia to build a navy and still win?

you also have to consider the fact that Germany usually keeps all five fighters with RR vs losing 2-3 without RR

I guess I have just been playing Japan for too long.  I am too set in my ways playing it in a manner that gives Japan a 40+ IPC per turn income by the end of J3…  And with unlimitted production of units and all those “wasted” tranny builds that allow me to land ALL of that production value in a single move either into Asia OR into North America if I choose, with no risk to my trannies to be able to do it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN…

Those who asked WHERE you are talking have it right.

In Africa, Germany can spread thin.  If the UK and US decide to take Africa back, there is littler Germany can do about it (without leaving Russia too strong for it to matter in the long run).  So spread thin, grab IPC’s while you can, and be happy for it.

In the Siberian Russian territories, Japan can spread thin as needed to take IPC’s from Russia.  Every territory Japan can take from Russia is that much less infantry for Germany to blast through.  And if Japan keeps supplying cannon fodder for the slash and burn assaults on Russian territories, being spread thin just means that Russia has to attack small clusters of Jap infantry using their own infantry in less effective attacks.

In Europe, spreading thin can be fatal, unless you spread very far very fast.  As an example of that, the radical German strategy of simultaneous attacks on Karelia, Eastern and Caucuses is an example of spreading thin that MIGHT be worth it.  You make Russia build in Russia (even if they re-take Karelia), and prevent them from massing there again by the threat in the Caucuses; and open up some “enclosed” territories that you can hold with no forces (so long as Russia never holds Karlelia at the start of their turn).

Lastly there is the “apparent” spread thin that is really massed troops.  This would include a strategy I posted elsewhere of Two Japan fleets, one in Japan, the other in Australia, that can both converge to hammer any US assault in the central pacific.  You may look spread thin, but the reality is that you have forces massed for attack.

But when it comes to Karelia and Eastern Europe, there is ONLY one answer:  The more, the better… ALWAYS!

We’re playing with restricted first turn (USSR can’t attack first turn) and higher IPC allottment to every nation except (you guessed it) Russia.

This is the root of your problem. If your group feels that the Axis is underpowered, then your group should use bidding to determine the Axis player, and how many extra IPCs they get. Search the internet, and this board for more information about bidding.

Generally, RR is enough to balance the game for middle-experience players. Bidding is needed only when experience grows to the point where the axis can not win anymore than 10-20% of the time.

No, what russia Restricted is when russia (on its first turn) it doesn’t attack. It does everything excpet combat move and combat b/c , like i said russia restricted or doesn’t attack.

It’s interesting to think about. But considering Hitler thought of Moscow as (and I quote) “…a geographical expression only…” it is clear that Germany had no intention of seizing Moscow quickly, whether the general staff wished to or not…

Ozone27

Also note, the defender holds the area if the attack only had air units left, last I saw a bomber squad couldnt hold berlin (or the germans just got really sad)

The difference though is that Germany committing additional ground units to CAU means those units die R2.  Japan committing additional ground units to secure SFE does nothing for Russia other than pull them off China - Russia can’t really counterattack them because SFE is a Japan deadzone with their fighters, transports, and BBs.

It is somewhat micromanagement, we’re only talking about 2 IPCs and 1 inf, but I still think you’re better off just giving Jap SFE.