Can Russia survive? (Alpha +3)


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Makes sense Jen. I like it.
    Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!



  • @Cmdr:

    I’d be in favor of changing the Russian NOs to something more historic anyway - not that Larry ever agreed with me.

    Russian NO 1:  SZ 125/Arkhangelsk - 5 IPC - Lend Lease
    Russian NO 2:  Leningrad - 5 IPC - retainership of Russias only real European style city, a major port for Russia and Russian pride
    Russian NO 3:  Stalingrad - 5 IPC - maintenance of industrial capacity, Named after leader of Russia (Russian Pride)
    Russian NO 4:  Finland + Norway - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
    Russian NO 5:  Poland + East Poland + Baltic States - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations

    game effects?  who’s going to try and tell me that Russia does not need 10 IPC it can count on for the first few rounds of the game just to keep Germany from taking Moscow in the first 5-9 rounds?  I’d say with the changes limit it so that American, British, French and Anzac forces cannot enter any red territory or Russian controlled territory unless Stalingrad OR Leningrad OR Moscow are controlled by the Axis.

    i like these NO’s quite a lot!


  • Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    I’d be in favor of changing the Russian NOs to something more historic anyway - not that Larry ever agreed with me.

    Russian NO 1:  SZ 125/Arkhangelsk - 5 IPC - Lend Lease
    Russian NO 2:  Leningrad - 5 IPC - retainership of Russias only real European style city, a major port for Russia and Russian pride
    Russian NO 3:  Stalingrad - 5 IPC - maintenance of industrial capacity, Named after leader of Russia (Russian Pride)
    Russian NO 4:  Finland + Norway - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
    Russian NO 5:  Poland + East Poland + Baltic States - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations

    game effects?  who’s going to try and tell me that Russia does not need 10 IPC it can count on for the first few rounds of the game just to keep Germany from taking Moscow in the first 5-9 rounds?  I’d say with the changes limit it so that American, British, French and Anzac forces cannot enter any red territory or Russian controlled territory unless Stalingrad OR Leningrad OR Moscow are controlled by the Axis.

    Some very good ideas here and as you said, more historically accurate. I assume all of these are only in play once Russia is at war in Europe (not Japan).
    At the very least, they would collect on the Stalingrad NO for several rounds, that’s assuming Germany is very aggressive and takes Leningrad quickly after declaring war on Russia and blocks the Archangel/SZ 125 NO.
    One thing about the No Allies in any Russian territory. Is that just for the Russian NOs? OR is it No Allies forces in Russian territories period unless one of the Russian cities is taken by the Axis? Like a new game rule. If it’s the latter, that kind of leaves Russia all alone, doesn’t it? I know that they were more stand-offish during the real war but I thought the point in this game was for the Allies to work together.
    Of course, in almost all of our games, Russia kind of works alone and rarely do Russian and Allied units share territories. However it has happened. Like the US or UK lands tanks on Norway then get their transports blown out of the water so they rumble their way through Finland, Karelia, Leningrad and Baltic States to hit the Germans from the east. While that doesn’t often happen, it would be kind of a pain in the butt when the situation does arise and it simply wasn’t allowed.
    There have been some games where US forces liberate the far eastern Soviet territories from Japan while Russia is busy with Germany. That wouldn’t be allowed either if the Axis didn’t control one of the Russian cities?
    Also, what if Germany controlled Leningrad while some US tanks were taking some of those far eastern Soviet territories from the Japanese (Yakut, Yenisey, etc.). Then the Soviets launch an attack and liberate Leningrad from Germany. What happens with those US tanks in central Russia? Do they have to move down to China or Mongolia? What if there are more Japanese controlled but unoccupied Soviet territories? Just have to leave them until the Soviets can send someone to liberate them?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I was thinking the Russians would either collect their NOs or have Allied units help defend them, but not both.  I seem to recall that being a rule in some Axis and Allies game of the past, maybe an “enhanced” rule, but it seemed to work out great!  That way, Russia got help it needed but it didn’t get too much help (the idea is to give the axis a chance to win, right?)

    Also yes, I would say no Russian NOs until they are at war with Germany.  Not if they are at war with Italy or Japan. (although that’s really only 1 or 2 rounds in the case of being at war with Italy and not Germany I suspect.)

    BTW yes, if Russia controls Poland and there’s a British fighter there providing air cover, then Russia does not collect any of their NOs, as Poland is now a “red” territory.  However, if there are Russian fighters in British controlled S. France (I dunno, you name another Russian unit that can get there - like ever - before Germany’s dead or mostly dead, okay?) then Russia can still collect their NOs.  Russian pride would be bolstered by the British and Americans begging for Russian help, not harmed by needing British and/or American help defending their land.

    I mean, that’s just how I saw it, feel free to make adjustments or improvements (or unimprovements if you feel those are needed) that you see.  Just because the Delta rules project died because of a certain someone who shant be named, does not mean I am not trying to make my OWN delta rules, even if only for personal use. lol.


  • Customizer

    Okay, so the Allied units in Russian territories affects the Russian NOs, not overall game play. So, like in my example of US tanks liberating far eastern Soviet territories, once Russia has all 3 of it’s cities back, the US tanks simply have to high tail it out of there before Russia can collect any of it’s NOs .
    Another hypothetical: If Germany manages to capture Leningrad and hold it, yet Russia manages to get Baltic States, E Poland and Poland, can Russia still collect on that NO, or the Stalingrad and Archangel NOs as well?
    Can Allied units be on Russian soil AND Russia still collect on the Stalingrad, Poland and Archangel NOs if Leningrad is still in Axis hands?



  • I buy a fighter every 1st round for Russia no matter what. Anyway you look at it it’s worth it. I use my planes often to send 1 inf and take a territory for which the germans have only left one inf on. I usually win without a loss, meaning I killed 3IPC and gain whatever IPC the territory was worth and don’t overcommit forces to capture that territory. I usually buy a fighter, as it defends against SBR also.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    IMHO, take this as you will, I would be willing to trade a German Strategic Bomber for a  Russian Fighter so I am not sure how much that SBR defense is helping you.  Guess it’s better than just letting Germany HAVE the Bomber as well, but still.



  • I would always risk the fighter for the bomber because russia needs to be able to build things.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I didn’t say not to intercept, I am just saying that as Germany, IN MY OPINION, it is an even better trade to lose the bomber to kill a Russian fighter even if you don’t get to hit the complex.

    Strategic Bomber: 12 IPC
    German Economy: 46-19,000,780 IPC (let’s assume Sweden and Europe at least, so at least 46 IPC, maybe as high as 50 or 60 or more.)

    Russian Fighter: 10 IPC
    Russian Economy: 30 (assuming they lose anything territory wise and don’t have their NOs.)

    12/46 = 26%
    10/30 = 33% (I rounded both down, rounded down MORE for Russia)
    IPC loss: 10 - 12 = -2 IPC for Germany (less than the cost of an infantryman)

    Then you have the SBR ability which nets like what, 3.5 dmg on average with average loss of 2 IPC?

    So for Germany, it’s a statistical wash, or so I am reading  it (and yes I did not do a mathematical PROOF, deal with it FFS!  Sorry, but I know someone is going to come and b!tch’n’moan that my stats are off and I don’t really care, this is all my opinion and the way I read the data, you don’t have to agree with it!)

    However, for Russia it’s devastating.  33% losses + 2-4 dmg to the complex + they have to still figure out how to build.  Germany can build all day long with all their complexes bombed to the ground EXCEPT either W. Germany OR Germany.  Russia’s pretty much limited to Moscow for any significant builds.



  • @Gargantua:

    I find alot of people turtle too often with the Russia defense.

    I believe the secret lies in the ability/threat of Russian counterattacks.

    Separating German ground units from their air force is a major key.

    That is to say, do not expose your medium stacks to german attacks that will overwhelm them, but be prepared to counter attack moves of german stacks that are pushing towards the front.

    Focusing on Russian income and NO’s is also critically important.  Make a small task force of 3 or 4 units, to liberate Persia, and attack Iraq.  Iraq is worth 5 to russia.  Then continue to work your way into africa, and get one or two italian territories.  Again boosting your economy.

    And don’t be afraid to take some risks!

    I agree with Gargantua’s statement 100%… The key is to retreat and protect what you can while always looking to land a solid punch. Russia will never knock out Germany, but a well placed jab could cause a bloody nose and a slowed advance. Without at least one gutsy counter attack to stall them… Moscow will quickly fold with little difficulty.



  • Jenn,

    I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.

    Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.

    Kim


  • Customizer

    @KimRYoung:

    Jenn,

    I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.

    Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.

    Kim

    We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
    So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
    Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.



  • We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
    So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
    Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.

    Much Better!

    Kim


  • '13

    @Cmdr:

    I didn’t say not to intercept, I am just saying that as Germany, IN MY OPINION, it is an even better trade to lose the bomber to kill a Russian fighter even if you don’t get to hit the complex.

    I agree and, as Cmdr Jennifer pointed out, the numbers also work against Russia.


  • '13

    @Young:

    @Gargantua:

    I find alot of people turtle too often with the Russia defense.

    I believe the secret lies in the ability/threat of Russian counterattacks.

    Separating German ground units from their air force is a major key.

    That is to say, do not expose your medium stacks to german attacks that will overwhelm them, but be prepared to counter attack moves of german stacks that are pushing towards the front.

    Focusing on Russian income and NO’s is also critically important.�  Make a small task force of 3 or 4 units, to liberate Persia, and attack Iraq.�  Iraq is worth 5 to russia.�  Then continue to work your way into africa, and get one or two italian territories.�  Again boosting your economy.

    And don’t be afraid to take some risks!

    I agree with Gargantua’s statement 100%… The key is to retreat and protect what you can while always looking to land a solid punch. Russia will never knock out Germany, but a well placed jab could cause a bloody nose and a slowed advance. Without at least one gutsy counter attack to stall them… Moscow will quickly fold with little difficulty.

    Seems like this is pretty much the best that Russia can do. Except following Stalingradski’s advice by preparing for their demise. Having some tanks and mechs remaining after Moscow falls creates a couple of options:

    • a possible counterattack on Moscow, or

    • a “late game opportunity for mobility and spot attacks” –Stalingradski

    I didn’t see a response that directly addressed the yes NO’s vs. no NO’s helping/hurting Russia. Consensus from other posts and my “balanced game” poll is that NO’s (and a bid) should be played to balance out the entire board. But, at the risk of being somewhat myopic (to get the hypothetical question answered), if the scope is just Germany and Russia, will NO’s help one power more than the other?


  • 2018 2017 2016

    @wittmann:

    Makes sense Jen. I like it.
    Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

    That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.


  • Customizer

    @General:

    @wittmann:

    Makes sense Jen. I like it.
    Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

    That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.

    No, the Axis doesn’t get robbed of the immediate IPCs. If Germany takes London, they get to plunder the treasury and take UK’s IPCs. It’s just that the UK isn’t totally out of the game because their capital moves to Ottawa in Canada. So, after London falls, the next UK turn they have no money to spend, but they do collect IPCs from whatever territories the UK has left to spend on the next round. Same idea with Eastern USA (Washington) and Western USA (San Francisco). If the Axis capture Washington, they get the USA’s IPCs on hand so the US will go a turn without spending, but with the government in San Francisco, they can collect IPCs and build next round.
    As for Russia, they don’t get a 2nd capital because Russia was a dictatorship, even though it was technically an ally. Once Moscow falls, Russia is done unless they can liberate Moscow from the Axis or the US/UK liberate Moscow.
    On a side note, I have learned that it isn’t always wise to liberate your capital. Once I was playing Russia and Germany took Moscow. I had enough troops next to Moscow with tanks in Stalingrad so I attacked and liberated my capital. Unfortunately, the battle was costly and I had few units left. Germany had a good sized secondary force and retook Moscow, thus plundering my treasury a second time.


  • Customizer

    @cb4:

    I didn’t see a response that directly addressed the yes NO’s vs. no NO’s helping/hurting Russia. Consensus from other posts and my “balanced game” poll is that NO’s (and a bid) should be played to balance out the entire board. But, at the risk of being somewhat myopic (to get the hypothetical question answered), if the scope is just Germany and Russia, will NO’s help one power more than the other?

    I would say NOs help Germany more than Russia.
    Russian NOs:
    5 IPCs for Archangel, no Axis ships SZ 125 and no Allied units in Russian territories. – Germany can block this too easily.
    3 IPCs for each German, Italian or Pro-Axis territory – If Germany is on the offensive and beating Russia back, Russia isn’t likely to get any of these.
    German NOs:
    5 IPCs if Sweeden is NOT pro-Allied and Germany controls Norway and Denmark – If Germany is having a good game, they will get this one pretty much every round.
    5 IPCs for German control of Leningrad, Stalingrad and/or Moscow – Leningrad in particular is a bonus for Germany. Usually Germany will take it 2-3 rounds after first attacking Russia. From then on it’s an extra 7 IPCs to Germany and -2 IPCs for Russia. As for Stalingrad and Moscow, well, once those fall, it’s just about the end for Russia anyway.
    5 IPCs for Axis control of the Caucasus – If Italy is doing well in the Med, they could come up through the Middle East and get that one for Germany.
    5 IPCs for German land unit in Axis controlled Egypt. – If Italy is doing well, they will get Egypt and it doesn’t take much for them to ferry 1 German land unit down to Egypt. Or, if Germany has S. France, they could build a transport and move an infantry there themselves.

    So, to sum it up, if you play with NOs and Germany is on the offensive and going strong, Germany will get extra money from the NOs while Russia will NOT.
    If you play without NOs, it may even the game out a little and give Russia a little better chance against Germany.
    By the way, I know you are asking about Russia vs. Germany, but playing without NOs will really hurt Italy. For the first few rounds, more of their income comes from NOs than territory.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    @General:

    @wittmann:

    Makes sense Jen. I like it.
    Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

    That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.

    Thank you General Veers. I think this will always help the Allies and is a worthwhile House Rule to play.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Nice work Knp.



  • Here is my suggestion to Russian NO’s.

    Soviet Union
    When the Soviet Union Is at War in Europe:

    • 5 IPCs if Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, London is controlled by UK and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Axis warships in z125 convoy this NO. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
    • 3 IPCs for each original German or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.
    •      2 IPC for each Soviet controlled victory city. Theme: Cities of great strategic importance.
    • 10 IPCs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin). Theme: National prestige.

    When the Soviet Union Is at War in Pacific:
    •      3 IPC if Soviet controlls Korea. Theme: Stated national objective to retake Port Arthur.

    Now game will be very close to balanced as Soviet will earn much more IPC. If UK falls however Soviet cant expet any Lend-Lease in the north ofc. It also opens up for attacks on Japan and Iraq, but excludes strange adventures into africa. Defending the key cities will be very important. Germany will have quick progress early in the war but can no longer expect to totaly steamroll Soviet as their wartime production is significantly higher.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

    That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.



  • I have something to offer on this topic, however, even though I love you like a sister Jen, the last time we collaborated on house rules together during the Delta+1 project… I was committed to a mental hospital.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Bah, I am NOT that hard to work with!  I just get flustered when things are set in stone and then someone pulverized the stone, cuts a new piece and writes down new rules. lol

    Seriously though, I have been working on delta rules off and on since I was stuck in the hospital for a few months and figured I would finish them up (first draft) and post them, then ask for community input on those instead of leaving it open ended.  Just figured it would work better to fix something someone sees as a problem than invite problems.

    Granted we did great until Mr. M showed up and then everything went to hell fast.  😛



  • LOL… I would love to read that draft just to see how close, or far apart everyone really was.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 40
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

75
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts