• I have found that it’s more about a balance. The point in a “Red Tide” strategy is to take preventative measures against the German player, in order to prevent the sacking of Moscow, just in a different play style than the defensive boring one. It is an effort to make Russia more fun to play, while also incorporating new tactics into the A&A game itself. Russia cannot purchase all fast movers, however a play style that incorporates some will doesn’t hurt. Like I said, I should be posting a more detailed strategy soon that will outline an offensive Russian strategy.


  • Alright guys I have finally finished some play testing, and I even made a video to explain this strategy a little more in depth. It’s a little long, but give it a go at the following link. I’ll also be posting some more alternative strategy videos in the near future so be sure to follow my channel on YouTube to see some interesting takes on the game!
    https://youtu.be/8D3y603UZ6Y


  • It is hard to go through the full 1.5 hours to see the weaknesses of the German execution, but I can assure you that your plan would not be very effective against my typical I2/G3 initial push into Russia.  At the end of G4, the big stack is on Belarus with a few Italian fast movers who can open a path to Moscow unless you retreat your forces back to defend it.  After G5, the main forces are sitting on Bryansk unless you:

    1. throw away a huge number of Russian troops to slow down the march
    2. spend nearly 100% of Allied spending on a KGF strategy for the first four rounds
    3. have incredibly lucky dice rolls.

    I am very satisfied with options 1 (often leads to victory in Europe for Axis) or option 2 (often leads to victory in the Pacific for Axis).

    The math on available forces for the Axis on G4 and G5 is not very difficult.  There should be no chance of counterattacks as long as I don’t do something stupid like split my main stack into a crazy pincer movement.  Moscow should hold on G6 if it gets supported by allied planes, and might survive for a long time, depending on how much spending is put in by the UK and American supporters.  Excessive spending on holding Moscow does limit the ability to protect Egypt, counter Japan, and open up a front in Western Europe.

    I don’t see a magical “Red Tide” strategy unless the opponent does your weird German opening on G1.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Arthur:

    It is hard to be “convinced” of the best way to play Russia when you are going against a German opponent who hasn’t mastered the basic Barbarossa strategy.  Lots of fast movers are fun against weak opponents, but you will find that the TUV swing on a G6 or G7 attack into Moscow is dramatically changed when you spent more money on tanks + mechs and have fewer infantry.  It can be the difference between having no significant lost German planes vs being too costly and making Germany decide to go to plan B.

    Yes, in both of Garg’s examples that weren’t sea lion games, the Germans split their forces and failed to get on Belarus in force G4. Axis-dom is really punishing my German push in a current game for making the same mistake.


  • I’m not going to watch a 90 minute video, but am curious on the details.

    Is it the same scenario all the way through?  If so, why assume Germans will build a mIC?  What happens if they go north?  etc.

    That’s why I was wondering if not going with infantry stacks, if fast movers make more sense for counter attacking.  Inf/Art are too easily out of position and you don’t know which way Germany is going, unless you’re simply waiting for them to get within range of a Russian stack in Bryansk?


  • It is more ideal for the Russian player if the Germans move through the north. This takes away less IPC from the Russians, leading to them purchasing more units. From what I have found it is more ideal to draw the Germans into a large stack of Russian infantry and artillery. The power of those large stacks outweighs the power of fewer fast movers.

    I will reiterate that this strategy doesn’t work every time. It is more ideal if the German player shows a possibility of Sea Lion on turn 1. However if the German player makes purchases showing a full on Moscow push this strategy becomes more difficult.


  • @Requester45:

    It is more ideal for the Russian player if the Germans move through the north. This takes away less IPC from the Russians, leading to them purchasing more units. From what I have found it is more ideal to draw the Germans into a large stack of Russian infantry and artillery. The power of those large stacks outweighs the power of fewer fast movers.

    I will reiterate that this strategy doesn’t work every time. It is more ideal if the German player shows a possibility of Sea Lion on turn 1. However if the German player makes purchases showing a full on Moscow push this strategy becomes more difficult.

    Well I think the community has decided Barbarossa is the optimal strategy for Germany. I think if we are going to continue discussing offensive Russian strategies in an attempt to find something more optimal than what is currently standard (fighter reinforcements) in the defense of Russia than we should do the same for our opponents. I think we are making a mistake designing a strategy on the premise our opponent is not playing optimally. It would better to look for ways to fight a German strategy that has a goal to mass in Bryansk G5 rather than a strategy that assumes our opponent buys a sea lion feint as opposed to mobile units / artillery G1.


  • I find that Russia always gets kicked around and destroyed every game. Even by retreating everything to Moscow, the Germans can encircle Moscow, spread out to snatch Siberian IPCs with a tank (assuming Japan hasn’t already gone in), and in a few turns, Moscow will fall due to 6 tanks a turn coming out of Ukraine and Stalingrad. Or, the Germans will fail to take Moscow initially, buying time for the Allies to hit France, but the Germans will then be making +12 a turn from all the Russian territories, and so will be able to keep the Allies at bay in both Italy and France. Eventually, the Germans will have built enough tanks in the east and Moscow will fall. Then, the Germans can secure the West once and for all, and finally mop up Cairo.

  • '17

    @Requester45:

    It is more ideal for the Russian player if the Germans move through the north. This takes away less IPC from the Russians, leading to them purchasing more units. From what I have found it is more ideal to draw the Germans into a large stack of Russian infantry and artillery. The power of those large stacks outweighs the power of fewer fast movers.

    I will reiterate that this strategy doesn’t work every time. It is more ideal if the German player shows a possibility of Sea Lion on turn 1. However if the German player makes purchases showing a full on Moscow push this strategy becomes more difficult.

    Everyone knows that’s its easy for Russia to beef up if Germany is doing Sea Lion. A happy medium is to buy 6 artillery (plus other stuff) on R1 which can get into position (e. Poland) on R3 if Sea Lion is occurring. Mech/tanks purchases on R2 catch up to the stack on R3 (if Sea Lion occurs). Honestly, that’s moving more attack power into position than a R1 6 tank purchase because of the movement order while at the same time dropping more units.

    Also, I think going north takes more IPCs from Russia than going south. First of all, very typically, going north secures Leningrad on G3 and it’s built on G4. It’s more optimal because of Russia could be too defensively strong to be pushed back if you go south. In the northern route you could simply stack in Smolensk from Belarus and then Russia is forced to move into Moscow. Then the next turn you step into position on Bryansk. Most likely though, because of the Leningrad factory and a 3 tank purchase immediately catching up, you can step into Bryansk on G5. Going south you run the risk of Russia stacking Bryansk which plugs the hole of a German march plan which is trying to get to all of the 2 IPCs spots when UK fighters are ready to land on the Russian stack.


  • Ichabod, how would Germany going north be more beneficial? Moscow would be in striking distance from Ukraine unlike Leningrad. Also I will say the ideal first turn purchase in any situation would be 6 artillery.

    On another note, I played this strategy again a few days ago and had a landslide victory for the allies. Again, please give this strategy a go. It is so effective. If Germany commits any of their first turn IPCs on ships, or units intended for diverting UK units, then you have the jump. Please use this strategy, it is a game changer! You can adapt to any German push North or South. I might post another shorter video soon explaining some more details on this strategy.

  • '17

    @Requester45:

    Ichabod, how would Germany going north be more beneficial? Moscow would be in striking distance from Ukraine unlike Leningrad. Also I will say the ideal first turn purchase in any situation would be 6 artillery.

    On another note, I played this strategy again a few days ago and had a landslide victory for the allies. Again, please give this strategy a go. It is so effective. If Germany commits any of their first turn IPCs on ships, or units intended for diverting UK units, then you have the jump. Please use this strategy, it is a game changer! You can adapt to any German push North or South. I might post another shorter video soon explaining some more details on this strategy.

    There are many factors that result in landslide victory for the allies. I don’t doubt that your strategy could have been a factor. However…

    If you don’t understand how Germany going north is more beneficial, than I encourage you to look at the board. Moscow is only within striking distance from Ukraine by tanks and mechs…who has enough tanks and mechs on G4 to sack Moscow? However, Going south can result in the German stack getting stuck at Ukraine. If Russia bought the right stuff and the UK was doing well, Russia can safely sit at Bryansk (UK fighters can land on the Russian stack to strengthen it). Going north more often results in Germany making it to Bryansk on G5. When the German stack moves into Belarus, if Russia has enough stuff to stay in Bryansk, than you simply move into Smolensk. Russia is than forced to turtle in Moscow after which you move into position.

    As far as your Red Tide strategy goes, it sounds like it requires US bombers going to fight Germany. All they can do is bomb w. Germany or Paris, or fly from Scotland to be cannon fodder in Moscow. I don’t think that makes the best use of Bright Skies bomber stacks. From west US they can hit SZ 6. But buying mechs/artillery with Russia instead of nothing but infantry makes sense to me.


  • Germany going north buys Russia time and money. If Germany wants to waste their resources going through the North, that would make the Red Tide strategy even stronger because Russia would have more IPCs to spend on turns 3, 4, 5 and  Germany would be losing out on those southern IPC bonuses. This strategy only requires that the UK, and the US focus on pestering Germany, not necessarily bombing them or even disrupting them. For instance, if the U.S continually threatens landings along the coast, Germany would need to divert at least some of their resources in taking it back. To touch on what you said about Russia pulling back into Moscow, this would be avoidable because of the first few turns purchases. By placing the Russian stack in response to German moves, there is no reason the Russian player shouldn’t be able to take out a  German advance from the north.

  • '19 '17 '16

    What rot.

    USSR doesn’t have nearly the troops to take out a German spearhead through Belarus.

    It takes the same time via Belarus as via West Ukraine.


  • I’m assuming that nobody has payed any attention to anything I’ve outlined in this strategy. I don’t know how much more I can say on the strategy. I might make another shorter video showing a push through the North. If someone could describe their German strategy going through the North I’ll gladly post a video on it.


  • @Requester45:

    I’m assuming that nobody has payed any attention to anything I’ve outlined in this strategy. I don’t know how much more I can say on the strategy. I might make another shorter video showing a push through the North. If someone could describe their German strategy going through the North I’ll gladly post a video on it.

    Well, again, I’m not going to watch a 90 minute video.  Maybe some bullet points?

    Northern route gives Germany access to 5 or 6 Russian IPCs without being in striking range of Bryansk.  5 if Russia parks in Smolensk.
    Southern route givers Germany access to 1 ipc without being in striking distance of Bryansk, though presumably they’re too strong and can occupy one of the Ukraine’s without being attacked for a -3 to Russia, at least early on.

    As for a northern attack, I’ve got two options:

    If Sealion, I basically cede Scandanavia (1 blocker in Finland to slow down Russia, if he has a tank to blitz to Norway) and keep a stack in eastern Europe
    On G4 I can retake Norway, if needed
    On G5 I can take Finland, Karealia, Baltic States, Novgorod, and Eastern Poland (Russia -5 ipc)
    G6 is usually solidifying that.  5+ German transports dropping reinforcements on Novgorod or Baltic
    G7 I can start to bomb the tar out of Moscow, take Belarus in force, fight over Ukraine and Western Ukraine (low stakes, single guy, or let Italy take it)

    Without Sealion, invade G2, Eastern Poland, Baltic States, Karelia (Russia -3 ipc)
    G3 take Novgorod and Belarus (if Russia is aggressive, one of these might wait til G4) and start bombing Moscow
    G4 take Belarus, etc.

  • '17

    @Requester45:

    I’m assuming that nobody has payed any attention to anything I’ve outlined in this strategy. I don’t know how much more I can say on the strategy. I might make another shorter video showing a push through the North. If someone could describe their German strategy going through the North I’ll gladly post a video on it.

    The northern route better permits the German forces to stack all together on G4 at Belarus or Russia loses tons of Blockers which in turn causes other issues. Not to mention a forward base to produce units from. Whereas the southern route, you might not get to produce German units in Ukraine on G4 because there would have been a huge Russian stack in Bryansk ready to counter the small battles that occur for key objectives. In a PBEM game, my opponent stopped my northern route (yes it can be done). However, he did it at the expense of losing Moscow. Unfortunately for me, my Japan game is sucking and I’ll probably end up losing in the long run.

    The money in the south are places like Rostov / Caucaus / Stalingrad…ect. Your chances of getting to those places faster is better through the northern route against experienced allied players. The southern is a choke point at w. Ukraine. The northern route offers Belarus and Smolensk as places for an Italian can opener to let the German stack and planes land. If your playing experiences is limited to face-to-face games than you’ve only played with a smaller finite amount of players.

    If you’re whole “Red Tide” is based upon a Sea Lion game, well, that’s a scenario that rarely occurs. Russia can easily gobble up lots of NOs for a while until Germany stabilizes the front.

Suggested Topics

  • 51
  • 14
  • 63
  • 46
  • 15
  • 19
  • 8
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

34
Online

15.7k
Users

37.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts