Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Axis and Allies first turns - Russia



  • PART ONE:

    Territory notes:  Russian fighters should be based either at Russia or Caucasus.  Basing at Russia allows Russian fighters to attack east against Japan, and west against Germany.  Basing at Russia also allows Russian fighters to reach London in case of an anticipated German attack on London.  Basing at Caucasus allows for a stronger defense of Caucasus, and prevents Germany from easily building Mediterranean transports.

    (Note:  Any naval units in the mid to east Mediterranean are subject to attack by Allied fighters based at Caucasus.  If Germany chooses to keep its fleet together, and keeps a battleship & other Med navy at Southern Europe, then Russia or the other allies will find any attack on the Mediterranean navy expensive.  But on the other hand, that will also mean that Germany will probably not have used its Med battleship and transport to best purpose (i.e. the battleship will not have been used in any naval or air battles, or even for a battleship support shot, and the transport will not have been used to bridge units to the better-placed Anglo-Egypt Sudan or Trans-Jordan territories, being limited instead to Libya).  The Allied airforce can still be used to attack other targets.)

    West Russia is an important territory, as from that territory, West Russia can easily attack many German-held territories.  A concentrated attack deep into Russian territory (say into Ukraine) can be cut off by an attack into the Balkans from West Russia, after which all Russian units from West Russia and Caucasus could attack into Ukraine without fear of retribution, because all German reinforcements would be cut off (Russia would control the entire surrounding area).

    Caucasus is an important territory because it’s the fighter base from which the German Med fleet can be repulsed.  There is also an industrial complex there that would be very dangerous in German or Japanese hands.  I personally believe that the Allies can let Caucasus fall quite early, so long as they are sure of being able to recapture it quickly, although at least one very strong player disagrees with me on that point.  (Do not forget that Germany can capture Caucasus, and have Japan follow up with reinforcing fighters on its move).

    The early game against Japan involves a number of key territories; Burytia, Soviet Far East, Yakut, Evenki, Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Caucasus all play roles, as do the exchange of China and Ssinkiang.  The Russian player must be wary of overcommitting resources to the eastern coast, where Japan can concentrate transported infantry and fighters and battleship support shots to overcome high numbers with few losses.

    In particular, I think the use of 6 infantry at Burytia particularly risky, given the possibility that Japan can counter with infantry from Manchuria, transported units from Japan, and Japanese air, usually wiping out 18 IPC worth of units and easily gaining the 3 IPCs from Burytia, Soviet Far East, and Yakut without any slowing or opposition.  I think it far better, if the option of an eastern front is desired, to combine fighters at Russia with possibly one infantry at Burytia (to force a Japanese attack on that territory), five infantry at Soviet Far East, and possibly a tank.  Personally, though, I prefer to battle Germany over the higher IPC valued territories in the west, though.  I have thought about using a UK fighter to supplement the stack of 6 infantry for a KJF strategy, and I think that that line might be sound.

    With a concentrated Japanese attack on the Pacific coast, Burytia and Soviet Far East both become almost unholdable past Japan 2.  (If Japan builds transports on J1, Japan can transport a great number of infantry fodder to either or both territories on Japan 2).  Russia cannot really afford to counterattack Japan, because any attacking units will be wiped out on the following turn by transported units from Japan.  That said, I prefer to move the Russian infantry stack west, forcing Japan to commit stacks of infantry to Yakut and to Burytia.  (If Japan does not commit infantry, then Russia can counter without fear of Japanese reprisal)

    While Russia is stalling at Yakut, Japan will drive through Ssinkiang and China in all likelihood.  If the US fighter at China survives, that single fighter can be a major pain for Japan very early; I have never seen a game in which the US fighter at China survived.  Assuming that Japan drives into China on Japan 1, Russia really only has two real options regading Ssinkiang; defend, or retreat.  Attacking is often not good, because if Russia attacks and holds China on Russia’s turn, Russia will not gain any IPCs from the liberation of China.  But on Japan’s turn, Japan can recapture China, and will still get those Chinese IPCs.  The same applies to recapture of Ssinkiang itself from Novosibirsk or Kazakh.  Of course, there are exceptions in which case the Russians might want to attack China; I’ve even played some such games.  But I think those are the exception rather than the rule.

    Defense of Ssinkiang is difficult, because any units there are not really well placed for attack (for reasons already mentioned), so what ends up happening is a considerable proportion of Russia’s strength is spent on reinforcing a territory that is worth relatively little.  Worse than that, what is required to reinforce that position is valuable infantry, which will probably NOT be able to attack even ONE territory successfully (while infantry at West Russia can be used to attack SIX different territories).

    At some point, Japan will attack either through India/Trans-Jordan/Persia/Kazakh-Caucasus, or through Yakut-Novosibirsk, or through China/Ssinkiang/Novosibirsk-Kazakh.  When Japan starts getting close, Russian infantry must retreat.  It is of little point to leave 15 infantry at Ssinkiang if Caucasus and Yakut have fallen (Japan and Germany will simply attack Moscow directly, while those 15 infantry sit on their heels).

    When Russian infantry retreats, then Novosibirsk and Evenki and Caucasus become quite important.

    Going back to the German front for the moment, say that the German player has a deathgrip on Ukraine that cannot be broken, and is threatening to take either West Russia or Caucasus.  In most such games, Russia cannot really afford to defend both West Russia AND Caucasus, so must choose one or the other to defend.  But if Russia chooses to abandon West Russia, not only does the western front collapse when Germany invades, Russia will probably face the choice of concentrating defense at Caucasus or Russia itself on the following turn, with the inevitable result that Caucasus, too, will fall.  Of course, if Russia abandons Caucasus initially, Germany can get a solid grip on Caucasus, followed by the threat on West Russia/Russia, followed by the logical abandonment of West Russia.

    In the east, a Russian retreat into Russia (abandoning Novosibirsk) risks a massive Japanese tank buildup at either Yakut OR Kazakh after Novosibirsk falls.  What happens initially is that Japan will have tanks on two or three of the India/Ssinkiang/Yakut fronts.  Following the capture of Kazakh or Novosibrisk by infantry and air units, though, Japan can move its tanks to unite during noncombat, so instead of facing six tanks at Yakut, four tanks at Ssinkiang, and two tanks from TransJordan - at least some of which could be prevented from reaching Moscow by interposing units at Evenki, Novosibirsk, and Kazakh - Japan can unite all the units at, say, Ssinkiang.  The following turn could well see a Geman air attack on Novosibirsk to clear the territory (assuming USSR recaptures Novosibirsk), followed by a Japanese tank attack into Moscow.  The force of this threat will mean that instead of Russia being able to space out infantry in a wide-reaching defense of its territory, Russia must huddle its infantry defenseively at Moscow.

    Next:  (if my bosses don’t give me some work on Monday) - why particular purchases are good for Russia, and some strategies Russia can pursue throughout the game.  To be addressed:

    Russia first turn buys:  8 infantry.  Fighter, tank, 3 infantry.  3 tank 3 infantry.  2 infantry 2 artillery 2 tank.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @newpaintbrush:

    West Russia is an important territory, as from that territory, West Russia can easily attack many German-held territories.  A concentrated attack deep into Russian territory (say into Ukraine) can be cut off by an attack into the Balkans from West Russia, after which all Russian units from West Russia and Caucasus could attack into Ukraine without fear of retribution, because all German reinforcements would be cut off (Russia would control the entire surrounding area).

    […]

    Russia first turn buys:  8 infantry.  Fighter, tank, 3 infantry.  3 tank 3 infantry.  2 infantry 2 artillery 2 tank.

    Cut off Ukraine by attacking the balkans from w.russia? I guess you mean cutting off cauc by attacking ukraine from w.rus?

    And you should consider the 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm purchase too. I think I like that one.

    Btw, this is how I “rank” russian territories in terms of strategic importance: Russia, w.rus, cauc, novo, yakut, kazakh, bury, karelia, evenki, arch, sfe.



  • @Sankt:

    Cut off Ukraine by attacking the balkans from w.russia? I guess you mean cutting off cauc by attacking ukraine from w.rus?

    And you should consider the 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm purchase too. I think I like that one.

    Btw, this is how I “rank” russian territories in terms of strategic importance: Russia, w.rus, cauc, novo, yakut, kazakh, bury, karelia, evenki, arch, sfe.

    Actually, I don’t have a board in front of me.  I haven’t opened that thing up in a couple of months.  I’ll just have to trust readers to do my editing for me.  When I say “invade Finland”, you know I probably mean Norway.  Or do I?

    (Editing’s the hard part; anyone can write streams of stuff.  Condensing and editing is the real tuffy (for me anyways).  Usually, I have TripleA open while I do commentary for map reference, or I have the game out (studying a position), but lately - well, I’m doing these commentary things at work, so I can’t really whip out a big ol board, or download TripleA.

    5 inf 1 art, 1 tank, good point.  I’ll have to list it.



  • PART TWO:

    8 infantry:  Purchasing 8 infantry is pretty useless for Russia’s second turn’s offense.  Although infantry produced at Caucasus can potentially be of offensive use, it is usually far more useful to bulk infantry at West Russia.  (If infantry are split between Caucasus and West Russia, Germany might decide to hit one of those relatively weak territories; if infantry is bulked at West Russia, Germany could take Caucasus, but would immediately lose it, and thus lose valuable forward placed German units).  On the other hand, if Russia wants to trade or hold territory, infantry will be needed; those infantry have to be produced sometime, and the sooner they are produced, the sooner they can get to the German or Japanese fronts.

    An explanation of why fighters are useful for trading territory:  2 Russian infantry and a tank could attack a German territory worth 2 IPC, held by 1 German infantry.  The anticipated gain for Russia (assuming Germany doesn’t get a hit) would be 2 IPC (for  holding the German territory), plus 3 IPC (the value of the German infantry), for a net gain of 5 IPC that turn.  However, Germany’s counterattack would net Germany 11 IPC (because once the Russian units captured the German territory, the Russian units would have to stay in the territory, so Germany could destroy two infantry worth 3 IPC each and the tank worth 5 IPC).  Of course, Germany would probably lose 3 IPC worth (because the defending Russian infantry and tanks would probably be able to take out at least one German infantry), but still, if Russia gains 5 IPC, loses 11 IPC, and gains 3 IPCs, Russia’s net value is loss of 3 IPC.  Contrast if Russia instead attacked the territory with 2 infantry and a fighter; Russia would not have to commit the tank, so Russia’s net gain would be 2 IPC.  Of course, these are not by any means precise figures, but it works out that fighters are often quite useful for trading territories.  As fighters cannot land in newly captured territory, though, tanks are far better for capturing and holding territory.

    1 fighter, 1 tank, 3 infantry.  A third Russian fighter is useful for trading territories with Germany, without committing Russian tanks.  Tanks are useful for threatening a number of territories, and for racing between the western and eastern fronts.  Infantry, of course, are vital for any ground battle.  This purchase has the advantage of being immediately threatening (the fighter can be used on Russia’s second turn to trade territory, to reinforce London, or to attack the German Mediterranean fleet, and the tank can be used to attack any number of German territories from either placement at Moscow or the Caucasus).  This purchase, however, has the disadvantage of producing fewer infantry that can be used in subsequent turns.

    3 tank, 3 infantry.  Tanks at Moscow are useful for attacking any number of western territories on the turn following their production.  3 inf 1 tank at Caucasus and 2 tanks at Moscow can create a swift attack into Ukraine (or very possibly another territory) that Germany may not be able to straightforwardly counter, because of the numerous Russian tanks that will be able to defend.

    2 tank 2 artillery 2 infantry.  This is best suited for an early Russian contesting of Ukraine.  With 2 inf 2 art produced at Caucasus, and 2 tanks at Moscow, Russia can make an early bid for control of the Ukraine.  With the offensive punch of artillery in the Ukraine, Russia can try to force the Germans to route north , giving Russia valuable turns during which it holds the Ukraine and Germany does not.

    1 tank 1 artillery 5 infantry.  Much as for 2 tank 2 artillery 2 infantry, but this approach is more conservative, not threatening as strong of an initial gain, but able to hold better against early Axis aggression.

    3 subs.  Not generally recommended.  This leaves the Russian player tremendously weak, not instantly, but around G3, as no Russian infantry reserves move up to replace losses.  G1-G2 pure tank builds combined with industrial bombing can potentially spell big problems for Russia very early, as can a G1 transport build in the Baltic (because Germany can then invade London, and Russian fighters in the Caucasus are too far to do any good).  Also, Germany can simply destroy the Russian subs with air at no risk, or could attack the Russian navy with the Mediterranean navy.  However, if Germany does destroy the Russian subs, those are less targets that German air can attack on the critical first German turn (including the second UK battleship, the UK destroyer in the Mediterranean, and Anglo-Egypt), or it means less pressure on Anglo-Egypt (possibly allowing the UK destroyer at Anglo-Egypt to survive, or allowing UK to retain control of Anglo-Egypt, threatening an early Allied navy in the Med).  If Germany does not destroy the Russian subs, the Allies control the Mediterranean (if Germany does attack Anglo-Egypt with the battleship and destroyer, the Russian counter of 3 subs 2 fighters probably means the early destruction of the German Med fleet; if Germany does not attack Anglo-Egypt with the battleship and destroyer but sails west to Gibraltar, unless there is an African bid, the Allies may retain control of Anglo-Egypt, and threaten an early UK Indian fleet into the Mediterranean.  Of course, even if Germany does sail west to Gibraltar with its Med fleet, the German fleet is still in danger of a UK/US capture of Algeria, followed by Russian subs and fighters attacking the German battleship and transport off Gibraltar (with Russian fighters landing in Algeria) – but this leaves the Russian fighters very much out of position to be of any use, when they will probably be badly needed because of the lack of Russian infantry.

    1 aircraft carrier / 1 transport.  Not generally recommended.  This again leaves the Russian player tremendously weak as previously described.  This is another early bid for Allied control of the Mediterranean.  Here, though, Russian fighters can fly off the carrier on R2, and be replaced by UK/US fighters, so there is not as much risk of Russian fighters having to be pulled out of position  (Note, though, that as Germany goes immediately after Russia, if Russia decides to pull a Russian fighter off the Russian carrier, Germany can sink the Russian fleet at less cost).  With this build, Russia has the bonus of being able to take control of a German-held Anglo-Egypt (with transported units from Caucasus and fighters attacking from the carrier), allowing UK to move its Indian fleet into the Mediterranean early.  On the other hand, this navy is not really suited to threatening the German Mediterranean fleet.

    In the next exciting episode, combat moves!



  • PART THREE:

    Remember, first and foremost, that although purchase units, combat move, combat, and noncombat are nominally different steps, they are really very connected.  If you anticipate that your combat moves, combat results, and noncombat moves are going to, say, result in a severe lack of force in the east in the next three turns, you should probably build some infantry to march east to make up for that lack.  (Or you may decide to abandon the east).

    Point in case:  If you buy 8 infantry, and leave 6 infantry in Burytia (with nothing to support them), attack Ukraine with everything you can, and West Russia with everything else, on the next turn, you risk Germany focusing its attack on Ukraine, wiping out all your tanks and artillery, while Japan may decide to wipe out Burytia.  This will leave Russia with infantry either at Russia (which can’t get east in time to slow any Japanese invasion), and/or at Caucasus (which don’t have enough offensive punch by themselves, even including fighters, to necessarily wipe out whatever Germany used to capture Ukraine.

    On the other hand, if you bought 8 infantry, moved the Russian infantry back from the coast, and attacked Belorussia with 3 inf 2 fighters, and West Russia with everything else,  neither German or Japan would be in position to wipe out Russia’s military.  You would then have time to move those 8 infantry into positions where they could complement your other units.

    1. Attack Belorussia/West Russia.  Attack Belorussia with 3 infantry 2 fighters.  Attack West Russia with everything else.  At the end of the turn, Karelia and Archangel can be left completely open.  Caucasus should be held with at least 2-3 infantry and an AA gun.  West Russia should have an AA gun moved in.  This is a pretty conservative move, which I would use with just about any build.

    This is pretty conservative; it doesn’t leave Russia open to attack, and both battles are minimally risky.  Even if the battle in Belorussia goes badly for Russia, Russia can pull out at the cost of no more than a few lost infantry.  The battle at West Russia almost never goes really badly for Russia, because of Russia’s overwhelming numbers.

    Rationale for leaving Karelia and Archangel open – Germany can easily take Karelia with massive ground forces in spite of anything Russia does.  If Russia leaves 1 infantry behind, that infantry has a 1/3 chance of destroying something on its first turn of defending fire, which means that that 3 IPC unit will kill about 1 IPC worth of German units.  So, leaving Karelia lightly defended is not a good idea.  Leaving Karelia heavily defended is ALSO not a good idea, because that risks Germany focusing its Baltic transport, infantry from Norway and Eastern Europe, various tanks, and air, to crush any heavy Russian resistance (at minimal cost to the Germans).  So Karelia really may as well be left open.  As far as Archangel, the only unit that CAN reach that territory is a German tank, which means that Germany would be gaining 2 IPC from the territory, but lose its 5 IPC tank (while the tank has a ½ chance of destroying a 3 IPC infantry, for net loss 1.5 IPC to the Germans.  That is – the Russians should actually WANT the Germans to capture Archangel with a German tank.

    Rationale for AA gun at West Russia – it is extremely unlikely that Germany will decide to forgo all other targets and attack the West Russia forces, but there is that possibility.  If Germany does decide to do this, and Germany gets lucky, then the Allies will be in trouble.  An AA gun at West Rusia helps prevent this.  Moving the AA gun does not really make Russia more vulnerable to German industrial bombing; if the Germans use their bomber to industrial bomb, the German bomber will probably be lost (because after the German bomber lands, it can be destroyed, and the only places the German bomber can land are all very vulnerable)

    Rationale for minimally defended Caucasus – the AA gun prevents both industrial bombing, and an early German attack on Caucasus with the German Med fleet plus air.  If the Germans DO attack Caucasus, they can take it quite easily, but the Germans will lose the Caucasus immediately, after Russia attacks Ukraine from West Russia, and moves Russian and West Russian forces to retake Caucasus (there’s nothing Germany can do).  If the Germans do decide to use the Med fleet against Caucasus, Anglo-Egypt will be far more costly for the Germans to take.

    1. Attack Ukraine/West Russia.  All possible units (exception:  only two tanks)  attack Ukraine.  Remainder attack West Russia.  Russia may choose to stay to capture Ukraine, or retreat.  Again, Archangel/Karelia can be left open, but doing so now is potentially more costly, as the Russians will be stretched more thinly, and will not be able to counterattack easily.  West Russia should, again, have the AA gun moved in.  I would use this with 2 inf 2 art at Caucasus with 2 tanks at Moscow, or 3 inf 1 art at Caucasus, 2 inf 1 tank at Moscow.

    This move has the benefit of destroying considerably more German attack forces, as well as possibly destroying a valuable German fighter.  However, each of the battles is considerably riskier.  There are not nearly as many strong attackers (artillery and tanks) going into West Russia, so the Germans can inflict additional casualties on the Russians.  A few bad rolls for Russia and good rolls for Germany can force Russia to retreat from Ukraine (and hence, Russia would not gain the IPCs for that territory).  Although both battles DO favor Russia, and Russia gains considerably with a win, it is inevitable that the loss of German units in Ukraine will be followed by a German attack on the Ukraine, wiping out any surviving Russian units (hence the commitment of only TWO Russian tanks).  Any German attack into Ukraine can be countered by the R1 build of 2 inf 2 art (in Caucasus) 2 tanks (in Moscow).  (But then Germany could counter with tanks produced on G1 and infantry from Eastern Europe, forcing Russia to continue heavy trading for Ukraine).

    1. Any other series of attacks in the west, including Norway/West Russia/Belorussia plays out much the same; Germany counterattacks and draws Russia into a prolonged battle.

    A. 6 infantry at Yakut.  Russia may choose to keep a fighter and/or tank in range at Russia/Yakut, so Russia threatens 6 inf 1 tank 1 fighter against a Japanese attack against Burytia or Soviet Far East.
    I do not favor bulking up at Yakut/Burytia/Soviet Far East.  Any Russian units sent there cannot really threaten a take and hold against a Japanese-held Soviet Far East or Burytia, because of the counterthreat of Japanese transports and air.  The Japanese quickly build up on the coast and force Russia to retreat.

    B. 6 infantry at Burytia.  This threatens Manchuria, but again, Russia will find it difficult to expand on the Asian coast.  Japan also has the option of using Manchurian infantry plus Japanese transport plus Japanese air to wipe out Burytia.  I only think 6 infantry at Burytia is a good idea if the Russia player moves forces east – and even then, I think that landing a UK fighter there on UK1 is almost a must.

    C. 6 infantry at Soviet Far East.  This prevents Japan from capturing both Burytia and Soviet Far East on the first turn.  Japan can possibly take Soviet Far East on J1, but doing so is extremely difficult for Japan, particularly if the UK destroyed the Japanese transport off Kwangtung.

    D. 5 infantry at Yakut, 1 infantry at Burytia.  Threatens Manchuria and bulks up at Yakut.

    Other options:

    1. 4 Russian infantry at Ssinkiang.  Forces Japan to wait a bit longer before pressing on from China.

    2. Units moved toward India.  (Usually pretty costly to the Russians, because it either involves fighters, which are good for trading land, or tanks, which are mobile and good on offense, or infantry, which take a long time to get there).

    Finally, it’s almost a sure bet that the Russian sub should be moved to join the UK battleship and transport.  It is initially useful fodder, later, the Russian sub can be used to block off sea zones.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I agree with you on Bury.  As Japan I’ll obliterate the Bury forces even if I have to let America keep her fighter in China to do it.

    As Russia, however, I recommend keeping the fighters in Moscow from Turn 2 and beyond.  (You may need them in Caucasus on Turn 1 to prevent a German amphibious assault of Caucasus.)  England and America should be staging fighters in Caucasus to set up a sinking of the Bismark, IMHO.

    Also, before Round 4, I highly recommend getting a third fighter for Russia.  Makes strafing Kazakh, Novosibirsk and Evenki much easier, and less risky.  If you plan on it from the start, you can save up 3 IPC a round and on Round 4 you’ll already have 90% of that 3rd fighter saved up already.

    As for stacks, I like to stack W. Russia then Karelia.  This allows England and America to reinforce and replace you slowely so you can move out and towards Japan.  It also secures Norway preventing, forever, a German reclaimation project there.  (I believe Russia needs Norway more then the other allies for income.  It replaces SFE, Yak and Evenki.)



  • Just trying to figure out how you stack Karelia as Russia…  at least without immediate and expensive Allied support, as well as not losing Caucuses in trade…


  • 2007 AAR League

    also in IMHO Norway is way more vital for England and way to far stretched later on or early for the Russians to actually take and hold.

    Countless time I have used Norway as a staging ground for England and have placed a IC there for extra unit production when I hit 35-42$ range a turn and then I add a 5th transport so I can threaten WE, EE or GErmany with 10 units a turn + a BB-shot or fgts/bmb etc…

    it works out good if the Germans press to far east as they won’t be reinforcing there front lines to much.



  • @ncscswitch:

    Just trying to figure out how you stack Karelia as Russia… at least without immediate and expensive Allied support, as well as not losing Caucuses in trade…

    I would not recommend stacking Karelia with Russia.  Karelia is only viable AFTER the Allies get the UK and US transport chains running.

    @NoMercy:

    also in IMHO Norway is way more vital for England and way to far stretched later on or early for the Russians to actually take and hold.

    Countless time I have used Norway as a staging ground for England and have placed a IC there for extra unit production when I hit 35-42$ range a turn and then I add a 5th transport so I can threaten WE, EE or GErmany with 10 units a turn + a BB-shot or fgts/bmb etc…

    it works out good if the Germans press to far east as they won’t be reinforcing there front lines to much.

    I prefer to have Norway US controlled if possible.  Russia rarely controls Norway.  I have also used a UK IC at Norway, but I would far rather have a US IC there.  But I used the UK IC much as described.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    Just trying to figure out how you stack Karelia as Russia…  at least without immediate and expensive Allied support, as well as not losing Caucuses in trade…

    Read what I typed.  You gloss over too much and miss the details of the message.

    First stack W. Russia, THEN stack Karelia.  This implies at least a two round build up.  But I never stated it had to be done in two rounds, in fact, you’re probably looking at 3 or 4 rounds minimum depending on what your allies do.



  • And even then, it would preclude any major German stacking to achieve it.

    If Russia is STACKING Karelia, AND still has Caucuses, Germany is already pretty much TOAST.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Germany almost always is toast against my Russia anyway.  It’s Japan that finally defeats Russia, but Germany’s almost always been reduced to Berlin, primarily because they cannot hope to pound through the Russians, Brits and Americans in Karelia and trading E. Europe.

    Forget taking Caucasus.  You cannot even hold E. Europe without major assistance from Japan.



  • Germany almost always is toast against my Russia anyway.  It’s Japan that finally defeats Russia, but Germany’s almost always been reduced to Berlin, primarily because they cannot hope to pound through the Russians, Brits and Americans in Karelia and trading E. Europe.

    Agreed, but if Japanese tanks are in range of Moscow, isn’t one or two turns of building 8inf in Russia (Germany is presumably still threatened by UK and US), coupled with a few fighters, enough to prevent losing your capital?  I mean, you’re saying Japan usually proves the bigger threat, but how often do you actually lose Moscow?  Not that often, I would bet.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I think she looses her fair share of capitals.

    In our current game, it’s round 7 and the only “safe” spot for any allied landings is Norway, Germany totally owns Europe and with the Japs already stacked in Novo adding 7-9 tanks a turn compared to 2-3 Russian units a turn it’s just when do I want to strike.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I would have to say that you should be careful about advancing heavy Russian forces too far into Europe. Drawing Russian ground units away from Russia is a trap I frequently like to set with Germany. It gets really had to resist trading a bunch of advanced territories with Germany because the prospect of Russia making 30+ IPC’s a turn puts dollar signs in the Russian player’s eyes. With the Axis outnumbering Russia by 5 to 1 with air units, trading a lot of territories and ground units with Russia almost always favors the Axis, even if the unit trade is 1 for 1. No matter how much Russia makes, Japan always outproduces them by up to twice as many units and that point will get hammered home when a large number of Russian forces are aimed at Germany and their reinforcements going west dry up instantly because they are desperately trying to hold back the flood of Japanese units coming at them. Japan has a tendence to look benign one turn and the next turn be all over the map, in force, and Russia can quickly get into trouble by being too aggressive toward Germany. Especially if the eastern defensive structure is poorly maintained.

    Personally, I prefer the 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm build on the first turn. It gives you a small offensive capability and still adds a good amound of defensive potential. I also like to add another fighter or two later, within reason, to be more fluid with my defenses and also be able to preserve the few offensive ground units available. I am selective with my trading, as opposed to taking everything in range, in order to keep my units concentrated. I try to delay Germany until the other Allies can pick up the European slack so I can rotate my forces to face Japan. I rarely advance past Belo, preferring to let Germany spread itself thin so the UK/US can pick a few of them off when they finally land in force.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @NoMercy:

    I think she looses her fair share of capitals.

    In our current game, it’s round 7 and the only “safe” spot for any allied landings is Norway, Germany totally owns Europe and with the Japs already stacked in Novo adding 7-9 tanks a turn compared to 2-3 Russian units a turn it’s just when do I want to strike.

    Big talk from a guy who hasn’t posted a round in forever. 😛

    Yea, he’s insane with tanks.  Played a fluke of the dice and got Germany past 50 IPC in Round 2.  It was nuts.  He’s been reduced to Europe only, however, and it’s only a matter of time before he’s forced to throw his units against the Allied front and get reduced to a smoldering lump of destroyed tanks, because he has no support units of which to speak of. 😛


  • 2007 AAR League

    I have been busy, sick and my computer has crashed and my tournament game comes first.

    50+ IPC a turn means I will purchase my share of tanks yes, I think you forget my tanks alone is large then your Russian forces and that doesn’t count my 25+ support troops and my Japan troops which aren’t to shabby.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but you only got 50+ IPC cause of a fluke of the dice.  You didn’t keep it long and you don’t even have a toe hold in Africa anymore.

    You might be able to get into Moscow, but it won’t be the Germans, it’ll be the Japanese - probably.  Unless you specifically force the Japanese to watch until you can somehow muster the troops to take out Moscow. hehe.



  • Yes, but you only got 50+ IPC cause of a fluke of the dice.

    Didn’t I read somewhere that she has a reputation for trash talk?  Booyah, in your face!  This is good stuff! :lol:


  • 2007 AAR League

    She can talk the talk but can she walk the walk??  :evil:  :-ov 😉



  • @Nix:

    She can talk the talk but can she walk the walk?? :evil: :-ov 😉

    Are we still talking about Axis & Allies? 😉

    Nix, I just noticed the quote from Oscar Wilde; that is too funny!  I’m going to borrow that.  Then, when someone laughs (surely someone will laugh :?) I’ll say, “So, you agree with me?!” 😄


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @goldenbearflyer:

    Yes, but you only got 50+ IPC cause of a fluke of the dice.

    Didn’t I read somewhere that she has a reputation for trash talk?  Booyah, in your face!  This is good stuff! :lol:

    Oh this is total trash talk.  NoMercy’s one of the better players on the forum.  Just the fact that in almost every game he plays he somehow manages to get Germany sky rocketted up to 50 or 60 IPCs in a couple of rounds is testament to taht.

    Though, his Japanese forces are always severely lacking and if he ever gets confronted with a KJF (hint future opponents) he’ll crumble like a house of cards in Hurricane Katrina.  I actually knew that prior to this game, but had temporarily forgotten this little piece of trivia.  Otherwise, I would have gone the KJF route myself on him.  (His entire strategy hinges on the allies retaking land from Germany and hten transferring it to Japan in the hopes that Germany can build fast enough to fall back on itself and allow Japan in the back door.)



  • @Jennifer:

    @goldenbearflyer:

    Yes, but you only got 50+ IPC cause of a fluke of the dice.

    Didn’t I read somewhere that she has a reputation for trash talk? Booyah, in your face! This is good stuff! :lol:

    Oh this is total trash talk. NoMercy’s one of the better players on the forum. Just the fact that in almost every game he plays he somehow manages to get Germany sky rocketted up to 50 or 60 IPCs in a couple of rounds is testament to taht.

    Though, his Japanese forces are always severely lacking and if he ever gets confronted with a KJF (hint future opponents) he’ll crumble like a house of cards in Hurricane Katrina. I actually knew that prior to this game, but had temporarily forgotten this little piece of trivia. Otherwise, I would have gone the KJF route myself on him. (His entire strategy hinges on the allies retaking land from Germany and hten transferring it to Japan in the hopes that Germany can build fast enough to fall back on itself and allow Japan in the back door.)

    Hey, I could use NoMercy’s help with my G strategy then!  He’s holding back on me; maybe he doesn’t want to give away his secrets!?

    Russia is not helpless, surely it can hold out on at least one of the two fronts until UK and US save the day.  Let’s get the discussion back to Russian strategy…



  • @goldenbearflyer:

    Hey, I could use NoMercy’s help with my G strategy then!  He’s holding back on me; maybe he doesn’t want to give away his secrets!?

    Russia is not helpless, surely it can hold out on at least one of the two fronts until UK and US save the day.  Let’s get the discussion back to Russian strategy…

    I think the only real German strategy is to get 'em good and drunk.

    I think the Russians should logically concentrate their forces in the west.  Why:

    1.  Territories in west worth more IPCs.
    2.  Can’t attack Asian coast (too vulnerable to Japanese transports), so advancing is very limited.
    3.  Dead zones in Ssinkiang and China (that is, if Russia captures a Japanese-held Ssinkiang, and Japan captures Ssinkiang back on Japan’s turn, then the Allies never get the IPCs for those territories, because Japan recaptures before the US can collect.
    4.  Russia needs to have a certain minimum number of infantry at West Russia, or Germany can go Kitchen Sink attack, after which Russia has to pull any forces that were directed towards Japan back to Moscow.
    5.  KJF plans usually involve multinational forces.  Multinational forces have an easier time defending than attacking.  So KJF plans are usually not particularly flexible on the offensive.
    6.  Africa is easy to reclaim with KGF.  Less so with KJF.
    7.  Russian girls are hawt.



  • 1.  Territories in west worth more IPCs.

    Oh, I did read the rest, but you could have stopped at 1.  The game really does come down to control of IPCs.  Until I actually pull off an Axix victory for myself (no really, I’m TOLD it can be done!), any plan for Germany that doesn’t involve taking IPCs from Russia early and often just doesn’t make sense to me mathematically.  Conversely, it makes sense to me to have Russia focus on Germany, yet play smart and opportunistically against Japan.  However, if the Allied consensus were to use KJF, then strategies like reinforcing Bury do make sense to me.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 22
  • 28
  • 41
  • 18
  • 18
  • 5
  • 2
  • 43
I Will Never Grow Up Games

41
Online

13.2k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts