• here is a small idea.  please provide feed back.  first buy with the good old U.S.S.r is 2 tanks 2 art 2 inft.  next attack with all avalible units to w. russia.  then pull the 6 inft to the east of the russian capital there.  then place 2 tanks 2 art 1 inft in russia.  one in caucuse so germany does not take several territories.  this will provide the USSR with with a huge central force able to attack any german threat.  i believe this will provide the USSR with enough time for the other allies to get to europe.


  • @darkangel:

    here is a small idea.  please provide feed back.  first buy with the good old U.S.S.r is 2 tanks 2 art 2 inft.  next attack with all avalible units to w. russia.  then pull the 6 inft to the east of the russian capital there.  then place 2 tanks 2 art 1 inft in russia.  one in caucuse so germany does not take several territories.  this will provide the USSR with with a huge central force able to attack any german threat.  i believe this will provide the USSR with enough time for the other allies to get to europe.Â

    I see you said “extra conservative”. Yet you bought two tanks.

    For clarification, a 4I/3A buy beats a 2/2/2 buy.

    4/3 attacking 2/2/2 = 53% win for Attacker
    2/2/2 attacking 4/3 = 55% win for Defender

    8/6 attacking 4/4/4 = 55% win attacker
    4/4/4 attacking 8/6 = 59% win Defender

    12/9 vs 6 each = 57% win Attacker
    6 each vs 12/9 = 62% win Defender

    For conservative buys, artillery is better. For multiple round buys, artillery is better. Tanks are for mobility, or if you are limited by IC buys (India, Kwang, etc.)

    Squirecam

    BTW, I vote for WR only


  • I voted for both Belo and WRus, but I’m very new to Revised, so I have no idea.  Until I have my head handed to me by a good Axis player I will stick with 8inf R1.  From what I can tell, much of the advice I’m getting on how to play Germany says “leave this or that undefended” or with 1inf, so on the other side of the coin as Russia I can trade territory with as little as 2inf 1ftr.  I’m not risking my art or arm.  Therefore, I don’t think taking Belo is necessarily at odds with my buy, because I use minimal forces to take it, and I need all the IPCs I can get, and an extra 2 or 3 IPCs here and there will later buy me an art instead of inf for more offense.  Force Germany to take back ground; that slows their progress.  My 2 cents…

  • 2007 AAR League

    I like hitting Belo and Westrussia, builds 3 Inf, 3 Arm any day with Russia.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Bad poll, dear.  You did not list Ukraine, which is my PRIMARY target with Russia.

    Also, you did not list E. Europe, another good target, if you are going b.alls to the wall after Germany.

    Hit E. Europe, W. Russia and Ukraine, kill two German fighters, have England hit FIC and kill a Japanese fighter, now the Axis are short fighters, BIG time.  Of course, Russia’s effectively castrated too, but it’s still fun!


  • @Nix:

    I like hitting Belo and Westrussia, builds 3 Inf, 3 Arm any day with Russia.

    3/3 means you plan on attacking.

    3/3 attacking 4/3 = 61% win for Defender.

    Squirecam

  • 2007 AAR League

    Need arm for my mobilitys sake, usually uses them to reinforce Sinkiang and to quickly shift fronts between Japs and Germans.

    And i like playing agressive with Russia, if your to concervative you get whacked (imho).


  • @Nix:

    Need arm for my mobilitys sake, usually uses them to reinforce Sinkiang and to quickly shift fronts between Japs and Germans.

    This part I agree with.

    Squirecam


  • I usually attack West Russia only.  I like the largest stack possible there to stall the german offensive.  I usually purchase 4 inf and 2 arm and save a couple bucks on R1.


  • Ukraine MUST be included
    Eastern, Manch and Norway should also be on the list


  • Is it possible to take Manchuria on Russia 1??

  • 2007 AAR League

    If you want to attack 2 Inf and a Fig with 2 Inf …


  • @AJGundam:

    If you want to attack 2 Inf and a Fig with 2 Inf …

    Sure. Can I use 1-sided dice?  :lol:


  • It is still a POSSIBLE attack, and all possible attacks should be listed in such a poll… if for no other reason than to get people thinking 🙂


  • @Jennifer:

    Bad poll, dear.  You did not list Ukraine, which is my PRIMARY target with Russia.

    Also, you did not list E. Europe, another good target, if you are going b.alls to the wall after Germany.

    Hit E. Europe, W. Russia and Ukraine, kill two German fighters, have England hit FIC and kill a Japanese fighter, now the Axis are short fighters, BIG time.  Of course, Russia’s effectively castrated too, but it’s still fun!

    And they say I’m a maniac!

    Where’s my crack pipe?!


  • It’s not a “bad” poll, newpaintbrush, if taken at face value.  It’s just limited to the choices you gave.  Your poll, your question. :-)  Now, I agree another poll with all those other options would be good, too, but that’s different.  No limit on topics around here. 😉

    The reason I like taking Belo in addition to WRus is I like that buffer zone between my big stack and the enemy.  Also, the game is about maximizing IPCs, isn’t it?  If it’s there for minimal losses, take it.  I don’t see the advantage of not taking Belo.


  • Okay, a few things.

    1.  Ukraine is a viable target.  I personally do not like attacking West Russia/Ukraine.  Doesn’t mean it isn’t viable, though.

    2.  When you can trade Russian infantry for German infantry, do it.  Especially when you can trade LESS Russian infantry for MORE German infantry and grab a territory to boot.  (i.e. 3 inf 2 fig into Belorussia on Russia1)

    3.  The OP (original post) stated put 1 inf in Caucasus, 1 inf 2 art 2 tanks in Russia at the end of Russia1.  I disagree.  I believe 2 inf 2 art go in Caucasus, and 2 tanks in Russia.  That offers a better earlier take and hold threat against Ukraine.  But because of that, this is usually combined with a West Russia/Ukraine attack.  If Russia attacks West Russia/Belorussia, beefing up the Caucasus offers the Germany a chance to do Kitchen Sink attack.

    4.  Also, I would not take the 6 inf east of Russia into Russia.  At most, I would pull 4 inf into Russia and 2 into Caucasus, so you have 4 inf 2 art 2 fighter in Caucasus.  (Remember, that is ONLY if you attack West Russia AND Ukraine; 4 inf 2 art 2 fighter is usually plenty to hold off the Germans).  With that position, if Germany attacks Archangel on G1, you can counter with 2 inf 1 fighter to kill that German tank, and you also threaten West Russia + Caucasus forces to Ukraine on Russia2.  The Russian position is not really weakened by having only 4 inf 2 arm on Russia at the end of the Russian turn; that’s plenty to counter the worst Germany can threaten with by the end of G1 (that is, 1 tank at Archangel).  Even in the event that Germany stacks Karelia, Russia always has the option of fortifying West Russia.


  • @goldenbearflyer:

    It’s not a “bad” poll, newpaintbrush, if taken at face value.  It’s just limited to the choices you gave.  Your poll, your question. :-)  Now, I agree another poll with all those other options would be good, too, but that’s different.  No limit on topics around here. 😉

    The reason I like taking Belo in addition to WRus is I like that buffer zone between my big stack and the enemy.  Also, the game is about maximizing IPCs, isn’t it?  If it’s there for minimal losses, take it.  I don’t see the advantage of not taking Belo.

    1.  Not my poll.  Rly.  You can’t prove anything.  (cookie crumbs around mouth)

    2.  It was a bad poll.  BAD POLL.  BAD!

    3.  I think a Russia1 attack on West Russia, Ukraine, and E. Europe is insane.  Don’t get me wrong, I like freaky insane chicks.  But even I have limits.  (roar of laughter in the background)

    4.  For the record, I think West Russia/Belorussia is the best combat move on Russia1.  I haven’t ever done really extensive analysis, but preliminary reports indicate that the move is sound.  PLUS my astrologer says it’s the right move, and you know you can’t mess with your astrologer.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    @goldenbearflyer:

    It’s not a “bad” poll, newpaintbrush, if taken at face value.  It’s just limited to the choices you gave.  Your poll, your question. 🙂  Now, I agree another poll with all those other options would be good, too, but that’s different.  No limit on topics around here. 😉

    The reason I like taking Belo in addition to WRus is I like that buffer zone between my big stack and the enemy.  Also, the game is about maximizing IPCs, isn’t it?  If it’s there for minimal losses, take it.  I don’t see the advantage of not taking Belo.

    1. Not my poll. Rly. You can’t prove anything. (cookie crumbs around mouth)

    2. It was a bad poll. BAD POLL. BAD!

    3. I think a Russia1 attack on West Russia, Ukraine, and E. Europe is insane. Don’t get me wrong, I like freaky insane chicks. But even I have limits. (roar of laughter in the background)

    4. For the record, I think West Russia/Belorussia is the best combat move on Russia1. I haven’t ever done really extensive analysis, but preliminary reports indicate that the move is sound. PLUS my astrologer says it’s the right move, and you know you can’t mess with your astrologer.

    Oops, you’re right, I lost track of the OP.  Funny, where did darkangel go?

    @newpaintbrush:

    Okay, a few things.

    1.  Ukraine is a viable target.  I personally do not like attacking West Russia/Ukraine.  Doesn’t mean it isn’t viable, though.

    2.  When you can trade Russian infantry for German infantry, do it.  Especially when you can trade LESS Russian infantry for MORE German infantry and grab a territory to boot.  (i.e. 3 inf 2 fig into Belorussia on Russia1)

    3.  The OP (original post) stated put 1 inf in Caucasus, 1 inf 2 art 2 tanks in Russia at the end of Russia1.  I disagree.  I believe 2 inf 2 art go in Caucasus, and 2 tanks in Russia.  That offers a better earlier take and hold threat against Ukraine.  But because of that, this is usually combined with a West Russia/Ukraine attack.  If Russia attacks West Russia/Belorussia, beefing up the Caucasus offers the Germany a chance to do Kitchen Sink attack.

    4.  Also, I would not take the 6 inf east of Russia into Russia.  At most, I would pull 4 inf into Russia and 2 into Caucasus, so you have 4 inf 2 art 2 fighter in Caucasus.  (Remember, that is ONLY if you attack West Russia AND Ukraine; 4 inf 2 art 2 fighter is usually plenty to hold off the Germans).  With that position, if Germany attacks Archangel on G1, you can counter with 2 inf 1 fighter to kill that German tank, and you also threaten West Russia + Caucasus forces to Ukraine on Russia2.  The Russian position is not really weakened by having only 4 inf 2 arm on Russia at the end of the Russian turn; that’s plenty to counter the worst Germany can threaten with by the end of G1 (that is, 1 tank at Archangel).  Even in the event that Germany stacks Karelia, Russia always has the option of fortifying West Russia.

    I totally agree with your analysis, newpaintbrush, down to the details like what to do with the 6inf east of Russia.  Wouldn’t want to face your R with my G.


  • Hmmm…. covering old ground, here, but W Rus/ Ukraine does the trick for me. Do it with 2 armor in each. Kill the German fighter and suddenly some of Germany’s battles on G1 become more dicey- for example a sub and 3 fighters vs the Brit Battleship can mean a lost fighter for Germany, whereas the sub and 4 fighters is a bit more comforting. That’s just one example. It also helps the Allied fleets to move around more comfortably in the Atlantic with a smaller Luftwaffe, which means (potentially) more immediate help for Russia in exchange for their R1 expenditure of armor in the Ukraine. 5 German fighters and a Bomber allows an 8+ unit Allied landing in Algeria without much fear on Turn 1 (assuming a standard G1 attack on Egypt using Med fleet).

    Purchase 5/1/1, for maximum versatility.

    6 Inf to Buryatia, 2 go to Russia, 2 go to Caucasus, 2 go to Sinkiang in case Japan has J1 misfortune in China.

    For me this purchase + combat/ noncombat combo gives the best versatility to respond to any axis strategy, while inflicting a serious opening wound on Germany, and still maintaining some offensive punch for Germany’s counter.


  • @88:

    Hmmm…. covering old ground, here, but W Rus/ Ukraine does the trick for me. Do it with 2 armor in each. Kill the German fighter and suddenly some of Germany’s battles on G1 become more dicey- for example a sub and 3 fighters vs the Brit Battleship can mean a lost fighter for Germany, whereas the sub and 4 fighters is a bit more comforting. That’s just one example. It also helps the Allied fleets to move around more comfortably in the Atlantic with a smaller Luftwaffe, which means (potentially) more immediate help for Russia in exchange for their R1 expenditure of armor in the Ukraine. 5 German fighters and a Bomber allows an 8+ unit Allied landing in Algeria without much fear on Turn 1 (assuming a standard G1 attack on Egypt using Med fleet).

    Purchase 5/1/1, for maximum versatility.

    6 Inf to Buryatia, 2 go to Russia, 2 go to Caucasus, 2 go to Sinkiang in case Japan has J1 misfortune in China.

    For me this purchase + combat/ noncombat combo gives the best versatility to respond to any axis strategy, while inflicting a serious opening wound on Germany, and still maintaining some offensive punch for Germany’s counter.

    1.  2 armor plus sundry to Ukraine IS favorable to the Allies, but a bit of good Axis or bad Allied luck can be very costly.

    2.  What Russia is saying with a Ukraine attack is “I am going to lose 2 tanks in Ukraine.  Therefore, I do NOT anticipate making an early attack against Japan.  Therefore, I DO anticipate having early Allied aid.  Therefore I AM going to try to kill the German fighter so the UK/US fleet can approach more swiftly.”  And therefore, Germany can play accordingly.

    That is - I think that West Russia/Ukraine is a fairly obvious opening move for a KGF.  I am not convinced that West Russia/Ukraine is necessarily superior.  It has at least some chance of failure, if it fails, it is fairly costly , even at best, it loses two Russian tanks to the German counterattack in Ukraine, it shows the Allies’ plan of KGF to Germany before the game starts, and if (and please correct me if I am wrong in this) the Russian fighters are parked in Caucasus, it leaves Germany the option of building Baltic transports to threaten England.

    Although that does sound like a lot of reasons NOT to play West Russia/Ukraine, I still think West Russia/Ukraine is sound.  I do not, however, see that it is necessarily superior to West Russia/Belorussia.  Could you describe unit placement?  I anticipate 3 inf 1 art in Caucasus, 2 inf 1 tank in Moscow, giving threat to Ukraine and some flexibility against Japan.  But I also anticipate that Russia will land fighters in Caucasus, as 5 inf 1 art is possibly slim against German kitchen sink attack.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well the poll does say for the Extra conservative route.  Especially if there is a bid placement in Ukraine.


  • I favor the WR/Ukraine attack, even if Germany places an Inf from the bid in the Ukraine.  I want to kill that Fighter.

    I buy 3 Arm, 3 Inf on R1 to replace the tanks I lose in the Ukraine on R1 and G1.  After that it’s mostly Inf with an occasional Art for the rest of the game.

    Yes this may tip off that I’m doing a KGF, but since I come pretty hard at Germany in any case my opponent would know that pretty soon anyway.


  • I’m less concerned with tipping my hand than with limiting my enemy’s options, newpaintbrush. Killing the German fighter in the Ukraine has a ripple effect that spills over into multiple battes on G1. It also helps to minimize an aggressive German stacking of Karelia on G1, as some forces have to be dispatched to the Ukraine to deal with Ivan’s bold move. Nextly, a Luftwaffe of 6 fighters and a Bomber is pretty formidable, especially in a late game situation. Say it’s turn 14, how many ways have you found to use that fighter from the Ukraine? How about 14 times on offense and 14 times it’s been parked somewhere to provide extra defense. That’s a big deal to this monkey.

    I do place my Russian builds as you said, 3 inf/ art in Caucasus, and 2 inf/ arm in Russia. The fighters typically return to the Caucasus region.

    My standard UK1 purchase is 2 transports/ 3 inf/ arm to bring maximum pressure to a single theater on UK2. The Ukraine aggression along with a British enhanced capacity to put boots on the ground quickly = a sustainable Russia much of the time, IMO, discounting the fickleness of crazy bad luck.

    As far as the 2 armor into the Ukraine goes, that’s a gambit for sure. I play by the odds only, for otherwise you might as well get out your pouch of chicken bones to portend the results. If I can’t depend on math, or live in fear of bad dice, what’s the point? And the odds of that battle yield a Russian victory with 1-2 armor left. Good enough for me. Discounting a German bid placement in the Ukraine of course. If I’m playing a particularly ferocious opponent, I do use 3 armor to make sure they have to dedicate 3-4 infantry to retake the Ukraine.

    My final litmus test is my own reaction as Germany to a Russian player’s opening move. Here are my two reactions:

    “Crap, the Ukraine is dead…”

    “Sweet, I’ve still got my fighter!”

    When all else fails, that alone tells me what I need to know.

    JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.


  • @88:

    I’m less concerned with tipping my hand than with limiting my enemy’s options, newpaintbrush.  Killing the German fighter in the Ukraine has a ripple effect that spills over into multiple battes on G1. It also helps to minimize an aggressive German stacking of Karelia on G1, as some forces have to be dispatched to the Ukraine to deal with Ivan’s bold move. Nextly, a Luftwaffe of 6 fighters and a Bomber is pretty formidable, especially in a late game situation. Say it’s turn 14, how many ways have you found to use that fighter from the Ukraine? How about 14 times on offense and 14 times it’s been parked somewhere to provide extra defense. That’s a big deal to this monkey.

    Balance that against greater late game flexibility against Japan, 14 turns of those two tanks threatening and defending territories.  I know that losing a German fighter is a pain, but the way I play the Allies, it’s pretty difficult for Germany to make best use of its fighters anyways (the Allied Atlantic fleet gets big pretty fast; if Germany goes east with fighters, the Allied transports offload into Archangel and/or Algeria; if Germany goes west with fighters, the large Atlantic fleet makes the Luftwaffe pay for sinking it - and then, the Allies can rebuilt very quickly.  Plus, I’m spending UK and US funds to neutralize Germany’s units in that case; I like that better than using USSR funds to neutralize Germany’s units.  Which is not to say that West Russia/Belorussia is SUPERIOR, I think that it is at least equal, though.

    I do place my Russian builds as you said, 3 inf/ art in Caucasus, and 2 inf/ arm in Russia. The fighters typically return to the Caucasus region.

    Yeah, pretty much like I’ve seen and played (when I do do Russia/Ukraine).  I’ve opted out of this line because of the possibility of Germany building 2-5 transports in the Baltic.  Moscow placed fighters can reinforce London on R2, allowing the UK in turn to buy 3 fighters on UK1 (possibly inf/tanks instead), while the US moves in 2 inf 1 art 1 tank, reinforcing London (although losing its transports); if Germany went the whole hog on transports, UK can produce inf/tanks and be safe by a considerable margin.

    My standard UK1 purchase is 2 transports/ 3 inf/ arm to bring maximum pressure to a single theater on UK2. The Ukraine aggression along with a British enhanced capacity to put boots on the ground quickly = a sustainable Russia much of the time, IMO, discounting the fickleness of crazy bad luck.

    As far as the 2 armor into the Ukraine goes, that’s a gambit for sure. I play by the odds only, for otherwise you might as well get out your pouch of chicken bones to portend the results. If I can’t depend on math, or live in fear of bad dice, what’s the point? And the odds of that battle yield a Russian victory with 1-2 armor left. Good enough for me. Discounting a German bid placement in the Ukraine of course. If I’m playing a particularly ferocious opponent, I do use 3 armor to make sure they have to dedicate 3-4 infantry to retake the Ukraine.

    But if you commit 3 tanks, haven’t you REALLY killed off Russia’s flexibility, and done a slightly cost-inefficient attack?  And if you do run 2 tanks, as I mentioned, it’s risky.  Let me be clear, I think that IF the outcome were really in question in the first place, attacking West Russia/Ukraine would be extremely solid, even definitely superior, to West Russia/Belorussia.  But just about every game I’ve played Allies (using TripleA ladder rules), I end up throttling the Axis anyways. So my thought is, why take the risk of a Ukraine gone bad, when you can just take the “sure bet” with Belorussia?  (You can fail in Belorussia, but rarely “horribly” like you can with Ukraine).  I know, you can stretch German air power WAY thinner, and pose a real threat to Germany’s southeastern territories initially, but I think the loss of the Russian tanks makes it at least a fair trade for Germany.

    My final litmus test is my own reaction as Germany to a Russian player’s opening move. Here are my two reactions:

    “Crap, the Ukraine is dead…”

    My reaction, if Russia committed three tanks, is “Yeah, baby, three Russian tanks!  I didn’t need that fighter anyways!  YEAH BABY!”  If Russia committed two tanks, I’m like "oh wellz, now I don’t have a safety for the German battleship/transport vs UK destroyer off Anglo (if I send the Med fleet east), or possibly I don’t have an added fighter punch to Anglo-Egypt (if I send the Med fleet west)

    “Sweet, I’ve still got my fighter!”

    I do like to have a safety for Anglo-Egypt, or added punch to Anglo-Egypt, but I start building fighters G2 at latest against KGF anyways, so the loss of a single fighter is not horribly disastrous.  Really, what I try to do is to just trade territories like mad while Japan builds up for the kill.

    When all else fails, that alone tells me what I need to know.

    JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

43
Online

15.4k
Users

36.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts