I should have emphasized that the specific strategy recommended above is indeed an individual FIVE-PLAYER GAME STRATEGY for Russia. It is a strategy for the 5-player no-bidding games where credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. I simply assumed that generalcampbell (“I hate playing Russia”) would ask for an individual five-player game strategy for Russia.
At his point we can always easily produce the reply: “Allied cooperation is the only way to save Russia” or even “there is only allied & axis strategy.” - this is the popular philosophy claiming there can be no such thing as a russian strategy. According to this philosophy, what generalcampbell really needs is rather a smash course for beggars or maybe some social advice or psychologic support - more than irrelevant strategic goofy discussions.
I don’t agree entirely to this “no national strategy”-axiom. I have constructivist views; I’m not saying Russia can do it without help, but I assume that Russia can be played individually with individual Russian strategy. That’s the sort of strategy that would be used in turnaments where every individual player has to play all five nations separately with better results playing each nation, than the other four players achieved - a useful concept also to avoid the bid, it would be almost equivalent to Bridge where every player (or team) plays the same hand of cards.
Furthermore a strong argument (in five-player games) against the strict “No winning Russian strategy”-philosophy, lies in the fact that the anglo-americans not necessarely have to save Karelia (or even the red flag) in order to win the game. It seems clear to me somehow that this fact makes the necessity for a national Russian strategy very evident for the Russia player. The individual Red Army player must rely on his own skills and tactics to survive and finally break out of encirclement.Â
Apart from that, I support the opinion that in normal two-player games or bid-games, another strategy would be prefared. So yes, it’s not a strategy for the normal bid-games, as rjclayton assumed:
Ahhh, my apologies, I was assuming you were playing with a bid…[ ]…Against no bid however, I cannot find fault with your strategy.
But thanks indeed for bringing attention to the tranny-bombing. All this focus cleared my mind and rationally I must now have second thoughts. If the proposed strategy should be ideal for the individual player playing Russia, it logically follows that the tranny bombing mission must be aborted. So there’s the newÂ STAVKA decree: Mother Russia will NEVER work for western powers (exceptions to this rule is allowed only on emergency).
It is really the western powers who have to work for Russia.
The two inf that the tranny can bring up to Karelia, is not enough reason for Russia to even care about it. The rus fighter must survive, and it is much better used to secure a completely succesfulÂ outcome in the important battle for Norway. So, right: tranny bombing missions are from now on completely banned!Â Â 8-)
In two-player or team-player bid game, I will also agree that the Allies taking Norway on rus1, isn’t the best move. Much will then, however, depend on the kind of bid, like restrictions on how the extra units has to be placed etc. - but for the individual Russia player in five player games, I believe it is essential for Russia to take Norway.
Bashir had a comment to this:
….strafing is a way better option than taking Norway! Norway is up for grasps, because they can’t go nowhere! Strafe Ukraine to 1 fig and the game is pretty much over… Hell you can even start buying some arms on R2 with Russia to make it even harder for the Germans! The beauty of this strafe is that you turn Ukraine into a deathzone, so the German player can’t reinforce it, so he needs to stack EEU already on Ger1… So you can trade ukr after R2 and sit back and wait till help arrives…
That is the word my memory suddenly couldn’t find, so I just named it “Attack, kill most - but retreat before winning” tactics. I suggested it against EE on rus3 & rus4.
I agree that strafing methods are important, and in the tactics of very good players they are a must. Only two objections: The first is that I see strafing-abillity as skills rather than tactics -Â it is difficult and risky! - much so for newcomers.
I believe that strafing skills are essential for both Russia and the Axis, so this is not really an objection, it’s just very difficult (if not impossible) to draw safe tactics for newcomers based mainly on strafing. It would be a very detailed plan, with decisions on probability and consequenses in each specific situation.
Also the strategy recommended above, is an five-player-game-strategy for Russia (Sorry again for not being very clear on that point), and there’s my objection: Russia HAS to take Norway immediately from start, in all five-player games were credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. If Russia fails to take Norway as soon as possible (and UK takes it), then Russia will be further reduced to a puppet state in the hands of arrogant western powers for the whole game. Ain’t that terrible!
cheers y’allÂ Â