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.
