Russian Gambit

[cyan]

what do you think of this russian statergy?

purchase: 3inf, 1 tank 1 fig.
combat:
Eastern Euope: (3inf, 1 tank, 2 figs vs. 2inf, 1 tank, 1 fig)
  Karelia: 3inf: 1 fig
  Archanggel: 1 tank
  Moscow: 1 fig

West Russia: ( 9inf, 2 art, 3 tanks vs. 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank)
  Archangel: 3inf
  Moscow: 3inf, 1 art, 2 tanks
  Caucasus: 3 ifn, 1 art, 1 tank

expected results:
EE taken with 1 arm, 2 figs (Link to or bookmark this scenario);
WR taken with 7 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks (Link to or bookmark this scenario)

Noncombat:
karelia: 1 fig ee
caucasus: 2 inf kazah, 1 fig ee
sinkiang: 2 inf novo
yakut: 2inf, buyatia, 2 inf sfe, 2 inf evnki (or the 2 inf in evenki could go to novo)
sz2: 1 sub    sz4

place units: 3inf, 1 tank > caucasus, 1 fig moscow collect 29 ipcs

summary:
ee: 1 arm
kar: 1 fig
wruss: 7inf, 2 art, 3
caucasus: 5inf, 1 tank, 1fig, 1 aa
moscow: 1 fig, 1 aa
novo: 0 or 2 inf
sinkiang: 2 inf
yakut: 6 or 8 inf.
sz2: 1sub
saudia arabia: 29 ipc

ALLIED HELP:  the uk can take norway if gets emptied this turn,  and you make cordniate a counterattack in china with the US. also a german attack in the med  may become more risky helping to secure africa for the allies.

[cyan]

okay, teh basic statergy is to put germany off balance with a surprise attack. depending on how germany responds belorussia can be blitz thourgh or norway taken with little effort. most games i’ve played have russia and germany battlingmostly  in the southern part of europe. ukraine and balkns. this is difernt beacuse a large portion of your army can logically be in the lareia/eastern europe area. this can be a good thikn beacuse you will hold karelia a victory city longer and allows ou to sbe at closer range to germany putting pressure on its victory cities.  the down side is that you factories will be farther from the front line. also germany will most likely take karellia and your plane fisrst turn forcing you to replace it in advance. i would also advocate buying a 3rd russian plan on R2 or R3.

with the uk helping you in north europe, the  southern half may be left weakly defended and exposed to either an american landing from africa or a mad rush from caucacus. this will leave the us having th eheavest burdun in controling africa.

[Jennifer]

I’ve gone similar routes, hitting Belorussia and W. Russia.

I’ve seen a Ukraine, E. Europe and W. Russia strike with Russia owning all three at the end.  This is a HUGE lunge, very risky, but huge payoff. (Germany minus two fighters before they get a turn?)

I’d say, however, that you should NOT purchase a fighter that round.  Go with 5 Infantry, Artillery, Armor because you’re going to need infantry to replace losses.  Failing that, 3 Infantry, 3 Armor is more punch then 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter.

Remember, you’re more spread out, Germany is going to try and make you pay for your lunge.

[cyan]

@Jennifer:

infantry to replace losses.

from where?  germany can take karllia and eastern europe on G1. thats involves no infantry dieing. teh fighter is to replace the your soon to be dead one and the tank is there for mobility( to drive up north if needed) and not to have 2 iipcs left over. the 3 inf is to defend caucacus. my buy wasn’t ment to have the highest punch.

I was actually about to post a more risker option that involved taking the ukraine too.

[Jennifer]

Dunno, dear, you have to understand, I don’t like building less then 4 infantry a round with Russia, ever. :P  I do it, I just don’t like it.

And I think the fighter on round 1 is really risky.

[ajgundam5]

I think that is stretching Russia too thin for my liking

[cyan]

@AJGundam:

I think that is stretching Russia too thin for my liking

then try sending everything that can reach to ee, then all land units that can reach to caucausus anf then finally everything else to w. russia.  :evil: that would give you 1 arm in ee, 1 art in w. russ and 1 arm in ukriane. with and possibly  a spare inf. thats a bit risky for me but i want to try this version out.

[Jennifer]

@AJGundam:

I think that is stretching Russia too thin for my liking

Worked out decently in my Low Luck game.  Though, while I killed off 68 IPC in German units (including 2 fighters) I lost 30ish of my own (after the 24 IPC of new units were placed on the board.)

[newpaintbrush]

@cyan:

what do you think of this russian statergy?

purchase: 3inf, 1 tank 1 fig.

If you do something like this, you lack numbers.  Okay if the Allies come through quickly in the Atlantic and you play defensively otherwise.  But you are trying to be OFFENSIVE.

combat:
Eastern Euope: (3inf, 1 tank, 2 figs vs. 2inf, 1 tank, 1 fig)
  Karelia: 3inf: 1 fig
  Archanggel: 1 tank
  Moscow: 1 fig

So you traded fighters with the Germans?  Because you KNOW that if you attack Eastern Europe with both Russian fighters, at least one must land in Karelia, so that Russian fighter is going to get blown up on G1.  That’s a pretty good deal for Germany considering how near impossible it can be to kill those Russian fighters and how useful those Russian fighters are for taking territory.

West Russia: ( 9inf, 2 art, 3 tanks vs. 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank)
  Archangel: 3inf
  Moscow: 3inf, 1 art, 2 tanks
  Caucasus: 3 ifn, 1 art, 1 tank

expected results:
EE taken with 1 arm, 2 figs (Link to or bookmark this scenario);
WR taken with 7 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks (Link to or bookmark this scenario)

Noncombat:
karelia: 1 fig ee
caucasus: 2 inf kazah, 1 fig ee
sinkiang: 2 inf novo
yakut: 2inf, buyatia, 2 inf sfe, 2 inf evnki (or the 2 inf in evenki could go to novo)
sz2: 1 sub    sz4

place units: 3inf, 1 tank > caucasus, 1 fig moscow collect 29 ipcs

summary:
ee: 1 arm
kar: 1 fig
wruss: 7inf, 2 art, 3
caucasus: 5inf, 1 tank, 1fig, 1 aa
moscow: 1 fig, 1 aa
novo: 0 or 2 inf
sinkiang: 2 inf
yakut: 6 or 8 inf.
sz2: 1sub
saudia arabia: 29 ipc

ALLIED HELP:  the uk can take norway if gets emptied this turn,  and you make cordniate a counterattack in china with the US. also a german attack in the med  may become more risky helping to secure africa for the allies.

Whaaat?  So the UK can take Norway and lose their fleet?  That’s another sweet deal for Germany.  And you can’t coordinate anything with the US.  The US goes with its 2 infantry with a high chance of suiciding, and you reinforce your 2 infantry IF the US wins; if the US loses your infantry have to retreat, if the US wins, your infantry are marching into the teeth of the enemy anyways.  Also, I don’t see how the Germans have any added risk in the Med.

You used a tank and a fighter in Eastern Europe that you couldn’t save.  That tank and fighter are EXTREMELY VALUABLE for Russia.

On the other hand, you killed a moderately useful tank and a moderately useful fighter of mine.

That is to say - you cut off Russia’s right arm to spite Germany a couple of fingers.

[Axis4life]

With a strike against EE Russia loses 1 ARM and 1 FIG on the German counter attack that you are powerless to stop.  Effective reinforcements are still turns away.  while the initial look on the german players face may be satisfying, I think this move puts too many Russian assets in harms way.  As Germany I love it when the russian player leaves his offensive units unguarded so that I can take them with little cost.  That’s what the R1 attack on EE provides.

[axis_roll]

@Jennifer:

@AJGundam:

I think that is stretching Russia too thin for my liking

Worked out decently in my Low Luck game.Â

ONLY in  LL game would I ever try anything like that.

Too risky for ADS

[zosima]

should russia be infantry in fantry infantry and the occasional battleship?? (kidding)

[Wazzup]

Russian fighter on R1/R2 will save ground units in the long run.  However, you had better have a good idea about how your russian stack sits.  If you lost a few extra in West Russia or Ukraine, then wait and see how you sit on R2.

[ezto]

I say nay

[cystic crypt]

i kind of like the idea.  I HATE losing a russian fighter, but i like the idea for a few reasons:

1. its unique and not done much
2. I like an aggressive Russian woman - i mean Russia - i like playing an aggressive Russia
3. forcing a defensive position for Germany early on - very fun.  Also allows for one less ftr to be harrassing the british fleets
4. the 3-fewer inf you buy because of the fighter will translate into more infantry later because of the added IPC’s you are acquiring early on.

(and Ezto - you might actually have a good reason for saying “nay” - i wouldn’t mind reading it)

[newpaintbrush]

You think Western Russia / Eastern Europe as proposed is a good move?

[Wazzup]

I would say no to eastern europe/west russia gambit.

No reason to go after eastern europe on russia 1.  If you want to take out a fighter, take it out in ukraine.

Leaving a fighter to defend vs. inf or multiple inf plus fighter is no good for russia.  Russia can take advantage of position more than taking out eastern europe.

[Hauptmann-Jager]

Ok, everybody says this crazy russian move sucks because you lose a fighter. I say not necessarily. What if…

You do:

3 inf Kar, 1fig Kar, and 1 arm Arch attack EE.
3 inf, 1art, 1arm Cau, 1 fig Rus, and possibly 1arm Russa attack Ukr
3inf Arh, 3 inf, 1(2)arm, 1art Rus attack WRus

Now the odds for winning all these battles aren’t great:

EE: about 52% chance things working out for you
Ukr: about a 64% chance of things working out
WRus: 91% chance of things working out

Sure all these battles are risky, but if EE or Ukr start off bad just back out. While the “Russian Gambit” is inherently risky, the two fighters can still be saved.

Alll though your ability to start trading territories could be VERY hurt if these battles go wrong, but thats war.

[rjclayton]

1. I wouldn’t do EEU because the odds aren’t good enough.  I will only try battles with those kinds of odds if the risk vs. reward is worth it (ie. Capturing a capital, or taking out a bunch of fighters/armour that will cripple my opponent in the long run.

2. I probably wouldn’t even like this UKR battle because these odds are still kinda low

3. I might take WRU, but with what remaining?  He can probably counter from Belorussia, and if I got a bad result in UKR, he’s got additional troops to counter WRU with (and the arm from BAL).

–------

If I felt like the underdog going into a game, I might try something like this if I figured I’d get creamed if I played a normal game.  Then at least a good result on R1 might give me a chance at winning.  My father likes to play bridge (card game) and he’s famous for saying if there is only one possible way to play a hand to make the contract, you play the hand that way and hope the cards fall kindly.  I equate that to this Russian Gambit.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hauptmann-Jager:

Ok, everybody says this crazy russian move sucks because you lose a fighter. I say not necessarily. What if…

You do:

3 inf Kar, 1fig Kar, and 1 arm Arch attack EE.
3 inf, 1art, 1arm Cau, 1 fig Rus, and possibly 1arm Russa attack Ukr
3inf Arh, 3 inf, 1(2)arm, 1art Rus attack WRus

Now the odds for winning all these battles aren’t great:

EE: about 52% chance things working out for you
Ukr: about a 64% chance of things working out
WRus: 91% chance of things working out

Sure all these battles are risky, but if EE or Ukr start off bad just back out. While the “Russian Gambit” is inherently risky, the two fighters can still be saved.

Alll though your ability to start trading territories could be VERY hurt if these battles go wrong, but thats war.

Why take a risk when you don’t have to?