I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.
The Bright Skies
-
The arguments about “oh, I can still place 10 units a turn in Moscow,” and “oh, artillery isn’t that expensive anyway” strike me as wishful thinking. You need to place 13+ units a turn to defend Moscow against an all-out G6/I6 attack on Moscow. Some of those units will have to go in Kiev or Stalingrad and then march to Moscow. That’s fine; that’s how that works. Eventually, you may get to a point where it makes more sense to build 2 mech in Stalingrad instead of 3 infantry in Stalingrad, because infantry in Stalingrad won’t have time to march to Moscow before the key battle. That’s fine too. But you can’t just wish away the extra cost of building your entire army out of 4 IPC artillery & mech. inf. If your units are 33% more expensive, then you have 33% fewer units that still each defend on a roll of 2, and that means what should be a nailbiter for Germany will instead be a blowout victory, every time.
Ok, here is the deal, in my mind. Russia can take this %100 turtle approach and just build INF, not saying it is a bad plan. (I take that back, it is a very bad plan, IMO)
BUT
If Russia builds 0 Art/Mech/Arm they have gimped themselves to the point that they can not counter attack Germany in T1-6. They just all fall back to Moscow and let the dice fest commence but on German terms.
SO
If you are so fatalistic that Russia will fall on G6, my God, my foe is the most experienced German player known to man kind. Then, I would propose you, as Russia, decide to take the dice fate in your own hands. Russia will have a chance to attack Germany as they advance onto Moscow. Now, the chance of total victory will be slim but THIS IS A DICE GAME. Russia could cripple the German advance. Never forget, in A&A the attacker has the one advantage in that he can retreat. So, a Russian attack that goes 60/40 in Russia’s favor on the first attack, Russia retreats, might just buy Russia one more turn. One more chance to counter attack, one more chance to build more troops.
Sitting in Moscow just waiting for the big dice fest assault is just lazy play from a ‘jaded’ player who thinks Russia has no chance against a experienced German player.
Make Germany go into Moscow on a 50/50 or 35/65 chance. You cant do that by just building INF and never attacking them. Make the German player make the hard choice of going into Moscow on 50/50 or less odds. It gives you at least one more turn if he balks. It is just lazy Russian “play” to just build INF and retreat to Moscow.
In my experience of playing WWII board games for almost 25 years this is what I have found. Axis players love the start of the war and getting 90+% attack odds on almost every battle. Once you get to around T6 in A&A with proper Allied play those odds now become 50/50 or 40/60 in critical battles. That is when the Axis start to get concerned. They no longer have overwhelming odds and are forced to make hard choices on attacks. If they lose, it could be the start of the end for the Axis.
As a Allied player you have to get the Axis powers in these critical situations. Some Axis players will balk and not take the attack on 50/50 terms and wait one turn to get more “force” into the combat. This only benefits the Allies.
-
Assuming that the Germans take the northern option to get towards Moscow and are supported by a healthy number of Italian fast movers, the game is very scripted in the Eastern Front. If you are playing with a battle calculator, there will be little chance of a sensible counter attack in a majority of games. The key part is buying 10 fast movers on G2 so that they can be available to protect your horde and force the Russians to fully retreat due to the Italian/German 1-2 punch. A combined Italian + German force will be sitting next to Moscow at the end of round 5. It is simple to add up all of the units that could make it there and then subtract out a few that will inevitably be lost in the minor battles of Russian blockers or troops that can’t retreat in time. The question becomes what happens on G6. In most of my games taking Moscow is not an option as it has received some reinforcements from the UK. I divert south and can decide how hard to push towards the oil fields or an eventual return to sack the Russian capitol. If the Russians try significant counterattacks, I am grinning because I know that the game will not end well for the Allies. Trading 10 Russian ground units for 10 German ground units is not a good deal. Having a strong Allied force in Moscow on G6 is not too bad of an outcome.
Other people do have very good German tactics that are less easy to estimate the forces and positions on G5. I have seen the southern route successfully employed by some top players. I have also seen German pushes into the Med/N Africa/Middle East be employed with success. Finally there are some players who invest much more strongly in bombers during the early game.
-
Curious as to why fast movers G2 are so important in your opinion?
Germany has a big enough stack of infantry that USSR can’t take them down very easily and slow movers bought G2 will arrive early enough for a G7 attack on Moscow. Unless you are targeting a G6 take down, of course.
-
@Arthur:
In most of my games taking Moscow is not an option as it has received some reinforcements from the UK.
Germany has a big enough stack of infantry that USSR can’t take them down very easily and slow movers bought G2 will arrive early enough for a G7 attack on Moscow. Unless you are targeting a G6 take down, of course.
Yes, ABH, if you say that Moscow on G6 isn’t generally an option in your games, you might as well go for those slow-moving artillery on G2 which might give you the edge on G7, right? Or are we missing something?
-
If Russia builds 0 Art/Mech/Arm they have gimped themselves to the point that they can not counter attack Germany in T1-6.
I wouldn’t advise buying zero offensive weaponry, but the weaponry you buy needs to be suited to its task. You’re not going to get a realistic counterattack before R8 against the main stack of a dedicated German+Italian 100% push on Moscow, but you might get some counter-attacks against little fringe pockets in the corners. Like, if you have 2 mech and 2 tanks available, then Germany has to watch where it lands its planes, maybe it winds up leaving 2-3 infantry behind the main stack on garrison duty, and then those infantry don’t quite reach Moscow for G6. If you have 2 art available, then that makes it a little harder for Germany to permanently occupy the territories immediately adjacent to Moscow.
But you start with most of the offensive equipment you need, so – replace it as needed, maybe add one or two pieces if you have a specific purpose in mind, but don’t go dropping 20+ IPCs on offensive equipment for Russia while Germany and Italy are devoting 100% of their income toward rushing Moscow.
-
I don’t even know why we discussing this. If you don’t care if Russia is lost on G5 or G6 then it can be fun to mess around in finland/norway combined with buying armor and bombers for Russia. Yesterday I played with some guy online and he did exactely this, he bought bombers, armor and offensive stuff. End of R4 he had to evacuate Russia and it gave me a nice price of about 35 ipc for Germany. He surrendered the game just afterwards.
If you play against someone who just goes directly for Moscow this is the result always. Period. Germany can fix Finland and Norway afterwards.
With that beeing said it is OK for Russia to buy a mix of inf and art, even 4 art and 7 inf for the first two rounds is not bad. I usually buy 11 inf and 1 art. I also try to buy a fighter, maybe round (3), 4 or 5. A few mechs can be fine too at this point. The first two rounds Russia should focus on retreat and not loose units. By this approach you might be able to keep Bryansk for a round or two if Germany goes south. If Germany goes north this is hard if there is a credible Italien can opening force. In this case Moscow can be lost to German fast movers.
I have not seen any better than this if the goal is not to loose moscow on G5 or G6
-
Yesterday I discovered another important reason for Russia to build mainly artillery and mech. On the defense, Germany can use its Luftwaffe, which adds a lot of power to his force making it much stronger. On the defense however, especially in newly taken zones, there can be no aircraft, making Germany much weaker on the defense than on the offense in Russia.
We played another live game yesterday and the Allies took the victory. I am very happy with my preparations in this topic, as they all worked! I got to take Iraq, Italian Africa and even Sicily/Sardinia.
I had build mainly mech + art every turn, first more art, then mainly mech for fodder. It worked extremely well as I got surrounded by all Axis as Japan had pushed lots of tanks and planes through China. Because of the mobility I was able to fend off every attack, and could retreat where he was too strong. Both Novgorord and Bryansk I retreated them on the turn he could attack, making his luftwaffe useless every time, and then retook it on the counter-attack.
I could match Germany because of the USA bombers. Having lost its baltic fleet last time early to the bombers. Now he build a very strong baltic fleet. Needless to say, Scandinavia had to wait until R6 when USA had finally enough bombers to take it down. All this German fleet was ofcourse not invested in land troops, that gave Russia the time and forces to overpower Germany eventually.
-
So the result was this way because the German play didn’t commit 100% to the Moscow push. This to me sounds like a German player who couldn’t make up his mind as to whether he wanted Russia or London. That is why the game resulted in an allied victory.
-
Yesterday I discovered another important reason for Russia to build mainly artillery and mech. On the
defenseoffense, Germany can use its Luftwaffe, which adds a lot of power to his force making it much stronger. On the defense however, especially in newly taken zones, there can be no aircraft, making Germany much weaker on the defense than on the offense in Russia.You’re forgetting the Italian can-opener. Axis will send Italians to the Russian front, who can take a step towards Moscow allowing their German friends to move in during non-combat (and land their planes).
-
So the result was this way because the German play didn’t commit 100% to the Moscow push. This to me sounds like a German player who couldn’t make up his mind as to whether he wanted Russia or London. That is why the game resulted in an allied victory.
Yes he is an inexperienced Axis player that this time tried to help Italy in the med, and get to the oil through that way. I am not saying that what I did will work against 100% play against Russia so succesfully, however I think I can master this strategy of Russia in the counter-attack as its defense and it will work better than just building infantry and some spare artillery.
Against Italian can openers, yes annoying, but the first turn they can really so something is turn 4 as they lag behind the Germans who are advanxing anyways. Even then it is not such a big deal, as long you keep the defense of Moscow able to withstand the mobile part of the German army. Yes when Germany only builds mech + armor and Italy also alone mech, this becomes dangerous. Any deviation from that path as Germany benefits Russia. If Germany goes 100% Russia, the other Allies should be able to make Germany pay for this.
-
Right but you had touched on the German Luftwaffe not being able to land in the territory that Germany is taking, which wouldn’t be an issue if you use Italian can openers as pointed out by Ozymandiac. I like that we are discussing some alternate strategy options for Russia, but these types of conversations only lead to a positive strategical outcome if the steps that are discussed actually take place in the game. For instance, if Germany does not make the proper advancements, or have the Italian can openers, then the strategy may work. If Germany commits to a Sea Lion attack then Russia can afford to purchase some offensive units. The entire strategy relies on Germany not being completely focused on Russia for one reason or another, and you will not be entirely aware of what Germany is doing until G3. I do think we should change the strategy name, considering we haven’t really talked about the inclusion of American bombers. This is a whole other part of the strategy that I don’t agree with. If Japan is left unchecked in the Pacific, we could foreseeabley have a quick Japanese victory. They only need 6 capitol cities, and Hawaii would be wide open. Once Japan sacks Calcutta, it would be a cake walk. Russia needs to be able to hold Moscow to save Europe, and the US needs to be able to contain Japan. I think we need to label the two strategies desperately.
Bright Skies: the US strategy of only purchasing bombers to destroy naval fleets and or devastate Europe.
Red Tide: Russian strategy of purchasing fast moving units, and artillery in an attempt to take preventative attacks against the Axis, while being able to move more quickly than standard infantry in order to relocate i both defensive and offensive means.
-
Great call, I agree! Like the name of the Red Tide also.
This topic however has been about combining the Bright Skies and the Red Tide, as both strategies without the other will not work. Russia will not be able to put pressure on Germany is USA bombers does not force this early in the game. On the contrary the heavy USA bombers against Germany can only work if combined Allied effort on the mainland manage to hold up Japan with little help from USA.
-
Can you buy a UK carrier in SA and send to Anzac for the figs to land on and help put a bit more pressure on Japan by taking that 1 extra money island for lack of US support do to Bright Skies ?
-
You could do this, however the Japanese navy would just be too much of a monster for the smaller allied force in the Pacific to deal with. I think without US help, Japan would have free reign. I would even go as far as to say that after sacking Calcutta Japan could make a move on Sydney considering they would have a formidable navy and air force left. They wouldn’t run into much opposition if the US was focused on Europe. Japan could also use the strategy that I have mentioned before called “Divine Dragon Operation #2” in which the Japanese make a push onto the African east coast resulting in a loss of IPCs for the French and British, and liberation of some Italian territories. This kind of strategy would only be made easier by the sacking of Calcutta and the lack of US navy given they do “Bright Skies”
-
When does Japan attack Singapore ? Pretty much Anzac only gets 1 NO for just 1 turn in game ever.
-
Japan can move onto Singapore after they sack Calcutta. It is not going to be a vital territory to them, because they should have the naval base in Calcutta, the Philippines, and Hong Kong, along with one in Hainan if they do the sack Calcutta strategy. Japan would be able to move somewhat leisurely through the Pacific.
-
I might open a new thread for the Japanese strategy I mentioned. I might also open one for the Red Tide strategy. I’m thinking about testing these two strategies out, and then making videos or just some lengthy articles discussing them. It is nice to extend your playbook with both the Axis and the Allies, however the #1 reason you win or lose a game is your ability to adapt to any situation and take advantage of your opponents mistakes. That being said, it is best to have a strategy planned for any specific game that you play, and adapt accordingly.
-
When discussing the bright skies tactic of USA going all in on STR bombers early I would propose a different approach.
USA is the one country that has such a large income that they can do a more ‘balanced’ approach to their builds and not focus on a turn and build just all of X.
Lets say USA gets the J2 attack on them, thus they are at full production on USA3.
Every turn spend 33-36 IPC on 3 aircraft. FTR/TAC/STR every single turn, starting on turn 1. Maybe, based on the board switch it up and go 3 STR one turn. Then 3 FTR another turn.
IF the USA is producing 3 aircarft every turn for the first 6 turns, they have produced 18 planes + what ever naval/ground you deem you need.
The USA will build up a huge air force once the critical point of the game arrives in T6-8. Now, how you disperse them across the globe is up to you and what their ‘role’ is and thus a totally different discussion.
I just think the USA is the one country that can actually allocate 33-36 IPC to air force and 20-25 IPC in navy and the rest in land units almost every turn. Granted there are times you need to go heavier on land and light on navy based on the TRS shuck plan of attack you have but you never go light in air power on your builds.
I understand that STR Bombers are the most powerful unit because of range BUT I think it is un wise to ignore the power of FTR/TAC and the roles they can play also. TAC can get up to 4 attack value and just as strong as STR bombers. Granted their role is different but I think you should not discount that ability TAC have. FTR are you best defense weapon on scrambles and defending against STR bombing. All 3 air units have a role and just going all in on one type of aircraft can get you in trouble against a good player.
-
This is part of the reason that I am not totally convinced on purchasing only bombers for the US. You need to be able to hold Japan from expanding. This doesn’t mean that I am opposed to supporting Europe. I think that this is also crucial.
-
When it comes to supporting Europe with the bright skies tactic they can do it with minimal use of force at the start of the war. USA can get onto Mororco once they can declare war with basically just their starting force. They can then move into Tunisia with ease and now Italy can be STR bombed by the USA from Africa. Also 4-6 subs from USA and or UK can totally decimate Italy in the med on convoy routes.
With a slow methodical build up of air power moving into Africa you can secure Egypt and crush italian production to the point that they can no longer “can open” for Germany. You dont have to kill off Italy, just reduce them to a rubble pile that can’t support Germany in any meaningful way on the Eastern Front. USA/UK can accomplish this goal early in the game around T4 if USA is in the war on a J1 or j2 Attack.
USA and Japan are very similar in the approach to the war since they are both naval powers. Air Power is key to their success and when they do attack 50%+ of the attacking force is usually with air power. That is why I advocate a more balance build approach build plan for the USA. Once they go into Europe they have overwhelming air power behind their small stack of land units.
Once USA can opens for UK they follow up with the land units to secure their conquest.
Suggested Topics
