The "Red Tide" Strategy

[Requester45]

Thanks for joining the conversation Gargantua! We have been discussing the Russian strategy, and I have found that there are many different opinions on how Russia should use it’s IPCs. I believe that reactionary play is the most suitable, while also including some diversity in your purchases. All infantry is a poor build giving only one effective mean, while purchasing artillery or mechanized infantry can provide you with several options. Now if there is an obvious Moscow push from Germany with solid German purchases, more and more infantry is important.

[Ichabod]

@larrymarx:

The Allies in general, but particularly Russia, should adapt their purchases each turn based on what the Axis powers are doing.

On turn 1, there are three types of builds that Germany can make.

1. Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
   7 artillery
   3 tanks, 3 mech
   1 bomber, 1 fighter,
   2 mech 1 major factory

To me a great Sea Lion purchase is 6 artillery / 2 infantry. Some of my best Sea Lion games were with that purchase.

[Gargantua]

@Ichabod:

@larrymarx:

The Allies in general, but particularly Russia, should adapt their purchases each turn based on what the Axis powers are doing.

On turn 1, there are three types of builds that Germany can make.

1. Barbarossa - any combination of land and air that involves at least one land unit. Examples:
   7 artillery
   3 tanks, 3 mech
   1 bomber, 1 fighter,
   2 mech 1 major factory

To me a great Sea Lion purchase is 6 artillery / 2 infantry. Some of my best Sea Lion games were with that purchase.

Build 6 tanks next time, and your mind will be blown

[Ichabod]

Or 5 tanks for 30 IPCs?

I get your point…next think you know the UK is buying stuff on SA and a factory in Cairo on UK 1.

[Elsaß-Lorraine]

@Ichabod:

Or 5 tanks for 30 IPCs?

I get your point…next think you know the UK is buying stuff on SA and a factory in Cairo on UK 1.

No, buy 6 tanks, and try to pull one over on your unsuspecting friends!  :-D  :-D :-D

Kidding of course

[variance]

I think Garg means for Russia to buy 6 tanks in Leningrad and Ukraine.  Every game.

[Elsaß-Lorraine]

Oh. Well if that is the case, my comment is even more irrelevant than it already is.  Darn

[Requester45]

That makes for an interesting conversation. A 5 tank purchase with Russia… I have never even considered that possibility.

[Elsaß-Lorraine]

I have not considered that either. My group rarely ever does anything aggressive with Russia; the most aggressive I’ve ever seen someone play Russia (myself included) is buy 7 inf 4 art on the first couple of turns before they are brought to war, but it is usually just turtle turtle turtle.  It’s boring but somehow effective. Maybe that’s just a testament to a need for improved German play, but I digress. I will consider trying one of these “new & different” Russia strategies the next time I play that nation.

[larrymarx]

Gargantua alluded to a concept in his original 6/21/2016 post that I think all of us have been overlooking: strategies that have a 50/50 shot at success are good for the Allies.

Given that the Axis are viewed as having an edge overall in the game, reducing things to a coin flip should be viewed as a success for the Allies just as a draw can be seen as a good result for black in chess. In Axis & Allies, the Allies are the black pieces.

Though we say the game as a whole favors the Axis, what it really boils down to is the Axis having an edge in the key battles that the game hinges on. Normally, this means the battle for Moscow. However, that particular battle doesn’t have to be the one that the game hinges on. Aggressive Allied play can force the game to be decided on earlier battles. If the Allies are the ones choosing which battle will be decisive, then they can simply choose battles with better odds than the final Moscow battle will have and this will be good for them. The Axis can respond by following through with their plan as normal and exposing themselves to the reduced-odds decisive battle, or they can prevent the Allies from obtaining this advantage by playing more defensively so that any given battle will not have greater odds than the final Moscow battle. If the Axis play more defensively, then the Allies are compensated for the extra IPC’s they spent on offensive units.

[taamvan]

since russia cant declare war on germany, the germans could still get ready with everything stand at the border and the italians could still can open to attack the stack so they have to hide +2 the lines.

[larrymarx]

Let’s consider an optimum offensive Bryansk stack on R3. If the Russians pour everything they have into being able to threaten any units that step up to Bryansk, they can have the following available on R3 for an R4 strike:

27 infantry
21 artillery
12 mech
2 tanks
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber

Let’s take a German Sealion feint as an example. Suppose the Germans build two bombers and a sub and lose one infantry and two fighters on the first turn. Then, on the second turn, they build 8 mech and 6 tanks. Italy will can open, which means that there’s no hope of stopping the German air force from landing. Not counting Italian units or the 7 Scandinavian infantry, Germany can step up on G4 with the following:

27 infantry
5 artillery
12 mech
15 tanks
6 aa guns
3 fighters
4 tactical bombers
4 bombers

My battle calculator shows that the defender wins 100% of the time. If I swap sides and have the Germans attack the Bryansk stack, they win 87% of the time.

It really doesn’t look too good for the Russians. I think this confirms that if the Germans pour everything into the Russian front, there is no Red Blitz or Red Tide.

However, if the Germans pour less than everything in, the Bryansk stack can hold. If I remove the planes and the 6 AA from the calculation, suddenly the Russians win 53% of the time. Also, if I build 6 tanks, 1 mech instead of 10 mech on R3, the odds are now 58%. I’m not sure the extra 5% justifies the sacrifice in the defensive power of the stack, but this is certainly open to debate. In any case, I think the R4 Bryansk gambit is worth considering in any game where the Germans are doing something less than full-bore Barbarossa.

[PainState]

As it was alluded to early. It is critically important for the Allies to make as many battles 50/50 battles for the Axis to consider.

The Axis have a overwhelming advantage at the start of the war and the vast majority of their attacks are 80/20 or greater in their favor. They do no balk at this and just roll the dice knowing the odds favor them.

There needs to be certain point of the game, around T5-6, that the Allies can start shifting the odds towards a more 50/50 balance. Some Axis players will balk and wait one turn thinking they can bring up more force to push the odds in a battle to the 75/25+ range. This benefits the Allies more than any tactic can. If the Axis live in fear of a 50/50 battle that can tilt the war to the Allies then the Allies have finally turned the corner so to speak.

I think the discussion should be how do the Allies accomplish this goal. IMO a massive stack of Russian INF sitting in Moscow with some Allied air support does not accomplish this goal on the Russian front. It just leads to the standard, been there done that, dice fest on G6 or G7 on Moscow.

[variance]

@larrymarx:

Gargantua alluded to a concept in his original 6/21/2016 post that I think all of us have been overlooking: strategies that have a 50/50 shot at success are good for the Allies.

Stalin never cared that counterattacking was more costly for his side than the enemy; all that mattered was that the Germans were hurting too. Losing a $4 mech in Smolensk is a greater loss to Germany than it is for Russia losing a $4 artillery in Smolensk.

[larrymarx]

@PainState:

I think the discussion should be how do the Allies accomplish this goal. IMO a massive stack of Russian INF sitting in Moscow with some Allied air support does not accomplish this goal on the Russian front. It just leads to the standard, been there done that, dice fest on G6 or G7 on Moscow.

If we factor in the British and the Americans, we may be able to turn the Bryansk scenario I described around in Russia’s favor. They can add 10 bombers, 5 fighters and 1 tactical bomber minimum to the Bryansk stack and make it hold even against a German all-in. The British can also kick in a tank and a mech from Egypt.

Maybe this is the best Red Tide strategy. From turn 1, the Allies stack Bryansk with everything they have, and then they attack on any battle where the odds are 50/50 or better. The British with their fast movers and modest air force, and the Americans with their bomber stack, can annihilate small German and Italian troop elements or mop up after the Russians throw themselves completely at the German stack.

The purchases would look like this:

Russia
R1 9 artillery
R2 9 artillery
R3 6 tanks 1 mech if attacking R4 / 10 infantry, 2 mech if not

Americans
A1 4 bombers
A2 4 bombers / 6 bombers if Japan went J1
A3 6 bombers

British
B1 6 infantry, 1 fighter
B2 1 bomber, 2 minor ICs for Persia and Iraq
B3 4 mech, 2 tanks

The purchases beyond these would depend on how the board looks on R4.

The biggest problem as I see it with the hold Bryansk strategy against a German / Italian all in is the possibility that they will take the northern route for the Smolensk can opener threat, forcing Russia to keep a small stack of infantry there that can withstand the Italians. If the British rush to join the stack, they can be the ones to retake Smolensk from the Germans starting on B6, but Russia will have to take care of defending the territory on R4 and R5.

[Gargantua]

Guys, many of you are missing the crucial concepts.  By being offensive minded Russia can hold on to it’s capital to R8+ and by securing it’s far east forces into the capital.  Whilst being on the maximum ready to counter sealion.

RUSSIA buying 6 ARMOR first turn is a must.  It’s not a debate.  If you take the pains to look at any of the game links I posted - against seasoned veterans; you’ll see what I mean.

The reason you need 6 armor R1 is because it stops the G2 stacking of Eastern Poland.  If the Germans stack eastern poland you will destroy them.  That’s 1 round of extra time you just bought yourself.

Now… continue with the “counter attack” methodology, and buy yourself 1 more turn somewhere over the next four,  and you’ll have bought enough time for all your eastern forces to make Moscow.  Which will buy you even more turns and time; and make the axis mission that much harder.

You’ve also invented the possibility of catching the Germans off guard, or asleep at the wheel.  If they are not paying close attention, you will smack them something serious.

Moscow G5/G6 is now impossible.  Moscow G7 unlikely,  Moscow G8+ possible.  This is how you fight back.

[Gargantua]

ACCORDION EFFECT

I’m going to explain this as best I can; maybe someone else can do a better job later.

When the Germans invade Russia, with mech and tanks,  a key element of their success is the ability to move the main force forward one territory; with reinforcements coming up behind.  Even if the reinforcements don’t make it to the same forward territory, they are in range of striking next turn because of their mobility; landing with the next stack.

I call this the accordion effect.  And it’s used with devastating effect against russian Defense only builds; who simply can’t reinforce at the speed of which the german offensive punch is appearing.

The Russians therefore have to build their own accordion;  by building mobile units that can rapidly respond to where-ever the main Russian stack is currently. So that that stack can hold in place, and isn’t “forced” to retreat.  Further, the russians need to be able to attack the forward german stack, before it’s reinforced by the units behind it

It’s the lull in the wave, and the only chance Russia gets to go pound for pound or better.  That’s what Russian Defense doctorine, and RED BLITZ is all about.

Look at my games.

[larrymarx]

The Germans, if they do the following things:

• pull off the Yugo strafe losing 2 infantry
• bring 3 aa from Germany with the main stack
• add 3 tanks from GSG to the main stack instead of using them in Paris
  can have the following units in Eastern Poland on G2:

21 infantry
5 artillery
6 tanks
3 aa

The Russians, if they build 6 tanks R1 and bring every unit to bear on the Eastern Poland stack R2, can enter the battle with:

18 infantry
2 mech
2 artilley
8 tanks
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber

This is a 26% battle for the Russians with a TUV swing of -38.

So what would you do as Russia in this case?

[wheatbeer]

@larrymarx:

The Germans, if they do the following things:

• pull off the Yugo strafe losing 2 infantry
• bring 3 aa from Germany with the main stack
• add 3 tanks from GSG to the main stack instead of using them in Paris

The Soviets would be able to see that in advance and change plans if necessary … but would players really divert 3 tanks from Paris on G1?

If Germany were that serious about countering such a Soviet play style, they could simply buy a couple tanks on G1 to mobilize in range of E. Poland.

[larrymarx]

@wheatbeer:

@larrymarx:

The Germans, if they do the following things:

• pull off the Yugo strafe losing 2 infantry
• bring 3 aa from Germany with the main stack
• add 3 tanks from GSG to the main stack instead of using them in Paris

The Soviets would be able to see that in advance and change plans if necessary … but would players really divert 3 tanks from Paris on G1?

If Germany were that serious about countering such a Soviet play style, they could simply buy a couple tanks on G1 to mobilize in range of E. Poland.

I agree with you that the Soviets would see it in advance and change plans, but I still posed the question to Gargantua because he said “RUSSIA buying 6 ARMOR first turn is a must.  It’s not a debate”, and I want to see if he can actually back that up.

Diverting 3 tanks from France is not that big of a deal. If you bring every other land unit in range plus the two aircraft on the Russian front lines, France is a 99% battle for Germany. Basically what the tank diversion means is you’re giving up an extra French territory (Normandy or S. France) for one turn.

You could do other things like not do a Yugo strafe and bring some mech from W Germany instead of diverting 3 tanks from GSG. If you leave the Eurofluff countries entirely to Italy, then you can throw everything into France as usual. Replace 3 of the tanks in my G2 German stack with 3 infantry in that case. This is a 37%/-30 battle for Russia. Germany has plenty of options to put up a strong Eastern Poland stack on G2.

The reason I didn’t suggest buying ground units G1 is that I’m trying to operate within what I believe to be the current meta, which is a Sealion feint.