Huge Russian Stack of Infantry Problem

[joezix2002]

Almost every game we play, it turns out that Russia pulls everything back into Moscow and continues to build 10+ infantry a turn while giving up every piece of land until Moscow.  They end up with 70+ units.  Germany however has around 25 tanks and 25 infantry attacking Moscow around turn 6.  Germany rarely can overcome this massive stack of Russian units.  Has anyone had the same problem?  and can this be avoided?

[Xandax]

Build production facilities close to Moscow and hope you can continue to push throughout a number of turns while taking the rest of Russia cutting down on how many infantry Russia can replace each turn.

Or - “ignore” Moscow and keep Russia contained while trying to take other land.

[Daedelus]

Russia 1 build could be 3 Inf + 7 Mech Inf.  The Russian player needs to be able to Pressure Germany earlier near the frontier.  While Turtling can work some times it generally plays better for the Axis as they are holding territory in Russia with out fighting for it.  Russia needs to be able to strike back.

So, by building Mech Inf., your bif Inf. stacks shouldn’t be a problem.

[Ruanek]

In my last game of A&A, that’s close to what happened.  I was playing the Allies.  Germany was doing pretty well against me, so I fortified the minor factories and had most territories held by one infantry to slow the German advance (though the Italian contribution effectively nullified that in the South).  My opponent got lucky a few times, destroying a stack of ~15 infantry and a few other assorted units with only 1 loss (that was right next to Leningrad) but he lost 7 planes to the AA gun in Ukraine.  His army was still too powerful for me to attack directly (this is even with the US trying to take Normandy every few turns) so I pulled everyone I could back to Moscow and had somewhere between 50 or 60 infantry there, plus a fighter, some tanks and some artillery.  He couldn’t take Moscow, and I could build more infantry there every turn.

Maybe I did wrong by giving up on a counteroffensive because of a few unlucky battles in the beginning, but I could have held out for a while longer.  It’s just really hard to take Moscow if the Russian player pours a lot of money into holding it.

[Gargantua]

HOPE that your opponent does this.

Bypass moscow, and hit every other territory worth money, or that can produce.

You’ll have the game in the bag.  It’s about the economics.  As long as you have more - you win.

[MacNaughton]

Some of you guys are saying to ignore Russia if he turtles. If you lay off, he takes one turn to buy tanks instead of infanty, and suddenly he has a grand army with hordes of canonfodder only two turns away from liberating Stalingrad. That brings ya back down to six victory cities (assuming you control all of Western Europe and Egypt). Can you really hold Stalingrad and Lenningrad while putting enough money into taking either London or Washington?

[Ruanek]

@Gargantua:

HOPE that your opponent does this.

Bypass moscow, and hit every other territory worth money, or that can produce.

You’ll have the game in the bag.  It’s about the economics.  As long as you have more - you win.

Economically Russia is certainly in a bad position.  But Germany’s also in a bad position to grab the necessary 8 victory cities.  And the giant American economy can help alleviate German pressure in the East, especially if Japan isn’t doing well.

[JimmyHat]

I think what they are saying to do in this situation is to leave your ground army near moscow, but try and also surround it while trading territories with attrition battles.  Russia won’t be able to lunge because your army will still be very near, but meanwhile you are still cutting at Russian ipcs.  10 inf a round is 30ipcs, and if Germany has all of Eastern Europe then Russia shouldn’t be near that total, even with Korea and possibly some middle east territories.

[Ruanek]

@JimmyHat:

I think what they are saying to do in this situation is to leave your ground army near moscow, but try and also surround it while trading territories with attrition battles.  Russia won’t be able to lunge because your army will still be very near, but meanwhile you are still cutting at Russian ipcs.  10 inf a round is 30ipcs, and if Germany has all of Eastern Europe then Russia shouldn’t be near that total, even with Korea and possibly some middle east territories.

The problem is, Russia can easily have several dozen (70+) infantry in Moscow, plus whatever else they managed to retreat back there.  Sure, Germany can ruin the rest of Russia’s economy.  But the fact that Russia can stack so much there so easily makes it pretty hard for Germany to take and hold 8 victory cities, especially considering the fact that in general longer games favor the Allies because of their economic advantage.

[JeffM]

When the Russians pull back to Moscow and turtle all of their forces, it makes it makes it extremely hard for the Germans to deliver the quick knock out blow against the Allies.  Even if the Germans are extremely aggressive in the early game with a turn 2-3 Barbossa, it can be very hard to crack Moscow by the 6th turn… the effect is that it gives the US an opportunity to really get into the war and make life miserable for Germany on the western front.

Here are a couple of things that I think helps topple Russia:

1. Do not bother with buying a Major IC with Germany in Romania - I don’t think that it is worth the money

2. When launching Barbossa, take the Southern Route as quickly as possible… once you grab the national objectives in the south (controlling Cacuses) you will generally be producing double what the Russians are pumping out.

3. Strategic bomb Moscow - This may not be possible if the Russian player is stacking fighters there, but if you get the opportunity it is worthwhile.

I know that there has been some debate on the board about whether it is worthwhile to attack Russia with the Japanese; however, if the Russian player is adopting a total turtle strategy I say hit them from the East.

[ozimek1]

@JeffM:

I know that there has been some debate on the board about whether it is worthwhile to attack Russia with the Japanese; however, if the Russian player is adopting a total turtle strategy I say hit them from the East.

If they are truly turtling 100% in Moscow then the Germans can also race past Moscow with a handful of tanks to grab territories. This is assuming the Russians pulled back the far east troops as well.

[JeffM]

@ozimek1:

@JeffM:

I know that there has been some debate on the board about whether it is worthwhile to attack Russia with the Japanese; however, if the Russian player is adopting a total turtle strategy I say hit them from the East.

If they are truly turtling 100% in Moscow then the Germans can also race past Moscow with a handful of tanks to grab territories. This is assuming the Russians pulled back the far east troops as well.

A smart Russian player will fall back slowly and stay one territory away from the main German stack.  As they fall back to Moscow, they will leave one inf behind in each territory, forcing the Germans to engage combat in each territory and effectively taking away the blitz.  While the Germans may eventually be able to blitz around Moscow and head east, I don’t think that it would be possible to pull this off before turn 7 or 8 at the earliest.

[Ruanek]

@JeffM:

@ozimek1:

@JeffM:

I know that there has been some debate on the board about whether it is worthwhile to attack Russia with the Japanese; however, if the Russian player is adopting a total turtle strategy I say hit them from the East.

If they are truly turtling 100% in Moscow then the Germans can also race past Moscow with a handful of tanks to grab territories. This is assuming the Russians pulled back the far east troops as well.

A smart Russian player will fall back slowly and stay one territory away from the main German stack.  As they fall back to Moscow, they will leave one inf behind in each territory, forcing the Germans to engage combat in each territory and effectively taking away the blitz.  While the Germans may eventually be able to blitz around Moscow and head east, I don’t think that it would be possible to pull this off before turn 7 or 8 at the earliest.

That’s exactly what I did as Russia.  The problem is Italy can easily negate a lot of that by destroying the 1 inf forces, allowing German tank and Mech. Infantry to go further.

[gamerman01]

I remember before OOB came out, Larry admitted he agonized over whether Moscow was one territory too deep.  I think we know the answer to that.

I haven’t played too many Alpha2’s yet - still enjoying Anniversary.  Is the Ukraine complex not helping the Germans?  Is it helping the Russians or the Germans more?

But jeez, at least Germany has a major in Berlin now.  That OOB setup was a joke IMO!

I can’t imagine losing with the Allies in Alpha2 or OOB, either one.  Let’s see what Larry cooks up for his finalized version of 1940.

But anyway, yeah, I agree with Jeff about how a good player would never pull back the Russians any faster than necessary, and would never allow the German stacks to advance 2 territories at a time.  Your opponent is shrewd to play Russia defensively, because time is what it’s all about for the Allies.

There’s talk about toning down the USA income further.  I don’t know, but something needs to be done to make it harder for the Allies to win.  The Alpha2 changes were a major step in the right direction, but not enough.  I think all the Allies need to do even under Alpha2 rules is play it safe, and take it slow.

[knp7765]

I don’t think the US income should be taken down farther.  I like the way they did the NOs, spreading them out instead of one big one for holding the continental US territories.  Now at least the Axis has the chance to chip away at the US income.  Before it was almost impossible to affect the US income.
I am starting to think that the Alpha +2 setup may favor the Axis too much.  In the past few games my group has played, the Axis win most of them.  I think one reason is the victory city conditions, where the axis only have to win on one side or the other.  Of course, that does make for somewhat shorter games (ours average 7-9 rounds) but it doesn’t seem right to have the Japanese or the European Axis totally getting stomped while the other side gets it’s required cities and the whole game is considered an Axis victory.

[Ruanek]

@knp7765:

I don’t think the US income should be taken down farther.  I like the way they did the NOs, spreading them out instead of one big one for holding the continental US territories.  Now at least the Axis has the chance to chip away at the US income.  Before it was almost impossible to affect the US income.
I am starting to think that the Alpha +2 setup may favor the Axis too much.  In the past few games my group has played, the Axis win most of them.  I think one reason is the victory city conditions, where the axis only have to win on one side or the other.  Of course, that does make for somewhat shorter games (ours average 7-9 rounds) but it doesn’t seem right to have the Japanese or the European Axis totally getting stomped while the other side gets it’s required cities and the whole game is considered an Axis victory.

From what I can tell, the game seems to favor the Allies.:)

It does make sense for the Axis to win even if they lose on one side - the goal of the Allies is to stop both Germany and Japan.  If they stop one and not the other, they’ve failed.

Plus, it’s not like Japan or Germany can support each other much.  If they didn’t have the split victory condition the Allies could just focus on one enemy and destroy them while letting the other one do well because the Axis still couldn’t win.

[knp7765]

Yeah, you got a point there.  I guess if say the Japanese were stomped out, it still wouldn’t be good for the Allies to have Germany dominating Europe.  Or if Germany was stomped, it would also be bad for Japan to rule the Pacific.  I get that.

I still think the current setup favors the Axis.  Maybe it’s just the people I’m playing with, but in the past 4 games, the Axis won 3 of them.  However, in this last game, the Allies came very close and simple luck could have been a factor that tipped the balance.

[MarkHC]

A big part of the problem is that infantry defend at a 2 and tanks attack at a 3, so it takes about 8 tanks to match 10 infantry in a fight (infantry soak up hits better than tanks).  If you consider the fact that russia is probably going to have 30+ normal income for at least 3 turns (plus the the lend/lease NO for a few turns after that, depending on when Germany attacks), Russia can build 10 infantry in Moscow for probably five turns.  This means that Germany has to match that with 8 tanks or 48 IPCs EVERY turn. Not to mention that Russia builds their infantry in Moscow and Germany builds its tanks in Berlin a couple turns away. Maybe on turn four or five Germany can build in Ukraine or Leningrad/Stalingrad, but even then the tanks aren’t within striking distance of Moscow.

Some of you have said to just go around Moscow and soak up territory, except Russia can block you with one infantry every step of the way.  Even if Italy takes out that one infantry, only tanks and mech can blitz, so Germany will have left all the original infantry and art. behind.  A stack of tanks with only a handful of mech for fodder is going to get ripped to shreds.  And where is Italy getting the units to send to the eastern front?  They start out broke and have to spend all their money in the med just to get any NOs.  Furthermore, even if Germany can grab all this territory, Britain and the USA are going to be landing a dozen units or so every turn in Europe past turn five or six.  Most of Germany’s newly gained money is going to be spent fending off the allies in Europe.

[gamerman01]

Welcome to the boards, Mark, and good post.

I agree, the quandary Germany is in, is that she doesn’t have much time to take Moscow, and Moscow is very deep and easy to defend.  Russia has a lot of money.  Actually Russia starts with 37 or 38, and will collect this again once or twice at least.

If my life depended on a single game of Global 1940 with no bid and Alpha2 setup, I would absolutely take the Allies without a moment’s hesitation.  It will be interesting to see what Larry comes up with, for a hopefully final product, hopefully before Europe 1940 is a year old!  Alpha 2 took big steps in the right direction, but more of Larry and friends’ brilliant tweaks are needed.

[Xandax]

@MarkHC:

Some of you have said to just go around Moscow and soak up territory, except Russia can block you with one infantry every step of the way.  Even if Italy takes out that one infantry, only tanks and mech can blitz, so Germany will have left all the original infantry and art. behind.  A stack of tanks with only a handful of mech for fodder is going to get ripped to shreds.  And where is Italy getting the units to send to the eastern front?  They start out broke and have to spend all their money in the med just to get any NOs.  Furthermore, even if Germany can grab all this territory, Britain and the USA are going to be landing a dozen units or so every turn in Europe past turn five or six.  Most of Germany’s newly gained money is going to be spent fending off the allies in Europe.

If the Allied can throw “dozen” of units into Europe by round 5-6 the Axis would have lost without a turtling Moscow as well because that would mean Japan is contained or destroyed and the board is effectively lost for Axis.
Anyways:

Britain can be taken out of the game or just contained.
Italy can move into Russia via the Middle East.
The USA could be kept busy by Japan in the Pacific.
Germany can push for a G2 assault on Leningrad (especially if turteling)
Japan can move into Russia to also eat away of those 1 IPC zones.

Now - I’m not saying it is easy to take out a turtleling Moscow. It’s not easy taking any turtleling field due to the speed the Axis must put up to counter the Allied money maker aka USA, but even the Allies can’t be everywhere on the board either.
The reasoning behind “ignoring” Moscow and taking other land is that with a smaller economy you can whittle away at that stack of infantry faster than they can rebuild it.
So instead of spending 48 IPCs every turn, spend 36 and throw 6 tanks into Moscow every turn while using the remainder IPC keeping the Allies out of Western Europe.

Nobody said it was easy to remove a stack of 50+ defending infantry. But the issue isn’t that a stack of 50+ infantry can be made and is difficult to take with their 2 defence value. The infantry 2 defence is not a problem and the 3 attack of tanks neither IMO.
It is that time is of so much a factor due to the USA’s economy and ability to focus - that strategy and tactics on both sides of the board is much more limited as a result in the game.