We can play a league game to test your hypothesis whenever you like. :)
" Force the issue at Leningrad Early, send all units there. Build 3 art first turn, a mix of inf and art in Ukr, and all mech in Moscow. This will give you a defending front early, and force Germany
north."Germany goes south and forces you out of Leningrad anyway…
Great,
IF they ignore your stack, then elements of your stack can hold/trade Leningrad from Belarus/Bryansk(mobile units). 1 Less German factory, and potentially 1 less NO to worry about.
Then they can get moscow for cheap, ok.
Aye, Garg, thanks for the invitation but I am not up for a game now. Maybe in a couple of months.
Point is I still need to ‘recover’ from my last game. I find A&AG40 too ‘calculation-heavy’ nowadays. Especially with the allies.
BTW, what I wrote ain’t a hypothesis. This axis strategy was used against me last two games so the credits (if any ;-)) don’t belong to me.
Its probably worth remembering as the Russians, that if you play to concession (as many do, without regard for the stated VC wins) then it is possible to play on after Moscow falls.
This has been true of every A&A board, and it has to do with the way that Western units can liberate originally Russian territories from the Axis and gain direct control over them if Moscow is in Axis hands. On the older boards, the deep endgame after Moscow falls, had everything to do with the Naval situation. If Axis controlled the Center, but the Allies achieved Naval dominance, then it was still possible to play on under these conditions. An example of the this would be Super G vs Super USA (post KJF), or Super J vs Super USA (post KGF), which were some of the most satisfying endgames to play out. Here, Axis control of the Center is not necessarily the guarantee of ultimate victory that it might seem at first, if the Allies have achieved complete Naval/Air superiority in one theater and can still take a shot on the weaker Axis power (whether Berlin or Tokyo).
A few Russian plays that were interesting back then were the Air evac from Moscow, and also the timely stack launch off Moscow either towards the North (Baltic region) or South (Med/India region), with the aim of continuing to harass Axis while the Western Allies try to trade Capitals (Moscow for an Axis capital) within the same round, or 1 round out. And then of course there is always the stand up defense of Moscow, all-in, where you gun for max hits, knowing full well that the capital will be taken in the end. Many of these endgames are still playable for Allies, even after Moscow has fallen, and can be a lot of fun if both players are willing.
Some players will just concede defeat after the first critical capital falls, normally as an expedient way to say who won (or because people just don’t have the time to continue). I think the courteous way to play though (if playing to concession) is to allow at least a Victory lap, to see how G or J will use the captured Russian purse. I think the more games you play out this way (after Moscow falls), the more apparent it is that, in order for Axis to truly win, the dominant Axis power needs to maintain continuous Naval/Air parity with the dominant Allied powers.
Without a Navy or at least a massive Air armada, just holding the Center isn’t enough, since Allies can spring board with their transports, and sometimes achieve a pretty close income balance through liberating former Soviet territories to still contest the board.
Part of me thinks its a little unfortunate in G40, that Anzac wasn’t more potent as an alternative objective to Moscow for the Japanese. If Japan had a pacific endgame, with more springboards onto North America, and a legit chance of capturing W. US, that would have been cool. But Anzac isn’t really enough of a long term threat to Japan to prompt a full commitment there by the Japanese, and its not really worth enough production to risk the Center over it. Traditionally, Australia is usually regarded as a distraction from the main event, and an Allied boon if Japan goes after it. Maybe if Sydney was worth like 8 ipcs instead of 2! Or if it had a major IC rather than a minor, Japan would have a real reason to drive south pacific vs North America, instead of overland towards Moscow as a way to mess with the Allies, but alas, the set up doesn’t favor it. Kind of a missed opportunity to have a viable 3rd capital objective in the Pac there.
But even still, as the Russian player, same as in the older A&A boards, you can use this to your advantage. The more force Russia draws onto itself, and the longer they can keep Axis bogged down on the principle objective of the Center, the more time it gives USA/UK to establish Naval/Air dominance in at least one theater.
The more games you play out after Moscow falls, the more you can see possibilities for Allied recovery, and why holding Moscow for as long as possible is so important.
I’ve seen a couple schools of thought on Russian play, over time, on several different boards.
There is the 1 fighter per round school, (which works for most other player nations really, though perhaps not as strong with the Soviets) and it says, buy 1 fighter a round every round, no matter what, and eventually you will have a fighter stack large enough trade territory or deadzone with your infantry alone, and which can be flown to support Western Carriers, or onto key territories for defense in the round before Moscow collapses. This can be a fun strategy, though it also invites a stomp drive from the Axis on your capital.
The artillery and armor school, which has the Russians launching as many attacks as they can from the get go, and driving forward as hard as possible, knowing full well that the odds are likely against them, and their capital will eventually fold. Here the goal is to tie down and destroy as many Axis units as possible, preferably in large stack strafes. Usually aiming to keep the armor stack explicitly for use in favorable strafes, and for defense of the capital. Here you use the inf/art combo + air support to trade territories with G or J, while retaining the armor to threaten medium to large size stacks. Back when armor was pretty cheap at 5, it made a bit more sense to throw the tanks forward, but now that they cost 6, the incentive to keep them alive and strafe rather than take is pretty strong. I think artillery is the best buy overall, for forward attack with Russia, but I’ve seen armor used to great effect in the endgame, especially if it has a break out route.
And of course the final and most popular has been the Infantry grind, stack at the center school. Here the goal is likewise, to draw down as many Axis units as possible, and to see one climactic battle for control of Moscow (using W. Fighters, and every pip you can, as much Russian fodder as possible.) Basically it comes down to stacking deep and hoping that the first round of combat in the final battle for Moscow favors the Russians. I think this strategy, which was dominant in Classic Revised and AA50, is rather less dominant now, because the center is more involved (there are almost twice as many territories there now) and the distances between the production facilities is increased. Still, its pretty hard to argue against the potential of a nice roll, and lots of 2s, for the final battle on Moscow.
Whether to evac the air, or trade it can be a hard call to make. But sometimes if you keep it, you can still play out a pretty fun endgame after Moscow is toasted.
G40 is such an involved game in terms of the playtime and the set up, the number of sessions to completion, in my FtF experience, lots of players would rather just continue on for another few rounds in the deep endgame, than reset the board and start another! hehe you know, on account of how this game takes like 10-20+ hours of dedicated play to resolve ;)
Garg does what he says.
We played 2 games, 1 even FAF over the real board. Long story short, I was able to capture Moscow in 1 game, but lost it. The other, I was laying siege but we ran out of time.
Result, Garg’s Russia defense is worth studying. Yet, I must say, he lays it on with the Allies to alleviate the Russian burden. That is important and puts Asia at risk…. he…he…
" Force the issue at Leningrad Early, send all units there. Build 3 art first turn, a mix of inf and art in Ukr, and all mech in Moscow. This will give you a defending front early, and force Germany
north."Germany goes south and forces you out of Leningrad anyway…
Great,
IF they ignore your stack, then elements of your stack can hold/trade Leningrad from Belarus/Bryansk(mobile units). 1 Less German factory, and potentially 1 less NO to worry about.
Then they can get moscow for cheap, ok.
I don’t know how you can defend lenningrad if Germany waits till T3 to attack. The problem you have is that Italy is going to have at least 2 mech a tank and a bomber that can can open. At worst Italy can have 2 mech 2 tank 2 fighters and a bomber to can open. Are you really going to put 5 Russian infantry in Belorus and Baltic States to block Italy? Because my Germany on his turn 4 can attack lenningrad with 13 tanks and 15 mechs 2 bombers and maybe fighters if Italy opens up a hole. Not to mention the units that are in Vyborg and Karelia.
I may not follow the belief that Russia can do other things than turtle-up if Germany really comes for Moscow, but let there be no mistake: I play Russia for the biggest part along the same lines as Garg pointed out. Except perhaps that I may be more quick about giving up Leningrad, although I might just have misunderstood what ‘forcing the issue at Leningrad’ means in this perspective >.<
And yes, just winning Moscow is definately not an automatic victory for the Axis. The overall game situation has to be taken into account as well. I like Black_Elk’s analysis about the axis need to stay on equal terms with the allies when it comes to air- and naval forces. It’s just part of the whole picture, but very important.
There must be a reason why most people don’t like to play Russia (even if their defensive skill is strong).
I think it must have something to do with the way Russia is Always reduced to having no other options left on the board but turtle up. Apart from being historically very implausible they way Russia is folded (whether this includes Moscow or not) without Russia having at least some option to recover, it’s just no fun.
" Force the issue at Leningrad Early, send all units there. Build 3 art first turn, a mix of inf and art in Ukr, and all mech in Moscow. This will give you a defending front early, and force Germany
north."Germany goes south and forces you out of Leningrad anyway…
Great,
IF they ignore your stack, then elements of your stack can hold/trade Leningrad from Belarus/Bryansk(mobile units). 1 Less German factory, and potentially 1 less NO to worry about.
Then they can get moscow for cheap, ok.
I don’t know how you can defend lenningrad if Germany waits till T3 to attack. The problem you have is that Italy is going to have at least 2 mech a tank and a bomber that can can open. At worst Italy can have 2 mech 2 tank 2 fighters and a bomber to can open. Are you really going to put 5 Russian infantry in Belorus and Baltic States to block Italy? Because my Germany on his turn 4 can attack lenningrad with 13 tanks and 15 mechs 2 bombers and maybe fighters if Italy opens up a hole. Not to mention the units that are in Vyborg and Karelia.
I agree. Finland + some fast + planes + transport is enough to take Leningrad if defended lightly. If Leningrad is defended heavily, Germany can get a strong G6 Moscow kill.
***** Force the issue at Leningrad Early, send all units there. Build 3 art first turn, a mix of inf and art in Ukr, and all mech in Moscow. This will give you a defending front early, and force Germany north.
***** The germans will out number you at Leningrad early, you can abandon Leningrad, but keep it in check with your stack in Belarus, this forces the Germans to Lose a turn of advance if they send the stack to Karelia, or lose a turn of advance if they sit tight. Because if they send the stack into your stack - which has been reinforced with troops from Moscow and Bryansk, odds should still be in your favour generally.
Like he said in the second point above, the idea is to buy time not make a heroic stand at Leningrad and then lose Moscow.
How do you stack in Belarus? Does that mean you completely give up the south?
You stack Belarus early then pull back to Bryansk when you can’t hold it. It stalls them a turn if they invaded early.
Can Belarus be held on T4 though? Germany can hit it with 6 infantry, 6 arty, 13 tanks, 15 mechs, 5 fighters, 5 tacs, and 2 bombers. That is also the min Germany can hit it with. If they see you stacking Belo so hard they can bring up to 27 inf, and 5 more art to East Poland that can hit Belarus.
Can Belarus be held on T4 though? Germany can hit it with 6 infantry, 6 arty, 13 tanks, 15 mechs, 5 fighters, 5 tacs, and 2 bombers. That is also the min Germany can hit it with. If they see you stacking Belo so hard they can bring up to 27 inf, and 5 more art to East Poland that can hit Belarus.
Yes, Bel can be held. All the Ger stuff you mentioned incl. up to 27 inf vs. Rus units in Europe per set up + 15inf & 7mech new buy in T1-2 (=73PUs vs. 2*37 in Rus bank) + all UK/Fre planes in the map (if you don’t go for Taranto of course) + 3 Rus inf if you use the bid PUs for that instead of waiting for “Persian Corridor” and “The Northern Trace” NOs money. :-) I have 68% defense odds.
Just answering your question.
Can Belarus be held on T4 though? Germany can hit it with 6 infantry, 6 arty, 13 tanks, 15 mechs, 5 fighters, 5 tacs, and 2 bombers. That is also the min Germany can hit it with. If they see you stacking Belo so hard they can bring up to 27 inf, and 5 more art to East Poland that can hit Belarus.
Yes, Bel can be held. All the Ger stuff you mentioned incl. up to 27 inf vs. Rus units in Europe per set up + 15inf & 7mech new buy in T1-2 (=73PUs vs. 2*37 in Rus bank) + all UK/Fre planes in the map (if you don’t go for Taranto of course) + 3 Rus inf if you use the bid PUs for that instead of waiting for “Persian Corridor” and “The Northern Trace” NOs money. :-) I have 68% defense odds.
Just answering your question.
Me1945, two questions about that:
1. How would you get all the UK/French FTR in Belarus? Say GE attacks GE3 and Russia has only been at war with Japan before, the UK FTR cannot land in Russia early so they have only UK3 to rebase to Belarus from the closest area they can get to UK1 and UK2.
A quick summary of the possibilities I see:
Scotland is too far away.
Taking off from Norway can be done, but I don’t think the UK ‘can has it’ this early in the game ;-).
NW Persia is close enough, but the UK can only align it from UK2 and onwards, meaning their FTR cannot fly from there UK3.
Persia (Iraq/Cyprus) is the only possible option, I think: UK1 take it, UK2 land a lot of FTR there + build an AB on top of them, UK3 rebase to Belarus.
In seeing Persia/Iraq/Cyprus as the only option Am I overlooking something?
2. Do you think this is viable in the long term? And (if yes) why? Sorry this is actually 2 questions in one ;-). Considering the disadvantages pointed out below, I never even tried to do it, but I have been aware of the possibility. I know you were only answering ROC’s question and said nothing about viability so that’s why I ask you now.
The RAF would only be rebasing, doing not much else and the UK would need to build multiple ABs just to get their FTRs to Belarus safely. I am pretty sure Germany gets Belarus 1 or maybe 2 turns later anyway and if all that UK effort to get their RAF there means that Egypt falls (no RAF to defend it) and Italy becomes strong in the med/Africa (no RAF to contest it), I wonder if this would be worth it. Axis economic advantage could become pretty huge. I strongly believe in helping Russia with the RAF, but doing so in UK3 already instead of UK5/6 is an entire different story, since this looks like Italy will be left unchecked.
Unless I am mistaken, this Leningrad/Belarus stall tactic is only really for cases where Germany invades G1 or G2.
Good stuff. I like the idea of attacking Japan on turn 1.
I don’t like the idea of directing Germany south, as it gives them easier access to all those bonuses down there.
FYI some Updates
Scotland to Nenestia, or Archangel seems to be working quite well for me, especially later game, if/when you lose Leningrad. Just be cognizant of enemy air presence, and can/openers.
I like a complex in Persia, producing air, and/or British ground units for Russia.
I often evacuate planes from India before it/if collapses.
A stack of British planes, and even 1 or 2 UK mec or armor units can be a nasty blitz against Ukraine Factory, or other German Targets of opportunity. Russians open the door, and you hammer through with 1 mec + 7-11 planes, on whatever target is convenient.
Air blitzing with your stack of allied planes just on their own can also be effective, and relatively low cost.
- A stack of British planes, and even 1 or 2 UK mec or armor units can be a nasty blitz against Ukraine Factory, or other German Targets of opportunity. Russians open the door, and you hammer through with 1 mec + 7-11 planes, on whatever target is convenient.
This Russia can opening for UK later in the game is as good as Italy can opening for Germany earlier. What a sucker punch!
To ItIsILeClerc:
I am not suggesting a strategy and really just answering the question. My message behind that is crashing Russia is not an easy exercise. I truly believe Allies have enough resources, if planned, deployed/concentrated in a right time and place, at least to postpone the Moscow fall for a few turns keeping Germany income at 50+ PUs, open a second or even third front and finally force Ger to defense anywhere incl. East. If it cost me Egypt, I will give it up. Btw, in the proposed scenario G1 buy is Barbarossa dedicated, right? UK can afford IC in Egypt and AB in Gibraltar first turn.
Me1945, if G1 is all land, can UK afford to buy Egypt IC and AB Gibraltar on turn 1? I might do that if J1 DOW and heavy US1 atlantic buy, but otherwise I don’t see how that UK1 buy isn’t inviting an easy sealion=wasted Egypt IC… (Disclaimer: I’ve not played nearly as many games as you; I am just genuinely curious what your analysis is)
