Garg's Notes: Russian Defence Doctrine

[Nippon-koku]

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.

[Gargantua]

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.

[variance]

@Gargantua:

• 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!

[Me1945]

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.

[TheMethuselah]

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)

[ItIsILeClerc]

Hehheh, no worries Me, I understand and understood you were not suggesting a strategy ^^. I’d like to use Methuselah’s disclaimer as well ;-)

I wholeheartedly agree that crashing Russia isn’t easy and that the allies have enough resources to postpone the fall of Moscow and force Germany to the defense.
I was just hoping you had any positive experience to share about sending (almost) all of the RAF into Belarus UK3 because so far I have never had ‘the guts’ to try it, mainly because I too am very quickly to consider surrender if I lost Egypt. If there is a certainty that I will retake it very shortly after again I will fight on, otherwise I think it is a lost cause. Unless Germany did Sea Lion, which is a complete different story.

Garg’s notes obviously are for (an at least strong enough) barbarossa, but I’m not sure this automatically means a dedicated G1 buy. G1 could buy nothing or it could be a feighn (both for Barbarossa AND Sea Lion) and they can still do a successful Barbarossa. But by that I do not mean Adolf can grab Moscow. Birdcage Russia and holf off Russian couterattacks seems good enough for a barbarossa to be ‘successful’.

In my opinion, if Russia + UK are reduced to earning ~50IPCs while Germany + Italy make about twice that per turn I can live with not taking Moscow. Especially because the USA is forced to spend all of its income in the Pacific (from turn 6 anyway) to prevent Japan from taking Hawaii.

[Black_Elk]

Do you think its accurate to say that the best Russian defense doctrine for G40 at the outset is heavy UK/USA aircraft buys?  :-D

Early on I see basically UK fighters and tacBs, with USA strategic bombers for rush defense. Later followed by USA fighters and tacs positioned off carriers and UK Airbases such that they can springboard to the center (e.g. Soviet territories).

Stacking Red land with Western Air for defense using the potential to hit targets with light fodder on the blitz and a ton of Western air to support, is probably the best thing the Allies have going for them on the eastern front. I wish it was a bit easier to support the red air force directly, instead of just with a steady stream western air.

Anyone else see strategic bombers used for rush defense? Kind of strange to see the unit used this way, buts its hard to argue with, given that they hit at a 4 against naval targets of opportunity, can strat bomb if there are none, and can launch 7 spaces out of an AB, to put “fodder” units hitting at 1s on a key defense (either at London, Cairo, or in Russia etc.) What’s more, they are the single most effective mass force that USA can have at the center with anything like the speed to enter play in the 3rd/4th round. Can be used to cover India, the Med, Russian positions on the eastern front. I struggle to see how its worth buying much else, for the first few rounds anyway. USA needs max reach, even if the units are just being used to drop the odds of German attacks on key territories by adding a fodder stack, or by making somewhat risky (naked) attacks themselves, or by conducting bombing runs. Even if they die, the cost is still relatively cheap to get units into the fight immediately, considering how much money it costs to do much of anything else, when that requires a fairly large and costly investment in ships.

Since Russia has no control over when they get to start fighting Germany, it seems like the best thing you can do is brace for grueling ground slog with Russians, and buy a ton of bombers with USA in the first round, in case you need to rush them to defend it. And they can be directed to either theater in fairly short order, depending on how Axis play the second round.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I’m not sure it is the best. But it’s worth consideration ;-).
IMHO, producing a lot of air may be a necessity for the UK, depending on the axis plan (so I think it’s often the best thing here) but not so much for the USA.

From recent experience with the USA (in short):
consider the allies having a total of ~15 fully loaded TRS at Gibraltar round 4. The Axis, aiming to prevent disaster in Western Europe/Scandinavia needed to keep a whopping ~100 land units + Luftwaffe for protection there. So a LOT of axis units were NOT active in Russia and that’s a GOOD thing.

Russia was still birdcaged however, even with this maxed out invasion force that the Axis had to protect from. Though Moscow itself was as safe as can be, Russia was in no position to make counterattacks either. Unfortunately the game was not played out because me and my opponent agreed on a draw on turn 10, as we both didn’t want a >20turn game.

So, hard to say how this would have been played out.
Given the above, I don’t think it is the best thing to do what the allies did in this game but I think it goes a long way. Perhaps the best thing to do with the USA is a combination of going air (bomber) AND transport. Or buying a handful of submarines instead of some bombers to convoy Italy…

[Black_Elk]

Well here’s the way I look it… Assuming a J1 DoW (fairly likely if the Axis player is going for the jugular) then a USA max bomber buy, is basically the only purchase that can forestall Sea Lion, or at least push it out another round (since bombers are 1 move E.US to London). But even if J2 DoW, the bombers can still be launched with a massive stack attack hitting on a 4, with the magnified build (e.g. almost all money dedicated to this one unit type) and as much fodder to launch on a key defense if necessary. And since Russia’s defense seems to be linked so integrally to UK fighter support, I don’t see why anyone would pursue a “Russian” defense strategy that allows any chance for London to be captured.

The cheapest fully stacked transport combo cost 13 ipcs (2 inf), the strategic bomber costs 12 ipcs. Transports take 2 rounds to put into position on London and require a defensive fleet to escort them. Several more rounds to drop anywhere to support Russia directly. The USA Bomber armada takes one move to London and then one move into the Med or to anywhere on the eastern front that they might be needed for critical defense once G DoW. The transports can’t threaten warships or bomb factories/bases while they move out, whereas the strategic bombers can. So for me, its hard to see the argument for buying anything but Strategic bombers with USA in the first round.

How does this relate to Russian defense doctrine? Because the Russians have no control over when they get to join the fight in Europe. The UK has no way to control what the Germans might build/do in their opening round. So in either case, you can’t really depend on those too nations being able to do anything specific. Japan has a much stronger incentive to DoW early though, which means that USA can potentially swing the outcome on the Eastern Front, if they are ready from the first round with a bomber armada that can reach Russia within 2 rounds.

If you prevent the Sea Lion option altogether or make it prohibitively expensive on G, then you force a redirection on the eastern front, where at least you will know what to expect coming at Moscow. If Sea Lion, then the game is likely a gamble regardless, Germany throwing caution to the wind haha, but if G crushes East on the Center (most likely Axis plan anyway), then Allied control of the Center is basically a game of speed.

Bombers have the most reach, which means they are the ‘fastest’ US unit on the board, the first that can get to the Center, even if just being used as fodder pips hitting at a 1.

Everything else you might do with them seems to be supporting Russia indirectly, by pressuring G/I (via the Med crush for example), but even there, a Bomber armada can make any transports that are on the board more powerful by a pretty substantial order of magnitude. Bombers give you the quick option to redirect as well, and actually defend a key territory if necessary. Whether London or Egypt or on the Eastern Front to secure the Russian lines, and they can get there, basically as soon as USA is at war.

So for me the Russian defense doctrine is basically, “step one: buy a bunch of bombers with USA! step two: Things that Russia should do…” haha ;)

[ItIsILeClerc]

@ShadowHAwk:

@ItIsILeClerc:

I’m not sure it is the best. But it’s worth consideration ;-).
IMHO, producing a lot of air may be a necessity for the UK, depending on the axis plan (so I think it’s often the best thing here) but not so much for the USA.

From recent experience with the USA (in short):
consider the allies having a total of ~15 fully loaded TRS at Gibraltar round 4. The Axis, aiming to prevent disaster in Western Europe/Scandinavia needed to keep a whopping ~100 land units + Luftwaffe for protection there. So a LOT of axis units were NOT active in Russia and that’s a GOOD thing.

Russia was still birdcaged however, even with this maxed out invasion force that the Axis had to protect from. Though Moscow itself was as safe as can be, Russia was in no position to make counterattacks either. Unfortunately the game was not played out because me and my opponent agreed on a draw on turn 10, as we both didn’t want a >20turn game.

So, hard to say how this would have been played out.
Given the above, I don’t think it is the best thing to do what the allies did in this game but I think it goes a long way. Perhaps the best thing to do with the USA is a combination of going air (bomber) AND transport. Or buying a handful of submarines instead of some bombers to convoy Italy…

But you could verry easy determine the winner there, Total axis income and Total allies income, the side with most income will eventualy win the game. If the game is a stalemate that is.

Not necessarily, because there are also other things to consider:
1. TUV of both sides already on the board;
2. Where the units already on the board are positioned. In short, can the economic superior side maintain this superiority, or are they going loose it because they cannot hold on to what they have?

Easy example that often occurs without people noticing it works this way:
In the late game the Axis are often in the economic lead. Against a strong and methodical axis player, there is not much the allies can do about it. So, Germany + Italy can hold @ Belarus if they stack it with all the available luftwaffe, but this will cost them Caucasus, Stalingrad, Scandianavia + [Leningrad OR Western Europe, whichever the USA chooses to Liberate] and Russia would be able to break out eastwards, driving Japan Back.
But, as an alternative, Germany can choose to keep its Luftwaffe positioned to prevent any allied invasions. If that is the case, then the axis army cannot hold Bryansk and has to give ground to Russia. Red Army will now chase the axis ‘back to [wherever they choose to go]’, which will also cause a major economic shift.

Apart from that, the magnitude of the initial economic advantage is also a factor ofc…
Bottom line is that I don not often find it easy to determine a winner solely on economic advatge of one side.

[cyanight]

@Black_Elk:

Well here’s the way I look it… Assuming a J1 DoW (fairly likely if the Axis player is going for the jugular) then a USA max bomber buy, is basically the only purchase that can forestall Sea Lion, or at least push it out another round (since bombers are 1 move E.US to London). But even if J2 DoW, the bombers can still be launched with a massive stack attack hitting on a 4, with the magnified build (e.g. almost all money dedicated to this one unit type) and as much fodder to launch on a key defense if necessary. And since Russia’s defense seems to be linked so integrally to UK fighter support, I don’t see why anyone would pursue a “Russian” defense strategy that allows any chance for London to be captured.

The cheapest fully stacked transport combo cost 13 ipcs (2 inf), the strategic bomber costs 12 ipcs. Transports take 2 rounds to put into position on London and require a defensive fleet to escort them. Several more rounds to drop anywhere to support Russia directly. The USA Bomber armada takes one move to London and then one move into the Med or to anywhere on the eastern front that they might be needed for critical defense once G DoW. The transports can’t threaten warships or bomb factories/bases while they move out, whereas the strategic bombers can. So for me, its hard to see the argument for buying anything but Strategic bombers with USA in the first round.

How does this relate to Russian defense doctrine? Because the Russians have no control over when they get to join the fight in Europe. The UK has no way to control what the Germans might build/do in their opening round. So in either case, you can’t really depend on those too nations being able to do anything specific. Japan has a much stronger incentive to DoW early though, which means that USA can potentially swing the outcome on the Eastern Front, if they are ready from the first round with a bomber armada that can reach Russia within 2 rounds.

If you prevent the Sea Lion option altogether or make it prohibitively expensive on G, then you force a redirection on the eastern front, where at least you will know what to expect coming at Moscow. If Sea Lion, then the game is likely a gamble regardless, Germany throwing caution to the wind haha, but if G crushes East on the Center (most likely Axis plan anyway), then Allied control of the Center is basically a game of speed.

Bombers have the most reach, which means they are the ‘fastest’ US unit on the board, the first that can get to the Center, even if just being used as fodder pips hitting at a 1.

Everything else you might do with them seems to be supporting Russia indirectly, by pressuring G/I (via the Med crush for example), but even there, a Bomber armada can make any transports that are on the board more powerful by a pretty substantial order of magnitude. Bombers give you the quick option to redirect as well, and actually defend a key territory if necessary. Whether London or Egypt or on the Eastern Front to secure the Russian lines, and they can get there, basically as soon as USA is at war.

So for me the Russian defense doctrine is basically, “step one: buy a bunch of bombers with USA! step two: Things that Russia should do…” haha ;)

Interesting… So you would rather buy 4 bombers on round 1 instead of building an Atlantic fleet?  If Japan DOW on round 1 your going to need at least 1 DD to protect that CA and TT that start in Eastern U.S.  Without building a fleet UK has a very slim chance of keeping any ships in the water especially in the Mediterranean where warships negate Italy’s NO.  You will eventually have to build that eastern fleet and I believe the longer you wait the better it helps the Axis.

The solution to stopping Sealion is to build 6 inf and a fighter round 1 with UK and keeping at least 1 UK fighter for a total of 3(including the French) in London.  If Germany bombs UK for 20 which is hard to do unless they bought 2 bombers round 1 then UK can still build 4 inf next round.  Germany might be able to take London but at this point its going to be a pyrrhic victory.  Also Russia no longer needs any help in fact they will be celebrating in the streets because they have the unit advantage over Germany.  Once Russia gets a few axis territories and wipes out the Scandinavian countries its economy is going to be higher than Germany.  Its very difficult to pull off a Sealion and win.  The only time it is worth it is if USA goes hog wild on Japan and builds near nothing in the Atlantic as well as UK buying a complex and failing to reinforce their capitol on round 1.

Its an interesting idea but I don’t think it prevents a Sealion.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Elk is assuming a J1DOW, which IMHO excludes a SL completely, since the USA can then even reinforce London before Germany can attack it.

With a bunch of US STR for ‘the center’, I’d be more worried about Germany having a LOT more units active in Russia (much more than the extra ~15 American STR can defend against), since there will be no meaningful invasion threat. Also, with no permanent allied foothold in Western Europe, not all German (or Italian for that matter) ICs can be raided so axis production doesn’t suffer enough (if at all) to deny Germany those extra units against Russia in the first place. I remember in my last game Germany had produced >100 units to deny the allies Western Europe and without a large D-Day threat, the bigger part of those 100 can march into Russia…

Apart from that, the limited economic damage raiding could cause the axis is IMHO outweighed by the high cost (of lost STR) it places on the allies:
There is no urge for Germany to produce for (a threat of) a second front so there is no need to repair a damaged IC in West Germany, Berlin cannot be raided (out of reach) and there’s six minor IC’s Germany can also produce from.
Even if all other ICs, apart from Berlin, are raided, the economic damage to Germany would be max 12IPCs, provided Germany builds 16 units (1 extra economic dagame for each unit produced at a maxed out IC). Raiding this many ICs is going to cost the USA 3 STR initially and ~1 per turn after that, resuting in >>12IPCs damage per turn for the USA.

So I think I can say I fail to see how a buch of STR can help Russia better than the same amount of fully loaded TRS (assuming adequate naval escorts are built anyway because the Uk would need them), even if this force cannot invade anywhere because of Axis reserves than can counterattack.
I can see how a combination would work though, but if Germany can so easily deny the allies a permanent foothold in Western Europe, I’m beginning to think raiding Germany has only a very limited use after all. Not being able to go after Berlin is a serious blow to any bombing campaign.

IMHO, a bigger/more serious allied invasion threat is the most helpful thing the Western Allies can do for Russia, apart from sending FTR to Moscow when needed, because this results in the fewest possible axis units active in Russia. Just my two cents.

[cyanight]

Actually Sealion works better on a J1 because sometimes your opponent goes 100% pacific which leaves the Atlantic defenseless.  This coupled with a poor defense in London is inviting a Sealion.

Two things I look for before doing a Sealion.

• London has less than 10 inf and 2 fighters in London not including French.

• USA no fleet in the Atlantic or is NOT at war on round 1

Still its a huge risk because you must take London without losing your planes and tanks.  You must build a CV + DD to protect those TTs and hopefully you can get those tanks back before USA arrives.

[ghr2]

@cyanight:

Actually Sealion works better on a J1 because sometimes your opponent goes 100% pacific which leaves the Atlantic defenseless.  This coupled with a poor defense in London is inviting a Sealion.

Two things I look for before doing a Sealion.

• London has less than 10 inf and 2 fighters in London not including French.

• USA no fleet in the Atlantic or is NOT at war on round 1

Still its a huge risk because you must take London without losing your planes and tanks.  You must build a CV + DD to protect those TTs and hopefully you can get those tanks back before USA arrives.

America just needs to send a few planes and a transport in to make sealion too rough for germany.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I was thinking the same. USA has 1 FTR + 1 STR in range already and the TRS with load can make it as well if need be. As does the CA as a possible blocker.

US1 produces 4 STR and London has an extra FTR, 5STR, 1INF, 1ARM for defense. And that’s with the USA spent ‘only’ 48 IPCs in Europe. All options are still open after that :).

[Black_Elk]

Interesting… So you would rather buy 4 bombers on round 1 instead of building an Atlantic fleet?

Basically :-D

Though 4 might be overkill, but an investment of 24 ipcs puts 2 additional pips on London, 36 puts 3 additional. And they can still springboard out after for pretty crushing attacks. Now at first glance that might not seem the best bargain you’ve ever heard of, but when you consider what a pain it is cover London early, and how even a few extra pips can free up British units in the process, its starts to make a lot more sense to me. Usually what I see is a bomber combo, where USA spends roughly half to 2/3rds of their income on bombers, and the rest on creeper builds.

So for example, if you go with 36 in strat bombers, that leaves you with 16 in change for fleet prep.

Then in the second round, you have the option, either to drop ships for a safer move out of the atlantic fleet, or to magnify the strat bomber threat even further. With the 3 bomber buy on USA1 (36 ipcs) its then possible on USA2 to have a a pretty massive bomber armada, depending on how much you invest in the second round. This can really pin down any Axis ship movements, and make it much harder for them to move what naval vessels they still have afloat, or might risk building. The investment is pretty cheap even on defense, for what you get on the movement advantage. If you drop down to just a pair of strat bombers, you can still get 3 total pips onto a territory defense (including the bomber you already have in central.) And that leaves a fairly decent chunk of change left over for other things. I feel like buy bombers with USA is putting the Axis admiralty on notice, clearing the way for a stronger ship drop in subsequent rounds. Bombers make any expeditionary force that is trying to threaten invasions that much more potent. I see them as being very useful in support of an Atlantic crossing, which is inevitable, if Allies want to get anything serious done in Europe. Basically they are bolstering any amphibious attacks Allies that the allies can put into position. And again, they are can do this and still be in range of Russia, which is a nice perk.

I don’t generally use the bombers to bomb, I still feel they are better in a combat role and too expensive to risk, but the option is on the table for those you like to take a gamble occasionally. ;)

[cyanight]

ghr2 - Those are definitely helpful. The fighter will take 2 turns to make it but it can and the Bomber can make it on turn 1.  I have on a few games risked a sub against USA’s Cruiser off the coast.  Its a lucky move but if it works it helps reinforce Sealion.  Not that bad of a risk for 1 sub.  Also unless the remaining UK DDs clean up the Atlantic its easy to use a leftover sub to attack or prevent the transport from unloading.  But the two planes plus any bombers you buy round 1 are definitely able to make it.

[Young Grasshopper]

Needed to bump this for my Russia strategy video.