@Cmdr:
Currently I’ve been leaning towards 1-3 tanks a round with Russia before going to war. Not saying it has been working for me, but it was the same mindset, I wanted to have retaliatory strike ability and tanks (unlike Artillery) can defend better than infantry.
Another idea I had, but have not used against humans before in 2nd edition, is a 4th aircraft for Russia. The idea is to give them attack punch while not committing their resources to counter attack (planes have to retreat.)
Jen - armor for Russia is nice, and if the German player is taking their time gearing up (like I do, typically G3 or G4), then adding some armor is worth the money. If playing that style, I like to add a mech at an even ratio, to create a mobile force that can do some damage without losing armor.
It also creates an interesting late game opportunity for mobility and spot attacks - if Russia decides to back off out of Moscow when the end is near, having mobile units can keep Russia a player for a long, long time. If all you’ve built is a giant monolith of infantry and artillery, your forces become entirely predictable. That’s no fun :cry:
As to a 4th Russian aircraft - again IMO it is best if going against someone who gears up slowly with Germany. I think of you see all navy from Germany on G1, it gives you the freedom to be a little more aggressive with Russia’s first purchase or two. Some people may disagree, but I prefer a 2nd tac to a 3rd fighter, despite the defensive shortcomings. My reasoning is this - I’m purchasing it for spot attacks, not to play defense behind a large stack of infantry. If you’re also buying a few armor with Russia, it matches up nicely with those as well. And, it’s still good on defense, unlike a bomber.
I am torn, generally I have played with the axis going for Sea Lion but again, this is mostly Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 we are talking about, I have scarce half a dozen 2nd edition games completed as the time of this writing, so feel free to riddle my arguments with holes, I won’t mind! lol.
However if Germany goes Sea Lion, (aka, 6-10 transports) then a 4th fighter or tanks for Russia just seems wise. Probably more so the tanks since you can use them to spear into the Balkan States for the NOs too. If Sea Lion is completely dead, then I know what strategy I am going to use for the rest of the year, cause no one will expect it and that’s how I win. :P
I have played without NO’s so far. Thoughts on Russia surviving better with them or without them???
@cb4:
I have played without NO’s so far. Thoughts on Russia surviving better with them or without them???
Well, until Russia actually starts taking German territory, they only get the Archangel NO and that gets lost if the Axis have a warship in SZ 125 OR if there are other Allied units in Russian territories. So I don’t think it really hurts Russia to play without NOs.
In most of our games, once Russia is able to collect the 3 IPCs per territory for taking Axis territories, at least other than Finland and Norway, it usually means Germany is losing anyway. That extra 3 IPCs per Territory tends to simply help Russia overwhelm Germany a little quicker than they would otherwise.
I’d be in favor of changing the Russian NOs to something more historic anyway - not that Larry ever agreed with me.
Russian NO 1: SZ 125/Arkhangelsk - 5 IPC - Lend Lease
Russian NO 2: Leningrad - 5 IPC - retainership of Russias only real European style city, a major port for Russia and Russian pride
Russian NO 3: Stalingrad - 5 IPC - maintenance of industrial capacity, Named after leader of Russia (Russian Pride)
Russian NO 4: Finland + Norway - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
Russian NO 5: Poland + East Poland + Baltic States - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
game effects? who’s going to try and tell me that Russia does not need 10 IPC it can count on for the first few rounds of the game just to keep Germany from taking Moscow in the first 5-9 rounds? I’d say with the changes limit it so that American, British, French and Anzac forces cannot enter any red territory or Russian controlled territory unless Stalingrad OR Leningrad OR Moscow are controlled by the Axis.
Makes sense Jen. I like it.
Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!
@Cmdr:
I’d be in favor of changing the Russian NOs to something more historic anyway - not that Larry ever agreed with me.
Russian NO 1: SZ 125/Arkhangelsk - 5 IPC - Lend Lease
Russian NO 2: Leningrad - 5 IPC - retainership of Russias only real European style city, a major port for Russia and Russian pride
Russian NO 3: Stalingrad - 5 IPC - maintenance of industrial capacity, Named after leader of Russia (Russian Pride)
Russian NO 4: Finland + Norway - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
Russian NO 5: Poland + East Poland + Baltic States - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nationsgame effects? who’s going to try and tell me that Russia does not need 10 IPC it can count on for the first few rounds of the game just to keep Germany from taking Moscow in the first 5-9 rounds? I’d say with the changes limit it so that American, British, French and Anzac forces cannot enter any red territory or Russian controlled territory unless Stalingrad OR Leningrad OR Moscow are controlled by the Axis.
i like these NO’s quite a lot!
@Cmdr:
I’d be in favor of changing the Russian NOs to something more historic anyway - not that Larry ever agreed with me.
Russian NO 1: SZ 125/Arkhangelsk - 5 IPC - Lend Lease
Russian NO 2: Leningrad - 5 IPC - retainership of Russias only real European style city, a major port for Russia and Russian pride
Russian NO 3: Stalingrad - 5 IPC - maintenance of industrial capacity, Named after leader of Russia (Russian Pride)
Russian NO 4: Finland + Norway - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nations
Russian NO 5: Poland + East Poland + Baltic States - 5 IPC (has to be owned by Russia, not an allied nation!) - conquering of historical enemy nationsgame effects? who’s going to try and tell me that Russia does not need 10 IPC it can count on for the first few rounds of the game just to keep Germany from taking Moscow in the first 5-9 rounds? I’d say with the changes limit it so that American, British, French and Anzac forces cannot enter any red territory or Russian controlled territory unless Stalingrad OR Leningrad OR Moscow are controlled by the Axis.
Some very good ideas here and as you said, more historically accurate. I assume all of these are only in play once Russia is at war in Europe (not Japan).
At the very least, they would collect on the Stalingrad NO for several rounds, that’s assuming Germany is very aggressive and takes Leningrad quickly after declaring war on Russia and blocks the Archangel/SZ 125 NO.
One thing about the No Allies in any Russian territory. Is that just for the Russian NOs? OR is it No Allies forces in Russian territories period unless one of the Russian cities is taken by the Axis? Like a new game rule. If it’s the latter, that kind of leaves Russia all alone, doesn’t it? I know that they were more stand-offish during the real war but I thought the point in this game was for the Allies to work together.
Of course, in almost all of our games, Russia kind of works alone and rarely do Russian and Allied units share territories. However it has happened. Like the US or UK lands tanks on Norway then get their transports blown out of the water so they rumble their way through Finland, Karelia, Leningrad and Baltic States to hit the Germans from the east. While that doesn’t often happen, it would be kind of a pain in the butt when the situation does arise and it simply wasn’t allowed.
There have been some games where US forces liberate the far eastern Soviet territories from Japan while Russia is busy with Germany. That wouldn’t be allowed either if the Axis didn’t control one of the Russian cities?
Also, what if Germany controlled Leningrad while some US tanks were taking some of those far eastern Soviet territories from the Japanese (Yakut, Yenisey, etc.). Then the Soviets launch an attack and liberate Leningrad from Germany. What happens with those US tanks in central Russia? Do they have to move down to China or Mongolia? What if there are more Japanese controlled but unoccupied Soviet territories? Just have to leave them until the Soviets can send someone to liberate them?
I was thinking the Russians would either collect their NOs or have Allied units help defend them, but not both. I seem to recall that being a rule in some Axis and Allies game of the past, maybe an “enhanced” rule, but it seemed to work out great! That way, Russia got help it needed but it didn’t get too much help (the idea is to give the axis a chance to win, right?)
Also yes, I would say no Russian NOs until they are at war with Germany. Not if they are at war with Italy or Japan. (although that’s really only 1 or 2 rounds in the case of being at war with Italy and not Germany I suspect.)
BTW yes, if Russia controls Poland and there’s a British fighter there providing air cover, then Russia does not collect any of their NOs, as Poland is now a “red” territory. However, if there are Russian fighters in British controlled S. France (I dunno, you name another Russian unit that can get there - like ever - before Germany’s dead or mostly dead, okay?) then Russia can still collect their NOs. Russian pride would be bolstered by the British and Americans begging for Russian help, not harmed by needing British and/or American help defending their land.
I mean, that’s just how I saw it, feel free to make adjustments or improvements (or unimprovements if you feel those are needed) that you see. Just because the Delta rules project died because of a certain someone who shant be named, does not mean I am not trying to make my OWN delta rules, even if only for personal use. lol.
Okay, so the Allied units in Russian territories affects the Russian NOs, not overall game play. So, like in my example of US tanks liberating far eastern Soviet territories, once Russia has all 3 of it’s cities back, the US tanks simply have to high tail it out of there before Russia can collect any of it’s NOs .
Another hypothetical: If Germany manages to capture Leningrad and hold it, yet Russia manages to get Baltic States, E Poland and Poland, can Russia still collect on that NO, or the Stalingrad and Archangel NOs as well?
Can Allied units be on Russian soil AND Russia still collect on the Stalingrad, Poland and Archangel NOs if Leningrad is still in Axis hands?
I buy a fighter every 1st round for Russia no matter what. Anyway you look at it it’s worth it. I use my planes often to send 1 inf and take a territory for which the germans have only left one inf on. I usually win without a loss, meaning I killed 3IPC and gain whatever IPC the territory was worth and don’t overcommit forces to capture that territory. I usually buy a fighter, as it defends against SBR also.
IMHO, take this as you will, I would be willing to trade a German Strategic Bomber for a Russian Fighter so I am not sure how much that SBR defense is helping you. Guess it’s better than just letting Germany HAVE the Bomber as well, but still.
I would always risk the fighter for the bomber because russia needs to be able to build things.
I didn’t say not to intercept, I am just saying that as Germany, IN MY OPINION, it is an even better trade to lose the bomber to kill a Russian fighter even if you don’t get to hit the complex.
Strategic Bomber: 12 IPC
German Economy: 46-19,000,780 IPC (let’s assume Sweden and Europe at least, so at least 46 IPC, maybe as high as 50 or 60 or more.)
Russian Fighter: 10 IPC
Russian Economy: 30 (assuming they lose anything territory wise and don’t have their NOs.)
12/46 = 26%
10/30 = 33% (I rounded both down, rounded down MORE for Russia)
IPC loss: 10 - 12 = -2 IPC for Germany (less than the cost of an infantryman)
Then you have the SBR ability which nets like what, 3.5 dmg on average with average loss of 2 IPC?
So for Germany, it’s a statistical wash, or so I am reading it (and yes I did not do a mathematical PROOF, deal with it FFS! Sorry, but I know someone is going to come and b!tch’n’moan that my stats are off and I don’t really care, this is all my opinion and the way I read the data, you don’t have to agree with it!)
However, for Russia it’s devastating. 33% losses + 2-4 dmg to the complex + they have to still figure out how to build. Germany can build all day long with all their complexes bombed to the ground EXCEPT either W. Germany OR Germany. Russia’s pretty much limited to Moscow for any significant builds.
I find alot of people turtle too often with the Russia defense.
I believe the secret lies in the ability/threat of Russian counterattacks.
Separating German ground units from their air force is a major key.
That is to say, do not expose your medium stacks to german attacks that will overwhelm them, but be prepared to counter attack moves of german stacks that are pushing towards the front.
Focusing on Russian income and NO’s is also critically important. Make a small task force of 3 or 4 units, to liberate Persia, and attack Iraq. Iraq is worth 5 to russia. Then continue to work your way into africa, and get one or two italian territories. Again boosting your economy.
And don’t be afraid to take some risks!
I agree with Gargantua’s statement 100%… The key is to retreat and protect what you can while always looking to land a solid punch. Russia will never knock out Germany, but a well placed jab could cause a bloody nose and a slowed advance. Without at least one gutsy counter attack to stall them… Moscow will quickly fold with little difficulty.
Jenn,
I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.
Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.
Kim
Jenn,
I like the thought process on the NO’s, though it might be too many for the Russians. Stalingrad for sure makes sense, maybe Lennigrad. I would definitely change the current 3+ IPC’s the Russians can get for taking places like Ethiopia! Heck the Russians getting an NO for Yugolavia makes more sense.
Just an extra +5 for Stalingrad alone each turn at war (with Germany) might be enough to eliminate bids for the Allies, which I would like.
Kim
We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.
We house ruled the Russian NOs to ONLY include territories within continental Europe and Scandanavia and Turkey. No African territories, No Iraq and No Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). However, they can get the NOs for territories that were originally Pro-Allied or Strict neutral IF the Axis occupied them first.
So, Disallowed are Italian Somaliland, Ethiopia, Tobruk, Libya, Iraq, Crete, Sicily and Sardinia.
Now Allowed are Sweeden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal if they wrestle them from Germany or Italy. Plus of course all German and Italian original territories and Pro-Axis neutrals in Europe. We just thought the idea of Russian units in Africa or the Med was silly and ahistorical.
Much Better!
Kim
@Cmdr:
I didn’t say not to intercept, I am just saying that as Germany, IN MY OPINION, it is an even better trade to lose the bomber to kill a Russian fighter even if you don’t get to hit the complex.
I agree and, as Cmdr Jennifer pointed out, the numbers also work against Russia.
@Young:
I find alot of people turtle too often with the Russia defense.
I believe the secret lies in the ability/threat of Russian counterattacks.
Separating German ground units from their air force is a major key.
That is to say, do not expose your medium stacks to german attacks that will overwhelm them, but be prepared to counter attack moves of german stacks that are pushing towards the front.
Focusing on Russian income and NO’s is also critically important.� Make a small task force of 3 or 4 units, to liberate Persia, and attack Iraq.� Iraq is worth 5 to russia.� Then continue to work your way into africa, and get one or two italian territories.� Again boosting your economy.
And don’t be afraid to take some risks!
I agree with Gargantua’s statement 100%… The key is to retreat and protect what you can while always looking to land a solid punch. Russia will never knock out Germany, but a well placed jab could cause a bloody nose and a slowed advance. Without at least one gutsy counter attack to stall them… Moscow will quickly fold with little difficulty.
Seems like this is pretty much the best that Russia can do. Except following Stalingradski’s advice by preparing for their demise. Having some tanks and mechs remaining after Moscow falls creates a couple of options:
a possible counterattack on Moscow, or
a “late game opportunity for mobility and spot attacks” –Stalingradski
I didn’t see a response that directly addressed the yes NO’s vs. no NO’s helping/hurting Russia. Consensus from other posts and my “balanced game” poll is that NO’s (and a bid) should be played to balance out the entire board. But, at the risk of being somewhat myopic (to get the hypothetical question answered), if the scope is just Germany and Russia, will NO’s help one power more than the other?
