I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.
The Bright Skies
-
Thanks! I have developed a 4 turn strategy, will post it soon. Even Rhinos can be tricked.
-
Leningrad: Not one step back!
This strategy assumes a German DOW2, but is well suited for earlier or later declarations of war.
Russia 1
Purchase: 3 Artillery, 6 Mechanized InfantryNon-Combat moves
3 Infantry from Vyborg move to Karelia
6 Infantry, 1 Artillery move from Novgorod to Karelia
3 Infantry from Baltic States move to Novgorod
1 Infantry from Belarus moves to Novgorod
1 Infantry from Archangel move to Novgorod
1 Tank, 1 Mech. Infantry from Russia move to Belarus
1 Infantry, 1 Artillery from Russia move to Smolensk
2 Infantry from Eastern Poland move to Belarus
2 Infantry from Bessarabia move to Western Ukraine
3 Infantry from Ukraine move to Western Ukraine
1 Mech. Infantry from Volgograd move to Bryansk
All Siberian infantry unite at BuryatiaBuilding Phase: 3 Mech. Infantry in Volgograd (for Iraq), 3 Artillery in Novgorod and 3 Mech. Infantry in Russia
Collect income: 38
The heavy reinforcement of Karelia is done in order to let Germany use the 7 Scandinavion infantry move defensive, ideally to keep them in Finland. This results into 7 less infantry that can attack Novgorod in G3. The strategy is based around taking over Scandinavia from Germany, while being able to respond quickly to opportunities or the ultimate defense of Moscow. In order to conquer Scandinavia two things need to be achieved: Leningrad must hold its ground and the Baltic fleet needs to be destroyed. This can all be done by luring Germany to the southern route to the oil.
Russia 2
Purchase: 3 Artillery, 6 Mech. InfantryIn case Germany has kept its infantry in Finland while moved its main stack to the Baltic States, retreat Karelia into Novgorod, together with the reinforcements from Belarus/Bryansk. You now have 2 AA, 18 Infantry, 2 Mech. Infantry, 7 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 Fighters defending Leningrad, against 16 Infantry, 3 Artillery, some Eastern tanks and Luftwaffe that was in place. This Leningrad can be reinforced by UK / French fighters that landed in Scotland UK1.
Keep buying Mech. Infantry and Artillery. There are several tactical possibilities Russia gets when its Infantry mass gets mechanized. From Russia it can reach Ukraine in a single turn. Massed Mech. Infantry in Novgorod can combo-attack a big German stack in Bryank together with Russia, strafing and retreating back into Moscow. It can put out an incredible counter-attack when mixed with well placed groups of Artillery. While I agree Russia needs to bulk up as much as possible, I think building mainly infantry limits Russia in its option to counter-attack. As soon Germany makes one mistake, Russia should be able to fully capitalize this. Also building infantry can not defend Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, while mech. infantry will be much better suited to relocate to strongpoints. Finally, mech. infantry can help out China faster later in the game when breathing space is created with Germany.
In R2 you liberate NW Persia with 1 Tank, 3 Mech. Infantry, 2 Infantry and attack Iraq the following turn. As soon Iraq is captured, 1 Tank and 1 Mech. Infantry go for the money hunt Italian countries such as Somaliland and Sicily/Sardinia.
In the meantime, USA buys the first three rounds Bombers, that are sent as soon as possible to London to take out the Baltic Fleet. As soon as the Baltic Fleet is destroyed, the Leningrad forces will start to advance. Even if Leningrad has fallen and Russia is unable to conquer Scandinavia, the UK can take Norway. The UK will build up its invasion fleet as soon is clear Germany will go for Russia, in the meantime it builds fighters / land troops. This will allow the UK to start doing amphibious attacks UK3/4 in Western Europe forcing Germany to spend forces to the Western front.
Combined UK and USA efforts will contain Italy without too much effort. The only way this can be prevented is heavy airlifting from Germany. This is good for Russia as it diverts German power away from Russia.
While going the southern route will provide a lot of money for Germany, its infantry needs a lot more time, 2 more turns, to get there instead of Leningrad. These 2 turns will provide to be crucial for Germany to become more divided, lose some of its Luftwaffe while its supply lines will be stretched deep into Russian territory. That time allows Russian to build up a counter-attack consisting of lots of Mech. Infantry and Artillery.
-
That is a valid point Afrikakorps. Thanks for the strategy input.
-
I have analyzed the board of Russia some more, another interesting find is that both Stalingrad and Leningrad can reinforce / attack each other within 2 turns out of reach of German counter-attacks by moving around Moscow.
I have divided Russia in several zones, based on steps from Moscow
Moscow = Zone 0
Moscow +1 = Zone 1
Moscow +2 = Zone 2
Moscow +3 = Zone 3
Zone SiberiaEspecially zone 2 is interesting, as it contains most of Russia. This means that in case of a mechanized infantry mass in Moscow, it can counter-attack most of its territory. Leningrad however is in Zone 3, and would be extremely difficult to retake once lost. On the contrary, from Leningrad both Moscow and Stalingrad can be fastly reinforced - counter-attacked. This made stronger in my view that Leningrad is worth most stacking.
This allows me to defend Russia on much more flanks, than Germany will be able to push with force, given his main advantage is the large infantry base it has. This will give me the advantage as Russia.
Important is to have artillery stacks on strategic positions, so in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. All of them should have 6 artillery, and getting them in place should be done in the first turns.
Starting from R4, I will start adding one tank per turn, as soon as I can become more aggressive I will add more tanks so blitzing becomes possible with medium armies.
-
I just realized the strategic strength of Bryansk again, with just the traditional Russian force of artillery and infantry this is very strong. With mechanized infantry instead of normal one you actually cover all of Russia and only need two stacks: Novgorod + Bryansk. The Bryansk stack can also include some basic infantry as it is able to retreat directly into Moscow.
-
USSR is rarely strong enough to do that.
If you try that, you might find that Germany simply walks past your Leningrad stack.
-
And that is an extremely valid point too. Germany can easily just move through the south and hit Moscow. Then you would be left with a situation where Russia might control Scan, and Germany just mops up the rest of Russia. With refinement, this strategy could work, but its difficult to stop a straight forward attack from Germany. Especially if they are implementing SBRs.
-
I just realized the strategic strength of Bryansk again, with just the traditional Russian force of artillery and infantry this is very strong. With mechanized infantry instead of normal one you actually cover all of Russia and only need two stacks: Novgorod + Bryansk. The Bryansk stack can also include some basic infantry as it is able to retreat directly into Moscow.
I am forming a theoretical framework that reduces the dynamics of the board into principles that guide the formation of strategies. I began writing an article on it, but I’m not sure when it will be finished. Here is an excerpt from what I’ve written that I think explains why your dual stack Russian defense isn’t a good idea.
"Still, to help focus the discussion, let us give words to these concepts:
The force principle: powers must have superior force to win engagements
The economy principle: powers must have superior resource production to obtain superior forceNotice that these principles balance each other - the focus of one is always the pursuit of the other. The Allies, with a superior economy, must try to obtain a force advantage, and the Axis, with superior force, must try to obtain an economic advantage. In the actual war, and in many previous iterations of Axis & Allies, the economy principle gave an advantage to the Allies because the Axis had to work to take territory while the Allies could bide their time and build up their force.
Now let us try to quantify this new, less intuitive principle that seems to give an edge to the Axis in the 1940 series of games:
The mobility principle: mobility allows powers to determine where engagements will occur
Mobility in the 1940 games, and especially in Global 1940 (which we will focus on from here forward), is the wild card. It trumps both economy and force. The choice of where to engage enables the power with superior mobility to select only those engagements where it will enjoy the greatest tactical advantage or those that will benefit it the most economically, meaning that mobility can translate either to force or economy."
The argument I make following these observations is that it’s better for the defending force to take two separate and equal positions that will almost, but not quite hold than one position that will definitely hold. One example of equal positions would be London and Moscow. You’d rather make Germany fight for whichever one he wants than pick one to save and let him walk in to the other. Another example would be over on the Pacific side. It’s better to push suicidal Allied stacks at Japan from all sides than to retreat and let him have territory.
The Russian dual stack defense is different, because they aren’t equal positions. Moscow is obviously more important. Defending less important territory will just make your opponent all the more eager to press for your capital.
-
Thank you for the great post, I see your concerns. However I think this all changes when I can unite those two stacks on the moment before the clash, while divide them before that clash. Mechanized infantry allows this when stationed in Bryansk and Novgorod. They can make a stand in either zone, or retreat into Moscow on time to not be isolated. All this while having the constant ability counter-attack. I believe using mechanized infantry for Russia might revolutionize its play.
Quote from Napoleon: “march divided, fight concentrated”. His ability to have his forces march / group seperately to confuse the enemy but then all unite his forces before battle and overpower his enemy led to many victories. Romans also excelled in this, being able to march Legions fast to crucial places.
Training your infantry to march twice as fast will allow you to become a new Napolean or Bismarck (remember 1870 war). We have that option as Russia for just 1IPC extra investment.
The Russian board allows excellent synergy and advantages for two moving units over single movers, by abusing this, we get some advantage as defender while Germany has be 100% sharp as one minor mistake will be punished by a counter-attack.
Again, it is important to see Russia as the big potential, as the Allied Germany, not as the big victim that will be raped by Germany. Yes it will still need Allied help, but I see lots of ways for Russia itself to do.
-
I got 10 bombers into Russia after Japan didn’t dow J2 and I dowed him to merge UK pac and china and russia and anzac into yunnan.
10 bombers plus a bunch of uk fighters from persia. kept Germany from taking Russia. I did the Iraq for Russia and ethiopia and that other spot for russia as well. The bury stack stayed next to korea didnt cross the line because of a manchuria minor ic. My opponent was relatively inexperienced.
Here are some issues. taking gibraltar back is a problem (but then again usa out of the war for so long means you can’t do diddly squat about it anyway. subs/dds only for pacific is great. hindsight I should get a carrier round 1 and do standard stuff. Only USA 2 if Japan doesn’t DOW is the bombers a great idea (especially if you plan to DOW on Japan to make the merger in yunnan happen).
So yeah. Another thing. J2 the burma stack is vulnerable so you need 3 anzac figs in java so in case burma stack gets body slammed by japan’s massive air you can be solid on India after. (usa malaya inf to take island next to java or whatever it is called so your burma stack is as beefy as you can make it).
~~
The yunnan stack, 50% chance of holding or better is good (hell even 25% is solid if the islands haven’t been taken, because that means he has no ground for islands). Japan being poor means usa’s 3 units a round quickly add up to being a threat so japan can’t split his fleet up. Also USA does have to go queensland to prevent japan from taking ANZAC.
-
I think ultimately as the Russian player, your job is to hold Moscow. It is difficult to do so with fewer defensive units by purchasing mechanized infantry. The movement of these units is outweighed by the defensive power of more infantry. Any German player would lick their chops if they saw anything other than full infantry purchases from Russia.
-
That is what we have to keep focusing on–if your opponent is Cow-lvl you will not be stacking Byransk, or any other territory. The Germans, without much more than a few SBs over start, can roll in behind the Italians, who have 3 planes and 5 mechs and armor. No blockers can hold which means that all your stacks have to be able to withstand the full might of the German advance, and if they can can-open through Belarus, they can destroy Byransk and if they can can open through Byransk they can hit Moscow instead of Smolensk.
This is a catch-22–you need all of the Russians bought and kept just to stack at all, but you cant stack where you can be hit or Moscow can be. So that’s a G5. If you can hold out until G6 in the face of the breakthroughs, that’s a win.
-
That’s a good point taamvan. To allow your army to be vulnerable to can openers, and to German columns is a death wish.
-
That is what we have to keep focusing on–if your opponent is Cow-lvl you will not be stacking Byransk, or any other territory. The Germans, without much more than a few SBs over start, can roll in behind the Italians, who have 3 planes and 5 mechs and armor. No blockers can hold which means that all your stacks have to be able to withstand the full might of the German advance, and if they can can-open through Belarus, they can destroy Byransk and if they can can open through Byransk they can hit Moscow instead of Smolensk.
This is a catch-22–you need all of the Russians bought and kept just to stack at all, but you cant stack where you can be hit or Moscow can be. So that’s a G5. If you can hold out until G6 in the face of the breakthroughs, that’s a win.
Ahhhh, now I see the problem… I have not been incorporating the Italian can-openers and therefore liability to keep the movement of Germany under control. Indeed with Italy Germany can sneak through anything.
Then the next question: is there a way to prevent this?
Against only Germany, I still think it can work and the less mechanized infantry can allow the defense of Russia while still able to hold off the Germans from Moscow, while the big Infantry stack is based on only Moscow.
In case I am wrong and Russia is indeed doomed to only infantry.
How often does Moscow fall in high level games where Germany guns for Russia?
-
When I play Global we record the game stats so that we can review the past. From a large sample size of the games that we have played, Germany takes Moscow about 4 out of 10 times. This is based on a few different factors. Of course you cannot control the outcome of dice, and the purchases of any given player for Germany or Russia.
-
Well, if the Germany and Italy players (BOTH!) are experts, then I don’t see a way to prevent, only prepare. I’m buying a few mechs and as many infantry as I can with Russia. Artillery would be awesome, because in theory, Germany may decline to stack next to you if he believes that you can do-or-die against his main spearhead. However, even if this opportunity comes up, it should be a strafe and retreat because you will typically need every single Russian guy to ensure the odds.
As to the defense of Moscow itself, on G5, (Game 164), I had 26 men, 2 mechs, 1 armor, 4 AAA, 7 artillery, 2 fighters, 1 tac, and a few other units. This was totally inadequate and in order to win I got lucky and hit 4/11 (1s) with the incoming AAA. So Moscow held, but not because of my play, it was luck. The Siberian troops are still 2 turns away from making the difference I believe.
People are talking outrageous numbers of planes and bombers and fighters reaching Moscow before 6, this blows a Russian bonus, it means you can’t use those planes to protect india or really do anything else. I’ve heard quotes of 14 fighters and 10 bombers, most real life games I’m getting to 5 and 2 but I’m not playing every team either…
-
That is a good point taamvan. I am in the middle of a current game (we usually play one game over the course of a week), where Germany decided not to attack Moscow, realizing that they were at a disadvantage and instead took the 15 NO bonuses in the surrounding territories. Russia, being restricted to mainly infantry has a difficult time moving around their territories to take them back from Germany. Germany has a total of 20 NO bonuses, resulting in nearly 80 IPCs per turn. The allies were able to place 8 fighters and 1 tact 1 bomber in defense of Moscow, which is why Germany turned away. That is the most allied fighters we have ever had land in defense of Moscow. Luckily for the allies, they were able to stave off Italy in Africa, and they took complete control of the Middle East and even the Balkans. This has resulted in a stoppage of growth for Germany, and now the game has become a game of attrition against the Axis.
The point here is that there is no sure fire way to defend Moscow 100% of the time. It has unfortunately been the staple of the Russian army to purchase nothing but infantry, and stack in Moscow, hoping for the best possible outcome. This is the battle that usually will decide the fate of the rest of the game. We can try other tactics with Russia, but should*** come to the consensus that has already been established, which is that the best way for the Russian player to defend himself is to infantry stack.
*** I use the word “should” here, because the AA community has played this game collectively for a very long time (from what I gather). We understand the basic principles of the numbers, and the strategic value of most units. The only way that we will see a different Russian strategy, is if we change the attack and defense values of units, which I just don’t see being a feasible outcome. I think the infantry stack strategy closely follow the true life nature of the Russian forces during WWII. The Germans clearly had superior technology, they just didn’t have the manpower to out muscle the mass of Russian infantry.
-
The whole point of getting 10 usa bombers is to quickly get them into Russia, this allows for early aggressive Russia play. I don’t recommend Iraq for Russia, I do it for fun once in awhile. 1 mech for somaliland / possibly ethiopia is all you need for additional income. The Iraq spot is good for another factory to pump out units for uk.
-
Germany decided not to attack Moscow, realizing that they were at a disadvantage and instead took the 15 NO bonuses in the surrounding territories. Russia, being restricted to mainly infantry has a difficult time moving around their territories to take them back from Germany. Germany has a total of 20 NO bonuses, resulting in nearly 80 IPCs per turn.
I think this would be the average result between two skilled players, meaning it would happen this way every time if luck weren’t a factor. This represents a tipping point in the game when we can begin to see the effects of all of the other little things that have been happening on the board and the game can begin to tilt in the Allies’ favor…or not.
With luck as a factor, you’ll have some games that deviate quite far from this “baseline”, but if you keep the baseline in mind you’ll have a better perspective on what is happening in this particular game and know where your strong and weak areas are.
If Germany and Italy go all in for Russia, you have to build a Russian super stack and bring in an air coalition to defend Moscow, but you get to have North Africa and the Med. If they contest those areas more, then you know you don’t have to be quite as defensive in Moscow, so you can either redeploy U.S./British resources, or you can make Russia more aggressive.
-
@Cow:
The whole point of getting 10 usa bombers is to quickly get them into Russia, this allows for early aggressive Russia play. I don’t recommend Iraq for Russia, I do it for fun once in awhile. 1 mech for somaliland / possibly ethiopia is all you need for additional income. The Iraq spot is good for another factory to pump out units for uk.
Exactely what is early aggressive Russia play in this situation? What do you buy and what do you attck typically? I see tons of limitations, such as “10 USA bombers are two round of USA buys that really does nothing” Well, they sit around in Moscow, you say you bomb ukraine/novogorod, fine but if germany put two fighters in each area you are not doing that. Then what are the bombers doing?
If you buy 10 bombers it is not like you have a USA navy sitting around in 110 either so I think the German fighters have other things to do than beeing in western europe. So I am cuirios on how this play boosts Russias possibilities
Suggested Topics
