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
-
If Russia moved all of the units that you are stating here, Germany would merely need to continue moving past Novgorod right on to Moscow, which will draw Russia to either move our of Novgorod in defense or to attack the German units. Which is a win win for Germany because their other infantry and units from Greater Southern and the tanks and mechs from the Paris attack would be right behind. They would easily move into Novgorod and crush whatever Russian forces were left. It is a lose lose for Russia.
-
Good to have at least convinced you Russia can hold Leningrad G3.
34 infantry, 12 artillery, 1 tank, 2 fighters and 1 tactical against 16 infantry, 3 artillery and some tanks when Germany decides to push into Belarus. Will this not be a massacre in favour of Russia, enough to withstand the tanks from Paris + new builds?
Yes forces from the south can reinforce north, but again, this takes extra time. I count on Germany to go for the open Russian south instead, this is where his money is.
Another trick awaits him, as the Bryansk stack will retreat to Moscow, and as soon he enters Bryansk, the mobile Leningrad forces will combo-attack or strafe.
You guys also seem to forget that Russia income diminishes veruly fast when you just build infantry and defend Moscow. The more aggressive you play as Russia, the more Germany needs to watch its steps, has to slow down etc. and this allows you to get as many troops in Russia as you would you let Russia be raped besides Moscow.
As you concede as Russia that Moscow is your last hope, Germany has won the battle of Russia. Yes he might not have taken the capital but you are in no position to start a counter-attack. At the very least Russia needs a healthy amount of artillery.
About the economic aspect of Russia, I made calculations much income you might have with defensive play (just Infantry in Moscow) and my strategy (Hold leningrad, build counter-attacks).
R1: 37
R2: 34+5 (125)
R3: 27+5 (125)
R4: 22
R5: 16R1: 37
R2: 35+5 (S125)
R3: 30+10 (Iraq)
R4: 27+15 (Finland)
R5: 22+28 (Africa, Norway)In R7 Russia will get another 6 IPC bonus from Sicily and Sardinia.
In short: an pro-active Russia pays, and will make more than up for the difference of numbers between spending 4 IPC per unit (art and mech) than solely infantry.
Assuming Russia holds Leningrad and survive Iraq with 1 tank + 1 mech that take Somaliland + Libya in R5.
When you lose Novgorod, you lose Archangel next turn, and so your bonus. Germany taking Novgorod gets +7. Holding Novgorod is an important IPC swing for the Allies, especially when it results into an Allied scandinavia several turns later.
-
How did you double the infantry from your previous calculations?
-
How did you double the infantry from your previous calculations?
I added the 7 infantry from Bryansk that can also attack + the 7 mechanized infantry I build in Russia R2, as it can also attack.
34 infantry
Novgorod: 18 inf, 2 mech
Bryansk: 7 inf
Russia: 7 mech -
UK and French fighters cannot reach Russian squares. The men from both scandanavia (7) and Poland (11, minimum) can join 6 more ground units from transports, along with every plane. You are putting all the eggs in one basket. You are also massively ambitious regarding Russian income over time.
We are just going back and forth about the details, and don’t think Requester or I are saying that your idea is crazy or illogical or impossible, just that it is a monumentally bad idea against any average+ Germany player because I have not held Novogrod past R4 since 2014, despite trying it every way I could. If somehow you can stack to prevent the attack–which isn’t hard to do, the Germans move around you, cutting your way back to Moscow off, and they take Moscow G5-G7. That’s what 100+ games of Global have demonstrated, at least, to me.
-
I can understand the strategy of purchasing mechs, i’m only trying to say that I would purchase infantry instead to further my chances of holding Moscow. Germany can only do so much without taking out the Russians.
-
UK and French fighters cannot reach Russian squares.� � The men from both scandanavia (7) and Poland (11, minimum) can join 6 more ground units from transports, along with every plane.� �You are putting all the eggs in one basket.� � You are also massively ambitious regarding Russian income over time.
We are just going back and forth about the details, and don’t think Requester or I are saying that your idea is crazy or illogical or impossible, just that it is a monumentally bad idea against any average+ Germany player because I have not held Novogrod past R4 since 2014, despite trying it every way I could.� �If somehow you can stack to prevent the attack–which isn’t hard to do, the Germans move around you, cutting your way back to Moscow off, and they take Moscow G5-G7.� � That’s what 100+ games of Global have demonstrated, at least, to me.
Thank you for the patience Taamvan, but I think those detailed are crucial in proving the consensus wrong. So far, I have not been convinced by the counter-arguments and thus have the idea my strategy can be a good one.
However I just have played about 20 life games over de past years, never online so certainly are less experienced. I did read this forum 1000 times over and over haha.
UK fighters and French fighter can land in Scotland first turn and land in Novgorod turn 2, on time for a G3 attack.
This is also why I am so persistant on the USA early bombers. They are crucial in this battle of Novgorod and support of a more aggressive Russia. Aggressive does not have to mean advancing Russia. But a Russia that can counter-attack on strategic locations. Just like Dark Skies revolutionized German play, Bright Skies will revolutionize USA and Russia play.
If I am right :P
-
I would love to see some games that have implemented this strategy. They would be good to dissect, and it has certainly raised some valid points from both sides.
-
I would love to see some games that have implemented this strategy. They would be good to dissect, and it has certainly raised some valid points from both sides.
I will have a live game sunday where I will test it against my father. Will make pictures and a battle report. However he is the least experienced Axis player of us, normally being Russia/USA himself.
Started two TripleA games also, but have no time unfortunately to continue them for the next month.
-
I’m finishing up a game now (at my house). I might try to implement this strategy in one of my upcoming games to see what it is like for myself.
-
I also like to share my view on Russian economy, to support why I am so positive Russia can become most exciting nation to play instead of most boring.
RUSSIA = 30 IPC
But many national objecties to growSiberia: +7 IPC
SZ125: +5 IPC
Iraq: +5 IPC
Italian Somaliland + Libya: +7 IPC
Italian Islands: +6 IPC
Scandinavia: +11 IPCThat is +41 IPC, PER TURN for a total of 71 IPC without entering German borders (as those can be easily defended by Germany)
-
Yes but you have to account for the loss of territories throughout time, as well as the ability to lose some of those bonuses like sz125. I don’t think Russian IPC income can become a monster. It is difficult for Russia to obtain some of these, and it would take some time to grab the Mediterranean and African territories for the bonuses. You also have to think about the amount of resources it would take for Russia to obtain all of the bonuses that you listed. How would you plan on gaining this very large amount of IPCs?
-
Yes but you have to account for the loss of territories throughout time, as well as the ability to lose some of those bonuses like sz125. I don’t think Russian IPC income can become a monster. It is difficult for Russia to obtain some of these, and it would take some time to grab the Mediterranean and African territories for the bonuses. You also have to think about the amount of resources it would take for Russia to obtain all of the bonuses that you listed. How would you plan on gaining this very large amount of IPCs?
I think only the Scandinavian is the difficult one actually.
Iraq + Africa + Island is simple.
Take Iraq R3, one tank will go to Libya, one mech to Somaliland
Take Libya + Somaliland R5
Get tank + mech in 2 USA transports R6
Unload at the islands in R7 and collect bonusSiberia NO, keep the 18 at Buryatia
SZ125, let the UK fight for this one with destroyers. Use your own sub first. Not too impossible.
Scandinavia needs most planning and effort, but when you keep Novgorod and USA bombers destroys Baltic fleet, it is realistic and possible.
So actually just 1 tank + 1 mech for 17 IPC south
UK help for S125 so free for 5 IPC
Combine Russia and USA effort for 11 IPC scandinavia -
So yes Russia will lose a lot of territory, I am planning on it, especially in the South. However I will keep Leningrad and surroundings and will keep making a healthy 40-45 until I get to Scandinavia + Africa. Then it becomes a monster able to overpower Germany on its own.
-
Right, so some of these you don’t achieve until late game. The Scandinavia gambit is controversial because if the German player is skilled, they will not lose Scandinavia, or if they did, it’s because they wanted Russia to waste time and units from defending Novgorod and or Moscow. I feel as though the reason most players play a conservative “boring” game with Russia is because of trial and error. When I first began playing AA years ago, everyone wanted to play an aggressive Russian game including myself, because in human nature. You want to have some fun battles and out maneuver the enemy and out smart the enemy. However through trial and error we find that Russia cannot keep up with the ever expanding German forces. Germany rapidly gains IPCs and Russian territories, while Russia is slowly losing IPCs and retreating. Russia cannot compete in this way, and instead are forced into a shell (Moscow). The only way that Russia is going to be able to compete in a way in which you describe is if the German player has dedicated their game strategy to taking out the UK both in the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Which is not the case most of the time, because Russia is a sleeping giant. If you look into the war in real life, Hitler realized this too late. He knew that he would have to attack Russia and have a two front war and by waiting too long he allowed for Russia to gain too much momentum.
-
the only aggressive play russia can do is to dick around in china, especially if Germany buys navy
-
I also like to share my view on Russian economy, to support why I am so positive Russia can become most exciting nation to play instead of most boring.
RUSSIA = 30 IPC
But many national objecties to growSiberia: +7 IPC
SZ125: +5 IPC
Iraq: +5 IPC
Italian Somaliland + Libya: +7 IPC
Italian Islands: +6 IPC
Scandinavia: +11 IPCThat is +41 IPC, PER TURN for a total of 71 IPC without entering German borders (as those can be easily defended by Germany)
How is Russia getting the Italian islands? They’re loading on US/UK transports in the Med?
-
Right, so some of these you don’t achieve until late game. The Scandinavia gambit is controversial because if the German player is skilled, they will not lose Scandinavia, or if they did, it’s because they wanted Russia to waste time and units from defending Novgorod and or Moscow. I feel as though the reason most players play a conservative “boring” game with Russia is because of trial and error. When I first began playing AA years ago, everyone wanted to play an aggressive Russian game including myself, because in human nature. You want to have some fun battles and out maneuver the enemy and out smart the enemy. However through trial and error we find that Russia cannot keep up with the ever expanding German forces. Germany rapidly gains IPCs and Russian territories, while Russia is slowly losing IPCs and retreating. Russia cannot compete in this way, and instead are forced into a shell (Moscow). The only way that Russia is going to be able to compete in a way in which you describe is if the German player has dedicated their game strategy to taking out the UK both in the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Which is not the case most of the time, because Russia is a sleeping giant. If you look into the war in real life, Hitler realized this too late. He knew that he would have to attack Russia and have a two front war and by waiting too long he allowed for Russia to gain too much momentum.
You will likely be right as you all got more than 100 battles under your belt and tried everything. However so far the arguments were that Novgorod would fall in any case, or they could just bypass it and take Moscow. I have proven these arguments wrong so far by theory, so with more arguments you could break down the hypothesis.
-
Well that is the point I have just touched on. Your hypothesis has been tested over the course of thousands of AA games by the AA community. The Russian strategy has been refined down to what it is now, with the exception of the occasional outlier. Your small scale purchases may not consist entirely of infantry, however the importance of stacking Moscow has been proven to be what makes or breaks an allied defense.
-
@IKE:
I also like to share my view on Russian economy, to support why I am so positive Russia can become most exciting nation to play instead of most boring.
RUSSIA = 30 IPC
But many national objecties to growSiberia: +7 IPC
SZ125: +5 IPC
Iraq: +5 IPC
Italian Somaliland + Libya: +7 IPC
Italian Islands: +6 IPC
Scandinavia: +11 IPCThat is +41 IPC, PER TURN for a total of 71 IPC without entering German borders (as those can be easily defended by Germany)
How is Russia getting the Italian islands? �They’re loading on US/UK transports in the Med?
Yes, USA pacific fleet comes to Med with two transports. Once those transports are empty they come pick up the Russian fortune seekers ;)
Suggested Topics
