The Sneaky Russian

@calvinhobbesliker:

@simon33:

Hmm, interesting analysis. Germany has to really stretch to pull in the 24 inf too.

If a G1 buy of 3mech 3arm where done, it seems to be negative.

What happens when the more usual move of a I2+G3 DOW is done? If the Germans don’t buy fast movers G1, that is what I expect anyway.

Interesting. I had no idea that 6 tanks could potentially make East Poland not stackable…and if Germany buys mechs/tanks G1 in anticipation to bolster it, that prevents them from buying more ships for Sealion.

This is the build that helped us win our first game at YG’s tournament as the allies, and almost always my build with Russia.

Follow up round two with FULL mechanized.  Your force can hold/delay leningrad unless the germans are heavily organized and determined to take it.  Usually this can buy you an extra round or two depending on what the germans are doing, whilst you evacuate your infantry.

The Med is controlled by the USN with no real threat so the US can take its units in France and dump them to support UK.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@BusaRider29:

@Caesar:

So unless you’re going to put at least 6 ICP’s worth of units, their is no point breaking that bonus.

Good point.

Questionalble, would you allow a bomber to station there 1 round if it can take out 1-2 japan transports for free?

Sure the 5 NO is annoying but slowing japan down again is also good as more US stuff goes towards germany afterwards.

Not unless USSR has the advantage against western Axis and my reason for this is that USSR cannot defend the east and the NO for Lend-Lease will almost be used against Germany so I am not letting US have it easier because I can’t.

Its a team game for the allies remember.

If your actively helping japan as russia by protecing their transports then US will need to spend more against japan which means less against italy and germany.
Which will result in more germans hitting russia.

Yes however if Germany and USSR play a “perfect game”, Germany regardless will beat USSR in G40 which is why USSR not only has to rely on Lend Lease but also need physically help from the allies. So in this sense, it cripples USSR to allow US to move into its country if those same units are not going to stop western Axis who already have a win over USSR. And taking into account that US with all of there NO can already outspend Japan from J1 even helps my case in this situation.

I’m curious which statements here are differing from what you’ve seen in the league? Do you feel that this NO is playing differently or is more relevant in the league?

I suppose its important to realize that any statements you read here on the boards are largely anecdotal. It comes down to how much of what you read accords with your own experience. And of course results will differ depending on what conditions you typically play with. For example, I noticed just now you mentioned the Russian bomber in another thread. In G40, and in other prior A&A games, many people have used additional Russian aircraft as an expedient alternative to the open pre-placement bid. An Extra Russian fighter in AA50 for example, or a Bomber in G40. In G40 specifically, that option is preferable to me, than an open bid for UK. Its the sort of set up change you really have to force though, because given the option most people would take that same bid amount and instead throw down 4 infantry or 3 art units in separate territories to spread the advantage, or a pair of subs to break a naval battle. Anyway, the point being that if you are using a Russian bomber in your games regularly, then chances our you’ll be seeing different results from people who try other balancing options. Beyond this, there is also the No Tech aspect, or things like whether or not players are using standard dice rules or low luck rules. All this stuff can skew the results in a given set of games, or provide somewhat different play-balance results from the games of people who play other ways.

I will say this about G40, if you play standard dice, there is a fairly substantial swing potential on sz 110 and sz 111, not to mention with casualties in France. This can be a pretty big deal for an opening battle that sets the stage for the whole game. The results there can be a lot more consequential than say Classic/Revised when a transport hit, or a destroyer dudded out was in the opening round. The old German battleship headache comes to mind. Or take for example how in Revised the swing on the W. Russia battle could really effect the whole game in a massive way, such that some players would just quit outright in the opening round, if the dice didn’t go their way. Something similar can occur here (though perhaps not quite as extreme) with sz 110 and 111. If the Luftwaffe trades well in those battles it can be a huge boon for Axis. If they trade poorly it can be a small nightmare for G. Low Luck can control for that to a certain extent, but what you gain in consistency by using LL during the opening round, you lose out on in dynamism during the endgame. This is why I tend to prefer dice since they are so unpredictable for the endgame, though I appreciate the place for LL and understand why so many are fond of it. Still even a small bid disrupting either of those battles, or the battles in the med, can take it from a risky swing to a clear and obvious choice, especially under LL conditions.

So all that is just to say that the conventions in your playgroup, the typical bid, what sort of rules you option in or out, can really affect the patterns that emerge.

You’ll probably have noticed as well, that because A&A uses a very fixed set up and involves a number of scripted first round battles, that players often use a technique that you might call mirroring. Where players tend to model their strategies and opening moves, on things that they’ve seen stronger opponents do. Adopting the strategies that beat you last time, we might call it. This happens a lot after a board first comes out, or especially with players who are new to the game. So what happens is a kind of gameplay evolution, that selects for the best opening plays and weeds out the poorer ones over time. So right after a new board comes out everyone is excited, since the playing field is leveled, and nobody really knows how to exploit the map. Very quickly though, players start adopting standard buys and standard openings, until at some point (after a year say) someone hits on a strategy that is very dominant, which never remains secret very long. Soon variations in it get more popular, until eventually it becomes a scripted move (something everyone does.) Its usually at this point, if the advantage is clearly going one way, to one side over the other, that people start seriously examining bid solutions.

Whats interesting about all this, is that if you are playing with someone who is inexperienced, and does something totally batshit crazy, that you wouldn’t expect anyone to do ever, sometimes that sort of game can actually get entertaining as well as challenging. Since you really don’t know how to predict the erratic behavior of the newb. These games can be fun, since they force all sorts of weird decisions on you. Like wow, he built that? I guess I have to go destroy it now, and do something I wouldn’t usually do haha.

I agree though, from an archival standpoint, its nice to have a league and a way to track what sorts of things are happening in games (what sort of bids are being used for example, and what opening moves.) The overall tally Axis wins to Allied wins. But even there, the nature of the dice can be pretty nuts in providing different experiences.

All this is just to clarify something that it might have been worth saying at the outset. When I talk about game “Balance” or “Balance by Sides” what I am really referring to is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ among both players that the starting conditions provide a roughly even shot for either to prevail. There’s no way to be really absolute about this, since as soon as you roll the dice in a single round of combat, you shoot off into so many different variables that its probably impossible to say anything with certainty… eg. whether a bad roll somewhere can be recovered by an amazing one somewhere else, later on. So really what we a striving for is the sweet spot, where the feeling of balance is the same for both players at the outset. Where one person isn’t constantly grumbling about how the odds are totally stacked against them from the get go, or how if they don’t win battle X, “its basically all over!” I’m not sure how much you could learn from seeing my games in an after action, since I’m perhaps not as cut throat as others, and I like to experiment a lot (often with game mechanics.) I don’t mind losses and haven’t bothered to keep a running tally on anything.

If I’m in the lobby and I have more time to play, I also almost never concede defeat, at least until I see the deep endgame ;) Since that’s the one that fascinates me most in A&A games! The deep endgame, for those unfamiliar with how I use the term in A&A, is how things play after capitals have already fallen. So in Classic or Revised or 1942.2 the Deep Endgame is when you are down to just 4 nations. In AA50 when you are down to 5 etc. Another way to think about it is the gameplay when W. Allies can take over Russian land directly because the capital has fallen.

Pretty good at grinding it out, since even a losing game can be entertaining, and it teaches you about the production spread and the importance of the center ;) But now I’m just rambling.

Is it the general premise of this thread (that Russia’s NOs are too weak, and virtually pointless) that you find problematic? Or the proposed solution as a bid alternative? I guess I’m just a little confused where you think we’re running off track. Most of the results posted in that league forum for g40 games (at least for the last several months) show Allies being bid out consistently, often at above +10 ipc. So I feel that it supports the general position of game unbalance in favor of Axis. I’m not sure what bearing any of those games would have on my proposed solution right now, since those games are virtually all using pre-placement bids. What I have suggested here is a standard income modification for an NO as an alternative to what people are currently doing, which is bidding pre-placement. Does that make more sense from the perspective of a bid replacement/balance perspective?

@techroll42:

And only in Europe (always has been) so Mongolia don’t count.

Mongolia doesnt count because it is not a pro axis nuetral.

Its not a Europe specific NO anymore.

Its just any territory that at the start of the game belonged to either Italy or Germany or if it was a pro axis nuetral

Really simple stuff.

However there are none of these outside of the Europe map but several outside of the continent Europe

We haven’t tried this in global but my dad tried it in Europe. It worked really well against russia but the lack of pressure on Britain let them take all of Italy’s land in Africa. After that I build a minor in Egypt and started send tanks to Russia who had fallen back to Moscow and Stalingrad 3 turn after Britain sent tanks there was British armor in Moscow after that the German lost there hope of wining.

Strategy Summary:
Using 7 starting pieces and 5 purchased pieces on turn 1 assemble a Far East Task Force
Prepare a Russian turn 2 Declaration Of War against Japan.
or
Bait Japan(surprise them once per player) into a J1 DOW.
Use Far East Task Force to secure Burma road turn 3, India turn 4, and redeploy air to USSR by turn 6 or 7 for defense of Russia. 5 Russian air units are a nice scramble/carrier cargo in India on turn 3.

Note: The India DOW against Japan turn 1 discussed below is designed for the surrender London Strategy I have proposed elsewhere, simply ignore to evaluate this proposal independently.

Strategy Details:
Turn 1:
Purchase 2 fighters, 3 Mechanized Infantry.
Deploy 17 infantry, 1 AA gun to Amur as bait(above Manchuria+Korea).
Deploy 1 infantry to Yakut S.S.R. to redeploy against a blitzing tank later.
Deploy 1 armor, 1 Mechanized Infantry to Volgograd(Southern Victory City/Factory).
Deploy 2 fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber to Russia(non-surprise/feint option) or Caucasus(feint).
Deploy 1 Armor, 1 Mechanized Infantry to Caucasus(feign a Middle-East staging, prevent a German 5 turn assault on Moscow).

At this point, few Japanese players are expecting Russia to deploy 7 land units and 5 air units in China, so they may choose to seize Amur. This is a critical blunder and should be avoided as you consume 10-11 land units in Asia plus 2-3 air units to destroy that force, without pulling your entire fleet out of position. These 11 land units are needed in China. In my opinion.

China turn 1:
Build 4 Infantry
Deploy 12 infantry to Szechwan, 1 Fighter
Alternative: Attack and kill 1-2 Japanese land units(if 3-4 are present, soften up for India) with 3 infantry and 1 Fighter leaving 9 units plus fighter in Szechwan turn 2.
Collect 8-9 IPCs

_India turn 1: (hinges on if US enters the war turn 2 by surrendering London, disregard this section for independent review of USSR tactic)
Purchase 1 air craft carrier. Save 1 IPC.
Declare war on Japan
Deploy 6 infantry and 1 Artillery to Burma
Capture(preferred) or Clear Yunnan with 2 infantry and 3 planes, land 3 planes in India.
Deploy 1 DD to sz 37 block Jap Navy
Deploy 1 Transport to Sumatra, secure 4 IPCS with 2 Infantry from Malaya.
Deploy 1 Infantry from Malaya to Shan State
Deploy 1 BB, 1 CA to sz39 to protect carrier build.
note Deploy 1 DD french sz72 and 1 DD UKsz71 to sz 75 (in range of sz 39,76,80,41,57,60 as needed)
Collect 21 plus, 5 IPC NO, plus 1 saved for 27 IPCs.

Anzac turn 1: Build 3 infantry save 1 IPC
Deploy 1 fighter to UK carrier
Deploy 2 fighters all land to Queensland to secure landing for US planes on turn 2.
Deploy 1 transport and 2 Infantry to Java_

Russia turn 2
Deploy 2 armor, 5 Mechanized units to Sikiang, China via Kazakhstan (DOW on Japan if needed)
Deploy 4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber to Szechwan to protect 10-13 Chinese units from Jap air attack.
Deploy Amur forces if alive to capture or clear Manchuria and Korea(lower priority)

Now Japan turn 2 must use caution if they hit Amur. They have too few units(11-12) to stack in Kweichow as Russia can hit those units with 7 land and 5 air, clearing that stack.
If they stack in Hunan 12 units (assumes fleet elsewhere unless Amur is ignored), then China moves into Yunnan with 10-12 land units builds 2 more, 7 UK units merge in, along with 7 USSR units on turn 3 prior to J3 assault, plus as many air units as desired up to the allied total of 5 USSR+ 3 UK + 1 Anzac = 9 by turn 3, 11 by turn 4 or later when other 2 anzac land on carriers. US planes to follow as an option from Australia.
These leave china with 26-28 land units plus 9 planes in Yunnan(1 more land if Shan state infantry is alive to move in), vs Japanese 12 land units and typically 12-14 air units even if all 20 air units can hit, its not pretty.

Japans land movements get tricky if they can not land air units to protect them, this keeps China in the game multiple rounds, and using can opener maneuvers, you can drive Japan back since 12 units from Russia are a size-able threat.

If India goes fleet with heavy air support, then Japan must choose whether to sink it since that raises the potency of the US fleet off Australia. See actual play test description below for large naval battle composition.

Unless Japan stays focused like a laser this situation creates opportunities for China/and its allies.

I welcome your comments upon any of the merits or lack there of, of these proposals and plans.

(Sorry for my absence, I have begun to focus on Allied strategies now.)
Maroon text is background information, skip if you just wanted strategy details
Recently, I began to seek ways to address my biased perceived weighting of Alpha2 towards the axis.

Summary: Germany takes UK by turn 3 or 4, Russia can move into Germany on turn 4 but is often driven back. Japan destroys China by turn 3 or 4. US spins its wheels staging in the Pacific to keep a powerful Japan from ending the game, Europe grows into a forest fire that the US struggles with after the focus lifts from Japan. <biased view=“” based=“” on=“” my=“” observations,=“” feel=“” free=“” to=“” disagree=“”>While testing a failed Russian navy concept(I had to try it once before I rule it out), I took two things out of this:
1st: A Russian navy was ineffective, but a one destroyer build with a starting sub and scramble from sz 127 shows promise of keeping the sz125 Russian Objective 2-3 rounds without a moderate German naval/air effort that could draw assets away from the US on those critical turn 4-6 maneuvers.
2nd: Russia’s first turn build is expendable in a 10+ turn game with a SeaLion Threat.

Summary: Having concluded(perhaps shortsightedly) that Russian offensives against Germany are ill-advised, and that having Russia sit and build up while doing nothing until turn 4 is also ill-advised, the logical focus of early efforts is in Asia.

Note: The below strategy was play tested 12 turns in combination with a surrender London, and Turn 1 DOW against Japan by India and Anzac after a Japan DOW turn 1 on Russia’s bait.
Japan had 2-3 critical choices to make, all of them could have changed the outcome which was: Japan was brought to her knees, with no American builds in the Pacific until turn 5, and 1 UK carrier built in S. Africa on turn 1.
Starting US Navy was forward deployed and used in Pacific when it entered the war on turn 2. Japanese navy was stacked off of French Indo China to threaten an India first campaign.
India and Anzac collected at war NO’s on turn 1 (Anzac did not have the island NO)
(all Mediterranean forces were stacked in sz92 Gibraltar turn1. 2 Land units(London/Scotland) and 3 planes were landed on Algeria(sz109 transport was critical) to prevent an Italian landing site for a German air assault against the UK sz92 force G2, (1 DD was left to block Italian bombardments/naval assault in sz 94) Turn 2, UK Navy Reinforced US navy in sz91 Gibraltar.
Buy turn 3, India was able to stack:
3 carriers, 1 BB, 1 Cruiser, 2 DD(French/UK), 9 fighters(3 Anzac,2 UK, 4 USSR fighters-3 scrambled
vs. the Japanese fleet able to hit it by turn J4:
3 Carriers, 2 BB, 2 CA, 4 DD, 2 subs (Japan had moved fleet to Philippines turn 2, as one transport was  used turn 1 against Amur, 1 was in Japan, and with only 1 transport, India first was not viable.) This was the second critical choice that failed to see the potential of the Indian navy on one side, the US navy off of Australia, and the cost of the first critical decision to hit Amur depleting Asian land units and pulling 1 transport out of range.
Egypt did not fall in 12 turns stacking 5 UK fighters (2London,Scotland,Gibraltar,Malta) plus 1 Tactical on Egypt turn 2 as US planes landed on UK/US fleet, causing Italy to drive through Middle-east to grab Volgograd rather then engage 15 land units, 6 air in Egypt. Italy was not safe to move away from scramble air cover for first 3 turns, as a 6 UK air force would scuttle 1 BB, 2 CA, and 2 DDs in 3 combat rounds. (3 hits round 1, 2 round 2, 1 round 3 vs. Italy 2 hits round 1, 2 round 2, 1 round 1 leaving 1 French fighter to sink unescorted transports if all UK air lost) this forced an Italian carrier build on turn 3, and fleet was able to move out turn 4….by then 5 US air offered a one , two punch threat.
In fact, the axis were forced to use a turn 2 neutral crush on Sweden, Spain, and Turkey just so Italian units could be transported to turkey when fleet was able to deploy on turn 3, this also permitted the axis to stack 30+ units on Gibraltar by turn 5 as Germany went navy for first 4 turns to drive the US away from Gibraltar since Germany was out producing the US due to capital plunder early on.</biased>

Advanced Arty would help as well.  However, I don’t think Russia can afford to start rolling TECH unless you use the AA50 token house rule.