I have always had great success with a “standard” opening move for Russia. Buy 8 infantry. Take all land forces that can reach, plus the Russia fighter and take Manchuria. Unless you are totally blasted on dice, you will take this territory with 1 or 2 land pieces remaining, and the fighter to retreat to Yakut (which is protected by 2 infantry moving up from Evenk in non-combat phase). The Eastern Europe attack also serves to really screw up the Germans, forcing them to re-take territory in Europe rather than expanding. Hit Eastern with the fighter, all Karelia infantry, and all available tanks. You will succeed in this battle, though all of your tanks get blown away on Germany’s next move. Retreat your fighter back to Karelia. Use your fleet to attack the sub and transport. I have tried variants of naval usage, including a lot of attempts at using Russia’s navy to help protect the initial British fleet. It never works (the German attack is mostly air power, so you only add a little cannon fodder and a 1 defense). So instead go on the attack and remove the transport threat from Karelia, as well as sinking a pesky sub to free up your UK air force for other purposes. Remaining non-comabt moves, shift 3 infantry from Caucuses to Karelia, shift 2 infantry from Russia to Karelia and the other 2 Russian infantry to Novosibirsk (to be moved forward to Yakut to replace the Evenk infantry now there that will be used next round on a second Manchuria assault, or to move into Sinkiang if Japan focuses on southeast Asia. Finish off placing 6 infatry in Karelia and 2 in Russia. If you are well supported by the UK building up offensive forces and attacking Norway then other targets of opportunity as they arise, Russia can continue to “mixed build” sending 2 infantry East each turn with the balance facing Germany. Using this strategy, if Russia can alway remain at 24 IPC or higher (they will have 30 at the end of turn 1), the Axis can’t win (unless USA and UK are simply totally inept).
Britain or USSR?
-
When playing Ger. do you guys go for USSR or UK first? You can’t effectively take care of two fronts, as we all learned from der furer in the '40s :lol: Any preferences?
-
I don’t go for either. The real way for the Axis to win is not to capture an enemy capital, but to get the 84 IPCs needed for an economic victory. 8)
-
I usually don’t have a set plan for where and who to attack, but as a preference, UK is more vulnerable on the first turn. Attack the British Fleet on the first turn and move rapidly through North Africa. With USSR, I think a holding operation would work best. I hope this will improve your game! :)
-
I think he means which nation to you attempt to destroy first, not whose pieces you attack on the first turn. Therefore my answer is to crush Russia - It’s easier to hold back a D-Day than to attempt a Sealion while USSR is building up in Kareli.a
-
I say neither, Germany must remain on aggressive defensive stance until the Japanese can make there necessary breakthrough out of Asia to capture Moscow. Of course, if the Allies were playing a “ First Japan” Push strategy, I say go first for Russia. You can’t spend you’re time and money investing in transports necessary for Operation Sealion to happen.
-
“I think he means which nation to you attempt to destroy first, not whose pieces you attack on the first turn. Therefore my answer is to crush Russia - It’s easier to hold back a D-Day than to attempt a Sealion while USSR is building up in Kareli.”
Sometimes I like to be creative and invade USA. I you can do this by building a small force of transports and a aircraft carrier, and then land in Brazil, moving slowly Northward after. The Fleet can also serve a dual purpose of keeping the Allies out of Africa. If anything, I like to try something new. :)
-
@TM:
“I think he means which nation to you attempt to destroy first, not whose pieces you attack on the first turn. Therefore my answer is to crush Russia - It’s easier to hold back a D-Day than to attempt a Sealion while USSR is building up in Kareli.”
Sometimes I like to be creative and invade USA. I you can do this by building a small force of transports and a aircraft carrier, and then land in Brazil, moving slowly Northward after. This Naval Fleet can also serve a dual purpose of keeping the Allies out of Africa. If anything, I like to try something new. :)
Sometimes when people are expecting you to zig, you have to zag. :wink:
You know what I mean jelly-bean. -
@TM:
Sometimes I like to be creative and invade USA. I you can do this by building a small force of transports and a aircraft carrier, and then land in Brazil, moving slowly Northward after. The Fleet can also serve a dual purpose of keeping the Allies out of Africa. If anything, I like to try something new. :)
Yeah, but even if you do build a transport fleet off Mediterranean waters, you still have to build up to defend against a Russian counterattack. Plus there’s a fact that USA can outbuild you and there’s no supply depots to refill your now empty trns. I better move would be to build a transport fleet only operating in and around N. Africa and S. America. This way you’re not that far out of position to restock your trns and hopefully the Japanese can provide defense cover from lurking Allied ships and aircraft.
-
I try to weaken the UK. Then, while they recover, I’ll pincer the USSR. The USA needs to be kept at bay as much as possible. If they Allies are played by an experienced player, the economic victory will be the chance for Axis victory…
-
I think that Sealon is an insane plan. If you pull it off against an experienced player, than you have my respect.
I thought that the opening question was talking about whose land to take. I voted for UK because of Africas vulnerability…
-
@TM:
If anything, I like to try something new. :)
BRAVO!!!
So many people forget the game’s purpose is to have fun.
Ozone27
-
I think even though it harder you sould go for the UK, wanceethere gone you have a clear path for africa and now that no one is supporting russia it sould br easy to take (with help from the japs)
Suggested Topics
