Russian Fighters

I like keeping Russia limited to inf/art, with some tanks when I predict a big push in the next turn.  Fighters just aren’t good for pushing since they can’t defend a territory you just knocked out, and you have no turn in between for the allies to reinforce your position since Germany is right after.

@trihero:

I like keeping Russia limited to inf/art, with some tanks when I predict a big push in the next turn.  Fighters just aren’t good for pushing since they can’t defend a territory you just knocked out, and you have no turn in between for the allies to reinforce your position since Germany is right after.

Good point!
Tanks seems a better bargain for Russia. For the same IPC they have more unit punch more unit counter, and they may defend in territory just conquered.

Also Russian tanks may be used to reinforce UK conquered territory in order to make hard a German counterattack (and for the same IPC they make more harder the counterattack). I agree that British fighters are better at defend Moscow than Russia fighters.
I also agree that they give more flexibility for trading territories.
However, I am still undecided and usually I never buy them.

Favorite play of mine is to take with England, reinforce with America and put 3 or 4 Russian fighters in to really make an attack painful on Germany.

Besides, British fighters do a better job protecting Moscow then Russian fighters!

Um, how about let the Russian fighters stay on Moscow so they can trade with Japan if need be (likely) and have US fighters reniforce English invasions? The US are going to have more money to spare the fighters O_o

I used to think the same about Russian armor.  Then I noticed my armor did nothing but protect Caucasus and threaten Germans.  They never did anything.  Well, not until Russia fell and they were forced to actually defend some ground.

For once in what seems like I while I agree with you my dear =P  :mrgreen: Tanks don’t seem to do much early on, that’s why I keep it to art to use as a poor man’s tank to trade territories.

I usually loss 2-3 tanks first two turns!  :-D
So my thanks atre not sitting pointless in Caucasus, they usually fight and die in Ukraine.
I try to buy 1 art and/or 1 tanks  every turn, if possible. As Trihero said art is the poorman unit for trading territory! :)

So at goes to the German front, tanks goes to the Japanese front and fightere… where they are more needed!

R1 Purchase 1 FGT, 2 ARM, 1 ART. Attack Bellorus with 3 INF 2 FGT. Attack W.Russia with 2 Archangel INF, Moscow INF, Both ART, and Moscow and Karelia ARM. Caucasus troops stay put and fighters land there. If necessary transfer some INF from Caucasus to W. Russia for defense. The 2 INF that can step forward into the Caucasus where placement is made. This gives Russia 28 IPCs for R2 and should be enough defense to keep Germany at bay or make things VERY costly.

R2 Purchase 1 FGT 6 INF. From this point on I start to harass Germany by taking what I can with INF and FGT. I continue to purchase 1 FGT and INF until R4 and maintain trading territories with Germany with Infantry only. At 6 fighters this gives 2 fighters per territory of the 3 normally in dispute. From this point more ARM can begin to be purchased although generally around this time I have already started a drive toward Berlin.

Russia begins the game with a fair amount of hardware and a ton of infantry. Russia CANNOT afford to trade hardware with Germany. I do not place Russian tanks on the frontline unless I am sure they will not be destroyed which is generally a drive to Berlin. The purpose of this drive is not to take Berlin but kill Germans. Russia is quite happy with no troops between Moscow and Berlin and Germany is not. Russia does not have to take Germany, just hold out until help arrives for the kill. Germany on the other hand basically HAS to take Moscow and before help can arrive.

I have to say I’ve changed my mind since I posted in this thread, I do like buying 1 fighter immediately with Russia, then I just keep slamming out infantry. The 1 fighter you purchase pays for itself in a few rounds of trading; it’s a better option than throwing an art away or throwing extra infantry away. Plus, when it comes down to trading 2 territories with Germany, then you can use the 3rd fighter to trade something with the Japanese.

R2 Purchase 1 FGT 6 INF. From this point on I start to harass Germany by taking what I can with INF and FGT. I continue to purchase 1 FGT and INF until R4 and maintain trading territories with Germany with Infantry only. At 6 fighters this gives 2 fighters per territory of the 3 normally in dispute. From this point more ARM can begin to be purchased although generally around this time I have already started a drive toward Berlin.

I think this is a little bit overboard. While you can trade pretty easy with 2 fighters per territory, purchasing 4 fighters also leaves you with very little true pushing power. I’d find it hard to push to Berlin when I’m 10 infantry short (buying 3 more fighters than a sane man would).

Germany on the other hand basically HAS to take Moscow and before help can arrive.

Hmm, usually Japan takes Moscow, while Germany turtles up and annoys the Allies.

Well the way you seem to play it, UK is in Norway by round 5, so liberating Karelia on Round 6?

I have come to really like either an R1 or R2 FIG purchase.  3 FIGs to trade 3 territories along the German front…

To demonstrate the flexibility of buying 1 fighter every round with Russia I took a few notes on their kills from my last F-T-F game. Keep in mind this is in addition to the normal trade moves with Germany.

Destroyed: 1 German BB, 1 German Transport, 2 German subs, 2 Japanese transports.

Losses: 3 Fighters (all to transports btw)

Thats 64 IPCs of hardware for 30 spent. Also the Russian airforce twice defended an American IC in Sinkiang. Rather hard to do all that with tanks or infantry.

In other words, that’s 30 IPCs spent to kill 0 IPCs spent, since the German navy and Japanese transports were already on the board to start with. Does that still sound good to you? What I hate when people start using IPC values is that they don’t really understand how to make it relevant. There is a very big difference between spending IPCs to take out existing IPCs versus spending IPCs to take out the other guy’s spent IPCs.

Only the German  TRN and BB was original and I was more than happy to stop bombardment and troop delivery from Italy. Since Russia starts with 2 fighters by your logic I only lost a dollar. I don’t count the its there so it don’t cost argument. Yes you don’t buy those units at the start but if you want them once they are gone they have to be purchased.

Bottom line for me I think having a minimum of 6 fighters with Russia is the way to get the most bang for the buck.

For everyone who dismisses the value of the units your start the game with…

I challenge you to a game where the board starts empty and each nation begins with a build based on their initial income!

I’ll take the Allies  :-D

Only the German  TRN and BB was original and I was more than happy to stop bombardment and troop delivery from Italy. Since Russia starts with 2 fighters by your logic I only lost a dollar. I don’t count the its there so it don’t cost argument. Yes you don’t buy those units at the start but if you want them once they are gone they have to be purchased.

No, by my logic you spent 30 IPCs in fighters. The Germans spent 0 IPCs in navy.

Maximizing the value of all of your units (newly bought, and the ones you start with) is the key to victory.

That’s exactly right; I’d rather have the US or UK take out the med fleet with their initial airforce rather than build 3 figs with Russia to do it :/