Problems with Russia

OR, you could have some fun as Russia.

First turn - 3 tanks 3 infantry
Attack Ukraine with Everything in Cauc and Karelia. Land fighters in Karelia. Place units in Karelia.

Second turn - Buy 2 tanks and the rest Infantry. Attack Eastern Europe Germany could never hold this) if germany tries to make a stand. If Germany is smart and retreats, Attack with minor forces and put the rest into Finland Norway.

Third Turn - Retreat to Ukraine/Karelia

Keep pressure on Germany and you’ll win. The allies will have to make a strong attack on Africa for this. I would only use this if you are controlling all 3 allies, as it takes a lot of cooperation.

I recomend a slightly more conservative approch and sending a couple of infantry east every turn after eliminating most of the infantry in Manchuria (but not taking it).

I play Russia restricted, so i defend Karelia with about 18 infantry, 2 tanks and 2 fighters. I only leave 2 infantry behind in caucasus cause if germany tries taking it with 2 fighters and 3 infantry (opponents often try that i noticed) you can smash the germans in eastern europe on turn 2. Because germany lacks infantry in Eastern Europe on turn 1 so if they send another 3 infantry into Caucasus they dont have the means to protect Eastern Europe. Most german players reinforce EE with armor then and these can be crushed by russia on turn 2 :smile:

honestly, when I play as the allies, or when Im on a team with someone else.  I jsut go for an all out attack on germany with everything I got and jsut keep them pinned so they CANT attack russia or Karelia (or caucusus in the nes version.  If oyu keep them back on their heels they have no hope.

OR, you could have some fun as Russia.

First turn - 3 tanks 3 infantry
Attack Ukraine with Everything in Cauc and Karelia. Land fighters in Karelia. Place units in Karelia.

Sounds like a losing strategy for the Red Army.

If Karelia is only defended with 2 fig, 3 arm, 3 inf + what is brougt up from moscow, then Germany will surely attack and take karelia during G1.

I hate being Russia.I have learned to contain germany but I just can’t stop Japan comin from the west.Does anyone have a solid russian strategy that stops both germany and Japan. if so I would like to hear one.

Here’s a fine approved strategy for the Red Army, - excellent against the combined Axis.

It’s a so called “Germany first” strategy (with detailed focus on the asian front):

Rus1: Buy 8inf.
If not RusRestrict, take Norw/fin (with 3armour +fig+3inf), and bomb german tranny with 1fig (or let the UK do it if you’re scared)
Leave Asia open except for 6inf in Yakut, and 1inf + 1arm in Novosib.
Defence on Europe front should be centered in Karelia, except for 1inf in Caucasus.
move all other (8) inf to Karelia.
Place 8inf in Karelia

Japan1: Japan takes Sov Far East

Ger1: Takes Kaukasus

Rus2: Buy 1fig+4inf.
Take Sov Far East back with 6inf from Yakut.
Take Norway (if not already) + take Caucasus
Non com: Support maybe US in Sink with 1inf from Novosib.
Place 1fig+4inf in Karelia.

Japan2: Japan takes Yakut.

Ger2: Takes Caucasus

Rus3: Buy 1 arm + ? inf
Take Yakut back with all infantry (+fig from Kar but only if necessary) from Sov Far East
retake Caucasus (and use maybe the “strong  armoured (2 tanks) attack against EastEuro with everything available, but retreat to Kar before winning”-tactics) or maybe don’t.
non Combat: Move inf back from Sink to hold Novosib
place 1arm+1inf in moscow, the rest inf in Karelia

Japan3: takes Sov Far East & Sink
germany3: ?

Rus4: Buy 1fig+1arm+?inf
Take Ukraine (or use the “strong attack against german EE stronghold, kill most - but retreat before winning” tactics)
Non com: Move fig to Yakut if not desperately needed in Karelia.
enforce Novo & Yakut effectively, for a long trench battle.

Japan4: ?

Rus5: Finish off the Germans in East Euro.

That’s it!
:mrgreen:

I agree with Scarface!  3arm 3inf to Norway R1 is just asking Germany to attack your stack in Karelia G1.  1 fgt vs. 1 sub 1 trn in the baltic sea is asking for trouble.  And how on earth can Russia hold Yakut and Novisibirsk from Japan while “finishing off Germany in EE” on R5???

You must be playing against pretty incompetent axis players…

Holy old threads, Batman!

I agree with Scarface!  3arm 3inf to Norway R1 is just asking Germany to attack your stack in Karelia G1.  1 fgt vs. 1 sub 1 trn in the baltic sea is asking for trouble.  And how on earth can Russia hold Yakut and Novisibirsk from Japan while “finishing off Germany in EE” on R5???

You must be playing against pretty incompetent axis players…

Okay, I like a good debate!  8-)

• Maybe you didn’t think it all through Clayton, or maybe you missed some details. Let’s try again:

after rus1 - the army in Karelia is:

2 rus fig
16 rus inf!!!

(8 placed, 4 from Cau, 4 from Rus)

Sorry guys, The germans wont have a chance if they attack in G1. Why? - they have no army in Norway and no tranny.
Pity for them :-)

They won’t have a chance G2 either, why?  2 uk fig, 1 rus fig, 4 rus inf has arrived.
Too bad too sad, That’s life. Ze great Russia will always win!

That’s was why they had to invent the bidding-thing. Horrorfied A&A players simply refused to face The Red Army unless heavily bribed.  :roll:

Well, - the extremely intelligent reason for taking 3inf to Norway (as pawns), is to save the 3 tanks for attack on Caucasus on rus2 (they obviously wont be counterattacked while in Norway, - and PLEASE NOTE: I didn’t purchase armour on rus1 & rus2, so they HAVE to survive)

And how on earth can Russia hold Yakut and Novisibirsk from Japan while “finishing off Germany in EE” on R5?

Precisely as the Colonel ordered.  Japan will try to take Novosib on Jap5 if not already on jap4 - but too little to late……
Please notice, that after rus4 there’s 1fig and 4-5 inf in Yakut, - adjacent to which Novosib could have (according to my plan, check again) received enforcements (not much probably). At this point Russia can gain some valuable extra time from trading off Yakut (a strategic retreat), to keep the  stronghold at NOVOSIB.

The Red Army will surely hold the line and all imperialist armies will eventually be forced back  :-D  IMHO: less than 16 rounds - before only Tokyo is left to deal with.

Well now, At that time in history Japan surrendered unconditionally. Not because of the nuclear bombs, as we would like to believe, but because The Red Army (in the very last round) suddenly invaded Manchuria with 10.000 tanks,  ;-)

…So I’m sorry guys, you missed the target, Try just a little harder next time, huh ?.. :evil:

Ahhh, my apologies, I was assuming you were playing with a bid.

I agree 100% that this strat would work when playing without a bid.  However there are also countless other strats that will work equally as well without a bid because it is too easy for the allies to win.  My question is does this strat stand up when playing against a bid?  And I don’t believe it would playing against a PE bid or even a split bid b/w Europe and Africa.  In this situation I believe that Germany can take Karelia G1 as I suggested earlier, and there is no way Russia will be pushing Germany out of Eastern Europe while defending Yakut and Novisibirsk in Round 5.

Possibly trading EEU and NOV, I’ll give you that.  But not holding all 3.  No way.  Russian supply lines would be stretched way too thin, and you haven’t even built arm R1 or R2.

Against no bid however, I cannot find fault with your strategy.

I can easily, because strafing is a way better option than taking Norway! Norway is up for grasps, because they can’t go nowhere! Strafe Ukraine to 1 fig and the game is pretty much over… Hell you can even start buying some arms on R2 with Russia to make it even harder for the Germans! The beauty of this strafe is that you turn Ukraine into a deathzone, so the German player can’t reinforce it, so he needs to stack EEU already on Ger1… So you can trade ukr after R2 and sit back and wait till help arrives…

If the US is landing in Europe you can start to fend of the Japs, which is also pretty ez, because Germany is not a real threat anymore…

Cheers!

I should have emphasized that the specific strategy recommended above is indeed an individual FIVE-PLAYER GAME STRATEGY for Russia. It is a strategy for the 5-player no-bidding games where credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. I simply assumed that generalcampbell (“I hate playing Russia”) would ask for an individual five-player game strategy for Russia.

At his point we can always easily produce the reply: “Allied cooperation is the only way to save Russia” or even “there is only allied & axis strategy.” - this is the popular philosophy claiming there can be no such thing as a russian strategy. According to this philosophy, what generalcampbell really needs is rather a smash course for beggars or maybe some social advice or psychologic support - more than irrelevant strategic goofy discussions.

I don’t agree entirely to this “no national strategy”-axiom. I have constructivist views; I’m not saying Russia can do it without help, but I assume that Russia can be played individually with individual Russian strategy. That’s the sort of strategy that would be used in turnaments where every individual player has to play all five nations separately with better results playing each nation, than the other four players achieved - a useful concept also to avoid the bid, it would be almost equivalent to Bridge where every player (or team) plays the same hand of cards.

Furthermore a strong argument (in five-player games) against the strict “No winning Russian strategy”-philosophy, lies in the fact that the anglo-americans not necessarely have to save Karelia (or even the red flag) in order to win the game. It seems clear to me somehow that this fact makes the necessity for a national Russian strategy very evident for the Russia player. The individual Red Army player must rely on his own skills and tactics to survive and finally break out of encirclement.Â

Apart from that, I support the opinion that in normal two-player games or bid-games, another strategy would be prefared. So yes, it’s not a strategy for the normal bid-games, as rjclayton assumed:

Ahhh, my apologies, I was assuming you were playing with a bid…[ ]…Against no bid however, I cannot find fault with your strategy.

But thanks indeed for bringing attention to the tranny-bombing. All this focus cleared my mind and rationally I must now have second thoughts. If the proposed strategy should be ideal for the individual player playing Russia, it logically follows that the tranny bombing mission must be aborted. So there’s the new STAVKA decree: Mother Russia will NEVER work for western powers (exceptions to this rule is allowed only on emergency).

It is really the western powers who have to work for Russia.

The two inf that the tranny can bring up to Karelia, is not enough reason for Russia to even care about it. The rus fighter must survive, and it is much better used to secure a completely succesful  outcome in the important battle for Norway. So, right: tranny bombing missions are from now on completely banned!   8-)

In two-player or team-player bid game, I will also agree that the Allies taking Norway on rus1, isn’t the best move. Much will then, however, depend on the kind of bid, like restrictions on how the extra units has to be placed etc. - but for the individual Russia player in five player games, I believe it is essential for Russia to take Norway.

Bashir had a comment to this:

….strafing is a way better option than taking Norway! Norway is up for grasps, because they can’t go nowhere! Strafe Ukraine to 1 fig and the game is pretty much over… Hell you can even start buying some arms on R2 with Russia to make it even harder for the Germans! The beauty of this strafe is that you turn Ukraine into a deathzone, so the German player can’t reinforce it, so he needs to stack EEU already on Ger1… So you can trade ukr after R2 and sit back and wait till help arrives…

Strafing !

That is the word my memory suddenly couldn’t find, so I just named it “Attack, kill most - but retreat before winning” tactics. I suggested it against EE on rus3 & rus4.

I agree that strafing methods are important, and in the tactics of very good players they are a must. Only two objections: The first is that I see strafing-abillity as skills rather than tactics -  it is difficult and risky! - much so for newcomers.

I believe that strafing skills are essential for both Russia and the Axis, so this is not really an objection, it’s just very difficult (if not impossible) to draw safe tactics for newcomers based mainly on strafing. It would be a very detailed plan, with decisions on probability and consequenses in each specific situation.
   
Also the strategy recommended above, is an five-player-game-strategy for Russia (Sorry again for not being very clear on that point), and there’s my objection: Russia HAS to take Norway immediately from start, in all five-player games were credits goes to the individual player rather than a team. If Russia fails to take Norway as soon as possible (and UK takes it), then Russia will be further reduced to a puppet state in the hands of arrogant western powers for the whole game. Ain’t that terrible!

cheers y’all   :-D

I’ll agree that strafing is an art (or skill), not really easily taught to a beginner.  If you were playing a game with players of differing skill levels, I’d recommend to you that you assign powers in the following order, from the most skilled player to the least skilled player:
Germany
Russia
Japan
United Kingdom
USA

The reason Germany and Russia are the top 2 skilled players is because of the strafing and having to maintain the delicate balance of fighting a war on multiple fronts.  For the most part, the other powers only wage a 1 front war, except for possibly Japan in a KJF.

agreed

I would change USA and UK. Simply because USA is easy to play, but it takes some time before you can play it good. UK is even more straigtforward, because you just buy trans and drop them of in Europe to help Russia. With the USA it is a little bit harder because you need to go to Africa as well etc…