Problems with Russia

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…

Yeah, I almost interchanged those two.  The reason I didn’t was because in the early game UK is capable of contesting Africa from Germany, if played correctly.  In my opinion, spots 4 and 5 are a toss up between UK and USA.  I probably should have put that.

We play Russia Restricted, and just instituted bidding, not that it makes a whole lot of difference to Russia’s strategy for the most part.

Buy infantry, stack everything in Karelia that can reach it, leave 3 to 4 men in Caucuses.  Stack in Yakut, leave one man in SovFE, he will die eventually, but it forces the japs to spread their attacks on round one, and with luck you might even survive with him.

Russia 2 (and for the rest of the game until the allies are seriously taking over) you buy infantry. Take Norway, with men and some tanks, you will need this money for the rest of the game. 
Usually, Germany pulls back from Ukraine some, to protect E.Eur and oppose your oppresive Kar stack. Play cat and mouse with Ukraine, taking it with bare minimum of infantry and airsupport.  Keep karelia stacked and reinforce with allied fighters.Â

If Germany is foolish and spreads troops (especially if they try for Cau, now you know why to leave extra men there) then strife the weakest country (Eeur is money), and annhilate any troops who come too far east.Â

The yakut stack, on the other hand, should retreat to Novo on this turn if Jap plays correctly and stacks in Man.  If Jap is played poorly, leave a man to guard, otherwise if its an obvious kill zone, just pull back with russia (russia is the only country I will do a full retreat with, you NEED those men later), the only exception to this is if there are tanks which can blitz, then you MUST sacrifice a man to stop the blitz.  DO NOT WASTE THE EASTERN FRONT ON FOOLISH ASSAULTS.  If you can be counterattacked with any decent strength, you dont want to take that action.

Rus3: Pull all men out of Nor, its russian territory now, the germans will never reclaim it.  Keep playing the cat and mouse game, always buying infantry, but placing two or three in russia and sending them east, provided the allies are helping defend karelia.  Keep retreating from Jap, but be always ready for them to overextend themselves, and when they do, annhilate their army. Otherwise, fall back, build a stack, and strife the invading army.  Be careful with Caucauses btw, keep men there, it is nasty blitz route for both jap and german forces from africa, right into your heart.

Finally, dont lose tanks, dont lose fighters. They are your only teeth for later in the game, strifing will be your best friend, so NO risky maneuvers with them.  And get help from the allies.  Even played perfectly, with good luck as well, the russians can only hold out max 7 rounds or so without allied support. Eventually, japan will take them otherwise.  If you play this way described, you should actually be able to keep russias income level or even one or two IC’s higher than normal, for the entirety of the beginning game. THats a fair amount of extra men, it will show in your moscow stack when the japanese finally make their crushing assault inwards.

Why leave 3-4 man in Cau? one will do… Depends on what bid you guys playing, but buying some tanks is not that bad for the USSR at the right time. It makes your strafes better than just with inf and air.

Yeah, buying arm with Russia is really good if you can swing it.  If I take FIN with USSR in R2 (usual) and land UK troops there B2, the first wave will be arriving in Karelia on B3.  I may try to swing some arm with USSR on my R4 purchases, if the UK troops have bolstered my KAR defense enough to allow it.

daggaz - I wouldn’t leave an inf in SFE.  You say yourself that inf on the Eastern front are too valuable to waste but then advocate throwing one away in SFE.  Keep them together in YAK.  It may save you 2IPC income for 1 turn, but more likely it will just cost you 3IPC in units on the Eastern front.  Keep these guys together until they can do something useful like counterattacking a weak Japanese holding in Yakut or Sinkiang.

And I agree with Bashir - 1 inf in CAU is all you need (as a blitz blocker).  If Germany wants to take CAU, he either has to commit additional ground units (which will die on the next USSR turn) or pull fighters off the UK fleet targets/Anglo-Egypt.  Either scenario is good, so let him take CAU if he wants to.  Meanwhile you are even better defended in Kar with those extra inf

rjclayton, I was thinking about leaving that inf in SFE.  You want to accomplish the same as in Cau. Japan needs to take it with more than one 1 inf without leaving his stack in Manch exposed. If he has sufficient you can retreat with Russia and move that one inf from sfe to yakult to protect your back.

The difference though is that Germany committing additional ground units to CAU means those units die R2.  Japan committing additional ground units to secure SFE does nothing for Russia other than pull them off China - Russia can’t really counterattack them because SFE is a Japan deadzone with their fighters, transports, and BBs.

It is somewhat micromanagement, we’re only talking about 2 IPCs and 1 inf, but I still think you’re better off just giving Jap SFE.