Lots of sound advice in here. Nice work man!
I have to say though, reading through it all, a lot of these strategy points seem to really highlight the general design flaws with Russia on the G40 board.
In the older games it was possible to effectively Red Turtle at the center, because you could reach/cover most of the critical territories from just a couple of core spots (eg. Moscow, W. Russia, Arch etc). This is how the Russians were able to function at such a low income (relatively), collecting a meager 24 ipcs, because they didn’t have to move their units very far to hold the line. It also meant that their tanks (which used to be cheaper as well) didn’t have to move as far to get the job done on the blitz.
Now in almost all of the more recent boards, the general trend has been to add distance between the Axis front line and Moscow. From 3 moves, to 4, to 5 and so on. I suppose the logic being that its “better” to put a bunch of space on the board, so that the Axis have farther to march (if you have a lot of speed bumps and low value territories to stall the JTDTM for example.) So this is what you saw in AA50, and now even more so in G40.
The current map was basically designed in response to a series of A&A games since Classic that all saw the same thing happen every time, Axis drive on Moscow and Allied center collapse as the only route to Axis victory. The only real factor being how long it took, or what sort of commitment from the W. Allies would be necessary to hold the center and prevent it (since Moscow was the only Capital that mattered.) Along the general assumption that, all the allies needed to do to win, was to deny the Axis a way to win. In all the older games this meant Moscow, to the exclusion of everything else. So as Allies, all you really had to do was stack the Russian capital so deep that the Axis couldn’t take it, and you basically had the game in the bag. In Classic (3rd ed anyway, since the earlier editions were before my time) Russia’s whole game was just a managed withdraw, and holding the center for as long as possible, until the Western Allies could squash Berlin. Which wasn’t very dynamic, and kind of boring for the Russian player. At 24 ipcs. In Revised, Russia had the benefit of Artillery, stronger cheap Tanks, and a more strategically interesting map design on the eastern front. They were still at 24 ipcs, but were bolstered by the armor advantage. Russia on the board was probably the strongest we’ve seen in terms of their relative strength and strategic position at the center. Still, despite that, the dominant Axis strategies all still involved a tank drive on the center. In AA50, this issue was addressed by adding distance. The attempted solution was to add more territories between the Axis and the Russian capital, especially moves from Japan. Even added in some bulwarks against rapid Japanese expansion, such as China as a player nation, and more moves along the northern route. But these essentially failed, since the distance through China was so short, and the Chinese were so weak.
One thing that didn’t really get considered, when you add so much distance between Axis, and keep all the territories at zero or 1 ipc, you also nerf the Russian’s forward attack options. The distance is usually harder for Russia to cover, than it is for Axis to march. Its just more difficult logistically for the Soviets to launch attacks across that kind of distance. Their income is lower relative to the powers marching against them. Their position requires planning several rounds in advance. And the peripheral territories (the ones closer to Axis) are not on the path of any major objective for the Soviets. Instead what the Russians usually want is to be at the center so they can cover as much land as possible from their comfort zone, the production area around the center. With no production in the Soviet Far east, how could the Russians really be expected to effectively hold it against determined Japanese aggression? They can’t! So evacuate Soviet Far east again, same as always, withdraw to the capital to hold at the center.
I think there were some missed opportunities with the design of the map board, not to give the Russians a production option behind Moscow, and enough income to fight a more forward game with more attack units. Here it seems that, much like on older boards when the Axis were crushing, you almost always had to bring everything back. All back to the Russian Capital to hold it. Defending against Italians, the turn order design, the wording of the NOs, all consigns the Russians to an even more dire position on this board, despite their start at 37 ipcs. Germany can push a pretty massive inf wall against the Russians. I like this, it was the largest ground invasion in human history after all, but the Russians still seam rather weak to counter it. I think the best thing you can do to have any decent forward game, is to take advantage of artillery. Dollar for dollar, at a cost of 12 ipcs, its often a lot better to get 3 artillery pieces (to activate 3 existing infantry) than it is to just have 4 more infantry hanging around. Especially if, as is often the case, the Russians don’t have a lot of heavy hitters at the ready. The artillery can be thrown forward or traded against German infantry (admittedly at a loss of 1 ipc on the trade) but this is still better than allowing the Germans/Italy or Japan to get closer to the factories and hold ground. So the artillery unit just makes a lot of sense as a purchase. In the older boards, it was possible to just stack infantry, buy armor to launch/strafe in early rounds, and then back to stack infantry… but the distances are greater. You often need the armor/mech for the movement advantage out of the rear factories to get as many units to the front per round as you can, but at the Russian forward factories artillery is definitely the ticket.
Artillery has been the Russians’ best friend ever since Revised, and still is, but if you buy it, you gotta throw it forward. No point just sitting on it waiting to counter a G stack too massive to penetrate anyway. I think the art is better used in the medium trades if you get the chance, even at a loss on the trade Russian artillery vs G forward inf. Western Fighter shifting towards the center seems pretty essential, regardless of what you buy with Russia. But art is still decent fodder. I’d still wish the Soviets had more income to work with, but 37 ipcs in the first round isn’t too terrible, you can purchase a lot of Art for that, and probably get more out of it than trying to make up the remainder on one extra infantry unit (3/4 on average).
Buying Artillery, Armor, and now Mech seems like a solid approach, as many as you can afford, for as long as possible. But Art seems the key to me. If the Russian’s whole game usually comes down to stacking fodder and hoping you hit a bunch of 2s, best to try to take those deuces on the attack rolls as well as defense! Its a difference of 1 ipc in cost per Artillery over Infantry, but the extra pip on attack can be so major, in those instances when you catch an opening against Axis units on the trade.
Another way to think of it, in terms of purchasing strategy, always pair your Russian infantry with an artillery unit. 1:1 or at least 2:1. If, every time you buy 2 infantry for 6 ipcs, you instead buy 1 inf and 1 art, for 7 ipcs, you will activate all that infantry on attack. Even if the Art starts getting peeled off or has to absorb hits as fodder, you still have a stronger edge on attack/counter/deadzone than just pure infantry stacking alone. 1 ipc more to “activate” an infantry unit attacking at 2 is a pretty good of a single ipc. I always try to fill my forward factories with inf/art to max placement for as long as possible. And save the mech/armor remainder for the rear factories, where the movement advantage can actually make a difference. But even when you have to start stacking the center heavy, art is still a deal for the cost.
But yeah, all solid points you make above. Again nice work.
And I love the poster image at the header!!! :-D
