Is it possible for Russia to build a navy and still win?

@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)

Sorry…i didnt get any replies for a while so i stopped looking … i looked on ebay and i wasnt keen on buying a big lot plus shipping…also looked at buying individual pieces but some werent available…so i kinda had given up

Recruiting new players, even with 2nd edition is/was always hard, because of the skill level. Even if the opening moves for every country are optimized it is far from clear for new players. It takes a while to comprehend the mechanics of pushing, retreating, feints, death zones etc. If a new player is willing to pretty much lose the first 20 games he/she will become a worthy opponent, but most people are not that persistent to learn a game that takes a pretty long time to understand. When they finally are decent enough to understand why bids are a necessity it will have taken a long time. Times have changed as well… When I grew up I didn’t have internet or a computer, so when it rained we had to play board games, nowaday it is almost an exception if teens play a board game.

Another way to go is to invade Norway with everything you’ve got its an easy win, then on non-com move 2inf to Karelia and dump your fighters in moscow.  Place 3inf and 3arm in moscow as your purchases and wait for germany to invade Karelia which he will if he wants to win.  R2 counter attack with everything you’ve got, its risky but if done well and with UK’s support with reinforcements for defense Germany will be on the run from that moment on.  Why waste days building stacks of infantry and hope for “two’s” to win the day when the idea should be to attack, attack, attack.  If anything your constant attacks will force Germany to focus more on you and less on UK, which then leaves the UK to invade WE or EU if things go as planned.

Think of it this way, do you want to react to Germany’s moves or do you want him to react to your’s!  What is the worst that can happen…you lose  :-D

Agent Smith, you factor in the possibility of a lost Japanese bomber as if it was a battle of attrrition between Japan and Russia.  It is not, hence your error.  It does not matter if the bomber gets shot down.  All that maters is impacting Russias income so that they can afford less infantry on the German front.  See, you say “blah, blah, blah, it only does 3 IPC per turn.”  But that is blatantly wrong.  It does 3.5 per turn.  You are factoring the potential loss of the bomber as if thuis makes the potential bombing run do less damage than it actually does.  It is not attrition between Japan and Russia.  Finally, there is no way it flies over multiple AA guns.

Finally, you asume that all the allies air power can be flown to U.K.  B.S. I’d like to see a Japan player just trounce you.  Thrown everything at Germany and its like rolling the dice that Japan doesn’t win the game outright.  Here’s a factoid you might not know.  If everyone throws everything at Germany and takes it and Japan throws everything at Russia and takes it, Japan will win.  Most Japaness players surrender when Germany is taken.  That is the wrong thing to do.  It Japan control Russia they will win.

Those who asked WHERE you are talking have it right.

In Africa, Germany can spread thin.  If the UK and US decide to take Africa back, there is littler Germany can do about it (without leaving Russia too strong for it to matter in the long run).  So spread thin, grab IPC’s while you can, and be happy for it.

In the Siberian Russian territories, Japan can spread thin as needed to take IPC’s from Russia.  Every territory Japan can take from Russia is that much less infantry for Germany to blast through.  And if Japan keeps supplying cannon fodder for the slash and burn assaults on Russian territories, being spread thin just means that Russia has to attack small clusters of Jap infantry using their own infantry in less effective attacks.

In Europe, spreading thin can be fatal, unless you spread very far very fast.  As an example of that, the radical German strategy of simultaneous attacks on Karelia, Eastern and Caucuses is an example of spreading thin that MIGHT be worth it.  You make Russia build in Russia (even if they re-take Karelia), and prevent them from massing there again by the threat in the Caucuses; and open up some “enclosed” territories that you can hold with no forces (so long as Russia never holds Karlelia at the start of their turn).

Lastly there is the “apparent” spread thin that is really massed troops.  This would include a strategy I posted elsewhere of Two Japan fleets, one in Japan, the other in Australia, that can both converge to hammer any US assault in the central pacific.  You may look spread thin, but the reality is that you have forces massed for attack.

But when it comes to Karelia and Eastern Europe, there is ONLY one answer:  The more, the better… ALWAYS!

In games where the Axis is given a bid the Russians can begin to be in trouble by turn 5 or 6. This is because its usually at point that the Germans have enough quantity of troops on the ground to begin a walkthrough the Cauc strategy via Ukr in order to back Russia out of Karelia. If they can do this and have Japan at the same time take and hold Novo then its lights out for Russia sooner or later. The best tactic is to strafe Moscow with the Germans and then finish them off with the Japs.

I only say sacrifice that front for the Factories… otherwise…