Give me some Russian Bomber love!!!

I’ve thought some more about the details of this strategy. Firstly, it is not advised against a G1 DOW. So if we proceed on the assumption there is no G1 DOW, I like these builds/moves:

place 2 inf in Stalingrad

move the 2 inf in Caucasus to Kazakhstan - China bound.

move a tank to Turkmenistan.

move a AA gun towards China

remaining 2 mecs + 1 tank + planes move towards China.

UK West India inf activates East Persia

That way you can still take Iraq with a G2/G3 DOW.

If there is no G2 DOW, move the Stalingrad inf + Turkmenistan tank to Caucasus and leave Persia for the UK. Take NW Persia USSR3 & Iraq USSR4. With a G2 DOW, Turkmenistan tank activates Persia and Stalingrad inf proceed to the eastern front with Germany. Tac bomber positions to support the attack on Iraq USSR3.

Downside - are too many troops being stripped from the Eastern Front?

To me the rules are clear, and they prevent any cheese like triggering true neutrals into pro axis neutrals for the sake of claiming 3 IPCs per territory for Russia. However, the rules say nothing that prevents Russia from controlling Itallian Somoliland and claim 3 IPCs for the spread of communism. Therefore, denying this situation just because Italian Somoliland has zero territorial value would be a house rule IMO, and not a loophole in the rules that needs closing. Besides, this game is not in the position to take away advantages the Allies need desperately in order to compete.

Thank you Teslas for your annalysis.  I had not done the math either.  Our group has used the house rule for a couple of games and it has not deminished the need for tanks nor have we found it to be an overwhelming advantage to the axis.  The UK player has made good use of the rule as has the US players.  I have no mathmatival data to counter your information and numbers do not lie but our rolling sucks…excuse me; inhales vigorously.  I can’t hit a one or a two to save my life some games.  Mechs by themselves do not eliminate the need for Germany to build infintry and I do not feel (I recognize it is just a feeling and an opinion) that they will not eliminate the need for tanks.  Time will tell I guess as we try this rule out.

in some cases, there aren’t those “extra” destroyers to spare… Like going from a naval base you build in Hainan, to Calcutta…

@Ruanek:

@Xandax:

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

Well, not having the huge stack gives the Axis a bit more of a chance to blitz and take the necessary 8 victory cities quickly.

Well - of course. And removing the Russian troops entirely would equally.
You cannot remove the turtle. You shouldn’t IMO make it easier to take Russia.
We should however figure out why turteling is so strong and address that cause instead of just the symptom.

If you make it any easier to take Russia, you’ve effectively turned Germany into a one trick pony and removed most strategy from the European board.

@Henz:

i generally just use the russian fleet to keep the german player honest.  Was fun one game the german player attacked and destroyed an american fleet but forgot to leave anything in berlin and the russian player captured it.

my friend did the same fail

@oztea:

Dooming moscow is not a gamebreaker in this edition
It opens the possibility of getting france back in the game, if the Allies can push past normandy

At 17 if it controls all but FIC, it is a power that is near Russia’s IPC stockpile when it fell.

This is interesting, trade Russia for France (at some point). The axis strengthen would be way out of range unless most of it was lost in the battle for Moscow (make them pay). The US swoops in to destroy Italy and you now have 3 allies all in western Europe (knocking at Germany’s front door), instead of two coming from the west, and Russia in the east. If Italy does fall the 3 allied powers will have back to back turns (ooch).

@jeffdestroyer:

thanks,  I did not put the air base/naval/factories up yet

yeah, that’s weird. The capital actually has a minor factory! It’s like ANZAC not having a naval base on NSW