Is it possible to keep Russia in the war?

@The_Good_Captain

Thank you so much!

@krieghund ok, I think I got it. Thanks a bunch! :+1:

Keep in mind every time you buy transports for UK in round 1 or 2, it means less boots on the ground. It’s a trade off. I think it’s better to use French transports for moving UK troops to western front. Granted, using the French transports is slower.

I think the best time for Russia to buy fighters is if the RR is not being used and when they have giant stacks of infantry (mostly in the late game) then they buy artillery and fighters to start giving them fire power to go offense against the CP but this only happens in rare cases where Russia can go offense. Or you should buy fighters and artillery when the CPs go west instead of east (that’s the best thing to see :-D) because you are going to need them to really annoy the CPs!

@Texas:

I believe the basic line of thought is, the sooner Russia loses units, the sooner they are eliminated from the game.  Making a stand in Poland causes Russia to begin losing units turn 1, not to mention Germany has a pretty short supply line there.  Russia will lose its units on the defensive anyway, but if you can delay it until turn 3, 4, 5… the longer they will be around.

Good post this is very true

AH stacks in Galatia AH1 and attacks Romania with whatever can get there but cannot get to Galatia. Also attack Serbia obviously and I think you have to hold off on Venice till AH2 or so
Russia is more important than Italy, especially early on

They probably should have, but they didn’t, so as the rules read right now (and even as they read in the book) there are plenty of situations when the Russian player might voluntarily choose not to counterattack a province because the Revolution is preferable to the capture of Moscow from an Allied standpoint.

At least they fixed the other problems with the Russian Revolution as written in the rulebook.

@DarthShizNit:

I want a Spanish Civil War one, then Axis and Allies would have covered my two favorite military conflicts.

Hehe… reminds me of a bit from Frasier where Niles and Daphe are arguing in the coffee house about whether the US or English Civil Wars were better.  Then Frasier walks in and when they solicit his opinion, he says Spanish!  But I don't have time to prove it...

Nothing to do with the OP but just a random thought popping into my head.

And the Konigsburg off German East Africa.

I like the idea of BBs and Cruisers being able to either shell coastal regions to reduce income, or put landing parties ashore in undefended areas to take control. These forces would have no combat value vs regular troops, but would be of nuisance value to players wanting to leave areas without a garrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Königsberg_(1905)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Emden_(1906)