Does Russia Start the Game Too Weak?

Russia does start the war too weak- but what would you do instead?  Historically they were knocked out (into Revolution) essentially anyway.  If the CPs have any chance to win the game Russia must be dealt with quickly.

Well said BJCard.

Does Russia Start the Game Too Weak?

Not in our experience, even if Russia is forced into a revolution, she generally takes many CP units down w/her. Do you realize how many units Russia can pull into the Ukraine in the early going? Just about every unit they start with can get there on the first turn, in the the second turn you can get the rest there, plus the units you built in the first turn. I think the key might be to not get caught up trying to stack Romania or Poland in the first turn. These are death traps for Russia as the CP have superior numbers there. She is better off being patient IMO, and conserving her strength, then pick her moments to set up defensive stands so the CP are grinding their armies into the Russian wall. If you consolidate your units and flex your muscle you can delay the CP for a little bit. Then they need to decide if they want to attack into a 50-60 unit Russian wall (wipes out whom ever goes first), or divert more reinforcements  your direction (will help the western front).

As Russia I think your job is to tie up the CP, and grind out as many of their units as possible. If you can delay, or over come the revolution (or the siege/capturing of Moscow) you have done your part. The western front should be collapsing on the CP.

Yes, I have found that an aggressive Russia only seems to bring about its demise quicker.

@protevangelium:

if I recall what I read in Keegan

Sorry, off topic, but I have to know: Are you talking about John Keegan, the late British historian? You’ve read his books?

@protevangelium:

@Auztria:

@protevangelium:

if I recall what I read in Keegan

Sorry, off topic, but I have to know: Are you talking about John Keegan, the late British historian? You’ve read his books?

Yes. It’s been a while since I have read The First World War, so I may be off on my numbers or assessment. But my general impression was that while the Russian military suffered serious command and equipment problems, it was both a.) large and b.) capable of inflicting serious defeats on the Central Powers at various points in the war.

I suppose what stands out to me with the current A&A 1914 setup is that the concentration of Germans in the east is very large. Austria does not bother me as much, since they were among the first to mobilize and their war plan called for a large, central reserve group. But the Russians seem too sparse, especially in the northern border with the German Empire. It just does not seem to reflect the unexpected superiority in numbers they had there in 1914, and the initial German miscalculation of their capabilities.

What happens beyond that point is up to Russia!

Well, it’s all due to the playability vs. accuracy model. If Russia had a huge army in Poland, plus the reinforcements it’ll be steadily receiving for at least a few turns, the German East Prussia army would just be overwhelmed, especially if it is scaled down to historic levels too. They couldn’t put 7/8 of the German strength in the West here, as there’s no way to simulate the problems and shortages the Tsar’s army had at Tannenberg.

@protevangelium:

@Auztria:

@protevangelium:

if I recall what I read in Keegan

Sorry, off topic, but I have to know: Are you talking about John Keegan, the late British historian? You’ve read his books?

Yes. It’s been a while since I have read The First World War, so I may be off on my numbers or assessment. But my general impression was that while the Russian military suffered serious command and equipment problems, it was both a.) large and b.) capable of inflicting serious defeats on the Central Powers at various points in the war.

I suppose what stands out to me with the current A&A 1914 setup is that the concentration of Germans in the east is very large. Austria does not bother me as much, since they were among the first to mobilize and their war plan called for a large, central reserve group. But the Russians seem too sparse, especially in the northern border with the German Empire. It just does not seem to reflect the unexpected superiority in numbers they had there in 1914, and the initial German miscalculation of their capabilities.

What happens beyond that point is up to Russia!  Â

Slightly off topic as I understand what was done to Russia for game purposes, but as Keegan points out well, while the Russian army did have some serious drawbacks, it was a much more potent force than I think people realize. Aside from Tannenberg the Russian army spent the rest of 1914 basically winning every engagement it went into, including giving Hindenburg a very bloody nose the first time he ventured into Poland. In the end, less than stellar leadership (the Tsar taking command really was a terrible idea) and more importantly an under-developed economy were the biggest factors for Russia’s defeat, as militarily she conducted herself rather well up until 1917.

This is the Russia that diverted millions of German troops away from the west, effectively killed off Austria-Hungary and kept and decidedly weakened the Ottomans.

Yes. If they truly had a historically accurate setup, Russia would have almost as many troops at start as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. The Ottoman Empire would have no fleet, Germany would have extra cruisers in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, Britain would have just 1 infantry, and Africa would be even more barren. Of course they can’t do that, simply for gameplay reasons. If Russia could conquer Galicia and East Prussia effortlessly every game, people would quickly grow bored.