Russia: Aggressive or Defensive turns 1-4 (w/ Bid of +/- 24 IP for Axis)

In the forums here and at GTO, I have often read that the general consensus is that the allies had the advantage in Revised, but the axis have the advantage in Spring 1942.  I read of leagues where every game started with an allies +6 bid.  Everyone I play with (offline) feels the allies have the advantage in both, with the exception of one friend who feels the axis have the advantage in Revised.  I have begun to warm up to the axis in Spring 1942 lately, but I don’t know that I would go so far as to say they have the advantage. In my circle of family and friends, I am the most experienced A&A player. I know I ought to expand my horizons and play against some better players, thereby giving me the opportunity to learn more. Regardless, here is my question:

Do you think the Axis truly have a real advantage in a casual game without a fixed time limit, or is it only an advantage in a tournament setting with victory cities being the first deciding factor? I see it as clearly possible, if not probable, that the axis grab India and/or Karelia without losing any of their VC’s and time runs out, even if the allies are stronger militarily. The allies could be positioned to trounce the axis in the following round or two, yet lose because the axis hold 7 or 8 VC.

What are your opinions on the matter?

If you feel the axis have the advantage even in a long game, please explain why (perhaps citing a bit of your typical strategy). And please, let’s avoid the sarcastic joke strategies that have plagued some threads.

Redrum, I didn’t realize you were a Triple-A Developer.  I hope you take no offense.  I didn’t mean to insult your baby.  I appreciate the work you guys have done on Triple-A.  As of late, I have found myself playing the AI more often than I would like (as I cannot get my friends together to play often enough).  I am confident the AI will continue to improve over time.  I guess I should put up or shut up.  I ought to be submitting my bug reports to help you guys tweak the game.

@Bunnies:

@BigPapaSmurf:

Send 5 inf from Kar/Arch, 1 Artillery and two fighters to West russia and stack everything else in Cauc. Leave one Inf in Lenningrad and do your standard moves on the east end.

Don’t you run into Germany taking Karelia and West Russia, and establishing a strong center position from which Russia cannot reclaim Karelia income?

Bunnies is correct. G takes West Russia with units from BR/Ukr. Russia can retake West Russia but will only earn 27 IPC, not being able to contest Belorussia and Karelia. Germany meanwhile can build 5 inf, 5 arm on G1 and put some serious pressure to prevent Russia from stacking West Russia on turn 2.

The main goal of the Ukr attack is IMHO to get the fighter,

Cutting most of Germany’s ability to attack Caucasus is another big big plus.  If Russia lucks out on the Ukraine attack, Germany may either risk fighters on G1 on other targets to send a fighter to Ukraine, or may send valuable tanks to reclaim Ukraine.  Or if Russia lucks out at Ukraine, Russia may retreat to Caucasus to preserve its tanks/artillery.

As equally as important as the fighter is to protect the Russian units on West Russia from being destroyed on G1. If you lose them, you lose any chance of contesting Karelia/Belorussia. Germany may also stack Ukraine like you mentioned, cutting off 3 IPC to Russia (plus the 2 from Belorussia) and both sides get into a war of positions that doesn’t favor Russia (i.e. the Allies better get quickly to help).

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I think novice players tend to be a bit more conservative.  Being conservative hurts the axis more than the allies being conservative I think.  With the axis having a better opening setup than the allies, they really need to maximize that before the allies can maximize their initial economic advantage.

A good way to learn is to play a game against yourself, but beyond the first few rounds it tends to lose its potential as a learning tool I would think.   It lets you script out the first few rounds of a strategy and counters but sooner or later the next step of learning is how to take advantage of good dice and how to do damage control with bad dice, basically how to take advantage of opportunities.

I completely agree, and playing against myself is exactly how I learned the most, followed by playing 1-on-1 against really good players online.

in 1 game, the americans tried to take tokyo twice but failed

@habs4life9:

But how would you define “the start of the game”?

I would limit it to those territories that are under Russian control at the time of set-up.  It would not apply to territories that Russia conquers and then loses (recognizing that the rationale of the rule should apply to territories like the Ukraine–but when was the last time the British or Americans captured the Ukraine anyway?).  As a practical matter, the rule tweaking I suggest is intended from preventing the British (primarily) from bailing the Russians out in Karelia.

I don’t think that the purpose of placing an IC in India is to hold India. It deters Japan from walking straight into Russia an dallows the allies much more time to get into Europe. Also with India only having a value of three I don’t feel like the IPC drain is a huge commitment. Also when you couple this with a IC by the US in China you turn Asia into a back and forth contest between for those middle terrorities similar to how Russia and Germany treat Eastern Europe.

As the UK in this strategy I usually build a sizable air force to keep Germany from amassing a navy, which with help from the U.S. this is not a problem. That frees me up to put a combination of units in India and to attempt a pipeline of units into Archangel. I feel like the goal with the India IC on UK1 is to stall Japan and harass them when you can. This leaves Russia to devote a much larger force to Germany and with a little luck I have been able to to attack Japan with Russia as well.