Larry Harris, G42, Russia In China, Question

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

Italy has only 2 tanks to start with not counting Africa so those two tanks are all you have to worry about. They may send their bomber for help but their force must be fast to keep up with the German stack. What you need to do is predict where Germany wants to move the stack next and then put at least 2-3 units there to prevent Italy from taking it. This lets Germany land their planes with their stack which prevents Russia from strafing the stack.

Also, I agree 100% with WildBill. If Germany can sucker Russia into attacking with the Leningrad stack they will miss the opportunity to reach the capital in time to help defend. Mostly depends on the size of the stack left behind. Sometimes its meaningless and other times it can cost the game but its definitely not helping Russia protect their capitol.

Also if your playing Germany… The turn before you attack Moscow, try to let Russia take back Archangel if they don’t have it and move the sub out of sz 125. This will give Russia their NO back so you can collect on it when you take Moscow :)

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

@knp7765:

I would also add it’s kind of a silly thing for UK/ANZAC to do.

No doubt. especially as the OP was proposing landing UK planes (not enough of those) in a territory with no fodder defense.

If the UK ever lays out a delicious snack like their precious India fighters and the only cost will be a 10 IPC national objective and some japanese fodder infantry…  snarf.

My two cents says - if Germany attacks G1, then builds armor repeatedly, they’ll see a shortage of infantry soon enough. Their entire western flank, as said by others, will be eroded quickly. Killing tanks with infantry/artillery and a couple planes will be a nice laugh.

Don’t forget the power of the strafe to whittle down your opponent’s fodder, then fall back into reinforced positions.

As far as infantry vs. aircraft, oh yes. Most of my early games saw me buy an aircraft for the first three rounds - I like 4 fighters/2 tacs with Russia - but I’ve abandoned that over my past 3-4 games in favor of the all meat and potatoes purchase… land units only. After all, this isn’t a trade war we’re interested in, but a game of taking and holding key positions. The days of trade wars are over, imo. They were left behind in Anniversary. Aircraft can’t take a piece of land… all it can do is kill and retreat. I now prefer to set up overlapping defensive structures with a slowly growing mobile reserve, to be able to threaten multiple places.

Russia has to learn that they don’t have to fight for every IPC. Some are ok to let go. A trade war will result in a gradual erosion of Russian land units, and death.

Submarines may go through the Gibraltar strait regardless of who controls Gibraltar. This is the only exception. Just in case you didnt know.

@Gargantua:

It’s not about when you attack but how…… Erosion is the name of the game.

This is the best part of this whole thread, and i totally agree with that.

Personally, i have attacked Russia on G2, G3, G4 and even G5 after Russia attack Germany on R4…All of them are viable. It depends, as Garg was pointing out, on HOW you do it.

@Cmdr:

Yea, theoretically, it is possible to get the Armor from Romania and/or Hungary and/or W. Poland to Moscow in 3 turns.  Actually in 2 turns.

Realistic?  I hardly think so.  Your best real chance is at a minimum of round 4 and more likely round 6 if you declare war on Germany 1.

Which is a thought, has anyone tried declaring war on Russia round 2/3 and started an invasion early?  I wonder On round 1, it is theoretically possible to kill 7 Russian infantry, sink a Battleship and a submerge a submarine (unless he wants to stand and fight) and take 3 Russian territories.

Of course, what would you have to give up to do it?

I think you wouldnt have to give up too much if you got lucky  :-). And getting Moscow by G3 is definitely unrealistic…