Topics created by the spaceman

@govz

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

@the-spaceman said in The Sneaky Russian:

Hey Everyone,

I corrected some of your numbers since they were off.

Just came up with an oddball idea and am wondering if anyone has tried it or whether it would make sence, ruleswise and competitively.

In OOB trying to gain extra Russia income in this way is a longtime and widely accepted strategy. Most Axis Players will do their best to deny this outcome. In BM3 they removed the possibility for Africa and the Middle East income as most Players felt this was kind of a cheesy rule for Africa and the Middle East and meant more for Europe.

The Goal
Russia gets 3 IPCs for every Italian/German or Pro-axis territory.
Persia IPCs +3
Iraq IPCs+2 +3
Tobruk.IPCs.+3
Lybia IPCs +1 + 3
Ethiopia +1 + 3
Italian Somalialand + 3

22 IPCs for Russia

Finland + 2 + 3
Norway +3 + 3

11 IPCs for Russia

Total + 33 IPCs for Russia

Methods.
Group 1 (depends on German DOW)
The forces in and around Leningrad should be able to take out the Finland/Norway forces maybe with some extra tanks/planes built in Leningrad.

Pretty unlikely. Most Axis Players are going to bring two additional units to Norway on G1 giving the Axis 9 ground units. Add in German and Italian planes and only a major push by the Russians would have any chance to taking Finland and Norway. If the Russkies tried this, one of two things are going to happen, 1) Moscow is going to fall with so many troops in the north or 2) the Germans will divert their army north and wipe out the Russian Army Group North on the cheap.

Group 2 (Turns 1-2)
The 2 mobile units in Stalingrad go south activating Persia and then taking Iraq by about turn 2-3, with help of Iraninan infantry and maybe a aircraft. 2 inf from caucasus go south also.
(not sure if tanks can blitz through empty neutrals? It states friendly or enemy but is pro allied counted as friendly?)

Armor cannot blitz through a friendly aka pro-allied neutral. Most commonly you will see UK take Northwest Persia to open this route south for the Russians. In addition, the UK will strafe or try to clear Iraq for Russian capture. This one is a given if UK is willing to give it up. There is a LOT of debate if this is a wise move or not. Helps Russia in the short run and hurts UK in the long run.

Group 3 (Turns 3-5)
A short hop from Iraq is Tobruk/Lybia. The single tank might be all you need to grab both of these if the UK player has been helpful by clearing the med of Italian Shipping and strafing any Italian units in africa.

Again, the Axis Player is going to be doing their best to make sure Tobruk, Libya and possibly Tunisia do not fall into Russian hands. This is definitely a legitimate strategy for UK to try and clear those territories for Russian occupation. Very powerful if successful.

Group 4 (Turns 3-5)
Another part of this strategy involve the UK now really going fully pro communist. The British use their transport in the persian gulf to send 1-2 Iranian (now Russian) infantry to Africa to land in Italian Somalialand by about turn 4-5. If the UK hasnt already grabbed Ethiopia as well they can pick this one up too. On T1 the UK should pull units out of Anglo Egytian Sudan and then counter attack the Italian units in UK coloured territories. We dont want UK getting 1 IPC for ethiopia when its worth 4 to the russians.

If the Italian Player allows the UK to clear Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland easily they are doing a piss poor job. Taking one of the two is a very good possibility for the Russians and if the UK is willing to risk losing a plane or two possibly both are up for grabs.

Group 5 (Turns 6-7)
Bulgaria +1/4 Albania +1/4 Rumania+3/6. If the Strategy is working so far keep it Rolling with the Russians advancing through Southern Europe for +14 IPCs. If these areas are lightly defended UK can Can-opener them with bombers flying out of bases in the med

Never going to happen. No matter what happens in the Middle East and Africa the Germans are going to be on the doorstep of Moscow so no Russians are heading west.

Results.
The additional 30 IPCs for Russia will counter any losses Germany has inflicted. Maybe keeping Russias production around 40-50 even when the Germans are at the gates of Moscow.

Group 2 and 3 are easily taken if UK agrees to standard cooperation and Group 4 if a higher level of cooperation is achieved.

Group 1 requires a tough fight and will probable result in heavy losses of men and territories as well.

The Group 5 is the fantasy scenario and represents a “winning More” strategy

Conclusion.
The kicker for me in this strategy seems to be the ablity to turn zero IPC territories into 3 IPC territories. This includes Tobruk and Italian Somalialand. There is no reason that the British would want these as they gain no benefit.

The other practical benefit is that bumping russian IPC output puts boots on the ground where they are most needed.

The main questions are around the speed in which Russia can move to capture these territories vs the speed that Germans can attack?

Secondly does the benefit to Russia outweigh the cost in units lost and the cost to UK of not capturing these territories?

In summary, I would say it is very easy for the Russians to get $3 out of Africa and very possibly $6. If they get $9 or $12 that is great though unusual. The Middle East for $5 is a given if UK is willing to give it up and risk a plane or two. Europe is never going to happen unless in the end game and Norway/Finland is a lot more difficult and risky than you may realize.

Excellent strategizing and thinking!

@the-spaceman Seems like a good start. A few thoughts to throw into the mix:

I would say UK’s naval priorities should be first the Baltic fleet, then any stray transports, then any stray subs. The subs don’t do any convoy damage or anything like that, so they’re really just targets of opportunity; it’s not like you can safely leave British transports unattended anyway because of the German bomber, so the subs aren’t doing that much more harm. The Baltic fleet is top priority because it allows Germans to cheaply conquer Norway/Finland/Karelia, and because it’s too expensive for Germany to sanely replace.

The Australian transport can flee across Argentina to the Atlantic, but I would leave the destroyer behind to block a J2 attack on Australia – I think it does more good slowing down Japan and keeping some of the UK income than it does to get a destroyer added to your Atlantic fleet, like, 3 turns later. For similar reasons, I usually won’t move the starting US Pacific fleet to the Atlantic. If the Allies took unusually heavy naval losses, then maybe it’s worthwhile, but the Pacific fleet is earning you nothing the whole time it’s in transit through the Panama Canal. Having a few starting boats in the Pacific – even just CV, ftr, DD, tran – means that if you ever do need to upgrade the Pacific fleet into a formidable force because Japan is grabbing Alaska and Hawaii or whatever, then you can do so with one turn of purchases. If you can’t quickly reinforce the US Pacific fleet to the point where it can drive away the Japanese navy, then you might be forced to buy 10 infantry for the Western US instead or something similarly expensive and wasteful.

It doesn’t always make sense to build a huge Atlantic fleet at all as the Allies – sometimes you can sink the Italian fleet using primarily air power and subs, and/or build a pair of factories in Egypt, South Africa, India, or Australia. Some games you won’t have enough good safe factory sites, and some games you’ll need a big fleet because, e.g., Germany is heavy on air power (so you need protection for your transports) but short on infantry (so invading France is really attractive). On the other hand, if Germany trades its entire air force to wipe out your boats on G1, builds a factory in France on G1, and then drops 6 infantry there on G2, maybe just let the Atlantic navy go for several turns and rely on factories instead, or have the British build factories and let the Americans reinforce with a fleet into Morocco after they build up.

Good discussion. In my playgroup, NO’s off/Dardanelles closed/escort & interceptor allowed/tech allowed (but rarely used)/6-12 bid to allies (typically +2inf on eastern front, +1inf in Egypt, +1 inf in Yunan) seems to provide a fairly balanced game.

When we played with NOs on, the ability of the axis to couple their starting hardware advantage with near economic parity by round 2 or 3 (before the US is even “in the game”) always resulted in axis win. We didn’t take the time to figure out what the bid for the allies needs to be to have a balanced game with NOs on but I suspect it might be between 25-30 IPCs. Of course, our predictable play might be the actual issue!

The best thing I have found that keeps Japan in check is having the US Build a factory in Alaska and place navy armada in seazone 64.
This does a couple of things:
    Bombers placed in Alaska can strategic bomb Japan.

The US can threaten to invade Japan during the next turn.

The US can land units in Russia and threaten Japans Asia control.

Most importantly it forces Japan to keep buying a navy instead of ground units in order   
    to protect Japan.