Rusia overrun

[unmerged(15136)]

I have been playing the game for a while now on LAN with six others, and I find that Russia is way to weak.

A good example is the last time we played. I with Germany, and my allies Italy and Japan attacked Russia in late 1937.

First at the end of 36 I Blitzed France, while Italy had already taken over the Balkans. Japan was under strict orders to build a big ground force. With Germany producing 24 div of inf. and Italy sending all expendable men to the Polish, German border, Poland was attacked and annexed. As the annexation of the poles was being signed German, Italian and Japanese launched a mass invasion of Russia. They didn’t stand a chance, superior numbers, tech and the simple fact of 3 humans attacking on 1 human defending, on such a big peace of land. THERE IS NO CHANCE!!!

USA STILL IS ASLEEP AND THE BRITS CAN´T DO A THING!!
They managed to land 30 troops in France, but to no avail


Even if Russia only builds troops there is no way their can repel the Axis on 2 fronts.


Thus it was suggested that Russia declares war on US of A and dedicates itself to mass production of troops and cheap techs in 36. US of A provides the big red Bear with expensive techs and races against the wind to try and build a land army while investing in tech mostly.

The Brits sit on their island and prepare for D Day and hold on their colonies, not to mention put up a massive naval blockade on Europe. Just in case some German or Italian troops land in Mexico and then declare war on the states.... (It seems wierd that the states can only sit on its hands while 50 German divisions land in mexico)

Is this insane??

I have done the math and 3 Axis full on the Russian in the beginning does not smack of fair play.

 

[unmerged(5553)]

What version did you play

Your experience would conflict with the bulk of multiplayer experience. Perhaps your soviet player played very poorly. Or you had free tech share and the Soviet player did not receive any tech from the allies. I would suggest, however, that very few multiplayer veterans would agree with you about the USSR being underpowered. I know that I completely disagree.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

If you have a human USA, since you've DOW'ed the Allies and Poland (at least), you've probably given the USA an extra 150+ IC, so they should be feeding UK tech and supplies like mad. (assuming there are no tech share rules)

If Russia DOW's USA, the dissent hit will hurt them, and AFAIK, Russia doesn't get the CG drop if they initiate hostilities. By putting USA in the war right off the bat however, you basically guarantee an Allied win. They will have as much free IC as the whole Axis put together. They would definitely not be 'racing against the wind'

Any Russian player should realise that he is fair game right from day one, and plan research and production accordingly.

You may want to consider rules on tech sharing. A few groups are using 1 a month as a guideline, with no gold (theory) techs allowed to be shared.

 

[unmerged(15136)]

We normally play at difficult or very difficult. Meaning a 10% or higher industry lose. Should multiplayer games be played at a normal difficulty level?

Russia was being pumped with tech from the Brits and the USA. Thing is no matter how much Russia in 1936 puts into production of troops and troop techs; they can not possibly out produce the 3 axis powers. Germany just has to use its initial advantage as fast as possible. (I mean their troops fight at an organizational level of 74% compared to the 45% of the Russians.) Also German industry is bigger at least for the first 2 years (ok Russia got more IC points but its population needs more to keep it happy and Russia needs to improve its industry.) So just doing the math Russia out matched at least till 1938.

So u suggest a limit to tech sharing. (I see that Italy and Japan suffer here, but then again normally u gain 2.5 dip pts a month and if u give one to Italy and one to Japan and they do the same, it is almost the same. Or is it one tech share and that’s it)


And yes I see that the states entering at the beginning is a bummer for the Axis, but if Russia is German by 1938 and the American's WE is still not high enough to enter the War, the US is in a tight spot to say the least.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by ErantD
...but if Russia is German by 1938 and the American's WE is still not high enough to enter the War, the US is in a tight spot to say the least.

I am almost positive that USA WE will be at 100 if Germany takens Poland, France, and Russia. Moscow itself is like 50 victory points.

So, the US would be in the war attacking Japan's navy and threatening the home islands, so Japan would not be able to launch a full-scale attack against Siberia. And all the Soviet player has to do is form a short line in Siberia in the mountains to keep the Japs from advancing far. There are so many low infra provinces in Siberia, that it makes invasion difficult.

UK and USA threaten to invade France and Africa, so the Axis must keep a good number of divisions in the theater. If Italy concentrates on invading, they will be vulnerable in Africa and the Italian mainland.

That early, German tank tech will not be very good, so the Russians will just have to fight a defensive war and delaying actions until the balance of numbers start to tip to the Allied side.

 

[Diefledermas]

I'm curious about something...

In (your) games were Russia being overrun, what are the human player countries?

Are you playing Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia? Or those 4 plus USA?

Also, if your German player races into Poland in Jan 36 why isn't the Russian counter attacking and crushing the (inferior) German forces immediatley?

Just trying to figure out this "underpowered" Russia issue, because (if anything) Russia might be a little "overpowered" IMHO

 

[GLENN]

Gang

Your always going to have a problem when 3 players gang up on one. No matter who you play.

But like Diefildermas there are things SU could have done, like help out Poland.

 

[unmerged(15136)]

Six Players

USA
Britain
USSR

Germany
Italy
Japan


Thing about the Italians is that they can go lampooning around Africa if they like but this is in a way pointless..

U see Africa yields no real important IC or materials, only the middle east does. But here is the thing, Italy will loose a lot of men, and fleet for no real gain. Britain might look smaller on the map, but it won´t really be affected. It wants the Italains to waist faluble manpower and expose its fleet.

For the first 2 years all the raw materials can be "raped" off the weaker Eurtopean nations. If the Italain fights the defencive part of the Eastern front and the Germans the Spear head, the reasources would be in a much better use. Also the gains in Russia r a lot more worth it than all of the Middle east and Africa.

It is a lot more boring for the Italians true, but Germany is the big brother and Italy a should play the allie not the little brother in constant need of germanies help.

This is what happened the last time:

Italy takes Albania and Yugoslavia 1936
Germany Attacks France after making 20 div of troops, and start building 20 tanks (can´t remember how many), NO TECH after making 20 DIV.
Mid 37:
Germany invades France
then
Alaince Italy Germany
Germany invades Poland
then
Alaince Jap Ita Ger
Germany Attacks USSR
end of 37 all this has occured.
USSR play pulling his hair out and sewing for peace, 20 DIV of tanks ready, USA still can not enter war.


If the Germans think right and don´t PQ the Yanks then Russia is a sitting duck. 3 on 1 true, the Brits could not do very much.

Thing is we decided to have one play as France. Which country do we leave out.
Well if france falls he could become the USA.
Thus buying some time and not having the US player fall asleep on us. Also free tech share to the us from the Allies.

 

[Diefledermas]

U see Africa yields no real important IC or materials,

Granted the IC is minimal (but this also means expandable) BUT Africa has large rubber reserves which is a strategic objective.


So UK was a human player? Were they bombing Germany? Launching raids on Germanic beach provinces? Did they assist France during the war?

Was the USA shipping oil and supplies to the UK and USSR? Bet it wasn't.

And, what were the TACTICS Germany and Russia used on the Eastern Front? Did Russia pull back to the Dneiper River and force Germany to assualt across it? Or did they try and hold the line at Poland? Did the Russians attempt to cut off spearheads? Did they leave all their troops in the Far East or more them to the Central Plains? There are still a lot of X factors you need to explain.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Just curious, how many divs went into Russia, and how many did Russia have?

 

[unmerged(16020)]

I'd be pissed off if 3 on 1 couldn't beat the USSR in 37. Once he starts losing ground, he should try to prevent himself from being made a puppet or annexed and focus on that.

I don't play Russia enough to know the best provinces to hold (besides the river), but I know that it would be wise for the Soviet player to build land forts either in Irkusk (spelling, VP province above China) which is guarded by rivers, or the mountainous province to the right of it. For the Eastern Front, once the Dneiper is breached, the Soviet player might have to evaluate and sacrifice one of the three areas to save the other two.

It's very difficult for the Axis to win a war of attrition with the US, so the Soviet player should simply try to hold on and wait for the US.

And no one can win without someone losing.

 

[unmerged(15136)]

What happened

Originally posted by Diefledermas
Granted the IC is minimal (but this also means expandable) BUT Africa has large rubber reserves which is a strategic objective.

My point is that in the beginning one can capture supplies from European neighbours. Also rubber comes from oil. The Caucuses has a shed load of oil. Africa can wait until Italy has better troops and IC to invest the rubber into. At least for a couple of years, Italy cannot afford to loose its men, and ships in the first 2 years of war.

Originally posted by Diefledermas

So UK was a human player? Were they bombing Germany? Launching raids on Germanic beach provinces? Did they assist France during the war?

Britain tried but it was caught of guard and even with their help if Germany invests heavily into troops:
English troops if they have numbers will be too weak and if they invest in tech, too little.

Yes they did raid, 30 troops even landed in mass but again no time was granted. You must think that they where only able to use there full IC capacity because they where at war for 1 year.

Originally posted by Diefledermas

Was the USA shipping oil and supplies to the UK and USSR? Bet it wasn't.

To the British they where but to the Russians only oil. The US player wanted to at least have some IC to invest in Tech. It was pumping both the UK and USSR with techs.

Originally posted by Diefledermas

And, what were the TACTICS Germany and Russia used on the Eastern Front? Did Russia pull back to the Dneiper River and force Germany to assault across it? Or did they try and hold the line at Poland? Did the Russians attempt to cut off spearheads? Did they leave all their troops in the Far East or more them to the Central Plains? There are still a lot of X factors you need to explain.

They held first at the Polish line with must of its force behind the Dneiper. Rommel Broke through and established a bridge crossing to the north. The Russians did not have enough troops to have at least a 12 div tight line behind the Dnieper. They raced to the Moscow line, but again with the Italians bolstering the southern line and the Northern German divisions punching hit and run strikes along the whole Russian line. The Russians lost battles and the German kept their organization as low as possible.

Japan cut the Russians off in as many places they could, and yes eventually did go down the Siberian Railroad, but only after the Russians mounted a counter attack witch almost obliterated a Nippon army, resulting in a lucky break for the Japanese.

Although the Oriental front was an unlucky break for the Russians it was but a distraction to the real front.


Also the Romanians joined the Axis as soon as their Russian border went to the Axis. They did bugger all but it was a morale blow for the USSR player.

Thing is its probably Historically correct, if u take into account several things. Russia was under developed, still believed in a none nationalistic society, Germany does not have to tie down troops to keep French and Polish Resistance from popping up and fighting back.

 

[unmerged(15472)]

actually early attack on ussr is good

I think the earlier the better to attack USSR. The longer you wait, the stronger he gets (forts, land docs, tank tech etc.) I agree that mucking around in africa pays little to the axis. The one game (with all good players) I was in where germany attacked USSR PRIOR to even france/UK the germans and italians toasted the USSR in about 8 months. Just in time for UK/FRANCE WE to hit 100 but the germans were ready and USSR was knocked out. It's an interesting strategy that is seldom attempted but could use some expermentation. Even going for France first, i would advocate hitting USSR right after vichey (hopefully US WE will be set back to about 70%) so you will get a full year on USSR before US enters. I find that almost all germans do not manage US WE well, I'm convinced i can keep US out of war till 41 easily (by NOT supporting spain, by Vichey, and by NOT attacking all the little east and lowland coutries and by having Japs concentrate on india/netherlands/africa and not DOW china.)

Brindle

 

[Diefledermas]

I think the earlier the better to attack USSR.

If you wait for Poland to become a Paternal Autocrat and then blitz straight through it can work. BUT, a competant Russia player will concede land for time and it will be a gamble. A fast build-up of mech/armored forces and attacks in the Summer of 36 (if this is your tactic) would be my advice

 

[unmerged(15136)]

I always get the feeling that there r very good players out there whenever I read this forum.

Sun Tzu says the same thing Ceaser does, but why is he always qouted and Ceaser not?

 

[Diefledermas]

"It was Ceasar's hope that he could finish the business without fighting or casualties because he had cut his adversaries off from food supply. Why lose men, even for victory? Why expose soldiers who deserved so well of him to wounds? Why even tempt fortune. Victory through policy is as much a mark of the good general as victory by the sword."

Julius Caesar, The Civil War, c. 45 BC, tr. Hadas

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Et tu, ErantD?

 

[unmerged(9612)]

The problem with an USSR first strategy for the axis is that it gets the US WE up very quickly...

In one game, I took Leningrad as Germany in oct 36 and the US was at war in Nov 36... Just too many VPs in USSR...

So the SU can concede ground , and not waste its units ..... and wait for the eventual weight of the US to be felt....

In a situtation where you have unlimited tech share, the SU can focus on producing infantry, and get supplies and tech from the US....

 

[Diefledermas]

The problem with an USSR first strategy for the axis is that it gets the US WE up very quickly...

The Germans could take all of Russia and US WE wouldn't hit 100. And if Russia is out of the fight, its over.

In one game, I took Leningrad as Germany in oct 36 and the US was at war in Nov 36... Just too many VPs in USSR...

I'm assuming these "too many VP's" include Moscow, right? So as Germany, should we give back the Rhineland to LOWER US WE, no...wait... how about we kick out Hilter and make Neville Chamberlain chancellor... while we're at it we could not attack anything and then US WE would never hit 100....

So the SU can concede ground , and not waste its units ..... and wait for the eventual weight of the US to be felt....

All the while giving Germany more territory, IC's, and resources. If the Russians play this game you can use the Dneiper as a good border. The Russians can't cross it either. If the Russians pull back past the Dneiper - i.e. you take Moscow, i.e. game over

In a situtation where you have unlimited tech share, the SU can focus on producing infantry, and get supplies and tech from the US....

So, wouldn't that mean the Germans should strike early before unlimited tech share has a chance to benefit the Russians?