Soviet Strat from Threadjacked No Supply Thread

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

To get some up to speed:

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
Balkans: What's effective against stopping an Italian rampage in the Balkans is a DOW on Italy. You usually have a month to prepare for war if you are the one starting it.

Persia: What's effective against an Axis invasion of Persia is a DOW on the Axis. Besides, you don't have huge forces sitting around in Baku to quickly go into Persia. You'd have to redeploy them there anyway, which means their org drops to zero.Might as well be using "no supply".

USA: First off, if the Allies can't defend the United States, why would you want them as your allies? Secondly, your troops on the transports would gain org on the trip across the Atlantic, and since you can deploy troops right to Leningrad, you can use the time it would have taken to get the troops there to regain org. The only problem would be the low org of the ships, but the US and UK should have control of the Atlantic anyway.

I hate to be crass, but leave the exp forces to the pansy* democratic countries. You are the Great Red Bear, you are supposed to instill fear in the hearts of men. You don't send over Rokossovki and five divisions, you declare war on Germany and raise hell. I agree you have to be aggressive, but sending exp forces is not being aggressive.


*In game terms only, not real life

Originally posted by Riso
No shit, nothing ruins an Axis victory in USA more than the red bear coming through Poland kicking your pansy defenses with his complete army.

Originally posted by Tomar
We are now discussing soviet strat, which I think is more interesting that the supply thing issue

RE hurting Japan.. Possibly you can hurt them more..(however they do have better troops initially) than they hurt SU (although the best way to do it is to attack them first and in strength).. But that's not the goal... The goal is to survive and win... Any forces and IC lost against Japan are not available to stop Barbarossa. Losing Vlad, Petropavlosk etc.... is a significant loss of IC (especially if you have upgraded industry there).. Tying up significant forces against Japan, leaves the door open for an aggressive German that wants to do USSR early....Japan does not care about an ongoing war with SU.. He gets the CG reduction and additional IC from any territory he manages to capture.. he has no other ennemies if he annexed China and no threat till well later on.... What I am saying is "dont invite early Japanese agression", that is trouble.

Re dowing Italy over balkans or Persia... Have not seen this done... Dont know how effective that would be (of course Benito would be scared .. but then u have the 10 percent dissent and probably no territorial gain)... From what I understand of the mechnics of 1.04 at the right time they would just join Axis, the germans would not have to dow you and pouf ... there goes the CG reduction for ever ...... Am I correct ?
In any case you can DETER Italy or others from aggression by sending in sizable exp corp to defend threatened countries

Re dowing Germany when the axis tries the "early US invasion" gambit.... well you need to roll over the poles first ... so 20 percent dissent by the time you get to Germany .+ no consumer goods reduction... + if French are AI and poles democratic they will dow you...+ if germany has been building up they will stop you and slowly push you back until they are ready to deal with you. And helping the US , well makes sense, you dont want the axis to be too strong unless you are fairly sure you will ally with them .... Not for the faint of heart ...

A lot will depend here on how much trade is allowed as in MP games this often tends to be a restricting house rule the players agree upon .. If no tech trade, very hard to fight the germans early

Originally posted by Riso
What you forget is that USA will join Allies, making them beeing at war with you too.

Also, Sovs can just get Military Access from Poland and walk through.

And don't tell me it doesn't work, because I've seen it work.

Read the AAR in the appropriate forum by Minodrin.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

From what I've seen, the most effective way to combat an Axis DOW in Persia is for USSR to annex them first

 

[unmerged(15472)]

USSR MP to Win ideas.

Assuming 36 start, assuming MP, and assuming you intend to win as communist and not just be on the "winning side". Here are some ideas I currently use:

My main goal is to make sure that neither the axis nor allies dominates. Work both sides, only commit to one alliance to keep parity. And only backstab one side at end of war in rush to VPs. Playing to win as USSR is IMHO one of the hardest balancing acts to follow. You must be prepared to outright change sides to keep the balance of power. Ultimately, you need a viable Axis and Allied side all the way through 1946. Then it’s all out rush to VPs to game end.

From 36-38ish work both sides, do not commit to either. It is important to work both the allies and axis. Trade with them for tech and use calculated threats. For instance, tell the US to give you 2 specific techs and you will choose to not intervene in Spain. You get 2 techs, some dissent and US gets bettter WE. Another example, tell Germany that it will be DOW if they even influence Romania, remember, germany does not want war with you at this time. Be active at intervening and set yourself up to actively join either side once the action gets heavy. For example, I attack Persia right off the bat in 36. By doing this I not only deny the axis that oil, but i expand my buffer zone, as well as set my forces up to have direct access to EITHER help or attack the allies in India and Africa (via way of iraq). I now have a direct border and can send Exp forces to help the allies or armies to attack the allies. I don’t worry about the small dissent, you get 5 back from MR pact and its easy to bring it down to 0 with minimal investment. Better to grab those ICs and land now as it will not be possible later. Mostly tech and use DI to get Finland and Romania lined up. Pay particular attention to Japan and/or even the nationalist Chinese as either of these countries might join your alliance in the long run. After all, you have a lot more to offer then directly than any ally or axis player does (except maybe USA). Be prepared to attack small democratic countries to lower US WE if it is going up too fast. An early entry of US spells doom. However, you must also make sure France does not fall.

39-43ish. Sit out the war. Hopefully, you have stirred up a little hell and hurt US WE so that the axis don’t get steamrolled by a too early US entry but not so much that the allies get pummeled. The perfect set up is that the west front and Africa are in stalemate and the Japs or bogged down in china with UK support. Sit tight but start building up the divisions. Be prepared to DOW if one side starts getting too powerful, but after stabilizing the situation offer peace, and be prepared to switch sides at a minutes notice. Again, the goal is not to crush the axis or allied, but to keep them in balance.

44-end. Continue to be kingmaker. Work to convince Japan or Nationalist China to join sides with you. You have much more to offer them then their traditional allies. Once one side starts to get a significant edge, go ahead and DOW with full force. I recommend to DOW against whichever side is “winning”. At this point, the goal should be to crush those powers (with the help of whatever is left of the opposite side) and set up USSR vs the world. But, by now the world should be too weak to stop the mighty bear….


Brindle

 

[unmerged(12221)]

you get 5 back from MR pact

Many will not offer Mol-Rib in the first place to deny you claims on the baltic states, Finland and Romania.

 

[unmerged(15472)]

MR deny

Riso,

Yes, and then they are treated to 60 inf divisions on expeditionary forces into poland. You can have a full blown shadow war with Germany and cause him tons of grief. Once bitten, twice shy. Remember, Germany is not in position to deny russia claims, they need to get france out of way first. I recommend very aggressive actions against germans that dont offer or renig on MR pact. They might get away with it on Single Player but not in MP. Also, offer germany perks like attacking Finland, Sweden etc. that lower US warentry. At this stage of the game, Germany is not your enemy nor should he consider you his enemy.


Brindle

 

[unmerged(12221)]

Regardless of what you say, for Germany Russia is always the main enemy because it sits right next to him.

treated to 60 inf divisions on expeditionary forces into poland

Even if you send those 60 inf, a skilled player can kill them all, thanks to that nice tech advantage he enjoys.

 

[unmerged(15472)]

USSR vs Germany poland

yes, but USSR has tons of manpower you can burn off, while getting experience, while slowing down Germany attack on france for a long time. and you can make it 100 divisions if you want. if USSR was so easy to bum-rush by germany then why doesn't germany just attack USSR in 36 or 37? trust me, a skilled USSR player can cause major havok to the germans in poland if they want to intervene. And after poland is attacked, the german has war with UK and France and can hardly spare the extra divisions to deal with a major insertion by USSR. At least in the games i've played, Germany was SOL when USSR sent large intervention in Poland (64ish org 12 stacks on inf defending behind rivers aint that easy to uproot). However, i do agree, germany will root them out, but is the cost of that worth not offering the MP and dealing with USSR at a time and place of germany choosing? I'm basically just suggesting that not intervening would be worse for USSR if you have a greedy germany. Make em pay!

I do agree that Germany should consider USSR a major enemy, but the allies in total is way more important to control early in the game so Germany should in 36-39ish work with USSR, not against. Just like in real-life they did. Of course, im assuming that the USSR player is not just an "allied" but is attempting to win as communist.

Brindle

 

[unmerged(5553)]

Your assumption is what is usually missing

I've rarely been in a MP game where the USSR played as anything other than one of the Allies.


Your Poland strategy is just another example of why I do not like expeditionary forces. You're right, though, I just am starting to develop a policy of extremely restrictive house rules on expeditionary forces.

 

[cfeedback]

Re: Your assumption is what is usually missing

Originally posted by fpolli
I've rarely been in a MP game where the USSR played as anything other than one of the Allies.


Your Poland strategy is just another example of why I do not like expeditionary forces. You're right, though, I just am starting to develop a policy of extremely restrictive house rules on expeditionary forces.

point 1: agreed.

point 2: that seems to be one of the few valid uses for expeditionary forces...if the MR pact hadn't occured Russia would be extremely concerned by a German invasion of Poland, no? cheese tactics like sending forces then DOW'ing is one thing, but I thought Brindle had a pretty good strategy in this case.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Re: USSR MP to Win ideas.

Originally posted by Brindle
However, you must also make sure France does not fall.

Brindle

Iheard that!

 

[unmerged(15472)]

USSR as allied

fpolli,

Join the warmonger clan then! Only one winner, democracy, facsist or communist. Just like real life

In our last two 8 player games the USSR has allied with Japan and torn up the allies in asia because US entered war so early and Nat's human and not braindead.

Make for a much more interesting game. Plays more like the old AH game "Third Reich" where USSR did not win if UK won.

Brindle

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: Re: Your assumption is what is usually missing

Originally posted by cfeedback
point 2: that seems to be one of the few valid uses for expeditionary forces...if the MR pact hadn't occured Russia would be extremely concerned by a German invasion of Poland, no? cheese tactics like sending forces then DOW'ing is one thing, but I thought Brindle had a pretty good strategy in this case.

I don't know, sending 60 or 100 divisions to someone as a nuetral...that kind of makes it so you don't have to declare war at all. Gets you all the benefits but none of the penalties, it seems.

 

[unmerged(12221)]

Wouldn't a smart german player not have enough units to deal with Sov right after moppin up Pol anyway?

USSR has allied with Japan

Naughty Japan, especially because Axis need every help they can get.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Originally posted by Riso
Wouldn't a smart german player not have enough units to deal with Sov right after moppin up Pol anyway?




Naughty Japan, especially because Axis need every help they can get.

Actually, in this latest game, Japan allied to USSR is quite helpful. Without having to worry about Russia, Japan can be a bigger pain in the neck to the Allies (of course USSR taking India could also have something to do with it)


With a true 3-party system, this is a very interesting game. Axis controls S.America, the Med belongs to Italy with an open Suez, and Texas and other Southern states proudly sport a Brazilian flag, with Italian restaurants popping up everywhere

This is the first MP game i have seen with the Allies in trouble.

 

[unmerged(12221)]

Soviets taking India you say.
Hm. That is about a 60 IC drop for the UK.

Dowing Allies is a nice idea, but that 10 dissent penalty is a pain in the ass.

 

[unmerged(15472)]

no dissent DOW with allies!

Riso,

Since Japan was at war with the allies, but not allied to germany, when I offered Japan entry into the communist alliance, USSR inherited a free DOW. So, no dissent. And since Japan had been at war for about 5 months, all those pesky UK and Nat units where way up north when the Red tide rolled through India and Iraq.

Brindle