From: James Bailey Subject: Russian strategy in Pax Brit RUSSIAN OPTIONS AND STRATEGY FOR PAX BRITANNICA: MONEY FOR NOTHING (AND YOUR CZECHS FOR FREE?) ***THE LIMITS OF THE VAST EXPANSE*** Let's start with the very obvious: Russian options are not simply limited, they are severely limited. The problem for the Russian is how to alleviate this sad situation. Even the routine strategy of placing Int/Infl markers in adjacent areas is limited. Russia is adjacent to 9 areas. With its initial merchant fleet (which must be moved immediately to the N.China Sea for maximum contact) the number of reachable areas rises to 13. Unfortunately, the counter mix limits Russia to 10 Int/Infl markers. Since Russia has only two areas where it should immediately place control markers (Korea and Formosa), the counter mix prevents maximum Russian exploitation. Such maximum expansion is not as rare as you might think because most of the nearby areas are economically worthwhile over several turns and all are worth VPs at the end of the game. I have often reached maximum placement of Int/Infl playing Russia -- which usually results from Russia having more money than things to spend it on. I see no logical reason to limit Russia this way, and my guess is that in the case of Russia this counter limitation probably is due to printing considerations rather than game design. Of course Russia will free up some of its Int/Infl markers by placing control markers but there are limits here as well. Russia is limited to 7 control markers but should *never*, even in the most bizarre game, expect to place them all. The only areas Russia can seriously hope for the opportunity to place control markers are Korea, Formosa, Anatolia, Rumania, and *maybe* Bulgaria and Persia. Russia is adjacent to several Chinese areas (most notably Manchuria) but for reasons explained below will never be allowed to place a control marker in any of these. Russia is free to place control markers in Turcomania and Afghanistan, but the cost/benefit analysis makes doing so very unwise. If these two are included, then Russia can in theory place all 7 control markers -- the following paragraphs consider the merits and likelihood of such placements. ***MANCHURIA IS NOT A CANDIDATE*** Starting with the impossible -- Russia will never be allowed into a Chinese area because this will require multi-power agreement following a Chinese Rebellion. The prize Chinese area is of course Manchuria, and given Russia's low VP divisor, other nations simply cannot allow Russia to have it. In fact, it is my sense that the opportunity for Russian expansion into Manchuria should normally prevent any division of spoils following suppression of a Chinese Rebellion. (Division of spoils following the Rebellion requires agreement of all powers in China.) The other powers would be foolish to allow Russia to get Manchuria, and Russia should not agree to giving up Manchuria in exchange for a much less significant Chinese area. However, this situation presents a diplomatic opportunity for Russia. Since Russia can demand Manchuria, if other nations want anything from China they must appease Russia. Russia's position in Manchuria lets Russia call the shots on Chinese spoils. Other nations will not be willing to give Manchuria to Russia, but they may be quite willing to give something else. (Of course if you can convince them to let you have Manchuria, take it! But no experienced player would agree to that.) My suggestion is that Russia trade claims to Manchuria for cash from the other powers in China. The reasoning here is simple: Russia cannot trade for other areas because Russia cannot reach them, but Russia can bank cash for VPs at a very nice exchange rate. Russia cannot expand into China, but Russia can still get something by threatening to veto any other spoils agreement. ***WESTWARD HO?*** Russia's options in Europe are also limited. If Rumania goes into unrest, Russia must grab it. Russia can only reach Bulgaria if Russia holds Rumania (and Bulgaria goes into unrest). Russia could also reach Bulgaria without control of Rumania, but this requires keeping a merchant fleet in the Black Sea. Relegating a merchant fleet to this backwater is such a bad move that I do not consider this a serious option. Placing control markers in Rumania and Bulgaria requires that both countries go in unrest in that sequence. This makes grabbing Bulgaria possible but unlikely. ***THE WARM WATERS OF MEDITERRANIAN BECKON*** Russia *must* move into Anatolia if it goes into unrest. This is not something Russia should ever stop to think about -- the stakes are too high and the opportunity too rare. Expansion into Anatolia is the real reason for the huge Russian garrison in the west. Conquest is assured, the only question is whether Russia will share it with anyone. The obvious candidate is Austria-Hungary. A CoD in Anatolia is not a bad situation, but giving it to anyone but AH is foolish. Italy cannot help in the attack so why share it with them? Giving GB or France such a huge prize would be a serious strategic error. AH has the army (provided they have the land link) to help, and if Russia refuses to share Anatolia with AH, the Austrian army is too big to fight off in most situations. Sharing the area with Germany (via AH) is not likely to hurt Russia's strategic interests because Germany's other options are limited. In fact, it probably helps Russia to do so because it gives the huge Austrian army a *land* route to Egypt. Britain would be hard-pressed to interrupt the comlink between AH and Egypt, so GB will not want to anger Germany or Russia from that point on. Obtaining such restrictions on GB can only help Russia. (A side note: it makes no sense to refuse to cooperate with AH here. I refused once only because AH *demanded* a CoD rather than nicely discuss it. I let my emotional reaction to this unnecessarily blunt "diplomacy" prevent clear thinking. A Russo-AH CoD works very well in the long-run since it threatens Egypt and the rest of Africa with land-linked AH and German forces.) There is another way in which Russia can attack Anatolia. Some house rules (Jeff Janoska's for one) include the following, very appropriate, mechanism: if an area bordering an Ottoman area goes into unrest and no major power attempts to suppress the unrest, then the Ottoman will do so. (This not a standard rule, but it is a very good house Rule to employ.) If Bulgaria goes into unrest and Russia allows the Ottoman Empire to suppress the unrest, then Russia has a CB against the Ottomans. Russia can thus allow a favorable CB to develop that enables Russia to DoW the Ottomans and grab Anatolia and Bulgaria. HOWEVER, to win, Russia must attack and defeat the Ottoman army *plus* the CS of Anatolia. That means Russia must defeat 20 to 35 points of Ottoman armies in Anatolia (depending on whether the Ottoman moves first and brings troops back from Bulgaria). Since the Russian western garrison is 30, Russia must quickly prepare for this eventuality so that at least 36 SPs can be used to invade. It is this situation in which other powers can insist on Russian inactivity or a CoD, since in the right circumstances even Italy can throw enough land forces into Anatolia to prevent a Russian victory. However, Russia should *still* be able to attack Anatolia before any other power can intervene, so effective foreign intervention is not at all assured. Since invading Anatolia is essential to Russian success, Russia must act on this opportunity if it arises. ***THE INDIAN MIRAGE*** One more impossible area of expansion must be addressed before talking about practical expansion: India. Russia simply cannot successfully expand into India. It's very tempting to think that India awaits if only Russia has the chance to get its enormous army over the mountains, but it just won't work. Let's suppose that Russia gets a CB against Britain and has a land-link to India (probably through Afghanistan which presupposes Russian success there as well). We'll also suppose that Russia has massive ground forces as a result of both random events and good planning. This makes it look great for an Indian campaign. It won't work, though. First, realize that GB cannot win the game without India. That means that keeping India becomes an absolute priority for Britain -- it's all or nothing for Britain. But we've supposed that Russia has enough land forces to wipe Britain from the sub-continent. Britain's response to Russia will be to demand that Russia sign a peace treaty returning India to Britain or else Britain will send a single army on a suicide mission every 3 turns to keep the war going until the ETI causes the Great War. Since Britain cannot win without India, Britain has nothing to lose in following such a strategy. The result will be that Britain loses, but so does Russia. The second limiting factor is that Russia as only 7 control markers in the counter mix. India alone has 7 areas. So Russia can take the areas, but cannot fully exploit them. The real annoying part of all this, is that Russia probably cannot make much use of *the threat* of attacking India either. What can Russia get from Britain? There aren't any areas that Britain can trade off because Russia cannot reach any. The only thing left to extort is money -- not much consolation given the enormous resources Russia would have to spend to create a sufficient threat to Britain in the first place. As a final note on the Indian campaign: even if Britain is fighting a war against France and losing land forces such that the suicide invasions of India are not possible, Britain still has enough fleet for the "once every 3 turns" attack against France and force the Great War that way. ***THE KOREAN ISSUE*** So now we come to the *one* area Russia can count on: Korea. In every game the standard opening for Russia and Japan is to agree on a CoD here. Well, it's not such a sure thing. If Russia gets a bad roll on the income table, Russia will have $5 to spend on new forces. That means Russia will have 1A10 and 1A1 (purchased) to move into Korea. With a slightly better income roll, Japan will have twice that much available for Korea. That means that on turn 1 Japan may have the ability to keep Russia out of Korea should Japan choose to. Fortunately, this would be very unwise for a number of reasons. First, granting the CoD doesn't hurt Japan much either economically or VP-wise. Second, Japan has to move into Formosa before GB or the US, and fighting a war of attrition in Korea seriously compromises Japan's ability to grab Formosa. Third, Japan really must spend some money to drop an Int/Inl in Manchuria in order to start getting decent income rapidly. Fighting with Russia in Korea is truly pointless since it gains Japan very little and really sets Japan back in the coming turns. Suppose, however, that Russia gets a good roll and a good RE on turn 1 so that Russia has enough to keep Japan out of Korea. Should Russia do so? No. The proper course is to use that strength to negotiate a CoD in Formosa in exchange for a CoD in Korea. The reason is straightforward: Russia will never have the fleet strength to force its way into Formosa on later turns, so Russia would do much better to talk its way in on turn 1. Working with Japan is much more beneficial to both sides than some silly ego-driven war that would only hurt both of these weak powers. ***RUSSIA'S IMMEDIATE OPTIONS*** So here's what is immediately available for Russia: a CoD in Korea, (and if lucky) a CoD in Formosa, Int/Infl in Manchuria, Anatolia, Rumania and Chinese coastal areas. Russia must then hope for the opportunity to move into Anatolia and Bulgaria. If Russia gets Korea and Anatolia, these two are sufficient to put Russia into the running to win the game. If Formosa is added, then I think Russia should win the game (barring bad alliances which pull Russia into the Great War). As soon as Russia gets these areas (and probably just Korea and Anatolia), Russia should let all alliances lapse and just start buying VPs. Not much of a game, but that's about all that Russia needs to do to win. ***ALLIANCES*** On the subject of alliances, Russia should always put time limits on its alliances. Getting sucked into a war is rarely useful to Russia and Russia rarely needs much help defending its land empire. Russia should form alliances with France and Germany for the first 2 turns only. The alliances should terminate on their own terms at that point and should be renewed only if necessary. The 2VPs gained are not significant enough, even in the long run, to justify getting dragged into someone else's Great War. The only powers Russia is ever likely to fight are Japan and AH (and neither fight would make much sense). Therefore, Russia is far more likely to provide protection to other powers in such alliances than Russia is ever likely to receive herself. **RUSSIA'S OVERALL STRATEGY** As odd as it may seem, the best course for Russia is to build a big bank account. Russia's expansion options are severely limited as is its counter mix. Russia is not likely to be picked on by other powers and therefore should not enter into alliances lightly. Russia's strategy should be to remain peaceful but strong and get as much money as possible for staying out of the way. Once Russia has 5A10s and some change, Russia should build its bank account rather than its military. Russia's motto should be: "Get paid for *not* doing things." If Russia follows this extreme form of capitalism, it can win the game, and the workers will have no need to unite.