Your Russian In game Perspective?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Your Russian In game Perspective?

      In the various game maps that include Russia, what are your thoughts of playing against or playing as Russia?

      Specifically the vastness of the large territories and the geographic types of territory such as large tundra, forest, and mountain terrains?

      Obviously, Russia starts with more cities, decent ports for navy, and resources.

      Me? I hate invading Russia, it takes forever to do so and I have never played as Russia.

      I gather that that the crappy large territories and terrain types would be a benefit to someone who chooses to play as Russia. Not only the psychological aspect of sucking to attack the country but also the slowness of an attacker would give Russia more time plan their defense against a Russian invasion.

      What do I like about invading Russia in the FP game map? Taking over Pute Pute's Palace of course! My troopers get to fish, water ski, play dance dance revolution, indoor hockey, defile gilded toilets with large, stinky man mud logs and break their ankles screwing around on stripper poles.

      Also in general, what are your experiences playing as or playing against Russia? For example, strategies and tactics used.

      In my next FP map I am considering either the UK or Russia to play as.

      Fluck Putin.
      -Smoko
      :* :cursing:

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Im On Smoko ().

    • david roro wrote:

      je pense que les hélicoptères sont une bonne approche pour attaqué la russie il ont un rayon d'action pas trop mal répartie surtout si tu les développes en début de partie. de plus si tu attaque les contré au il y as des ressources sa répercute très viteimages (1).jpg
      When you use helicopters, build the rotary wing officer as well. Use them together in a stack. Select the patrol command over as many enemy units as possible. They will attack / take out multiple targets in one patrol!

      This also works if you pair the helicopter ace with jets.

      Try it if you have not already done so.
      :* :cursing:
    • High number of cities is never a negative, but the location of them is. Any Asian country takes Vladivostok/Novosibirsk and you won't get it back for days.
      (Euro-side of Russia is good), but still too spread out for me.

      The vastness is a negative since those countries homeland production is directly there on the far-away cities.
      Fighting them will require abnormal amounts of travel time from the Euro-center.

      Compact countries with lots of cities plays much better than a spread-thin half-wasteland that is the Motherland. I'd take India instead.
    • GrandInquisitor wrote:

      High number of cities is never a negative, but the location of them is. Any Asian country takes Vladivostok/Novosibirsk and you won't get it back for days.
      (Euro-side of Russia is good), but still too spread out for me.

      The vastness is a negative since those countries homeland production is directly there on the far-away cities.
      Fighting them will require abnormal amounts of travel time from the Euro-center.

      Compact countries with lots of cities plays much better than a spread-thin half-wasteland that is the Motherland. I'd take India instead.
      Yes, the eastern side of Russia in a world map would be hard to defend and a long time to assault from.

      I have played and won in a coalition with India on a WWIII map. I liked playing as India.
      :* :cursing:

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Im On Smoko ().

    • I took eastern Russia quite comfortably as NK. Ally with a central asian state and tell them to attack the centre and that's it, Russia is cut off and almost impossible to get back. By that time a smart player in europe will have capitalised and attacked from the west and he's finished. Just those northern provinces are so annoying to take as it takes days to get through them.

      Most players that pick Russia are noobs anyway who think a big country is an advantage. Easy pickings.
    • im recent game i was finland ww3 and saw russia was a lvl 1 noob, no buildings, nothing. He gets attacked by ukraine day 1 and I send him a friend request. He agrees, I invade and take 3 cities. Now he has only 2 cities left and those are both in east asia. Meanwhile I have already been taking Norway/sweden. Like someone eles said most people that choose russia are noobs that think its best to be a big country.
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija
    • Anna Jija wrote:

      im recent game i was finland ww3 and saw russia was a lvl 1 noob, no buildings, nothing. He gets attacked by ukraine day 1 and I send him a friend request. He agrees, I invade and take 3 cities. Now he has only 2 cities left and those are both in east asia. Meanwhile I have already been taking Norway/sweden. Like someone eles said most people that choose russia are noobs that think its best to be a big country.
      You almost lost me and had me say that that was kind of a crappy maneuver, because the subject (he-russia) would seem to be the reflected (him), not the ukraine.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • I'm in a current WW3 game as Kazakhstan (one of my favorite countries) and saw Russia going inactive at Day 2. I was in a coalition with China, Burma and Vietnam. I quickly took over Russia + the other "stan's below me, and now I am invading Mongolia and Belarus. But taking my infantry to Siberia to fight the Russian CRVs was definitely excruciating - and time consuming.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:
    • The main mistake players do when they play russia : they don't draw where is the center of gravity of their country.

      In all tactical and strategical respects, Russia is the equivalent of a "big poland" or "big ukraine" on the eastern fringe of Europe, and that should consider itself as a country competing for Europe.

      Everything east of Yekaterinburg, which i tend to see as the actual eastern border of Russia, is between the "impossible to defend against good players without jeopardising your western core" and the "do we event want to invest in this area ?"

      If you look at it closely, Eastern Russia (east of Yekaterinburg) is of the same production value than 2 one-city AIs, with few provinces, but huge logistical times.

      When i play russia, i enjoy the free oil from the 2 fuel cities in the east, but if someone tries to conquer siberia, i will not even contest it. I will rather conquer 1 or 2 countries with 6 cities in the west, while he is finishing those vast expanses. From there, of course, i tend to consider i have the high ground. Time is a strategic resource : using in the early days this precious resource to conquer 2 fuel cities and a bunch of huge provinces in the middle of nowhere that give absolutely 0 beach head against anything... is a questionable use of said resource (and explains, in mirror, why i never felt compelled to oppose resistance, in comparison to high-density europe)


      Inside this blue area, you have 80% of the Russian IG economy (90% if we consider fuel to be a bit inferior in mid)
      This is russia in my books. In the east, i have " the great ice wall of Russia ", that ensures 2 days of early warning from Orient invaders.


      All this is, in my opinion, the biggest shortcoming of most inexperienced players toward to Russia, that ties to a primitive and illogical philosophy that territory is like sacred ground : you don't give an inch of it, whatever happens.

      Usually, more veteran players see land as just yet another currency they can gain/spend
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • @Opulon PErfect analyzed. I did the very same thing when i played russia. I even withdraw alle troops form the east and send them to the west...with (9?) core cities come 18 inf...gibe russian 2 days to gather troops and he can steamroll everything. thats why I attack (when playing Belarus) Russia very early one. Takign the bitter pill to have to march through sibiria...but its OK...as long as the AI has not taken this countriy....invading AI russia on day 20+ is a pain in the ass...infantry mines everywhere

      Belarus ist one of my favorite countries...Landlocked so nobody can sneak into your coastal cities by night and all core cities are so close to each other that your can make a perfect TDS defense...

      With eatern helicopters the rest is history to be written
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Belarus ist one of my favorite countries...Landlocked so nobody can sneak into your coastal cities by night and all core cities are so close to each other that your can make a perfect TDS defense...
      Landlocked nations are the best I don't care what anyone says. They can waste time with their fancy boats in the sea while I take up all the VP.
    • GrandInquisitor wrote:

      kurtvonstein wrote:

      Belarus ist one of my favorite countries...Landlocked so nobody can sneak into your coastal cities by night and all core cities are so close to each other that your can make a perfect TDS defense...
      Landlocked nations are the best I don't care what anyone says. They can waste time with their fancy boats in the sea while I take up all the VP.
      It actually is one of the reasons why i desire some archipelago map with altered VP points. Currently, depending on what country is played, Navy can either be "dominant" and ensure total victory pretty early in the map... or it can be decorative as a landlock country just rush through the supercontinent, accumulating brute force enough VPs to not care about petty seas.

      Also, i concur with Kurt, i also tend to withdraw the starting inf from the 2 fuel cities in the far east, to have more "élan" in the west
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Opulon ().

    • je connais pas bien la russie mais si les carte sont réaliste il y a des mine de fer au nord de moscou ce qui n est pas des enchanté pour fabriqué des chars car on c est que 20 jours améliore l'infanterie de plus ce n est pas la glace qui arête ces chars part contre le froids pour l'infanterie , c'est pour ça en plus il sont loin donc les hélicoptère sont une option secondaire a cause de l 'aviation et les chasseur d'hélicoptère . pour le centre le sud et l'ouest des blindé rapide avec de l'infanterie avec un support d'hélicoptère d attaque et une bonne option en début de partieleclerc_XLR.jpg
    • Non. La production russe, comme celle de tous les pays IG, est extrêmement abstraite et ne reflète aucune réalité IRL.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      The main mistake players do when they play russia : they don't draw where is the center of gravity of their country.

      In all tactical and strategical respects, Russia is the equivalent of a "big poland" or "big ukraine" on the eastern fringe of Europe, and that should consider itself as a country competing for Europe.

      Everything east of Yekaterinburg, which i tend to see as the actual eastern border of Russia, is between the "impossible to defend against good players without jeopardising your western core" and the "do we event want to invest in this area ?"

      If you look at it closely, Eastern Russia (east of Yekaterinburg) is of the same production value than 2 one-city AIs, with few provinces, but huge logistical times.

      When i play russia, i enjoy the free oil from the 2 fuel cities in the east, but if someone tries to conquer siberia, i will not even contest it. I will rather conquer 1 or 2 countries with 6 cities in the west, while he is finishing those vast expanses. From there, of course, i tend to consider i have the high ground. Time is a strategic resource : using in the early days this precious resource to conquer 2 fuel cities and a bunch of huge provinces in the middle of nowhere that give absolutely 0 beach head against anything... is a questionable use of said resource (and explains, in mirror, why i never felt compelled to oppose resistance, in comparison to high-density europe)


      Inside this blue area, you have 80% of the Russian IG economy (90% if we consider fuel to be a bit inferior in mid)
      This is russia in my books. In the east, i have " the great ice wall of Russia ", that ensures 2 days of early warning from Orient invaders.


      All this is, in my opinion, the biggest shortcoming of most inexperienced players toward to Russia, that ties to a primitive and illogical philosophy that territory is like sacred ground : you don't give an inch of it, whatever happens.

      Usually, more veteran players see land as just yet another currency they can gain/spend
      thats why i like playing russia in rising tides

      cuz thats about the area you start off with
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija
    • Hmm, many great responses. Especially @Opulon & @kurtvonstein.

      In those above mentioned analyses, the eastern Russian cities / territories are the fat to the meat of the country, as in can be trimmed / lost so to speak.

      I am curious, @Opulon & @kurtvonstein depending on the game situation, would it make sense to build an airfield in eastern side of Russia either for quicker transport of ground units to the west or conversely if the eastern Russian territory is not lost due to the strategic isolation advantage Asian countries capitalize upon, for later use either for defense or an eastern Asian invasion depending on Asian activity?

      _______________________________________________________________________________________


      In flashpoint, I have played as USA, Algeria & recently as Syria, because they all share a boarder with the edge of the map. Croatia was my first FP game I was thrust into as a newbie player. Talk about being thrown into water and being told to swim.

      Russia in FP has the edge of the map, many cities, thus resources and those ghastly large, slow terrain, territories. Russia unlike the USA is closer to more of the action for the most part. Although the USA is a large country that borders a map edge, I did not enjoy playing as the USA. After Cuba & Canada are taken, the large country logistics and isolation from the rest of the map were a large part of my unenjoyment.

      However, I am itching to play a European doctrine country. Looks like the UK has two component cities out of a total of six, and some isolation from the continent of Europe at least in the start of the game.
      :* :cursing: