Is Russia Central the new Ukraine?

I had 7 consecutive losses in a Row and for the past 10 games, 5 spectating games--none whatsoever uses Ukraine anymore.
Out from the reach of Turkey. Most of the Russia Central users forces Turkey to cap Kiev, retaliating, RC beats Turkey via reinforcement clause.

Am a noob but that's what ive noticed.

Any thoughts?

1 word. NOPE



But seriously, Ukraine has more reinforcements, cost less, open for better expansion, is playable with many strategies.

How does central russiia outnumbered turks outnumerus army lol

I dont know. They take all of Russia, north east EU (with the exception of the Nordic Counts) and magic.

Just stop thanks!

लिखा द्वारा Mr_Own_U, 20.11.2014 at 23:31

1 word. NOPE



But seriously, Ukraine has more reinforcements, cost less, open for better expansion, is playable with many strategies.

This says it all

With Russia Central in 1 turn you can take: Russia northwest,Russia south,Russia Volga,Ukraine and Belarus. (This is without extra reinforcements.)

Lol why u guys always so rude?
He simply just asked something because of what happened to him.
Russia Central is much underrated by 80% of the competitive players. And Russia Central could also be more effective, ofcourse ukraine is I think simply better pick due the low cost and the high startingfunds, you can take russia full in like 2/3 turns. When russiacentral is already like what? 6/8k.

Still I think a Russia Central could be effectiver when played decent.

Yeah.dont ever expect anything constructive from mr_own_you, little dude.he specializes in harassing players and hunting mods to demote them.The thing is, the biggest reason Russia central is not a viable choice against Turk, is because it will have a slower expansion due to money and no way to properly harass turk early on.An unchecked Turk, that keeps all his territory turn 5, is really something to fear, due to the insane reinforcement count.

लिखा द्वारा Waffel, 21.11.2014 at 03:14

Lol why u guys always so rude?

लिखा द्वारा Khal.eesi, 21.11.2014 at 03:58

लिखा द्वारा Waffel, 21.11.2014 at 03:14

Lol why u guys always so rude?

You need to remember that ukr has ports that can connect to turkey, can expand into balkans on turn 1 and can harass turk's land soon enough. If you let turkey get ukr 1st turn, he has that land to protect all his balkans territory, which is kinda scary.

Yea theres no need to be so rude, its great this rank 6 is questioning these things.

However khal is correct, russia central lacks the early funds and proximity to apply any significant amount of pressure to turk early on. And if you fail to slow turks expansion or take some of his territory by turn 5, you're looking at potentially 150+ units making their way into russia after turn 5. If in doubt /pr me in game and ill show you what turk is capable of.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 05:31

लिखा द्वारा Khal.eesi, 21.11.2014 at 03:58

लिखा द्वारा Waffel, 21.11.2014 at 03:14

Lol why u guys always so rude?

btw RC is a viable pick.

I have to agree, dont act like pro douchbags ...imagine when we were ranks 6. I had no idea what were viable picks in 3v3 games or the good counters.

My first 2 CW's with my first clan was us fighting Turkey - ukraine combo while our picks were what now i would say "retarded" ...and we had no clue our picks had no chance.

We also had no clue we were fighting high rank alt accounts ...but thats a different story.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 06:28

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 05:31

लिखा द्वारा Khal.eesi, 21.11.2014 at 03:58

लिखा द्वारा Waffel, 21.11.2014 at 03:14

Lol why u guys always so rude?

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 06:28

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 05:31

लिखा द्वारा Khal.eesi, 21.11.2014 at 03:58

लिखा द्वारा Waffel, 21.11.2014 at 03:14

Lol why u guys always so rude?

UKR > RC because of: reinforcement, initial cost and closeness to Balkans and harassment capacity against Turkey; assuming we are talking about Extra Cities on!

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 21.11.2014 at 07:33

UKR > RC because of: reinforcement, initial cost and closeness to Balkans and harassment capacity against Turkey; assuming we are talking about Extra Cities on!

And why you say the bad points? Time for the good points:

1) Safe capital.
2) Safe income (russia is very far from turkey)


Now, if my knowledge and what I' ve studied about learster and pinheiro is right, there are two strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Is a safe vs funds fight. Whatever fit better your playstyle win.

EDIT: I' ve played GW ukraine against professional rank 10 turkey. I just didnt play much attention and expand though whole russia and whole scandinavia, while turkey had full balkans, full italy, madrid, paris, london, whole benelux, swiss and landing on germany when I started to spam marines to caucasus.

And of couse, I would had won ealier if I didnt had to protect my capital everytime he break the wall.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 07:42

strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Are you sure?
I always thought that MoS requires some good income and, therefore, a solid expansion. Am I wrong?

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 21.11.2014 at 07:51

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 07:42

strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Are you sure?
I always thought that MoS requires some good income and, therefore, a solid expansion. Am I wrong?

Ask learster.

Btw, one thing is good income and solid expancion.... other different thing is rush for territories ( or caps, like ukraine is used/forced to do).

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:00

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 21.11.2014 at 07:51

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 07:42

strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Are you sure?
I always thought that MoS requires some good income and, therefore, a solid expansion. Am I wrong?

Ask learster.

Btw, one thing is good income and solid expancion.... other different thing is rush for territories ( or caps, like ukraine is used/forced to do).

... to keep up the race for reinforcements and income... like any country in any game setting.
Some strategies and territorial settings require fast expansion, others allow slower but steady expansion. Like you said.

Now my question was, how does MoS allow a player not to urge for expansion, if it is a costly strategy? Where to get the necessary income if not through expansion?

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:00

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 21.11.2014 at 07:51

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 07:42

strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Are you sure?
I always thought that MoS requires some good income and, therefore, a solid expansion. Am I wrong?

Ask learster.

Btw, one thing is good income and solid expancion.... other different thing is rush for territories ( or caps, like ukraine is used/forced to do).

You're gonna need some solid expansion to be able to defend/attack properly... remember turkey has a lot of reinf, you're gonna need something similar to counter him.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 08:15

You're gonna need some solid expansion to be able to defend/attack properly... remember turkey has a lot of reinf, you're gonna need something similar to counter him.

GW's quality. That is enough, isn it?

but bla every country have his advantages and disadvantages. It seems bad for me to just point out disadvantages.

Is like Germany vs Ukraine... people only look at the disadvantages This aint very strategical, because there is a country that fit to every strategy ( and if it does not fit then just force it to fit with you )

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:30

GW's quality. That is enough, isn it?

but bla every country have his advantages and disadvantages. It seems bad for me to just point out disadvantages.

Is like Germany vs Ukraine... people only look at the disadvantages This aint very strategical, because there is a country that fit to every strategy ( and if it does not fit then just force it to fit with you )

I know what you mean but how can you counter 150 inf from balkans and turkey without some sort of solid expansion? You need the reinf and the money to make them.
Also, you can fit IF for spain if you want, but you'll probably fail the thing is that you need to be creative but also be smart to choose the correct strat and ofc, a country will always have more than 1 possibility, from which some of them might be more useful for some determined situations.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 08:34

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:30

GW's quality. That is enough, isn it?

but bla every country have his advantages and disadvantages. It seems bad for me to just point out disadvantages.

Is like Germany vs Ukraine... people only look at the disadvantages This aint very strategical, because there is a country that fit to every strategy ( and if it does not fit then just force it to fit with you )

I know what you mean but how can you counter 150 inf from balkans and turkey without some sort of solid expansion? You need the reinf and the money to make them.
Also, you can fit IF for spain if you want, but you'll probably fail the thing is that you need to be creative but also be smart to choose the correct strat and ofc, a country will always have more than 1 possibility, from which some of them might be more useful for some determined situations.

Impressive, isn it?

IF spain is capable of beat UK 52 paris rush.

It requires a lot of exact mixs. I believe only Plato/Lemonade knows how... but he never wanted to share with us, I think he forgot how to by this time.

As I said, every country can be adapted to playstyle

EDIT: Just a clarification, solid expancion mean take a country near to you, which you can easy reinforce and hold. Most of SM ukraine players just goes from cap to cap, they barely get full russia central.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:36

Impressive, isn it?

IF spain is capable of beat UK 52 paris rush.

It requires a lot of exact mixs. I believe only Plato/Lemonade knows how... but he never wanted to share with us, I think he forgot how to by this time.

As I said, every country can be adapted to playstyle

I can imagine them using more than a single AT and also achieving it with some divine help from admins lol Anyway, uk doesnt necesarily got to rush paris and the game still goes on, so spain will have it difficult

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 07:42

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 21.11.2014 at 07:33

UKR > RC because of: reinforcement, initial cost and closeness to Balkans and harassment capacity against Turkey; assuming we are talking about Extra Cities on!

And why you say the bad points? Time for the good points:

1) Safe capital.
2) Safe income (russia is very far from turkey)


Now, if my knowledge and what I' ve studied about learster and pinheiro is right, there are two strats which does not cares about expancion: MoS and GW.

Is a safe vs funds fight. Whatever fit better your playstyle win.

EDIT: I' ve played GW ukraine against professional rank 10 turkey. I just didnt play much attention and expand though whole russia and whole scandinavia, while turkey had full balkans, full italy, madrid, paris, london, whole benelux, swiss and landing on germany when I started to spam marines to caucasus.

And of couse, I would had won ealier if I didnt had to protect my capital everytime he break the wall.

He is actually right though! RC is pretty awesome to play when it has been played decently. MoS and GW and maybe blitz/imp could be awesome for Russia, it isnt something you can fully rush from balkans in 1 turn, it has nice income + the bonus country income + the percentage growing every turn.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 08:15

You're gonna need some solid expansion to be able to defend/attack properly... remember turkey has a lot of reinf, you're gonna need something similar to counter him.

You have RNW/volga/finland/ukraine maybe if possible. baltics/scandinavia/russia south.
Remember that when turkey goes ukraine turn 1, it most likely (like how you guys expand) will have 4 transports in 1 turn. maybe 3. Thats around 1k money. And this only for transports, if turkey focuses more on pushing east and ukraine/russia, it would probably not get much income, if it goes for west/income countries, RC would be perfectly capeable to protect vs turkey.

Its how the person plays thats how the game goes. Every country has a chance, dont always compare to the reinf amount or the size.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 21.11.2014 at 08:42

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:36

Impressive, isn it?

IF spain is capable of beat UK 52 paris rush.

It requires a lot of exact mixs. I believe only Plato/Lemonade knows how... but he never wanted to share with us, I think he forgot how to by this time.

As I said, every country can be adapted to playstyle

I can imagine them using more than a single AT and also achieving it with some divine help from admins lol Anyway, uk doesnt necesarily got to rush paris and the game still goes on, so spain will have it difficult

Again, nope. Spain have advantage over uk.

"If you go PD against uk, then you will be in troubles. BUT if you go GC against uk, then UK is in troubles" ~Chess's opinion about spain.

How? well different gameplay's, different opinions, different possibilities, different etc...


EDIT: Yes I also was one of those people who believe is impossible to beat uk on paris, or even, make an IF spain expancion. But I saw it and I was proven wrong.

I think he stack bilbao with ATs and goes france from bordeaux.... but idk really how he does.


Actually I find uk the worst pick in 1vs1. germany/france blocks your possible expancion, and spain/italy have somewhat freedom for expand to militias countries, while you have to deal with france/germany infantry...

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 09:13

Again, nope. Spain have advantage over uk.

"If you go PD against uk, then you will be in troubles. BUT if you go GC against uk, then UK is in troubles" ~Chess's opinion about spain.

How? well different gameplay's, different opinions, different possibilities, different etc...


EDIT: Yes I also was one of those people who believe is impossible to beat uk on paris, or even, make an IF spain expancion. But I saw it and I was proven wrong.

I think he stack bilbao with ATs and goes france from bordeaux.... but idk really how he does.


Actually I find uk the worst pick in 1vs1. germany/france blocks your possible expancion, and spain/italy have somewhat freedom for expand to militias countries, while you have to deal with france/germany infantry...

Spain has some advantage but not all of it. It not only depends on strats, also on expansions and gameplay... buf... too hard to imagine all XD I agree that uk is hard in 1 vs 1, you're kinda cornered.

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 21.11.2014 at 08:36

IF spain is capable of beat UK 52 paris rush.

nice lie.