Isnt the game just broken if USA builds a major factory in Norway?

[Imperious Leader]

If Germany does not have a large enough fleet to shuck to Norway or does not have its own factory in either Sweden or Finland, and if USA takes Norway and builds a Major factory…. what can Germany do?

Forget France or Spain. Major USA factory is Norway is game over for Germany.

Right?

[oztea]

House Rule

No major factories may be built on foreign soil.

[calvinhobbesliker]

USA takes 3-4-5 turns to capture Norway, and must hold it for 2 turns

[Imperious Leader]

USA takes 3-4-5 turns to capture Norway, and must hold it for 2 turns

Well UK just lands to support the factory. Should be easy.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Imperious:

USA takes 3-4-5 turns to capture Norway, and must hold it for 2 turns

Well UK just lands to support the factory. Should be easy.

Why not try it in an actual game?

[Imperious Leader]

I did. Thats why i posted this because it was game over once it happened.

Hopefully their is a refutation to it.

[Bruda_Iz]

Just curious IL … how many games have you played where this has been used.  I’m going to try this strategy and see how it plays out but it seems at first glance that US would have to ignore sending relief to Africa and western europe while only putting a token force in the pacific for this to work.  It sounds kind of like a sealion strategy for the US… i.e. it will work for the US but only under the right conditions.

I think it would work if Russia was strong, UK had not fallen and the Italians and Japanese are not running rampant in Africa and the Pacific respectively.  Otherwise the Allies will be under threat from very rich Axis powers

[mikecool70]

@Imperious:

If Germany does not have a large enough fleet to shuck to Norway or does not have its own factory in either Sweden or Finland, and if USA takes Norway and builds a Major factory…. what can Germany do?

Forget France or Spain. Major USA factory is Norway is game over for Germany.

Right?

It all depends on how close the Axis are to gaining that last victory city needed to win the game.  What turn can USA reasonably take and hold Norway?

[Imperious Leader]

USA can take as soon as UK built a fleet and has 8 men to land and 4 transports from that fleet. USA takes first and UK lands right after.  German fleet must be destroyed first. You wipe out the German air force this way because usually its the only thing that can reach. Eventually it just ruins their effort in Russia. USA can crank out ridiculous units that close to Germany and Germany cant really start a new fleet.

It can be like turn 3-4 unless Germany built up its fleet.

[general jason]

One of my buddies tried this strat yesterday with the US - took Norway on turn 4 with 12 units there: something like 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 4 Tanks. Turn 5 the US built a complex in Norway and landed their 2 planes from a carrier there. Turn 6 the Germans moved 7 units from Finland: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, plus a transport that had 1 Infantry and a Tank, plus 6 German Planes (1 Strategic, 2 Tac, 3 Fighters), plus an Offshore Bomb from the Bismarck. The Axis took it with all their planes left plus 1 tank to land. Germans were supremely lucky to take it but it was karma for a foiled Sealion attempt that had decent odds of success earlier.

The UK, reluntant to take back Norway because they would own it and not the US, did nothing, but the Italians landed 2 planes there and the US failed to take it back. At this point, Japan had squashed China and their Russian land advances were as far in the North. Italy despite Taranto lost everything in Africa up to Libya to the Brits and French but surprisely held Egypt and Transjordan for the game, plus Syria and had a new factory in Iraq. Germany held Leningrad, Archangel, and the Russians in the North - center and South they were behind Smolensk.

6 rounds took 12 hours but 4/6 players were completely new to 1940 play, whether it be Europe, Pacific or Global so hopefully the next game is quicker.

It’s a great strat for the US, and I agree with IL that in this game it would have caused Germany plenty of problems - which was why we threw everything the Germans had left in the north to sacking it……but it easily could have went the other way.

After 12 hours we called it an Axis victory. Combined Axis earnings at the end of Round 6 including National objectives was 170 something vs. the Allies 150 something. Despite Taranto, despite Sealion foiled, the Axis did a lot better than I originally anticipated after Turn 4 and the ‘super-economy’ kicked in. Once this did and Japan jumped into the full war and started attacking islands, the UK and everything else they got up 71 IPCS all on their own - had their entire fleet still despite 3 Destroyers going down, and with 20 planes parked in Japan their fleet was free to mobilize.

One full game complete and the game looks a lot more balanced then we originally anticipated. Say what you want about Japan, in the limited experience we have in this new global game I think they need to be godzilla still in order to bring the US to bear - 82+ IPCS vs. Europe-only needs to be deterred.

Great game, best global AA game so far, but it definitely needs a chess clock for player turns as I do not see this game ever not being a full day affair for completion.

[Whackamatt]

I don’t think the game is broken at all.  It’s another tool that can also backfire.

The US usually cosolidates with a turn of buying.  They then move out US2 to Iceland.  I

US3 America moves for Norway.  f war has been declared, Germany blocks with a ship in SZ124.  If not at war, they can’t land in Norway.

US4, land in Norway.

US5, Build Major factory and land planes from carriers.

US6, buy 10 things.

US7, do something with those things.

Add all that up, and it’s 6-7 turns for Germany to prepare a counter.  Hopefully Russia is gone by then, allowing them to double back and pressure and/or take the factory.  Either way, it sounds like you’re ignoring Japan with this strategy, which might cost you in the end.

I really doubt any single factory placed anywhere, buy any country is a “game breaker”.  By the time the US can build in Norway, Germany’s money will be close by then.  At least 70 without having taken Moscow.

[finnman]

There is an easy solution to this make Norway 1 or 2 in income like it should be.

[Imperious Leader]

Add all that up, and it’s 6-7 turns for Germany to prepare a counter.  Hopefully Russia is gone by then,

What? So Germany is at war with Russia on G3 and on G6 or G7 Russia is defeated?

HUH?

Not in my games. Russia is in the game for many more turns. With USA getting 10 units and mostly tanks and planes, its not possible for Germany to deal with the income source that close to the Reich.

Its like bringing USA to the Baltic straight away and cutting out the transport shuck from USA to France.

[Flashman]

I’ve said it before, but Norway should only be worth 1 IPC. Norway with a greater industrial output than anywhere in Russia other than Moscow?  If the Yankees can build a MIC in Norway then the Germans should be able to build one in Kiev.

My House Rules forbid the use of captured factories, or the building of new ones anywhere but on home soil in established industrialised areas.

[The Fire Knight]

I like the “no major ic on any territory except home territory” rule suggestion. My concern would be though, how it would affect other powers, say Japan with no Indian, Kwangtung, or Malayan Major ic. thoughts?

[Plasticdeathbydice]

As stated by me elsewhere in the forums….It might be worth trying the US as a split income like the UK…the only difference being that they can choose which theatre to spend the NO in…

Still gives them plenty of direction to where they want to spend…but not quite all of it…

[tgardner57]

Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?

[Flashman]

UK wouldn’t have an Indian factory either (not industrial zone). There’s always Korea, but Japan built hardly anything outside the home islands, and recruited very few front line troops outside Japan.

With no overseas US builds it should balance out.

[Flashman]

@tgardner57:

Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?

Because we don’t want optimum strategies making the game predictable. I don’t want a game revolving around “the Norway factory” or the “India factory”.

After all, even LH himself has admitted problems with Pacific 1940 and effectively endorsed a fix for the sake of balance.

We have the further anomaly of oil values; clearly tts such as Java and Borneo as valued high due to oil production, but as islands cannot house factories.  Conversely we would expect Caucasus to be worth at least as much as these, but as a mainland tt the designers probably didn’t want to see the Soviet player build a MIC here.  It comes across as a bit arbitrary, when the ban on new factories solves the problem more elegantly.

But then LH would say that the game would no longer be Axis and Allies…

[cond1024]

No the game is not broken by the Norway build.  Germany should realize the importance of Norway and keep sufficient forces to hold it and if not have units available to retake it.  If US is doing a KGF or KIF strat, then Japan needs to do it’s part to make the US pay for ignoring them.