I am not a big fan of tripple attacks, unless for a capital. Tripple attacks almost always means that the allies lost many more men than Germany overall. Unless this totally obliterates 70% or more of germany’s forces I tend to just build up and stack off eastern europe when the situation allows for it.
R1 Norway Attack! HOT or NOT?
-
On Russia’s first turn (abbreviated as R1, or Russia 1st turn), Germany holds Norway with 3 infantry 1 fighter.
Russia can hit Norway with 3 infantry, a tank, and up to 2 fighters.The purpose of the Norway attack is, in my mind, to claim Norway from the Germans, indirectly protecting the UK battleship and transport.
THE UK PICTURE
With the Norway fighter surviving, Germany can attack the UK battleship and transport with Norway fighter, German bomber (which must land in Norway), and German sub, leaving at least the German bomber alive 95% of the time.
With the Norway fighter lost, Germany can attack with only the bomber and sub, leaving at least the German bomber alive 51% of the time (everything dies 24%).
With both fighter and bomber eliminated (if Norway is held by Russia at the end of R1, the Germans cannot land air units on Norway at the end of G1, so the bomber can’t attack the UK battleship as the bomber can’t land), the odds are awful for the Germans. (The Germans probably will decide to use their sub to hit the lone UK transport for an automatic kill, or attempt the 50/50 shot on the U.S. cruiser/2 transports, and use the bomber for something else.)
THE RUSSIAN PICTURE
Attacking Norway leaves Russia weak against Germany. Taking for granted that the Russians will hit West Russia, the Germans will still have infantry at Belorussia, and probably at Ukraine, combined making a significant G1 threat. If Russia hits Ukraine, it risks failure at at least one of Ukraine or West Russia, and leaves itself overextended and weak against the German counter.
If Russia attacks with 2 fighters and both survive, at least one must land at Karelia, meaning the Germans will almost certainly destroy it on G1. Russia must either build a new fighter (expensive), or commit additional land units when trading territories with Germany.
If Russia decides to . . .
ATTACK WITH 1 FIGHTER:
Russia can hit Norway with just 1 fighter, leaving the other free to attack another territory. This makes the Norway attack less likely to succeed, but if Norway fails, Russia can at least save the fighter.
If Russia attacks with only 1 fighter, there’s a 34% chance of at least the German fighter surviving (disaster), and a 7% chance of everyone being destroyed (leaving the Germans with favorable odds in the attack against the UK battleship). There’s a 16% chance of only one Russian unit surviving (meaning the Russian fighter will probably have to be lost, to leave something to claim Norway with).
Cost of Early Retreat: If things look bad for the Russians they can retreat, but they will almost certainly lose the 3 infantry and tank they attacked with, first to the Norway defense, then to the German attack on Germany’s turn. The fighter gets away free.
Bottom line: Total Success at 43% - i.e. capturing Norway with at least one tank, while also being able to retreat the Russian fighter to safety. Costly Victory at 16% (losing the Russian Fighter on the attack). Total Failure at 41%.
ATTACK WITH 2 FIGHTERS:
Russia loses at least 1 fighter no matter what, as even if both fighters survive, one most land on Karelia, and almost certainly be lost to a German counterattack next turn. The Russian attack on Norway is far more likely to be successful.
8% chance of at least the German fighter surviving (disaster), and a 3% chance of everyone being destroyed (leaving the Germans with favorable odds in the attack against the UK battleship). There’s a 8% chance of only one Russian unit surviving (meaning both Russian fighters will probably have to be lost, to leave something to claim Norway with).
Cost of Early Retreat: If things look bad for the Russians they can retreat, but they will almost certainly lose the 3 infantry and tank they attacked with, first to the Norway defense, then to the German attack on Germany’s turn. At least one fighter will also have to land in Karelia, likely also to be lost.
Bottom line: Total Success at 81% - i.e. capturing Norway with at least one tank, while also being able to retreat a Russian fighter to safety. Extremely costly Victory at 8% (losing both Russian Fighter on the attack). Total Failure at 11%.
THE AFTERMATH:
Germany has a strong first turn against Russia.
UK can grab Norway early, especially if Germany loses an additional fighter and/or lands fighters out of range of Norway. (Building 2 carriers results in a defensive fleet of battleship, 2 carriers, 4 fighters (2 of them from US), and 1 sub (Russian) at start of G2.) This will destroy any German units on Norway.
Germany may largely ignore Norway-held UK in favor of establishing an early forward position against Russia. If it does, UK will have to build up forces in Norway, trading Karelia for Russia. (UK’s ability to do so may offset an early loss of the Russian fighter).
US will have to move units to reclaim Africa by itself if the UK fleet stays at Norway. Without a united UK/US force there, Germany will be able to hold US off for a bit longer than usual.
German bombers at Western Europe can threaten trade of territory with Russia while protecting both the Norway coast and much of the African coast.
So . . . HOT nor NOT?
(edit) - Hobbes proposed a G1 carrier/transport build to counter R1 Norway. (The carrier gives fighters range to hit sea zones around London, as well as London itself; the transport gives freedom to hit London, Norway, or Karelia. Combining those factors forces UK to defend London, preventing an early UK landing at Norway - or so I thought!) I forgot you couldn’t take subs as fodder hits against air (I keep thinking in Revised terms), but Stauffenberg may have proposed a UK1 suicide air attack against the Baltic fleet. Inadvertent proposal or not, it makes sense. If UK gets 2 hits on the attack, Germany drops the destroyer, then has to start deciding whether to drop fighters (losing defensive power), or drop the expensive carrier. Subsequent rounds are just as bad for Germany. True, odds are good that the Germans will defend successfully, leaving at least their transports alive, but without the carrier, the invasion threat to London is cut in half, allowing UK a lot of options, even, I think, an early landing at Norway! Which is, I think, the whole point of R1 Norway!
But Hobbes’ counter To R1 Norway is still entirely valid, with the addition of a German destroyer in the Baltic. I think the theory holds sound; early German holding action against Russia, with late game German/Japan push. With Hobbes’ early proposed German destroyer in the Mediterranean (in another thread, following a G1 Mediterranean capture of Gibraltar; a G1 Med destroyer stops the UK bomber/Med destroyer from sinking the German battleship), that’s a buy of 2 destroyers, carrier, and transport on G1. That’s a lot to spend on navy, but I don’t see any gaping holes in the strategy.
-
I don’t think Russia can afford to lose planes that early. The benefits to sinking the German navy don’t outweigh the negatives.
-
It isn’t the German navy that’s sunk. It’s the UK battleship that’s preserved.
Grabbing Norway lets UK start trading territory (compensating for the loss of the fighter) far earlier, but typically UK starts trading territory sooner or later anyways. That is - the Russian fighter can never be replaced except by purchasing.
The German front against Russia is FAR stronger with the addition of those 3 infantry on the front lines. Germany can do some very interesting attacks.
-
This whole question can’t be answered without considering the other Russian attacks:
- NOR and WR and UKR
This is basically Russia getting greedy and hoping that it will take all 3 territories and have enough forces left on WR to stand against a German counterattack using the 3 inf from Belorussia and 1 armor from EEUR.
- NOR and WR
This is a more conservative approach but will keep control of WR on Russian hands. Unless too many casualties are suffered while destroying the German stack. One option can be to abandon the Caucasus to the Germans and commit everything to WR.
So, you really need to decide how you want to play Russia, if you want to take Norway. But even if Russia only attacks WR/NOR there will always be the possibility of a German counterattack on WR/Caucasus. The question is then if you’re willing to risk it to save the UK fleet.
-
Considering your counter to the R1 Norway attack with a G1 carrier/transport buy, Hobbes, I’d say saving the UK fleet potentially serves little purpose until round 4-5. The point of the attack is pretty much early Allied control of Norway; the G1 carrier/transport buy shuts that attack down.
Back to the drawing board. :lol:
Of course, if the G1 naval buy can be shown to be counterproductive in the end, that ALSO serves Russia. But my DISTINCT impression is that the G1 carrier/transport build may be a true “counter”, with Germany holding defensively while Japan builds up against Russia, particularly if Germany’s willing to follow up with a 2 carrier/fighter buy . . . sound familiar, Hobbes?
The way I figure it, Russia’s reduced to trading territory with Germany; the loss of the Russian fighter really hurts then, and the Allies are in no position to help out thanks to the London invasion threat. EVENTUALLY the Allies crack Germany, but Japan should have a pretty massive grip in Asia.
The Allies might try to go KJF in response to a G1 naval buy, but KJF is quite slow.
-
@Bunnies:
It isn’t the German navy that’s sunk. It’s the UK battleship that’s preserved.
Grabbing Norway lets UK start trading territory (compensating for the loss of the fighter) far earlier, but typically UK starts trading territory sooner or later anyways. That is - the Russian fighter can never be replaced except by purchasing.
The German front against Russia is FAR stronger with the addition of those 3 infantry on the front lines. Germany can do some very interesting attacks.
Sorry, I got my topics mixed up. Taking out the navy only risks a plane but it would be the counter to the German naval build since being down a DD and a TRNS would discourage them adding to a Baltic Navy that consists of 2 subs.
Taking Norway is a tough fight. Sure you could hurt Germany but they’d keep Ukraine and possibly take West Russia. It’s not worth the loss of the plane. UK can always wait to buy Navy. If Rus takes out Ukraine, and shoots down a plane, then Ger could be down 3 planes if they take more than 1 hit on the attack on the UK ATL navy. Ger with 3 FIGs on round 2 is pretty toothless.
-
Sorry, I got my topics mixed up. Taking out the navy only risks a plane but it would be the counter to the German naval build since being down a DD and a TRNS would discourage them adding to a Baltic Navy that consists of 2 subs.
Taking Norway is a tough fight. Sure you could hurt Germany but they’d keep Ukraine and possibly take West Russia. It’s not worth the loss of the plane. UK can always wait to buy Navy. If Rus takes out Ukraine, and shoots down a plane, then Ger could be down 3 planes if they take more than 1 hit on the attack on the UK ATL navy. Ger with 3 FIGs on round 2 is pretty toothless.
Sorry, Stauffenberg, I’m not sure which topic you’re replying to. Do I understand correctly that in response to Hobbes’ counter to R1 Norway, consisting of G1 carrier/transport, that you propose a UK1 attack of 2 fighters and bomber vs the then-existing Baltic fleet of destroyer/carrier/2 fighters? That certainly isn’t BAD, but I think it risks a bit more than just “a plane” - it’s more like a suicide attack of the entire UK air force. Which is not to say it’s a bad idea! But the UK1 unit purchase decision has to be made before the attack, and the UK1 combat decisions have to be made before the UK attack as well.
You couldn’t have meant a UK1 attack on the Baltic fleet of German 2 subs/destroyer/transport would be an appropriate response to a G1 build of carrier/transport. After all, that German build is placed before the UK can attack, making the Baltic fleet transport/2 subs/destroyer/carrier/2 fighters. It sort of sounded like that was what you meant, but I’m sure that can’t have been the case . . .
As far as the merits of R1 Ukraine/West Russia - well, let’s compare.
R1 Norway/West Russia: Kill a German fighter and to deny the German bomber the use of Norway as a landing force. Doing both of these saves the UK battleship in the Atlantic., potentially allowing the Allies to control and contest Norway as early as UK1. Hobbes proposed a counter of G1 carrier/transport (threatens invasion of London and defends the fleet), but I agree that a UK1 suicide air attack could be horribly costly to the Germans. However, German infantry at both Belorussia and Ukraine make for a strong early German position; there’s no way to stop that from happening, although Russia CAN start pressing back on R2.
R1 Ukraine/West Russia: Well, that and Belorussia/West Russia are traditional, for the reasons you outlined. The question is, do you do it with 2 tanks or 3? I feel a poll coming on . . .
-
I was talking about sending a russian fig round 1 t take out the ger baltic navy (minus the subs of course). I think it would prevent a german naval build.
After much experimentation we always do the same as Russia round 1 - attack West Russia with 9 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks and Ukraine with 3 inf, 1 art, 2 trans and 2 figs. I’m ure this is pretty standard for many people.
-
I am a great fan of Norwegian attack with both planes R R1. And I do not think the germans ships can be an effective counter to stop it. OK Gerrys buy ships, so I will keep buying the planes with UK, push hard with ruskies and get the us press from the southwest from R1.
My instinct is that R3, R4 the latest the gerrys will lose will to put anything on water any longer and will be sunk by the mighty UK RAF R4, R5 the latest while really suffering on the land. The thing is that any water even the Blatic one does not produce IPCs.
What I think is the strongest strategy to the counter the Norwegian gambit is the WR attack with all the units Germany got. Those are the games when Russia can really bleed hard and early.
-
Sorry for the thread necromancy but I am very interested in spicing things up with my usual axis and allies opponent and giving the Norweigan Gambit a try.
Since this was discussed have any solid conclusions been drawn? If R1 is a two fighter attack with all the available infantry and the arm, what other attacks are being used? How is Caucasus protected?
-
Sorry for the thread necromancy but I am very interested in spicing things up with my usual axis and allies opponent and giving the Norweigan Gambit a try.
Since this was discussed have any solid conclusions been drawn? If R1 is a two fighter attack with all the available infantry and the arm, what other attacks are being used? How is Caucasus protected
Either Caucasus is left with only 1 inf or you keep back some units to reinforce either Caucasus or West Russia, depending on dice results. The thing is, since Russia didn’t destroy those units on Ukraine, Germany can now hit either WRus with 10 and 6 planes or Caucasus with 9 units and 5 planes, plus battleship shot.
-
Sorry for the thread necromancy but I am very interested in spicing things up with my usual axis and allies opponent and giving the Norweigan Gambit a try.
Since this was discussed have any solid conclusions been drawn? If R1 is a two fighter attack with all the available infantry and the arm, what other attacks are being used? How is Caucasus protected?
You can find the whole debate here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23001.0
While I think the majority of people tend to come to the conclusion that NG is a too risky opening, I still use and still consider it the best option for Russia.
-
just played a game VS. Hobbes where he attacked norway R1 in LL and took it with 1 tank left, but I attacked west russia killing everything but a tank and retreated 3 german tanks. I don’t think attacking Norway is good in dice or in LL because in LL the attacker can know almost for certain that he will win the battle, and how many AA gun hits he will take (hobbes was new to the gametable interface and forgot to move the aa gun over to west russia which cost dearly). In dice Germany might get 4 or more hits in west russia making it a good option for germany to attack it with all planes and land that can reach. This is the main reason to attack ukraine. Not just because there is a fighter there, there is also a fighter in norway, but because Ukraine protects both west russia and Caucus from an attack. The 3 norway infantry can’t attack either west russia or Ukraine, and are in effect harmless. By attacking Norway you give germany 6 extra units it can attack caucus and west russia with and also 4 less units russia can defend with. If someone were to attack Norway and west russia, depending on rolls, I would recommend attacking west russia with everything that can reach besides 1 fighter to take back norway with.
-
well, the debate is ongoing and you can see the issues you touch discussed in the link provided in my previous post.
Concerning the GTO, is there any way to get around their 160 coins? Is there lowluck option there? I never play lowluck, but i am just curious. I think I am not going to pay this when the soft looks to me less user friendly then TripleA. Do you ever play there?
-
I can definitely say the Norway on R1 is not definitely recommended with Low Luck… Germany can and should take West Russia afterwards.
I started using GTO a few days ago and i’m on my 6th game already. Not sure if there’s a way around the 160 coins but that’s about 15$ and so far I think it was money well spend. You get more opposition than on TripleA, and while the interface is not as good as TripleA, it is effective once learned. But you’ll do a lot of silly mistakes (I am still doing them), just like when you started on TripleA.
-
I recommend GTO if you are looking for a casual game as most games are very casual and you dont have to be there for every battle to press the space bar. Many times you can leave for your opponets entire turn and come back to play yours. Gametable does have bids and low luck, but the only problem with their bid system is the units go in specific places. You can’t say bid 3G and put an inf ind karelia. The game will automatically put it in africa with your tank and inf.
-
I agree the $ to activate 42 for GTO is well worth it if you are a fan of the game. Since their ad is on the back of the aa42 box, new 42 players are registering there every day. But keep in mind that a long good game will usually either start or be converted to a PBE game and that costs something like 25 cents a game.
ROCmonster my main criticism of GTO is that they don’t respond fast enough to user-suggested improvements. TripleA’s open-source model seems to fix bugs and make improvements far quicker than GTO’s pay model. And there are other issues. But all those problems noted, GTO is a wonderful community of gamers and tons of fun, and the owners and operators are genuinely good people.
Interesting that you don’t recommend Norway in low luck Hobbes. Do you recommend it in dice? It’s been a while since I played the game so I have no idea whether wr/nor or ukr/wr is more popular these days–opinion among experts seemed split right down the middle when I stopped playing 42.
GCar…if you’re reading this, which opening is currently favored in the ladder league?
Most of my Axis losses (that didn’t happen against Hobbes) have been against a Norway R1, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything.
-
Played today twice as Axis with LL. First one, Norwegian Gamble, and it is definitely not recommended since I simply hit and killed the Russian stack on WRus and retook Norway. The Allies messed up afterwards, but it really is the move because with a 5 inf, 5 arm buy it means some serious pressure on the Russians.
The second one had an uncommon start. Russia buys 1 fighter + 1 arm and 3 inf, attacks Belo and WRus, but keeps 1 armor back and moves it to Sinkiang to join 3 Russian inf there. It doesn’t stack Buryatia but leaves 1 inf and keeps all the rest at Yakut. Something was smelling bad for Japan, I suspected. So I bought 5 inf, 5 arm. And I attacked the Russian stack on WRus with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm and the entire German airforce against 7 inf, 3 art and 3 arm. Took WRus, sacrificing 3 fighters in the process, 1 hit by AA. And took Caucasus with an amphib assault, along with Karelia and Belo.
Afterwards, Russia was simply beaten. The Germans moved a stack to WRus on G2 and the Japanese landed 5 fighters there on J2. Meanwhile the UK & US tried to scramble to Europe on time but one big US transport fleet got sunk by the Japanese airforce on SZ3. He surrendered afterwards.
The key issue is really the AA - if it’s regular dice then the risk is much higher for those attacks. But if the Germans get any chance of hitting WRus on G1… it is usually devastating for Russia. -
I agree the $ to activate 42 for GTO is well worth it if you are a fan of the game. Since their ad is on the back of the aa42 box, new 42 players are registering there every day. But keep in mind that a long good game will usually either start or be converted to a PBE game and that costs something like 25 cents a game.
ROCmonster my main criticism of GTO is that they don’t respond fast enough to user-suggested improvements. TripleA’s open-source model seems to fix bugs and make improvements far quicker than GTO’s pay model. And there are other issues. But all those problems noted, GTO is a wonderful community of gamers and tons of fun, and the owners and operators are genuinely good people.
Interesting that you don’t recommend Norway in low luck Hobbes. Do you recommend it in dice? It’s been a while since I played the game so I have no idea whether wr/nor or ukr/wr is more popular these days–opinion among experts seemed split right down the middle when I stopped playing 42.
GCar…if you’re reading this, which opening is currently favored in the ladder league?
Most of my Axis losses (that didn’t happen against Hobbes) have been against a Norway R1, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything.
While I see Hobbes has renamed Norwegian Gambit to a Norwegian Gamble :-D i am still unconvinced. In spite of ocassional losses I feel it serves me well, my last league win was with NG. I do not play low luck so I cannot tell how it works there, but i n dice I feel Germany gambles more with the G1 WR attack then Russia.
Well, I will give GTO second thought, but I really like how tripleA works. Since you have stopped playing V4, what are you playing these days, Zhuk?
-
While I see Hobbes has renamed Norwegian Gambit to a Norwegian Gamble :-D i am still unconvinced. In spite of ocassional losses I feel it serves me well, my last league win was with NG. I do not play low luck so I cannot tell how it works there, but i n dice I feel Germany gambles more with the G1 WR attack then Russia.
Well, I will give GTO second thought, but I really like how tripleA works. Since you have stopped playing V4, what are you playing these days, Zhuk?
Against LL it really turns into a gamble. If there’s only 12 units left on WRus then Germany should attack, even losing 2-3 fighters. Even with 13 units, which is the maximum Russia can get, the Germans can still hit and destroy the stack but at the cost of their entire AF.
Suggested Topics
