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.
