The Norwegian Gambit

@Granada:

If Hobbes can tell me how to post a file here I can attach the complete game. Or alternatively, if you see me at TripleA, I can open the file there for you to save.

Below the message window click where it says additional options (that’s how it works for me).

@Granada:

Well, I am happy to see we both were happy with our positions. The UK was a bit lighter on units primarly because I have built 4 trns a top the one i had SZ2 which i think is handy, because it increases the pressure on the Germans. After the 2dd build R4 there would be only 8IPCs left true, true, but there would be two more units coming from EC. So that is 4 UK units for R5 and 8 from R6 on. Also US shack would start hitting Europe with 4inf, 4tnk only R6 so that is not such a big deal.

LOL. Yeah, i guess the game lasted as long because we were both happy with our positions there :)

But you are right. In nutshell you did very well in forcing me to build more protection ships than I really wanted. It leads me to a conclusion I need to review the process of managing the Atlantic traffic a bit because I of course do not want to buy extra dds R4 in the first place. And I think I have some ideas on that already.

As for contesting UKR with R, lots of armour would not got G out of ukr, I checked that already. It seems G really can keep UKR R1-3 if he really wants it even if R buys all arm R2. But that should not be such a trouble unless the J figs get the chance to hit too light allied fleet R4.

But we will test that someday again, I am sure  :-D

The Japanese airforce is simply a major pain to deal with because it plays between the UK and US. I’ve had games where I started buying bombers for J and moving to India (where they can hit SZ5 - it can be a very nasty surprise!) or Europe. After a while a fleet on SZ5 might have to retreat to build up their defensive strength. And players also get complacent if it just sits there for a few turns without further planes being bought by G/J.

Interesting map.

I think I can agree with Granada that the Ukraine stack wasn’t too serious…in this game not any more serious than a Kar stack would have been…however it ‘could’ have become serious if Germany had risked more tank buys.  Instead Germany was mostly inf (with some tanks to keep the ratios up) for the next few rounds.  IMO, this was a wise decision in a dice game against a tough opponent that is going KGF…  and Hobbes was able to exploit the postion enough to get a Japanese Persia stack.  With a huge German army of inf, Japs in control of Africa, and Japs stacked at Persia…it was just a matter of time before Axis outspend the Allies.

I would like to see what would happen if after G1 Germany/Japan had gone with a tank rush strategy.  What has to worry the Allies about a stack on Ukraine is the potential for a combined Axis stack in Cau or WR…leading to permanent Axis control of Cau.  If Germany was buying tanks they might have been able to get in closer…but then buying heavy tanks against KGF in dice is a risky proposition.

my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB?  was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?

@Hobbes:

Guys, please stop treating me like I’m the guru of AA42 or something. :)

No.  :-D

I watched the game, and have comments!

The way I figured it, Granada would eventually make some kind of mistake somewhere, and Hobbes would drive a truck through the opening.  I don’t know why Granada sometimes does silly stuff, but he does.

Hobbes, though, is like a relentless machine.  He might make a small error now and then, but I never see anything that I consider to be glaring errors like I do in other players’ games.

Comments on stuff I would have done differently -

Both Russia and UK had a glaring lack of offensive power around round 12.  I haven’t viewed the game history to see exactly why that was, but it was quite noticeable, particularly given UK"s final few turns.

Specifically, I think it’s fine to have a defensive stack of UK infantry if you’ve prevented Germany from controlling Africa (restricting its income), and are rolling up its territory in Europe.  If I remember right, Germany was out of Africa.  But UK could not roll up Germany.  Once UK got close, Germany could break a large UK stack with its combined infantry, tanks, and air; neither US or Russia were in a position to reinforce.  At one key point in the game, I thought it would be best to move UK’s Karelia stack to Archangel, where it could reinforce Moscow next turn.  Instead, it was moved to Norway.  At least, I hope I remember that all correctly.

At one point, UK and US had a stack on Ukraine, with 2 German infantry on Caucasus, and a stack of German tanks on Balkans.  Had I been playing, I would probably have done the flashy thing and attacked the Ukraine stack, retreating all to Caucasus.  (This would have made any Allied attack on Japan-held Caucasus very costly, considering the board situation; since the Allied Ukraine stack couldn’t hit Caucasus easily, they might have had to go through West Russia, allowing Japanese and Germany to do a two-hit strike to Moscow.

However, Hobbes did NOT do the flashy “tank teleport” trick.  I haven’t had time to consider it yet, but I think that if the German tanks had ended up in Caucasus, that it might not only have given the Axis a quick shot on Moscow, it might also have opened the door up to the Allies moving to Eastern Europe in force while cutting off the German tanks from attacking the stack, allowing Allied pressure of Berlin.  Or it could be that the Allies would have been able to use their stack to reclaim Moscow.  I’ll look at it again sometime.  Probably the former is true to some degree; I’m unsure as to whether the latter would also be the case.

That’s probably the big difference between Hobbes’ gameplay and mine.  I’ll look for an easy cheap flashy victory, Hobbes just sits there and grinds you into paste.

Anyways, Hobbes ended up killing the Allied stack instead of just strafing it, limiting the Allies options.  Japan took Moscow soon after, with 16 Jap tanks plus air surviving.  Berlin was still strong, and the Allies didn’t have a goodly stack in Europe, so that was game.

Now for Bunniez’ Buncha Theoretical Stuff!  It’s the new special here on the forums . . . hosted by yours truly.

I mentioned a G1 Ukraine stack a while ago as one of the possible responses to the R1 2 fighter attack on Norway as described by Granada.  The typical Russian game revolves around control of West Russia, trading Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine.  It’s my opinion that a German Ukraine stack slashes Russia’s power.  Russia is permanently denied the 3 IPCs from Ukraine, and with its stack locked to Caucasus, it cannot maintain control of West Russia.  Meanwhile German reinforcements at Eastern Europe can trade Karelia, and without Russians at either Karelia or West Russia to hit Belorussia, Germany locks in that income too.  So theoretically that puts the Germans up at 5 IPC per turn, and Russia down 5 IPCs per turn.

This seems pretty trivial.  Oo, Germany can afford one more fighter after two turns!  But it is NOT a trivial difference.  A single unit can mean the difference between a 60% battle (reasonable but risky) and a 80% battle (a pretty good shot).  Once you consider that the Germans have perhaps 2 more units a turn, and the Russians 2 less a turn, it becomes VERY nasty very quickly.  The Ukraine stack alone is MUCH nastier than the German Karelia stack.  The German Karelia stack only swings 2, not 5.

That’s one of the big pluses to Russia hitting Ukraine on R1.  If Russia takes Ukraine, Germany can’t land fighters on it.  If Germany can’t land fighters on Ukraine to help defend it, Russia can probably retake Ukraine, and so on and so forth.

@ragnarok628:

my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB?  was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?

I consider that the 2 Russian fighters are amongst the most valuable starting units. The UK BB is not as important as they and the UK can build more ships easily than the Russians can spare money to build fighters.

Looking at the cost both attacks are close considering the total gains/losses for both sides, which of course is highly dependent on dice. But either attack is a slow bump for G. The major difference is that Norway helps the UK at the sea, and Ukraine helps Russia on land.

@Bunnies:

Specifically, I think it’s fine to have a defensive stack of UK infantry if you’ve prevented Germany from controlling Africa (restricting its income), and are rolling up its territory in Europe.  If I remember right, Germany was out of Africa.  But UK could not roll up Germany.  Once UK got close, Germany could break a large UK stack with its combined infantry, tanks, and air; neither US or Russia were in a position to reinforce.  At one key point in the game, I thought it would be best to move UK’s Karelia stack to Archangel, where it could reinforce Moscow next turn.  Instead, it was moved to Norway.  At least, I hope I remember that all correctly.

I mentioned it to Granada at the end of the game. If that stack had been moved to West Russia instead it could have played a major role at defending Russia/Caucasus. However, looking back in retrospect I think Granada made the right call because I remember that if it had been moved to Caucasus then the Allies could effectively be cut off of further landings on Europe, with a German stack on Karelia. The UK units would still be able to help out but they would receive no further reinforcements unless Archangel could be secured.

At one point, UK and US had a stack on Ukraine, with 2 German infantry on Caucasus, and a stack of German tanks on Balkans.  Had I been playing, I would probably have done the flashy thing and attacked the Ukraine stack, retreating all to Caucasus.  (This would have made any Allied attack on Japan-held Caucasus very costly, considering the board situation; since the Allied Ukraine stack couldn’t hit Caucasus easily, they might have had to go through West Russia, allowing Japanese and Germany to do a two-hit strike to Moscow.

However, Hobbes did NOT do the flashy “tank teleport” trick.  I haven’t had time to consider it yet, but I think that if the German tanks had ended up in Caucasus, that it might not only have given the Axis a quick shot on Moscow, it might also have opened the door up to the Allies moving to Eastern Europe in force while cutting off the German tanks from attacking the stack, allowing Allied pressure of Berlin.  Or it could be that the Allies would have been able to use their stack to reclaim Moscow.  I’ll look at it again sometime.  Probably the former is true to some degree; I’m unsure as to whether the latter would also be the case.

The whole question was that I had already decided that Japan would take Russia, and the role of Germany was to prevent the Allied army from pulling back to defend it or threaten the Japanese buildup on Caucasus. If it had attacked Ukraine and retreated to Caucasus the UK could still move its armor back to Moscow to defend against the Japanese.
The Japanese were earning close to 60 IPCs and deploying nearly all of it against Russia, who was earning 12-16 IPCs. The only way for it to survive against that buildup would be with UK/US assistance, other than just sending fighters. The role of G was to prevent precisely that. :)

ah, that chess analogy was beautifully put, granada. and thanks hobbes for your reply as well.  i’m definitely more of a boil-it-down guy than a split-the-atoms-of-a-hair type as far as these things go, and putting in in terms of “what is more important:  russian fighter or UK BB” really helps me to understand my own thoughts on this norwegian gambit.  although i still haven’t decided where i come down myself!  i think i’m leaning towards not doing norway.

The chess analogy is interesting but might not be entirely correct. To say it’s like …d5 or …Nf6 is saying that the options are roughly equal in value and that it’s a matter of taste and experience which one you like better. However, since the Norwegian Gambit is a more risky opening and probably less well known, I would be more inclined to compare it to a move like 1… f5 (as a response to 1.d4): statistically the opening has a lower winning percentage, but in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon. This is not to say the Norwegian Gambit (or 1… f5 for that matter) is strictly worse than a conventional opening; it just has different properties.

@El:

in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon.

Pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

Wow, this is some deep stuff. :-o

But for me, if you boil it down to losing the fig or the bb, I’d lose the bb every time.

Those two fighters are probly the most valuable pieces of plastic in Russia’s arsenal.

They can strike anywhere and everywhere on the front, never in harms way, and when Moscow burns, they help defend it till the bitter end. :cry:

I think the fig/2 tnk comparison is unnecessary to properly evaluate the Gambit. Given reasonable dice, Russia loses a fighter in Kar on G1, but also preserves 2 extra tanks in WR compared to the WR+Ukraine attack. So Russia can just buy 2 tanks after attacking Ukr or 1 fighter after attacking Norway and end up with roughly the same forces.

IMO, the real problems with the Gambit are 1) increased probability of losing WR on G1; and 2) Ger being able to stack Ukraine and gain an important positional advantage (as pointed out by Hobbes). I think those elements have to be weighed against the extra UK BB, instead of the oversimplification of Russian fig vs UK BB.

@Granada:

In my last game with a player who is imho one of the best around

who?

@El:

I think the fig/2 tnk comparison is unnecessary to properly evaluate the Gambit. Given reasonable dice, Russia loses a fighter in Kar on G1, but also preserves 2 extra tanks in WR compared to the WR+Ukraine attack. So Russia can just buy 2 tanks after attacking Ukr or 1 fighter after attacking Norway and end up with roughly the same forces.

IMO, the real problems with the Gambit are 1) increased probability of losing WR on G1; and 2) Ger being able to stack Ukraine and gain an important positional advantage (as pointed out by Hobbes). I think those elements have to be weighed against the extra UK BB, instead of the oversimplification of Russian fig vs UK BB.

Absolutely, it is a simplification of the effects of the gambit but that can serve as a reminder of the choice the Allies are making by performing it. The Gambit favors more the UK than Russia because the BB will be saved. There might be other additional immediate consequences such as losing WR, although the odds for that are low. Russia will only lose 2 of its attacking pieces, 1 fighter and 1 armor, while a UKR+WR attack will cause it to spend 3 armor but they will destroy an additional German art+arm.
However, the loss of the fighter hurts Russia on the long run if it isn’t replaced. I’m a huge fan of armor for Russia like Grenada and I like to get myself a 10 armor stack to move around and slow the Axis advance but it will take more than 5 or 6 turns before the UK/US can move into Eastern Europe and stop any German advances against Russia. And during the initial 2-3 turns the Russians will have to contest 3 territories against Germany (Karelia, Belo and Ukraine), and afterwards usually start dealing with the Japanese.
You will need that 2nd fighter for those battles and to have 1 artillery always on the board to fight those 3 battles against Germany, otherwise you either concede the territory to Germany or have to use some of your T-34s.
By the time the Allies start liberating Karelia and taking that burden off Russia, it will still have to fight back into 2 territories. With only 1 fighter, it will either have to use art/armor to take them but with 2 fighters it can stop building any artillery, buy additional armor and use it all against the incoming Japanese units on Asia, instead of Europe.
Regarding the view that it might help a US Pacific strat by allowing the UK an early landing on Norway, I say that against a KJF, Germany’s will have to play very aggressively, regardless of Norway/Ukraine. Stacking Ukraine allows it to directly pressure the Caucasus - Russia is now tied to defending it instead of pressuring Japan on Asia, and loses the ability to contest Belorussia/Ukraine, denying Russia 5 IPCs. Or stacking Karelia to cut off the inflow of UK units. Whatever happens, I think I still prefer to keep that Russian fighter and destroy the German stack on Ukraine. If you want to defeat Japan on the Pacific you’ll have to stop it from increasing its income on Asia, while at the same time holding off the Germans until the UK is able to counter them.
Getting back to the fighter/battleship. The fighter allows Russia to save 4-5 IPCs per turn in offensive units that otherwise would be destroyed in German counterattacks. The battleship corresponds to 1 destroyer + 1 cruiser for fleet defense and for a quicker buildup of transports and ground units by the UK, plus the bombardment shot.

Hobbes, I agree with everything you said. However, if 1) the 2nd fighter is so important, 2) you usually buy extra armor with Russia, and 3) Norway Gambit saves extra armor for Russia; then it’s just as easy to replace the 2nd fighter as to replace the 2 armor, right?

@El:

Hobbes, I agree with everything you said. However, if 1) the 2nd fighter is so important, 2) you usually buy extra armor with Russia, and 3) Norway Gambit saves extra armor for Russia; then it’s just as easy to replace the 2nd fighter as to replace the 2 armor, right?

Yes, yes and yes.

But with the Gambit now G also has an extra art+arm on Ukraine, most likely can stack Ukraine and force Russia to keep its armor stack on Caucasus on turn 2 and abandon West Russia. What do you prefer?