• Ideally I would love it if Russia could take it that extra INF every turn with little needed to defend it (contingent upon the Axis Navy) would help a great deal. If I had to pick a second place it would have to be UK because the US already makes just under what Russia and the UK make together.

    -LT04


  • Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US


  • wow you make a good point. I always thought that the US having the most income and for the most part never looses it needed Norway the least, but the US has the most income and therefore should take Norway b/c they won’t miss the income is a better idea.

    -LT04


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US

    IF russia was in countrol of st, petersburg then i say it would make more sense for the US to take it but this is usally not the case. so the uk should take it beacuse the are with in immediate threat to it and should not give norway an extra in axis hans so that the us can trade norway with germany. the us usally goes to africa in the first place so that dealys the time it has to go to norway.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    My thoughts exactly.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US

    key question:

    how many rounds should the allies wait (if given the chance) to let US take Norway?

    one round?  Certainly
    two rounds… perhaps
    three rounds…?  Is that worth it?


  • ditto on Coberts post.


  • My own overriding thought on Norway…

    3 IPC not going to Germany and instead held by the Allies…  GREAT!

    If I am playing the Allies, I don’t care who has it, so long as it is not Germany or Japan.  :mrgreen:


  • If it were easy to chose which country obtained Norway, then I would want the Russians to have it. They need the money more than any of the other allies. They are always in the most immediate danger.

    The USA would do well with Norway because they could afford to build a factory there any start pouring out tanks.

    However, England is always in the easiest position to take it (with USA following up with reinforcements) and Russia usually attacking German units in Karelia on their turn.

    At any rate, as long as the allies have it, they should be happy.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I like the UK with Norway.  If I can keep UKs income above 30 (Norway, Africa) then I am not only shuttling 4 loaded transports per turn to Europe, but I also have additional income to help Threaten German shores even more.  Whether buying a fighter, an extra trn, or just filling my transports with 1 inf 1 arm, I am putting the screws to Germany and forcing them to protect their core territories (WEU, GER, EEU) that much more.  The more they have to protect home territories, the less they have to pressure Russia.


  • I have fallen in love with the idea of the US taking Norway b/c I build an IC in India and another in Australia or S Africa. I like the UK to focus on those to slow down Japan. If the US could take Norway and build an IC and boost Russia’s front line with 3 tanks every turn, unless the US also builds a navy and augments Russia with additional forces the allies would be as my uncle always says “they’d be standing in tall cotton.”

    -LT04

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’d like to see your UK in action some time.  I haven’t seen a good UK IC strat yet.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Asia wall dont work


  • @ezto:

    Asia wall dont work

    Depends on your purpose.

    If used correctly, it CAN be effective.  But the risk (for both dice and error) is greater than with a traditional KGF.


  • RJ,

    My UK game is very contingent upon what happens on J1. If they are very aggressive on the mainland my UK suffers heavily initially. Typically I like to place a IC on India and S Africa. India produces a ARM INF mix at first then moves to only INF. The S Africa IC only produces ARM to at first push Germany out of Africa then push to India. Granted it doesn’t always work like that depending on other matters, but that’s my ideal starting strategy for the UK.

    I hope that didn’t take us off the Norway subject to much.  :-D

    -LT04


  • If you care gong to spend $30 (the cost of 2 IC’s), a better option would be to build a WCan IC and 2 TRN for $31 IPCs.

    By building in WCan, you can build 3 units (the same as india), and with the extra TRN, UK can re-take Africa without drawing force off their European landings.  It also allows you to increase the amount of punch on a European landing anytime you choose.

    An India IC without a US IC is asking for trouble in most cases, and usually ends up as a cost savings to Japan of $15, as well as being able to produce in India a turn faster than if they had to build their own IC.

  • 2007 AAR League

    u mean Eca?


  • Oops, yes, sorry.  EASTERN Canada.


  • Just a question, why make a ECan IC? I’ve never really understood, is it because you have a German with a huge army in Norway and therefore can punish your fleet at Sz2?
    and if….have you lost the UK BB? (with the Rus sub you rarely see the G1 sub+ftr+bom on Sz2).

    Because I just see it as a 15 IC pointsink…if you’re gonna make that factory you’re gonna loose 1 turn just waiting for it…I prefer simply say “I buy nothing” with UK and
    next turn buy a fleet that can defend itself for 50IC and save that 15IC from ECan.

    I’m mostly curious…why the IC in ECan? in what situations is it good?


  • I would like to hear a reason, too.

    -LT04

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 17
  • 12
  • 6
  • 38
  • 23
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts