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

[bugoo]

Germany starts with 2 guys up there, gets 4 for activating Finland, plus can transport 2 first round.  Assuming said transport survives until turn 4 lets say, thats another 6 guys for a total of 14 troops up there when the US comes knocking.  Those guys normally do not advance in my games unless they are needed, they sit in Finland as a threat to Russia.

A simple carrier buy lets you threaten sea lion to keep UK honest turn 1.  Then you simply move back to the baltic if you have too, possibly adding a destroyer and a smattering of subs as you go.  In the baltic your boats are pretty difficult to get too.

You start with 8 planes, should loose 2 at most on turn 1.  You can easily purchase a plane a turn or so.  Combined with a sub or two the UK/US is forced to have a respectable fleet to do landings.

Italy should hit 30 income around turn 2.  Thats 10 ground troops to help cover and allows you to make difficult to kill stacks.

Germany has 3 production in france, 3 in Normady, and 10 right next door.  It is very easy to place a few troops a turn there to build up and incase of a large threat do a large drop the turn before.

There are two main ways to threaten Russia, either with numbers or mobility and your income allows you to choose.  Mech infantry with Italian can openers are extremely deadly, there 4 IPC blitzers in that regard.  Ukraine is a great place for a large stack of 'em.  Alternately, you can send 15+ inf/art at 'em and simply out produce them.  They will start to loose money fast once war is declared between Germany, Italy, and Japan wailing on 'em.

AA40e bugoo vs jim 01bUK.AAM

[Koningstiger]

@keplar:

the norway factory eventually finished me as the axis; now i’ve learned that holding norway (and denmark for that matter) is extremely important. next time i’ll either build my own IC there or keep transports and aircraft ready to take it back immediately!!

The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs. Therefore I still believe the Germans are much better off building a (major) IC in Norway themselves. That way they can both be used defensively and if that’s not necessary, you can move them to the Eastern front which is only two turns away in the case of infantry and one in thecase of tanks ans mech. infantry.

[LHoffman]

@Koningstiger:

@keplar:

the norway factory eventually finished me as the axis; now i’ve learned that holding norway (and denmark for that matter) is extremely important. next time i’ll either build my own IC there or keep transports and aircraft ready to take it back immediately!!

The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs. Therefore I still believe the Germans are much better off building a (major) IC in Norway themselves. That way they can both be used defensively and if that’s not necessary, you can move them to the Eastern front which is only two turns away in the case of infantry and one in thecase of tanks ans mech. infantry.

Building one there yourself can be helpful for sure. But it also just adds more  incentive for the Allies to take it. Besides, it will spread your production out even further. Which isn’t good of you are looking to defend the factories themselves.

I wouldn’t be totally against the strategy though. I could see benefits in certain applications.

[zooooma]

@Chompers#2:

US spending in Pacific is a viable way to get an allied win.  The problem seems to be that spending all in the Atlantic is an even more viable way to win.

If anything, the game is “broken” because the Allies are too strong in general, and hence can gain the upper hand from a variety of strategies and approaches.  It the power imbalance, not the specific strategy, which is (potentially) the problem.

If Germany can’t hold USA out of Norway long enought for the Axis to counquer Middle East, India, and Africa, cripple Russia, and gain a favourable economic position, then the game may be imbalanced.  But don’t blame the the Norwegian factory - This is a symptom of a (possible) problem.

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

[LHoffman]

@zooooma:

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway. The carrier helps level some offensive firepower at Norway, but most of your planes can make it there anyway. Although, the carrier is particularly good protection for the transports. Locking up a “fair” German fleet in the Baltic is not a bad idea. Given enough support ships and transports, Norway is defensible. Plus you can move men to the front in Russia more quickly, or threaten Leningrad; which is what I am doing now.

It would be terrible for Germany if the US established a major factory in Norway, because with the British and Americans reinforcing it, there is just no way to hold it. It would be difficult for Germany to mount Eastern front operations and squabble over an IC across the Baltic.

[spectre_04]

I played as Germany last night, Built a factory in Norway of turn one and built 3 tanks there (plus 1 AA gun) every turn.  It worked as a great defense in the north, kept my enemy down in the south near Italy, and also I had 8 tanks to send in with infantry when I attacked Russia on Turn 4.  Might not work every time, but It’s not the worst place to build your factory, especially if you don’t want your opponent building his there.  P.S. I still lost the game, but it was because of Italy, it was my first time being the Axis, and only my 4th real game.  I’ll do better next time.

[eddiem4145]

I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.

In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.

And for those who think they are history buffs who may contrdict me with some obscure example, let me give you one I already now. I don’t remember the exact places or years, but thier was one instance where they did let bombers land in Russian territory. The Russians kept them for safe keeping then gave them back stripped. They were looking for technology they could use.

It gives some realism. They also don’t liberate anything. If the Russians take it from the axis, they keep it. This should help in terms of not allowing the Russians to be reinforced. It also would make it much less advanages to buidling an IC.

[zooooma]

@LHoffman:

@zooooma:

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway.

Well, that’s how I’ve been opening, but as far as the defense of Norway is concerned a G1 CV will keep the fleet alive - the transports can always come later.

@Koningstiger:

The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs.

A Baltic fleet with three transports can rush six ground units a turn to the Eastern front all the way from West Germany.  That’s better than a Norwegian IC, which is no closer tho Russia than West Germany and no closer to Leningrad than Germany is).

A CV + 2trn build G1 forces UK to take defensive measures even if your aren’t pursuing Sea Lion.  Your builds keep your starting fleet alive in sz113, allowing a maximal assault on the UK navy.  Your fleet keeps the Americans out of Norway, and deters an incursion across the Baltic straight.  These things buy a lot of time against the Allies while fighting Russia.

@eddiem4145:

I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.

America don’t really need to go into Russia.  USA will build troops in Norway and transport them directly into Europe.  It’s a bad scene for Germany

[Koningstiger]

@zooooma:

@LHoffman:

@zooooma:

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway.

Well, that’s how I’ve been opening, but as far as the defense of Norway is concerned a G1 CV will keep the fleet alive - the transports can always come later.

@Koningstiger:

The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs.

A Baltic fleet with three transports can rush six ground units a turn to the Eastern front all the way from West Germany.  That’s better than a Norwegian IC, which is no closer tho Russia than West Germany and no closer to Leningrad than Germany is).

A CV + 2trn build G1 forces UK to take defensive measures even if your aren’t pursuing Sea Lion.  Your builds keep your starting fleet alive in sz113, allowing a maximal assault on the UK navy.  Your fleet keeps the Americans out of Norway, and deters an incursion across the Baltic straight.  These things buy a lot of time against the Allies while fighting Russia.

@eddiem4145:

I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.

America don’t really need to go into Russia.  USA will build troops in Norway and transport them directly into Europe.  It’s a bad scene for Germany

I built a carrier (landed two fighters on it) and a transport once and the British took it out entirely having a carrier with two fighters on it left over. Agreed the Germans had lousy die rolls whereas those of the Brits were great. The British attacking force consisted of: 1 CV, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters from UK.

To be completely sure your fleet will survive I suggest building a CV (land two fighters), a destroyer and a sub for exactly 30 points.

[spectre_04]

In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.

Your absolutely right.  I can back up your statement, remember the famous Doolittle Raid?  This is a quote from the wikipedia article “One of the B-25s landed in the Soviet Union at Vladivostok, where it was confiscated and its crew interned for more than a year”  That is an interesting house rule.  I also remember in the first AA Europe version, any allied unit that entered Russian Territory became Russian the next turn, but I think this is going the opposite direction and actually helps the allies get an advantage.

So far, playing and fighting against the Soviets, I think its far more important where they position their forces, than what those forces are made up of.

To be completely sure your fleet will survive I suggest building a CV (land two fighters), a destroyer and a sub for exactly 30 points.

I agree with this, its a better buy, especially if your opponent(s) is/are aggressive and knows that they might as well hit your fleet right off the bat and not wait around for sealion.  If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game.  I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.

[LHoffman]

@spectre_04:

I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.

Unless you want to legitimately threaten both Russia and Britain on turn 2. I am beginning to think that turn 2 is the best time to attack Russia, before they get too situated and consolidated. As for Britain, well, even if you aren’t serious about a Sealion, they don’t know that, so they’ll have to prepare anyway. I am on turn 3 and conducting an invasion of Leningrad now. Granted I could have bought my transports on G2 instead of G1, but buying on G1 hasn’t hurt me at all. And I didn’t even do that well against the British fleet. Instead my ships are now holed up in the Baltic. Only British planes can get them now.

The transports may become a bad buy if you fail as Germany to totally smash the British ships near the Baltic/English Channel. Even so, Britain will have only 4 aircraft to attack the Germans with on UK1. I would not make such an attack if I were the British (with only planes). It is far too wasteful. Most assuredly all your planes will be destroyed, while you may destroy the German cruiser and a fighter; easily replaced.

[spectre_04]

Unless you want to legitimately threaten both Russia and Britain on turn 2. I am beginning to think that turn 2 is the best time to attack Russia, before they get too situated and consolidated. As for Britain, well, even if you aren’t serious about a Sealion, they don’t know that, so they’ll have to prepare anyway. I am on turn 3 and conducting an invasion of Leningrad now. Granted I could have bought my transports on G2 instead of G1, but buying on G1 hasn’t hurt me at all. And I didn’t even do that well against the British fleet. Instead my ships are now holed up in the Baltic. Only British planes can get them now.

The transports may become a bad buy if you fail as Germany to totally smash the British ships near the Baltic/English Channel. Even so, Britain will have only 4 aircraft to attack the Germans with on UK1. I would not make such an attack if I were the British (with only planes). It is far too wasteful. Most assuredly all your planes will be destroyed, while you may destroy the German cruiser and a fighter; easily replaced.

Completely agreed LHoffman.  I think your right that you need to hit Russia early, it doesn’t hurt you that much, and they only keep getting stronger, and more importantly for Germany, better positioned.  The thing you Don’t want to do is Declare war on the United States with Germany and Italy on turn one, unless of course you want to play the game on ‘hard mode’ as the Axis if you catch my drift.

[zooooma]

@Koningstiger:

I built a carrier (landed two fighters on it) and a transport once and the British took it out entirely having a carrier with two fighters on it left over. Agreed the Germans had lousy die rolls whereas those of the Brits were great. The British attacking force consisted of: 1 CV, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters from UK.

That’s 15 pips with 7 hit points attacking a BB, CV, CA, Ft, FT - 16 pips.  Both with exactly equal units, except Germany has 4s against UK’s 3s.  Even the Tactical bomber becomes a 3 if it’s the last unit fighting, so technically England should be assessed at slightly less than 15 pips.

@spectre_04:

If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game.

You are an underdog in that battle, and if you lose or even draw you have no planes to defend England and Germany still has three transports.  UK will fall terribly turn three, taking poor Canada with it.   :-(

[LHoffman]

@zooooma:

@spectre_04:

If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game.

You are an underdog in that battle, and if you lose or even draw you have no planes to defend England and Germany still has three transports.  UK will fall terribly turn three, taking poor Canada with it.   :-(

My point exactly… attacking (fortified) German naval forces on UK1 is a bad idea.

[Koningstiger]

@LHoffman:

@spectre_04:

I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.

Even so, Britain will have only 4 aircraft to attack the Germans with on UK1. I would not make such an attack if I were the British (with only planes). It is far too wasteful. Most assuredly all your planes will be destroyed, while you may destroy the German cruiser and a fighter; easily replaced.

You can also bring in the carrier for a free hit and an additional one if you’re prepared to lose it. As someone else said: The Allies can afford such losses in the beginning.

In my game they still had a destroyer (and a transport) left over as well (off the Weslh coast)  as some of the German subs had opted to attack the fleet near Canada instead (thereby also incurring a 3 IPC loss through convoy hunting.

Not attacking the German fleet (even at bad odds) will allow the Germans to build an “all land units’ buy” to use against Russia. Even if you do have to replace 15-20 IPCs worth of ships, it’s still better for the Allies than if they don’t make the Germans do that.

[zooooma]

@Koningstiger:

You can also bring in the carrier for a free hit and an additional one if you’re prepared to lose it…

I was accounting for the CV, which BTW gives you two free hits but no fire power.  Germany matches two free hits with CV +BB.  Germany matches your DD with it’s CV (both hit on two), matches one FT with a CA, beats your other fighters with it’s defensive fighters, and beats your TB with a BB (the BB always rolls at four, even alone).

@Koningstiger:

As someone else said: The Allies can afford such losses in the beginning….

…Not attacking the German fleet (even at bad odds) will allow the Germans to build an “all land units’ buy” to use against Russia. Even if you do have to replace 15-20 IPCs worth of ships, it’s still better for the Allies than if they don’t make the Germans do that.

But attacking at bad odds allows Germany to walk into England.  UK is a small dog in that battle, but Germany only needs mutual destruction. which makes UK a big dog.

I would argue that “in the beginning” is when England can least afford losses, because this is when they’re most vulnerable.

[Koningstiger]

@zooooma:

@Koningstiger:

You can also bring in the carrier for a free hit and an additional one if you’re prepared to lose it…

I was accounting for the CV, which BTW gives you two free hits but no fire power.  Germany matches two free hits with CV +BB.  Germany matches your DD with it’s CV (both hit on two), matches one FT with a CA, beats your other fighters with it’s defensive fighters, and beats your TB with a BB (the BB always rolls at four, even alone).

@Koningstiger:

As someone else said: The Allies can afford such losses in the beginning….

…Not attacking the German fleet (even at bad odds) will allow the Germans to build an “all land units’ buy” to use against Russia. Even if you do have to replace 15-20 IPCs worth of ships, it’s still better for the Allies than if they don’t make the Germans do that.

But attacking at bad odds allows Germany to walk into England.  UK is a small dog in that battle, but Germany only needs mutual destruction. which makes UK a big dog.

I would argue that “in the beginning” is when England can least afford losses, because this is when they’re most vulnerable.

Of course you’re making some valid points as well; I’m not denying that. However, Britain can buy infantry and a tank or two to fend off a possible sea lion (which wouldn’t come before turn 3 anyway in my example as Germany bought a sub, des and CV (i.e. no transports). Allowing the German fleet to remain(completely) intact will offer them the possibility later on in the game to delay landings on the West European coast for a turn or 2 more than they otherwise would (with or without the assistance of the Luftwaffe). If only for that reason, it’s certainly worth considering attacking the German fleet, even at bad odds, as inot doing so will basically give Germany two or 3 more turns to deal with the USSR before the western Allies can get too close for comfort.

In my game I actually did attack and destroyed the entire German fleet at a loss of only one destroyer and a tactical bomber. I do admit these rolls were completely insane (Germans had bought a CV and 2 transports to add to their existing fleet).The turn after two subs tried to destroy the remaining British carrier loaded with two fighters, but the subs missed. Had they scored even just one hit, the CV would have been crippled and the fighters wouldn’t have had a place to land (They were off the German occupied Norwegian coast). However, again the British were incredibly lucky: the subs missed 3 times and the CV scored two hits in defense (fighters couldn’t participate as only subs were attacking). However, these completely outrageous results may have also somewhat clouded my judgement. Of course, normally speaking the Germans will sustain far minor losses and at the same time wipe out the British. Also a destroyer, a CV and a sub will make for different results than just the CV and two (additional) transports.

[LHoffman]

In my latest game, my G1 naval attack was close to failure. I failed to destroy the French and British cruisers in the same sea zone while I lost my own cruiser, and I lost 3 subs and 1 fighter. The land attack went far better.

What this resulted in was my ships being protected behind the wall of Denmark-Norway. I believe this itself could be a very effective strategy, however you will have to figure out how to destroy ships, yet keep yours able to retreat back through the straits. As it stands now, my ships (CV, BB, 3 Trans) can only be attacked by Britain’s 4 aircraft.

Still, I would rather have destroyed his cruisers and then moved my ships back through the straits on my own accord.

[Koningstiger]

@LHoffman:

What this resulted in was my ships being protected behind the wall of Denmark-Norway. I believe this itself could be a very effective strategy, however you will have to figure out how to destroy ships, yet keep yours able to retreat back through the straits.

Related to this: Just make sure you always have (at least) one sub being the Germans. Place it in the Baltic and you will keep the British from getting their NO for there not being any German subs on the board. They simply cannot easily attack a sub in the Baltic! First they’ll have to take Denmark to do so! (and control it from the beginning of their turn; so the Italians could even take it back…)

[spectre_04]

You are an underdog in that battle, and if you lose or even draw you have no planes to defend England and Germany still has three transports.  UK will fall terribly turn three, taking poor Canada with it.  sad

Yeah, perhaps, it all depends on the rolls.  But you know what, at least I am somebody on this Forum who will put up a fight.  I am like Churchill in this game.  I know I am gonna have casualties and loose units and I don’t pussyfoot around to try and keep my precious stacks alive while my enemy gets the advantage.  Maybe some of you should read some Sun Tzu and play REAL games with REAL dice against opponents you are REALLY in front of instead of all this email crap.

I ask you this who think a British counter attack to be futile.  What would you do instead?  Assuming you are trying to protect your airpower ( and don’t forget the two aircraft, one TAC and one Fighter, you have on the carrier next to Gibraltar)
would you just sit there and polish you pretty fighters for the Hun to blow them up the next day?  If you would, you and Neville (Pussy) Chamberlain would become fast friends.

I wouldn’t attack if the odds were grossly out of favor, but if they were equal or close to it, then I will hit your Kriegsmarine and take some of them to the bottom.  “Fortune Favors the Bold”, the man who said that never lost a battle.