@panther Thank you very much panther…
The Norwegian Gambit
-
Nice read, Granada.
-
Nice read, Granada.
Yeah, Gran, I think they’re buying it! :wink:
Juuust kidding. It’s a long-standing joke between Gran and me.
-
@Bunnies:
The validity of a strategy in low luck is completely irrelevant to its validity in dice, and vice versa.
Saying the strategy “works” if it works in low luck means nothing for its validity in dice.
There’s some merit to what you are saying but these statements aren’t accurate. Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls. IMHO, in order for a strategy to be ‘good’ it should meet the criteria of success given average results. Isn’t that also the criteria for the ‘validity’ of a strategy? Low luck shows us these average results. So yes, low luck experimentation is extremely useful imho.
Granted, there are some strategies that work better in dice and vice versa. KJF in Revised is a good example–it thrives on exploiting the sort of below 25% outcomes you never get with low luck.
It goes without saying there are additional complexities to a dice game that you don’t find in a low luck game. I think becoming a good low luck player gives me additional perspective on these complexities and potentially makes me a better dice player.
Anyway, I only brought up the dice/low luck dichotomy to make a point about Granada’s case.
I don’t believe the Norway Gambit is a good move in dice, unless you have reason to gamble. If elite players are capable of winning consistently with Ukr/Wr, why risk a Norway Gambit unless I’m up against one of those elite players?
But Norway could be promising with low luck dice and I’d like to test it further. I just haven’t seen much of this because it’s been played against me primarily in dice games–where the outcome of the games is heavily dependent on those R1 dice.
-
Many thanks for feedback. I am looking forward to reading Hobbes’ piece on the Russian strategy. His two comments to my article are spot on. I will be keeping just 1 INF on Arch to see whether it is neccassary as reinforcement in WR or it might go to block to KAR. And I have not thought of keeping six units in Cauc yet but I just might start doing this if things go well.
I don’t believe the Norway Gambit is a good move in dice, unless you have reason to gamble. If elite players are capable of winning consistently with Ukr/Wr, why risk a Norway Gambit unless I’m up against one of those elite players?
I play only dice, I have never tried to play LL. While I accept LL might be good way to test a strategy and might do it myself, I think it ruins the game just because it deprives it of many variants you experience only with good or bad luck. But I know there are LL devotees and I do not want to insult them, it is just that I am a dice stalwart. But while I see the connection Zhuk makes, in general this is an old debate on a different subject.
My point here is different: are there really any players who win consistantly with WR/UKR? If I am Axis, I like to face this opening most. And in general I would say it leaves both sides with the same chances to win. As a German player I think I will never tire of the sinking of the UK BB R1. :wink:
But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.
-
Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls.
. . . in other words, playing Low Luck games is a good predictor for Low Luck games.
That bit about being skilled at low luck and dice is just tooting your own horn. In my opinion, if you really understood the difference between low luck and dice, you wouldn’t be claiming that testing a strategy in low luck has any say towards its validity in dice. Yeah, that IS inflammatory, but when you make such a strong claim, I leap in with equally strong words for the counter! (yay internetz! do not try this in real life, kids . . . you’ll put an eye out . . . real life disagreements are usually best avoided . . .)
Playing dice means doing risk management - in particular figuring out what battles are high risk high reward, and figuring the possibilities of failing at make or break battles. This simply does not come into play in low luck games. All you do in low luck is count up hits and casualties; you know the result of a battle with extremely high probability when compared to dice, you need only commit relatively minimal forces when compared to dice, and you absolutely never have to figure on contingency plans in case of poor round 1 dice in low luck - at least HARDLY so when compared to dice.
On the other hand, the ease of predicting outcomes in low luck means a player needs to do all the hit and casualty counts for at least one entire round in advance, because the opponent will easily be able to exploit any openings.
How about a bit of substantiation for what I’m saying?
Let’s say you have a Low Luck battle of 32 tanks against 30 tanks for a capital. Under Low Luck rules, the attacker ALWAYS wins. Under dice, though, the attacker loses about 25%. After the first round in dice, the odds are extremely high that neither attacker nor defender got the exact “average” number of hits, and that drastically changes the numbers going into the second round, and so on and so forth. So in dice, the attacker needs to look at board position. If the attacker is probably going to lose, the attack should be made, for a 75% chance of a high IPC swing. If the attacker is winning anyways, the attack probably should not be made, so the 75% chance of a high IPC swing can be increased to 80% or more. If the attacker is winning in some places and losing in others, the attacker needs to size up the situation. But in any case, in dice the attacker needs to plan for what will happen if the first round of combat doesn’t go well, which is something the attacker NEVER needs to do in Low Luck.
Try carrying out a few dummy battles in TripleA of 32 tanks vs 30 tanks using dice. You will very quickly see exactly what I mean, especially when you start throwing a few odd assorted destroyers/carriers/transports/infantry/fighters/artillery on the board to complicate the situation. Under Low Luck, it’s a no-brainer. Under dice, you have to consider contingency plans.
How about another example?
In Low Luck, 2 infantry 2 bombers attacking 6 infantry is not a monumentally stupid idea, because under low luck, the defenders always get exactly 2 hits. But in dice, there’s a pretty good chance that attack loses a bomber. Repeatedly doing 2 infantry 2 bombers vs 6 infantry in a dice game will lose the attacker games.
. . . and another example
Under dice, a Russian triple attack will usually fail at one or more points, leaving the attacker open to a nasty German counterattack. But under low luck, none of the attacks in a Russian triple need “fail”, because the results are so rigidly controlled.
More specifically, under dice, you can do three Russian attacks on R1 with around 62%, 62% and 82% (something like that) chances of success. If you succeed at all of them, you’ll do great, but a little dice deviation at any, and you fail. It’s not a question of failing all the Russian attacks, just one leaves you open to a counter, and with 38%, 38%, and 16% chances of failure, there’s good odds the Russians will fail at at least one of those points.
But under Low Luck, the deviations are slashed, so it’s just a question of degrees of success.
–
For a real world example - let’s say you have a betting game in which you have 10 coins and flip them all. The single best chance is that there will be 5 heads and 5 tails. Let’s say you can choose between two bets; 5 heads and 5 tails which pays out at 2 to 1, and any other result which also pays out at 2 to 1.
Run this game under “low luck”, and you get real rich real fast if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails. If you bet on “anything else” under “low luck”, you’ll lose all your money instantly.
Run this game under “dice”, and you’ll lose all your money in time if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails. If you bet on “anything else”, though, you make money hand over fist.
Considering the best strategies for this game are literally opposite between “dice” and “low luck”, how can anyone say that low luck strategies are good for dice and vice versa?
I give the PEOPLE’S ELBOW to that!
-
Re: the old shingle about dice vs. low luck:
I don’t claim greater skill is necessary to play one or the other. I just say different skill sets are required.
But I will say that you don’t hang fuzzy “low luck” on your rearview mirror.
-
Bunnies I already conceded that there are many different factors and levels to a dice game that aren’t present in a low luck game.
My point was that low luck is an excellent testing ground for the overall effectiveness of a grand strategy against average dice. Nothing you said in your post indicates I am wrong about this. Your examples are about battle-to-battle tactics and are beside the point. Deviations in dice are also beside the point–of course a good dice player needs to take dice deviations into account, and that a dice game requires a more engrossing analysis of multiple risk factors. Yes, tactics in dice are considerably more complex. But that’s tactics–not strategy. A good strategy is going to take the law of averages into account–and low luck games will give you a good idea what the law of averages is.
Anyway this is a pointless tangent and I don’t want to distract from Granada’s thread.
-
But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.
The thing is, the chances of something going bad are greater than 20%. That is, there is the probability of clearing Nor with 1 fig or less or not taking it (approx 20%) in addition to the probability of taking WR but losing 4 or more inf (approx 20%). So taken together the probability of something going bad in this opening is more like 30%, and the consequences depend on the severity of the dicing.
Of course, if you are playing someone who you know would otherwise have your number, then a 70/30 risk could very well be worthwhile.
One more thing I wonder about the Nor gambit is what to do with the German sub. I guess I usually take out the lone UK tran, but maybe it’s a better move to go for the USA fleet (50/50 odds). I still kinda like going for the lone trn because so many players sacrifice the USA fleet USA1 anyway.
-
I tried the Norwegian Gambit last night with LL. I hadn’t tried it myself for a while (but I’ve played a few times against it) and decided to have a swing at it.
Russia bought 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr. Took Norway with 1 inf, 1 arm remaining, landed 1 ftr on Karelia. Ended turn with 10 units in WR and 6 on Caucasus. G replied with a bomber and inf buy and conquered Caucasus, Norway and Karelia, plus Egypt for a total of 46 IPCs.
The thing with this strat is how much it turns the Eastern front into a meat grinder for units. If G had bought instead 5 armor + 5 inf (my usual counter for the Gambit) it could have made things harder for the Russians. Instead, what happened was:
- G permanently lost Norway on R2 to the UK
- G bought 1 plane each round, ending up with 7 fighters and 6 bombers
- Russia was a bit low on units at the beginning of R3 since it hadn’t placed any on the Caucasus and had to kill 3 German armor + art on R2 to retake it, plus attacking Kar, BR and Ukr
- But since the German army had also taken such a blow on the 2 first rounds the Allies were able to keep the Eastern front under control, with UK/US landings and prevent the Germans from advancing.
- Meanwhile the Russians turned most of its production to holding Japan, along with UK/US assistance, mainly armor landed on the Europe
- Game ended with the Axis conceding on round 12 - the German airforce never had a chance of sinking the main Allied fleet and the while the Japanese fleet ended up sinking the US transport fleet it was also obliterated on the US counterattack. Meanwhile the Allies were earning 1/3 to 1/2 more than the Axis, so the writing was on the wall.
- It was an unusual game on Asia: the Russians had managed to send a huge army into Sinkiang, forcing the main Japanese army to retreat from Yak into Buryatia to protect their Manchurian IC but losing temporarily Kwantung and FIC.
All of this to say that the sucess of the Gambit also depends on the German response: if G attacks Caucasus and follows with a large armour buy then they may have a shot at controlling Karelia or Ukraine by G3 since there won’t be much Russians left after the 2 initial turns.
-
A good strategy is going to take the law of averages into account–and low luck games will give you a good idea what the law of averages is.
well i’m convinced. for a strategy to be really considered viable i think it would have to work in low luck. if it doesn’t work in LL, then you don’t have any reasonable expectation for that strategy to succeed. i don’t expect the opposite would be true, however. therefore a reasonable position is that LL could be a sort of litmus test, failure in low luck meaning don’t bother in dice.
-
Hobbes, thanks for playtesting. :-D
Two comments:
- Russia was a bit low on units at the beginning of R3 since it hadn’t placed any on the Caucasus and had to kill 3 German armor + art on R2 to retake it, plus attacking Kar, BR and Ukr
I think this is the reason why i prefere to leave cauc with just one unit.
All of this to say that the sucess of the Gambit also depends on the German response: if G attacks Caucasus and follows with a large armour buy then they may have a shot at controlling Karelia or Ukraine by G3 since there won’t be much Russians left after the 2 initial turns.
And there is another thing: I do not buy the other russian fig R1 but rather have 2 tnks. I know it is counter-intuitive, but you really do not need the other fighter as much as the 2 tnks early on in the game. Thus you can have 7 more units after R2… :wink:
-
But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.
The thing is, the chances of something going bad are greater than 20%. That is, there is the probability of clearing Nor with 1 fig or less or not taking it (approx 20%) in addition to the probability of taking WR but losing 4 or more inf (approx 20%). So taken together the probability of something going bad in this opening is more like 30%, and the consequences depend on the severity of the dicing.
I do not think our numbers are the same. You have 89 % of taking kar with 1 unit surviving. It sometimes happens that you have the last attacking fig and a tnk on the last German fig. You usually kill the G fig, and get R tnk killed. It does not change that much. You killed that nasty fig. I think this is the worst of the 89% it can get.
Attacking WR with 8inf, 2 art, 3tnk, leaves you winning with 10,54 units, when you are really fine with nine. Cannot tell what is the likelihood you will be on 8 or less, but i guess it should not be much over 10 %. On this acount my estimate is about 20 % the combined likelihood one of the two things goes wrong.
Did I make any mistake in the risk assesment?
-
My post above was based on 2 aa calcs
WR
5.84% 14: 9 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
21.34% 13: 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
29.14% 12: 7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
23.98% 11: 6 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
12.78% 10: 5 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 4 Inf. : 12 IPCs
4.96% 9: 4 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 5 Inf. : 15 IPCs
1.38% 8: 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 6 Inf. : 18 IPCs
0.46% 7: 2 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 7 Inf. : 21 IPCs
0.08% 6: 1 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 8 Inf. : 24 IPCs
0.02% 5: 2 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf. : 27 IPCs
0.02% 4: 1 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf, 1 Art. : 31 IPCsNor
1.98% 6: 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. no units. : 0 IPCs
12.48% 5: 2 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
23.46% 4: 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
25.1% 3: 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
17.78% 2: 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm. : 14 IPCs
8.12% 1: 1 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig. : 24 IPCs
11.08% 0: no units. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. : 34 IPCsSo yeah my numbers for Nor were 8% (1 fig remains) plus 11% (defeat)=19% for Nor, plus 13% (4 inf die) plus 5% (5 inf die) plus 2% (6+ ind die) for WR.
I’m not sure how to do the numbers to determine the probability that one of the battles will go bad (eg defined as taking Nor with 1 unit or less or losing 4 or more at WR), but I believe its at least 25%, possibly as high as 30%.
It may be that we have different criteria for the success of Nor also. IMO if Russia loses all its units or all but 1 unit at Nor the attack was not a success and Russia would have been better off with WR/Ukr.
Also, if Russia has 10 units in WR, then Germany has a 76% chance of clearing it with 2 figs, and 89% with 3 figs, 94% with 4 figs. So I think 10 is borderline–its definitely not safe with 9 units.
-
Good post by Zhukov about the probability breakdown.
@ Granada: I already agree on R1 NOT purchasing a fighter - in a close game, it’s best to concentrate on ground units. But why 3 inf 3 tanks on R1? Why not, say, 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank? For battles with 1-3 ground units on each side, artillery are like cheap tanks - for example, inf/art vs 1 inf is about 5% worse overall than inf/tank, but is also 1 IPC less expensive, which adds up pretty quickly.
Is it specifically because you’re trying to avoid a G1 capture and hold of Karelia?
-
Another thing me and Zhukov were discussing the other night is that the survival of the UK BB also means that G will survive with other units:
- The sub on SZ8 can be sent to SZ1 to sink the transport (-7 IPC for UK) while the sub survives (+6 for G)
- The fighter on Ukraine survives (0 IPC gained since G would lose a fig anyways) and can be used with the bomber to attack Egypt, allowing in theory for at least 1 more German ground to survive the assault
- The 2nd Russian fighter dies (-10 IPC for R)
So, according to average results the situation is essentially the same regarding gains/losses. Tactically, if the Germans retake Norway the UK may be able to take it, unless Germany buys 1 bomber and manage to land 4 fighters on W. Eur and the other bomber in range on SZ3. In that case it is impossible for the UK to take Norway without risking the destruction of its fleet (assuming a 1 AC, 2 DD buy).
I am looking forward to reading Hobbes’ piece on the Russian strategy.
The 1st part was posted today to the Articles section. It is an overview of its objectives and the map board. 2nd part dealing with tactics may take longer…
-
My post above was based on 2 aa calcs
WR
5.84% 14: 9 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
21.34% 13: 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
29.14% 12: 7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
23.98% 11: 6 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
12.78% 10: 5 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 4 Inf. : 12 IPCs
4.96% 9: 4 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 5 Inf. : 15 IPCs
1.38% 8: 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 6 Inf. : 18 IPCs
0.46% 7: 2 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 7 Inf. : 21 IPCs
0.08% 6: 1 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 8 Inf. : 24 IPCs
0.02% 5: 2 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf. : 27 IPCs
0.02% 4: 1 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf, 1 Art. : 31 IPCsNor
1.98% 6: 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. no units. : 0 IPCs
12.48% 5: 2 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
23.46% 4: 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
25.1% 3: 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
17.78% 2: 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm. : 14 IPCs
8.12% 1: 1 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig. : 24 IPCs
11.08% 0: no units. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. : 34 IPCsSo yeah my numbers for Nor were 8% (1 fig remains) plus 11% (defeat)=19% for Nor, plus 13% (4 inf die) plus 5% (5 inf die) plus 2% (6+ ind die) for WR.
Our definitions of sucess really differ here. For me succes in Norway equals killing the norwegian fig and keeping at least one fig myself. Because the objective of the operation is not to bring the IPCs to Russia (might be handy but not vital), nor to keep their attacking ground units (would die R1 anyway most of the cases) but to preserve the UK BB. This is what i get in 89 % of cases.
As for WR the thing is a bit more complex. While I agree that to have just 9 units is where the real trouble starts (but that is less then 10 %), 10 units plus AA gun of Cauc makes it much more interesting.
I have not seen a German player trying to retake WR with 2 figs. Actually this would be much bigger a gamble then the NG itself. First he has to pray there is no hit of the AA gun. And even if there is no hit he sends all his advanced units (that is 6inf, 3tnk, 1art) to take WR. He will take it with 2-3 ground units surviving. He skips cauc in the process, he will lose WR without being able to retake it R2 and he has less air to use elsewhere R1, precisely 3 fig and the bmb.
It is pretty obvious he needs one if he really wants to be sure taking back norway. If he skips norway it might as well stay russian till the end of the game. But then he really needs the sub to assist in SZ 13. And he has 3 planes remaining to do AE, SZ 13. It is as thight as it can get and preserves the UK second trannie.
The more air you send WR, the more objectives elsewhere you have to skip. To send 3 WR does no change it that much really, because 1/ there is 50 % chance the AA gun will hit, 2/ there will still remain only 2-3 ground units in WR in average after the attack.
So I hope it explains why I believe you can safely call likelihoods of both failures approx. 10 %, which makes it approx. combined likelihood of 20 %.
@Bunnies:
@ Granada: I already agree on R1 NOT purchasing a fighter - in a close game, it’s best to concentrate on ground units. But why 3 inf 3 tanks on R1? Why not, say, 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank? For battles with 1-3 ground units on each side, artillery are like cheap tanks - for example, inf/art vs 1 inf is about 5% worse overall than inf/tank, but is also 1 IPC less expensive, which adds up pretty quickly.
Is it specifically because you’re trying to avoid a G1 capture and hold of Karelia?
I do buy some arts later on for the trades. But the trick is a tnk is better value for money on defense then an art, so it is better if you intend to really take and hold some western areas early on in the game as Russia, not just Kar. And it is also better if you need to switch attention between the fronts at some point. In general 1inf and 1 tnk is a better skewed unit then 2art. And if I am forced to, I really do trade tnks. It is just 1 IPC difference and 17 % more likelihood it will hit back and X % more likelihood it will take the disputed teritory earlier or at all. So in general I am really a great fan of tnks. Tanks are strong, man!
-
I consider the odds of failure to be GREATER than 11% at Norway, and LESS than 10% or whatever number was given for Germany at West Russia for the G1 counter after a poor-dice R1 Norway/West Russia open. Also, Russia’s inability to hold Caucasus on R1 cuts down on Russia’s options for R2.
When you’re doing dice and plugging quantities into a dice simulator, most calculations are done until either no attackers or no defenders are left. In actual dice play, though, an attacker has to re-evaluate combats after every round of offensive and defensive fire. As I mentioned earlier, this is not so much something you need to worry about with low luck, but it IS a VERY important consideration for dice.
The initial scenario is attacking Norway on R1 with 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter. Let’s say a couple rounds of combat have passed, and that you’re now attacking Norway forces of 1 inf 1 fighter with 1 tank 1 fighter. In dice, there’s at least a 2/9 probability that the attacker continuing to press the attack will result in loss of both tank and fighter, meaning BOTH fighters lost for Russia. Loss of both fighters is really not good. So maybe Russia withdraws at that point. A similar scenario holds for Russia attacking with 1 fighter and Germany defending with 1 fighter, or even Russia attacking with 1 tank 2 fighters and Norway defending with 2 1 fighter, PLUS all the scenarios just mentioned in which Germany’s Norway defense force is even greater.
To restate this in the abstract - if FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, the overall percentage of “failure” for Russia’s Norway 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter attack (given a “success” condition of 1 Russian fighter left) is 11%, but since the attacker can RE-EVALUATE the combats after each round of attacker and defender fire, and choose to continue attacking or decide to retreat, the CHOICE of the attacker may be to retreat instead of attacking, and the dice simulator is NOT typically used to evaluate the retreat conditions for the attacker. But CLEARLY, if there ARE retreat conditions that are NOT factored into the 11% do or die scenario, the real failure rate MUST be higher than 11%.
As far as the 10% failure on West Russia (given 2 German fighters hit there), the “victory conditions” are slightly different. I think in such a scenario, Germany can see taking West Russia as a bonus. The real objective is to reduce the West Russia stack to the point that Germany can put forces at Karelia next turn. Great success means taking West Russia, and stacking Karelia, denying Russia both West Russia and Belorusssia IPCs next turn, and giving Russia the ability to trade Archangel next turn for an additional 2 IPC. Moderate success means weakening West Russia to the point that Russia cannot attack Belorussia on its next turn.
Personally, I think a West Russia G1 counter is pretty dicey. If it works, Germany broke most of Russia’s attacking power and gained a serious economic advantage. If it fails, well - there’s a question of degrees of failure, but it’s really down to that AA gun.
As far as not being able to hold Cauc leading to possible problems on R2 - there’s the 81% UK fighter/bomber attack on the German battleship. That breaks down to 60% at least 1 UK bomber survives, 21% UK air and German battleship all die. If everything dies, Russia can pick up the German transport with a Caucasus-based fighter on R2 - which isn’t needed so badly for trading if Russia has 2 fighters to begin with.
-
It isn’t my style to go after WR unless it’s wide open.
However I think if there are 10 or less units there, then attacking WR is a pretty darn decent move.
Idk if killing the 13 cruiser is that important if skipping it means I have the planes that give me a 95%-100%+ shot at clearing West Russia. If I’m looking for a big WR attack, idk if I even bother to take Egypt…I might just use the bb to hit 13 and the tranny to reinforce Ukr (or hit cau if you are keeping cau light). Or land in gib.
I think if you combine a WR grab with an aggressive G buy (5 inf 5 arm or perhaps 6 arm 3 inf) and aggressive Japanese tactics (2 ICs on J1, then tank rush) then Russia has serious problems. In many cases, Germany could/should have the ability to recounter West Russia on G2 with the forces it should have in Kar/Bel (3 inf 3 arm or thereabouts, plus whatever is on Ukr). If that happens Germany and Russia will both be really thin, and Allies’ best shot at the win is an aggressive KGF. You can try to shore Russia up with Arch drops, but that won’t prevent Axis from getting Cauc.
This sort of tactic is naturally very risky but if Allies successfully take Nor R1 then Axis might decide that the situation is dire enough to risk tank rush. Then it becomes a race to capture Moscow before Allies make use of their economic advantages.
All that said if the core of the case for the Nor gambit is that its the only way Allies’ can acquire a substantial enough advantage to win…well this is an argument I can respect, though I don’t know if its correct.
-
Granada, you talked about the value of tanks over artillery. You make valid points, but one thing to consider in the comparison is that artillery versus tanks choice should be considered in the infantry rich context that this case occurs in. The question is a bit more accurately stated as “What will allow me to project more power with my stack of infantry”? If you have 8 infantry, would the addition of 8 IPCs in the form of inf+tank be better or the addition of 2 art? Context is everything, in a small battle, 2 pieces versus 1, then a tank and infantry does work better after round 1 than 1 artillery + 1 infantry as the first attacking casualty drops a ‘1’ versus a ‘2’ attack dice but also costs 14% more in terms of IPC value of attacking forces. True, a tank is 17% more likely to inflict a hit on defense and 50% more likely than an Inf or Art.
Most of our tactical choices where we have to seriously run numbers don’t lead to combat. I’m not talking about the usual trading of territories where we see 2 defending infantry and our choice is to attack with 3 infantry and a fighter OR 2 infantry and 4 fighters in particular if the territories MUST be taken to prevent an enemy tank blitz from taking out a capital or stack of unprotected bombers. I’m talking about the choices often when we decided what to build where it can impact if the enemy is going to park a large force next to me or not. Games are often so close that the choice of artillery can make a stack of infantry just a bit too dangerous to move large forces next to. On the other hand, every stack requires AT LEAST 1 tank to take advantage of/threaten blitz opportunities.
-
Gentlemen, first of all, thank you for the discussion.
All that said if the core of the case for the Nor gambit is that its the only way Allies’ can acquire a substantial enough advantage to win….well this is an argument I can respect, though I don’t know if its correct.
I am by no means saying this. What I said in the conclusion to my article, is this:
The Norwegian gambit is a sharp opening, definitely not for anybody who likes to play it safe. But while providing you with broad strategic options and perhaps more secure ways to win than any other Russian opening IF SUCCESFUL, when it fails it makes on the contrary Russian position extremely fragile from R1; thus providing the Allied player with an entertaining and challenging game nevertheless.
@Bunnies:
I consider the odds of failure to be GREATER than 11% at Norway, and LESS than 10% or whatever number was given for Germany at West Russia for the G1 counter after a poor-dice R1 Norway/West Russia open. Also, Russia’s inability to hold Caucasus on R1 cuts down on Russia’s options for R2.
When you’re doing dice and plugging quantities into a dice simulator, most calculations are done until either no attackers or no defenders are left. In actual dice play, though, an attacker has to re-evaluate combats after every round of offensive and defensive fire. As I mentioned earlier, this is not so much something you need to worry about with low luck, but it IS a VERY important consideration for dice.
The initial scenario is attacking Norway on R1 with 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter. Let’s say a couple rounds of combat have passed, and that you’re now attacking Norway forces of 1 inf 1 fighter with 1 tank 1 fighter. In dice, there’s at least a 2/9 probability that the attacker continuing to press the attack will result in loss of both tank and fighter, meaning BOTH fighters lost for Russia. Loss of both fighters is really not good. So maybe Russia withdraws at that point. A similar scenario holds for Russia attacking with 1 fighter and Germany defending with 1 fighter, or even Russia attacking with 1 tank 2 fighters and Norway defending with 2 1 fighter, PLUS all the scenarios just mentioned in which Germany’s Norway defense force is even greater.
To restate this in the abstract - if FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, the overall percentage of “failure” for Russia’s Norway 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter attack (given a “success” condition of 1 Russian fighter left) is 11%, but since the attacker can RE-EVALUATE the combats after each round of attacker and defender fire, and choose to continue attacking or decide to retreat, the CHOICE of the attacker may be to retreat instead of attacking, and the dice simulator is NOT typically used to evaluate the retreat conditions for the attacker. But CLEARLY, if there ARE retreat conditions that are NOT factored into the 11% do or die scenario, the real failure rate MUST be higher than 11%.
As far as the 10% failure on West Russia (given 2 German fighters hit there), the “victory conditions” are slightly different. I think in such a scenario, Germany can see taking West Russia as a bonus. The real objective is to reduce the West Russia stack to the point that Germany can put forces at Karelia next turn. Great success means taking West Russia, and stacking Karelia, denying Russia both West Russia and Belorusssia IPCs next turn, and giving Russia the ability to trade Archangel next turn for an additional 2 IPC. Moderate success means weakening West Russia to the point that Russia cannot attack Belorussia on its next turn.
Personally, I think a West Russia G1 counter is pretty dicey. If it works, Germany broke most of Russia’s attacking power and gained a serious economic advantage. If it fails, well - there’s a question of degrees of failure, but it’s really down to that AA gun.
Bunny, while I admire your insight into the mechanics of the dice battles, i really do not think it changes that much in the likelihood. Given the specific situation you described fig, tnk vs. fig, inf, 1/ you really could not think about many other situations that look unpromising for russians and still realistically lead to their victory, could you? 2/ The statistical outcome of this rare situation makes most of it anyway part of russia defeats 3/ I would fire anyway retreating only in the situation 1fig on 1fig.
So I guess it really is more then 11 %, but not much more really.
But first of all, I really do not want to be that obsessed with numbers. If you go that deep into the numbers of UKR/WR combo or subs AE protection, you would end up with doing only WR attack R1 most likely.
The NG is a complex strategy. It is based on the risk evaluated decision I would take even in the later stages of the game: you simply risk something to have a strategic advantage – in this case it is the UK BB. Even if you come with the rock-solid evidence the likelihood is more 75-25 then 80-20, the question for me remains: was it worthy taking the risk? My answer would still most likely remain yes, because I think that even after you fail the situation remains playable if you do not keep getting diced.
To fail for me means either not killing the nor fig or having less then 10 units in WR (plus AA gun of cauc).
It isn’t my style to go after WR unless it’s wide open.
However I think if there are 10 or less units there, then attacking WR is a pretty darn decent move.
Idk if killing the 13 cruiser is that important if skipping it means I have the planes that give me a 95%-100%+ shot at clearing West Russia. If I’m looking for a big WR attack, idk if I even bother to take Egypt…I might just use the bb to hit 13 and the tranny to reinforce Ukr (or hit cau if you are keeping cau light). Or land in gib.
I think if you combine a WR grab with an aggressive G buy (5 inf 5 arm or perhaps 6 arm 3 inf) and aggressive Japanese tactics (2 ICs on J1, then tank rush) then Russia has serious problems. In many cases, Germany could/should have the ability to recounter West Russia on G2 with the forces it should have in Kar/Bel (3 inf 3 arm or thereabouts, plus whatever is on Ukr). If that happens Germany and Russia will both be really thin, and Allies’ best shot at the win is an aggressive KGF. You can try to shore Russia up with Arch drops, but that won’t prevent Axis from getting Cauc.
This sort of tactic is naturally very risky but if Allies successfully take Nor R1 then Axis might decide that the situation is dire enough to risk tank rush. Then it becomes a race to capture Moscow before Allies make use of their economic advantages.
Zhuk, it then really breakes to the question whether you feel 10 units plus AA gun of Cauc in WR is a good target for you. If you prove your attack inevitebly leads to the Axis win in the vast majority of cases, that would be a solid case for me to reconsider the whole strategy. But I am really not convinced at this point.
Even if you send all your 6 planes, you lose 0-2 to AA gun, and you do not make the WR safe against counter. What you will create is a situation of total slugfest on the eastern front, when Germany is without any ships R1, and Allies will press it from R1 from the west. Yet you are very unlikely to break Russia just with Germany IMHO, and Allies should have the 16 units flowing to Europe from SZ5 before Japan is on Russia’s door.
I really hope we will have a chance to test that at some point. :mrgreen:
Suggested Topics
