• @Zhukov44:

    My post above was based on 2 aa calcs

    http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=9&aArt=2&aArm=3&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=1&dArm=1&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    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 IPCs

    http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=&aArm=1&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=1&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    Nor
      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 IPCs

    So 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.

  • '16 '15 '10

    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.

  • '12

    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.

    @Zhukov44:

    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).

    @Zhukov44:

    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:


  • @Hobbes:

    1. The rest of the strategy really depends on the Allied player’s choice, either KGF or with a US Pacific.

    Hi, I have learned a lot from reading your replies. Could you explain to me why allies could go US pacific. Is it because UK could help USSR much earlier due to a successful Norwegian Gamit? Would it be better to stick to KGF because it has higher probability to win now. I remembered you listed several pre-requesition to US Pacific in another thread. Could you elaborate it more? I really hope you could explain to me the goal of US pacific and its relationship with KJF/KGF?


  • @Zhukov44:

    @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.

    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.

    First of all, thanks Zhukov for clarifying the SZ2 odds to me. To me, the outcome of every single combat is almost known in low luck. So I guess the key to win a low luck combat is to get familiar with the outcome of all possible combat. Based on these outcomes, making a plan as long and detail as possible and make sure to stick to it. Finally, the one who make less mistakes and more complete plans wins. But in standard games, high degree of uncertainty makes it harder to come up with a complete plan. So, in order to win, one must know how to adapt to unfamiliar situations. As Hobbes suggests, dice cannot beat a guy unless his opponent knows how to utilize possible lucky rolls. So no matter whether Norwegian gambit itself is reasonable or not, an experienced play should come up with plans to deal with it. Perhaps we shoud discuss more on how Germany and Japan should response to a successful or unsuccessful Norwegian Gambit.


  • @aqian:

    @Hobbes:

    1. The rest of the strategy really depends on the Allied player’s choice, either KGF or with a US Pacific.

    Hi, I have learned a lot from reading your replies. Could you explain to me why allies could go US pacific. Is it because UK could help USSR much earlier due to a successful Norwegian Gamit? Would it be better to stick to KGF because it has higher probability to win now. I remembered you listed several pre-requesition to US Pacific in another thread. Could you elaborate it more? I really hope you could explain to me the goal of US pacific and its relationship with KJF/KGF?

    You could possibly write a thesis on if the Allies should go Pacific…

    Like someone said before, the most defining issue is Japan’s 1st round. If Russia and UK create a lot of speed bumps for Japan (like moving the 6 Russian inf to Buryatia, attacking Indochina or Borneo, sinking the transport on SZ59, trying to take Guinea) then Japan will have to do some hard thinking regarding its purchases and attacks because of the number of threats available and might suffer from bad luck on some key battles (China and SZ52). The thing is that if Japan fights 3 combats, all with 80-90% odds then your chances of 1 of them going bad are low, but if you have 5 combats going from 60% to 90%, the odds of something going wrong are higher.

    But another more important factor on going Pacific is also the 1st German round and the sole ability of the UK to stop Germany from running over Africa and helping Russia. The Norwegian gambit allows the UK to keep the battleship on the Atlantic, if successful. And other battles are as important: if the Egypt attack fails or the cruiser on SZ13 is alive, then the German fleet on the Med is usually toast on UK1. And if that happens then it is a plus to go Pacific, since the Allies won’t have to worry much regarding German progression on Africa.

    There is also more than 1 way to go Pacific. If Japan fails to take China and can’t attack it again on the next turn then the US can build 2 ICs on China and Sinkiang and the UK builds an IC on India on round 2, and now Japan has to deal with 7 UK/US units per turn on Asia, plus the US fleet. Or the US can try to outbuild and defeat the Japanese fleet, while taking E. Indies to build an IC there (if that happens then usually the Japanese navy is unable to keep up). But if you manage to expel Japan out of Asia and/or take all the money islands (E. Indies, Borneo, Phillipines) it is usually very difficult to invade Japan, so the Pacific strat usually does not aim to take Japan but to render it harmless and then focus on Germany.

    But an experienced Germany when facing a KJF will play very aggressively against Russia. Karelia/Ukraine will be stacked soon and the Russians will also have to possibly deal with Japanese advancing to its border until the US forces Japan to spend nearly all of its money on ships/planes. And the UK gives limited help since it can only build 8 units and still has to build up his fleet until it is able to do so, with bare assistance from the US.

    Overall KJF is a harder strat for the Allies to pull off but at the same time most Axis players are not used to facing it, which might give it an advantage (at least until they properly respond) and time can be everything. What I would advise is when NOT to do KJF:

    • If the Germans took Egypt with 3-4 units remaining or the UK failed to retake it.
    • If Japan does not lose any carrier/battleship or planes during its 1st round or the subsequent US counterattack.
    • If Japan builds a lot of navy on round 1 in antecipation for a KFJ
    • If Germany is playing very aggressively and bought only infantry or 5 inf, 5 arm on the 1st round.

  • Hobbes, I’m quite clear know after you explain the global interaction and dynamics from the allied players’ perspective. Thanks!


  • Well, me and Grenada had a great game last night where he used the Norwegian Gambit.

    I replied with a 5 inf, 5 arm buy, took Caucasus (along with the other usual attacks) but then stacked Ukraine with 7 inf, 6 arm and 2 ftrs (1 of them Japanese, flying from Indochina). With the Japanese fighter the odds turned 75% for axis, without them they were even.

    The Germans then kept the stack on Ukraine until G4, with the help of the Japanese airforce, with the Russian army tied up in defending Caucasus while the Japanese advanced on Asia. I liked this solution because it pins down the Russians while denying them the income from Ukraine. Losing Caucasus on the first turn limits Russia for turns 2 and 3 because they have to retake it and can’t build anything until turn 3, which helps in keeping the German stack there.

    In any case, the game lasted until turn 12! Great game :)


  • Well, this could maybe go to the “Why I lost to Hobbes” thread, but since I lost with my very favourite Norwegian gambit I think I should share the experience here.

    I think Hobbes would agree I did not lose because of the Norwegian gambit. Actually I believe it gave me very good position in the opening. But Hobbes as you would expect of him reacted deftly stacking UKR and using it as the airport for the japanese air so he did have 5figs and bmb at J3 there. Since I wanted to prove I really can move SZ5 R4, I did it without realizing that the jap air can kill my SZ6 US fleet consisting of cru, dd, AC, 2 fig and 4 trn and land on WEU. A silly mistake.

    Had I recognized the danger i would have put 2UK dds SZ6 which of course would cover the US fleet sufficiently for the J4 and after moving the US ships to SZ5 the joint fleet would be unsinkable for the rest of the game. This would cost me the 2dds of course. But with Germany forced the leave UKR because of the R Cauc stack, removed of water and expelled from Africa, with the Atlantic shack of 16 Units a turn rolling, Africa in Allied hands and Japan only starting to contest it and still several rounds from Mosc, I felt a I had a real chance. But after the ships SZ6 went down the pressure was lost.

    There is a point for a startegic discussion though: Is there a way for Russians to prevent Germany from considering UKR a safe place R1-3 in the Norwegian gambit?

    Hobbes of course was more skillful in the midgame and won R11 taking mosc with japs while berlin really was not really threatened. But it was a good game nevertheless.


  • @Hobbes:

    Well, me and Grenada had a great game last night where he used the Norwegian Gambit.

    I replied with a 5 inf, 5 arm buy, took Caucasus (along with the other usual attacks) but then stacked Ukraine with 7 inf, 6 arm and 2 ftrs (1 of them Japanese, flying from Indochina). With the Japanese fighter the odds turned 75% for axis, without them they were even.

    The Germans then kept the stack on Ukraine until G4, with the help of the Japanese airforce, with the Russian army tied up in defending Caucasus while the Japanese advanced on Asia. I liked this solution because it pins down the Russians while denying them the income from Ukraine. Losing Caucasus on the first turn limits Russia for turns 2 and 3 because they have to retake it and can’t build anything until turn 3, which helps in keeping the German stack there.

    In any case, the game lasted until turn 12! Great game :)

    This is funny, there was a warning, there was a new post while I was typing mine. I should have guessed this would be your report on the very same game!  :-D

  • '12

    It would be an interesting game to review.  You guys played on TripleA I guess?  I just installed tripleA but have yet to do anything with it other than play with the user interface.  It seems there is no way to download saved files for games that are complete?  If this is the case, the game file for this would be interesting and educational to review.

    I am still undecided on this as a ‘typical opening move’.  Personally, I tend to avoid tactics that require the allies to commit to fixed moves in the future to support said tactic only as it limits flexibility.  Obviously, many situations require and benefit from this future commitment, however, telegraphing allied future moves does have its pitfalls.


  • @Granada:

    Well, this could maybe go to the “Why I lost to Hobbes” thread, but since I lost with my very favourite Norwegian gambit I think I should share the experience here.

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

    I think Hobbes would agree I did not lose because of the Norwegian gambit. Actually I believe it gave me very good position in the opening. But Hobbes as you would expect of him reacted deftly stacking UKR and using it as the airport for the japanese air so he did have 5figs and bmb at J3 there. Since I wanted to prove I really can move SZ5 R4, I did it without realizing that the jap air can kill my SZ6 US fleet consisting of cru, dd, AC, 2 fig and 4 trn and land on WEU. A silly mistake.

    Like every opening the gambit has its possibilities and risks. I’m not a big fan of not hitting Ukraine because I think it is more useful for the Russians to hit Ukr rather than Nor, and I tend to be biased towards them while playing as Allies. But it is a nice opening to give some variation or surprise your opponent, I completely agree with that.

    Had I recognized the danger i would have put 2UK dds SZ6 which of course would cover the US fleet sufficiently for the J4 and after moving the US ships to SZ5 the joint fleet would be unsinkable for the rest of the game. This would cost me the 2dds of course. But with Germany forced the leave UKR because of the R Cauc stack, removed of water and expelled from Africa, with the Atlantic shack of 16 Units a turn rolling, Africa in Allied hands and Japan only starting to contest it and still several rounds from Mosc, I felt a I had a real chance. But after the ships SZ6 went down the pressure was lost.

    I agree with most points, but I kinda saw things a bit differently - G had to pull back from Ukr, but I wasn’t planning to hold it much longer. I had already thought of retreating on G3, I only kept there to prevent the Russians from going after the Japanese IC on India. All together, from the Axis point of view I was doing good - W. Eur, E. Eur and G were stacked against any Allied landing, Japs had taken Novo/Kazakh/Evenki and the IC on India was starting to pump units while the fleet was positioned to recontest Africa.
    Grenada could have bought the 2 DDs to protect the US fleet on SZ6 but he’d only have 8 IPCs left for UK ground units.  Considering that G was building 10+ units each turn this would mean that the UK was falling behind the German buildup.  I think that it is also another important factor since the Allies need to have sufficient offensive power and the UK ended up buying a lot of infantry, during this phase of the game, to be able to build 8 units which afterwards limited its attacking options.

    There is a point for a startegic discussion though: Is there a way for Russians to prevent Germany from considering UKR a safe place R1-3 in the Norwegian gambit?

    Lots of armor perhaps? :)


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    It would be an interesting game to review.  You guys played on TripleA I guess?  I just installed tripleA but have yet to do anything with it other than play with the user interface.  It seems there is no way to download saved files for games that are complete?  If this is the case, the game file for this would be interesting and educational to review.

    Here’s the saved game. The file only goes until turn 8 though

    GrenadaMeAxis.tsvg


  • @MrMalachiCrun <br:< small=“”>> It would be an interesting game to review.  You guys played on TripleA I guess?  I just installed tripleA but have yet to do anything with it other than play with the user interface.  It seems there is no way to download saved files for games that are complete?  If this is the case, the game file for this would be interesting and educational to review.

    I am still undecided on this as a ‘typical opening move’.  Personally, I tend to avoid tactics that require the allies to commit to fixed moves in the future to support said tactic only as it limits flexibility.  Obviously, many situations require and benefit from this future commitment, however, telegraphing allied future moves does have its pitfalls.

    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.

    I dont think NG limits your options in terms of further moves. I do go after Japan if there is an opportunity. But I really wanted to try a classic KGF on Hobbes.

    @Hobbes:

    @Granada:

    Had I recognized the danger i would have put 2UK dds SZ6 which of course would cover the US fleet sufficiently for the J4 and after moving the US ships to SZ5 the joint fleet would be unsinkable for the rest of the game. This would cost me the 2dds of course. But with Germany forced the leave UKR because of the R Cauc stack, removed of water and expelled from Africa, with the Atlantic shack of 16 Units a turn rolling, Africa in Allied hands and Japan only starting to contest it and still several rounds from Mosc, I felt a I had a real chance. But after the ships SZ6 went down the pressure was lost.

    I agree with most points, but I kinda saw things a bit differently - G had to pull back from Ukr, but I wasn’t planning to hold it much longer. I had already thought of retreating on G3, I only kept there to prevent the Russians from going after the Japanese IC on India. All together, from the Axis point of view I was doing good - W. Eur, E. Eur and G were stacked against any Allied landing, Japs had taken Novo/Kazakh/Evenki and the IC on India was starting to pump units while the fleet was positioned to recontest Africa.

    Grenada could have bought the 2 DDs to protect the US fleet on SZ6 but he’d only have 8 IPCs left for UK ground units.  Considering that G was building 10+ units each turn this would mean that the UK was falling behind the German buildup.  I think that it is also another important factor since the Allies need to have sufficient offensive power and the UK ended up buying a lot of infantry, during this phase of the game, to be able to build 8 units which afterwards limited its attacking options.

    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.

    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</br:<>


  • @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.

  • '16 '15 '10

    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.

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 3
  • 3
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
  • 3
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts