@krieghund Thanks krieghund…
The Norwegian Gambit
-
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
-
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.
-
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? :)
-
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
-
@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.
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:<>
-
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).
Well, I am happy to see we both were happy with our positions. The UK was a bit lighter on units primarly because I have built 4 trns a top the one i had SZ2 which i think is handy, because it increases the pressure on the Germans. After the 2dd build R4 there would be only 8IPCs left true, true, but there would be two more units coming from EC. So that is 4 UK units for R5 and 8 from R6 on. Also US shack would start hitting Europe with 4inf, 4tnk only R6 so that is not such a big deal.
LOL. Yeah, i guess the game lasted as long because we were both happy with our positions there :)
But you are right. In nutshell you did very well in forcing me to build more protection ships than I really wanted. It leads me to a conclusion I need to review the process of managing the Atlantic traffic a bit because I of course do not want to buy extra dds R4 in the first place. And I think I have some ideas on that already.
As for contesting UKR with R, lots of armour would not got G out of ukr, I checked that already. It seems G really can keep UKR R1-3 if he really wants it even if R buys all arm R2. But that should not be such a trouble unless the J figs get the chance to hit too light allied fleet R4.
But we will test that someday again, I am sure :-D
The Japanese airforce is simply a major pain to deal with because it plays between the UK and US. I’ve had games where I started buying bombers for J and moving to India (where they can hit SZ5 - it can be a very nasty surprise!) or Europe. After a while a fleet on SZ5 might have to retreat to build up their defensive strength. And players also get complacent if it just sits there for a few turns without further planes being bought by G/J.
-
Interesting map.
I think I can agree with Granada that the Ukraine stack wasn’t too serious…in this game not any more serious than a Kar stack would have been…however it ‘could’ have become serious if Germany had risked more tank buys. Instead Germany was mostly inf (with some tanks to keep the ratios up) for the next few rounds. IMO, this was a wise decision in a dice game against a tough opponent that is going KGF… and Hobbes was able to exploit the postion enough to get a Japanese Persia stack. With a huge German army of inf, Japs in control of Africa, and Japs stacked at Persia…it was just a matter of time before Axis outspend the Allies.
I would like to see what would happen if after G1 Germany/Japan had gone with a tank rush strategy. What has to worry the Allies about a stack on Ukraine is the potential for a combined Axis stack in Cau or WR…leading to permanent Axis control of Cau. If Germany was buying tanks they might have been able to get in closer…but then buying heavy tanks against KGF in dice is a risky proposition.
-
my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB? was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?
-
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.
-
@Bunnies:
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.
Agreed. I think it is just a lack of experince. Give me a couple of years on Triple A and I hope to become a relentless machine too.
@Bunnies:
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.
I do agree with that.
@Bunnies:
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.
The reason was I did some silly stuff earlier in the game.:-D Specifically I believe I let Hobbes to sink my US ships SZ6 R4. Since that moment I believe it really was an uphill battle. And definitely Hobbes is much defter in manouvering his stacks around Europe. So while I think I would still have a solid chance after my mistake R4 with a player of similar abilities like mine (like you Bunny for instance :lol:) I really did not feel I can turn the tide with Hobbes after R4.
@Bunnies:
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.
I believe there is no way in succesful Norwegian gambit Germany can hold UKR and WEU at the same time after R3. And Germany is shorter of the income from Nor which compensates for the Ukr income. Moreover its forces are tied by the quicker growth of the UK threat. So you really cannot see the control of Ukr as an advantage compared to standard Russian opening but rather as G best chance of holding on for just a bit longer before G is forced to retreating and confined to turtling.
-
my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB? was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?
I consider that the 2 Russian fighters are amongst the most valuable starting units. The UK BB is not as important as they and the UK can build more ships easily than the Russians can spare money to build fighters.
Looking at the cost both attacks are close considering the total gains/losses for both sides, which of course is highly dependent on dice. But either attack is a slow bump for G. The major difference is that Norway helps the UK at the sea, and Ukraine helps Russia on land.
-
@Bunnies:
Specifically, I think it’s fine to have a defensive stack of UK infantry if you’ve prevented Germany from controlling Africa (restricting its income), and are rolling up its territory in Europe. If I remember right, Germany was out of Africa. But UK could not roll up Germany. Once UK got close, Germany could break a large UK stack with its combined infantry, tanks, and air; neither US or Russia were in a position to reinforce. At one key point in the game, I thought it would be best to move UK’s Karelia stack to Archangel, where it could reinforce Moscow next turn. Instead, it was moved to Norway. At least, I hope I remember that all correctly.
I mentioned it to Granada at the end of the game. If that stack had been moved to West Russia instead it could have played a major role at defending Russia/Caucasus. However, looking back in retrospect I think Granada made the right call because I remember that if it had been moved to Caucasus then the Allies could effectively be cut off of further landings on Europe, with a German stack on Karelia. The UK units would still be able to help out but they would receive no further reinforcements unless Archangel could be secured.
At one point, UK and US had a stack on Ukraine, with 2 German infantry on Caucasus, and a stack of German tanks on Balkans. Had I been playing, I would probably have done the flashy thing and attacked the Ukraine stack, retreating all to Caucasus. (This would have made any Allied attack on Japan-held Caucasus very costly, considering the board situation; since the Allied Ukraine stack couldn’t hit Caucasus easily, they might have had to go through West Russia, allowing Japanese and Germany to do a two-hit strike to Moscow.
However, Hobbes did NOT do the flashy “tank teleport” trick. I haven’t had time to consider it yet, but I think that if the German tanks had ended up in Caucasus, that it might not only have given the Axis a quick shot on Moscow, it might also have opened the door up to the Allies moving to Eastern Europe in force while cutting off the German tanks from attacking the stack, allowing Allied pressure of Berlin. Or it could be that the Allies would have been able to use their stack to reclaim Moscow. I’ll look at it again sometime. Probably the former is true to some degree; I’m unsure as to whether the latter would also be the case.
The whole question was that I had already decided that Japan would take Russia, and the role of Germany was to prevent the Allied army from pulling back to defend it or threaten the Japanese buildup on Caucasus. If it had attacked Ukraine and retreated to Caucasus the UK could still move its armor back to Moscow to defend against the Japanese.
The Japanese were earning close to 60 IPCs and deploying nearly all of it against Russia, who was earning 12-16 IPCs. The only way for it to survive against that buildup would be with UK/US assistance, other than just sending fighters. The role of G was to prevent precisely that. :) -
my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB? was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?
I consider that the 2 Russian fighters are amongst the most valuable starting units. The UK BB is not as important as they and the UK can build more ships easily than the Russians can spare money to build fighters.
Looking at the cost both attacks are close considering the total gains/losses for both sides, which of course is highly dependent on dice. But either attack is a slow bump for G. The major difference is that Norway helps the UK at the sea, and Ukraine helps Russia on land.
Exactly. This is were our opinions differ. I do prize the UK bb higher then the second R fig. While I think R can buy a fig if it considers it really important (i don’t most of the times), UK will never be able to buy the bb. But I do no think this dilemma is ever going to be resolved. I think it is like in chess the debate whether you answer 1.d4 with 1.d5 or 1. Nf6. It will never be decided. It is a matter of taste and different players styles perhaps.
-
ah, that chess analogy was beautifully put, granada. and thanks hobbes for your reply as well. i’m definitely more of a boil-it-down guy than a split-the-atoms-of-a-hair type as far as these things go, and putting in in terms of “what is more important: russian fighter or UK BB” really helps me to understand my own thoughts on this norwegian gambit. although i still haven’t decided where i come down myself! i think i’m leaning towards not doing norway.
-
The chess analogy is interesting but might not be entirely correct. To say it’s like …d5 or …Nf6 is saying that the options are roughly equal in value and that it’s a matter of taste and experience which one you like better. However, since the Norwegian Gambit is a more risky opening and probably less well known, I would be more inclined to compare it to a move like 1… f5 (as a response to 1.d4): statistically the opening has a lower winning percentage, but in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon. This is not to say the Norwegian Gambit (or 1… f5 for that matter) is strictly worse than a conventional opening; it just has different properties.
-
@El:
in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon.
Pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
-
@El:
The chess analogy is interesting but might not be entirely correct. To say it’s like …d5 or …Nf6 is saying that the options are roughly equal in value and that it’s a matter of taste and experience which one you like better. However, since the Norwegian Gambit is a more risky opening and probably less well known, I would be more inclined to compare it to a move like 1… f5 (as a response to 1.d4): statistically the opening has a lower winning percentage, but in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon. This is not to say the Norwegian Gambit (or 1… f5 for that matter) is strictly worse than a conventional opening; it just has different properties.
Thanks for developing the amusing chess analogy. You are correct in fact. I do play 1… f5 but only against 1. c4. And your are also correct that from me to say 1… Nf6 did not say that much actually to an informed chess player because only the further moves start to be telling. So for me to play 1… Nf6 after 1. d4 makes sense because I love the opening 2. c4-c5, 3. d5-b5, which makes it for the Volga (Benko) gambit that would perhaps constitute the best chess analogy to the Norwegian gambit. If your opponent knows it well and plays best moves you might get into serious troubles, while if he does not know it well it is one the better openings for the black pieces.
However the analogy in any case cannot be precise since no dice is fortunately involved in chess. Just imagine rolling 3 dice against 1 when trying to take a pawn with a bishop. Everybody could play kasparov then.
So here it really is a question of whether you value UK bb and a stronger UK pressure on Europe from the early rounds higher then the one russian fig a and a more solid position of cauc and UKR but without the UK bb and 2 of your starting russian tnks.
-
Wow, this is some deep stuff. :-o
But for me, if you boil it down to losing the fig or the bb, I’d lose the bb every time.
Those two fighters are probly the most valuable pieces of plastic in Russia’s arsenal.
They can strike anywhere and everywhere on the front, never in harms way, and when Moscow burns, they help defend it till the bitter end. :cry:
-
@Sweet:
They can strike anywhere and everywhere on the front, never in harms way, and when Moscow burns, they help defend it till the bitter end. :cry:
You see, playing Norwegian gambit I do not have that much experience with Moscow burning to the bitter end; no offence intended. I really hate to see Moscow burning and do not want to expand my experience in this way if not necessary. I have found out that the best way to avoid that is make Berlin burn a little bit sooner. This is what the UK bb helps me to do much better then the R fig because without the bb UK movements are restricted and Allied D-day is slower at least for one round but rather two (talking about KGF; but in KJF the UK fleet’s capability operate independently is of just the same importance) and also hitting much more fomidable Germany.
If I should elaborate more on the style of play without the russian air I have adopted a style of defensive play which really can avoid the second fig without much trouble most of the time. In my last game with a player who is imho one of the best around I have won although I did not have any russian fig at all for last 3-4 rounds and Russia still was not coming into serious trouble buying 7 units a round. The reason is simple I do not trade R inf for J inf cause it is not favourable anyway. I rather focus on moving the tnk stack around in such a way that i can take and hold the territory for a round without russia coming into trouble.
I would buy some arts for trades and occationally use a tnk especially if I bought another one that round and the situation is favourable (like trading cauc or ukr, killing two enemy tnks in the trade etc).
If you have the allied stack on EE you do not have to bother with trading with the germans. You just keep the teritories west of Mosc. And if you need the air cover at last in mosc it is always easy to drop an allied fig. The Russian tnk stack is more important defensive unit for me then figs.
If I thought R figs are so important I would buy one or even two, because in a typical NG game Russia has 10 tnks R3, so you can always decide to have just 8 tnk and buy the second fig instead. That is in fact a possible set up after R3 in the standard UKR/WR R R1: 2 fig and 8 tnk and some inf (if you have bought 3 tnk R1 and 4tnk R2 what not many people do in fact, but I do when playing NG). So there is really no such a big deal in losing the R fig round one. I do not buy it back just because I simply believe 2 tnks are stronger than a fig for russia. Figs are fancy but tanks win the war. I tell you: Tanks are strong. :mrgreen:
-
I think the fig/2 tnk comparison is unnecessary to properly evaluate the Gambit. Given reasonable dice, Russia loses a fighter in Kar on G1, but also preserves 2 extra tanks in WR compared to the WR+Ukraine attack. So Russia can just buy 2 tanks after attacking Ukr or 1 fighter after attacking Norway and end up with roughly the same forces.
IMO, the real problems with the Gambit are 1) increased probability of losing WR on G1; and 2) Ger being able to stack Ukraine and gain an important positional advantage (as pointed out by Hobbes). I think those elements have to be weighed against the extra UK BB, instead of the oversimplification of Russian fig vs UK BB.
Suggested Topics
