• I feel it’s obvious that Russia must make a move on the eastern most grey territory (western russia??), but, I’m wondering about Norway on R1.  There is a fighter there that can be brought against the UK fleet on G1.  Anytime a grey fighter can be destroyed it is a benefit to all allies.  Any benefit/downside to this move?


  • Actually, you can also get the Karelia ARM there as well

    A max strike on Norway is
    3 INF, 1 ARM, 1 FIG vs. 3 INF, 1 FIG

    That is a 58% Russian win, but only a 43% chance to occupy.  It also leaves you a FIG short for a Ukraine attack (which is more essentia in my opinion than Norway).

    You CAN bring a 2nd Russian FIG, but it would have to land in Karelia, making it a sacrificial FIG, and not worth the cost.


  • I don’t think it is worth it. Killing a FTR is good but you need those units in the UKR, WRU, CAU more than in NOR. Besides the UK is coming over with units and can help contest NOR (if Gerry doesn’t give it up) and KAR, ARC. I think more than anything it puts Russian forces where they aren’t best used.

  • 2007 AAR League

    It’s better to let UK take norway to offset the IPC’s lost in Africa.


  • What if Germany puts a sub in the Atlantic with a bid of 8?

    In that case I think the second Russian fighter is worth it…


  • @nooob:

    What if Germany puts a sub in the Atlantic with a bid of 8?

    In that case I think the second Russian fighter is worth it…

    I can’t agree with that.  When playing with Russia, I try to conserve my forces at all expense, having UK and US bleed Germany out while I save up units with Russia to counter Japan’s attack.

    A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

    2 inf 1 fighter attacking a territory held by 1 infantry is far better than 1 inf 1 artillery  or 2 inf 1 artillery attacking that territory.  If you only send 1 inf 1 artillery, your overall chance of a hit is less, and if you miss and your opponent hits, you’re down to even odds (but a fighter and 2 infantry would still have a good shot).  If you send in 2 inf 1 artillery, you are using 10 IPC of mobilized units to attack 3 IPC of mobilized units and possibly gain 2-3 IPC from the territory taken, and 2-3 IPC when the opponent counterattacks - even at best, 10 for 9 isn’t a good trade.


  • Hey NP,
              I was talking about the taking of Norway by Russia on R1 if there is a second sub in the atlantic.  Having Norway that eliminates the possibility of the UK battleship, transport, and Russian sub from being sunk.(no runway for bomber/figher).  The economics are much better.   
    CONS;  Germany can easily take out the tank/fighter(tank in Norway, fighter in Karelia)15ipcs

    PROS;  UK’s fleet is floating, 32ipc’s + the Russian Sub can still block later on in the game.
              Another huge pro is that the bid is pretty much wasted. The sub now has to perform          a  secondary  function.  The intended target(UK battleship) is safe.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t see the benefit.  Honestly, you’re going to loose your armor in either engagement the only difference here is the possibility of loosing your airforce as well AND a drop of 3 IPC income for the Allies over the entire turn since instead of taking Ukraine for 3 you take Norway meaning England cannot take Norway for an extra 3 IPC.

    Let’s also remember England’s going to need those IPC since you can expect Germany/Japan to take India, the Middle East and Africa for a while.


  • How is UK going to take Norway?  On UK1 only 1 trn is in the Atlantic. also Norway is where the figter/bomber landed so you can assume Germany would leave INF there as cover.  Without HMS Hood the Royal Navy is screwed for a long time.  The Russian Fighter is the sacrifice.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    UK should have 2 transports and a battleship.  If you managed to kill the transport in SZ 1 then they still have the capacity to take Fin/Nor.

    Remember, your odds of success in SZ 2 with Fig/Bmb/Sub against BB/Trn/Sub are really small.

    You have an 18% chance to have 1 fighter survive that engagement. I’ll assume you want the fighter because it has the best defense value.

    You have a 7% chance to have 1 fighter and 1 bomber survive that engagement.

    England:

    1 Transport Sea Zone 1 w/Armor from Canada to SZ 2 p/u Infantry, to SZ 3

    Inf, Arm from SZ 3, 2 Fighters from England, 1 Bomber from England vs 1 Fighter maybe 1 Bomber on Fin/Nor (assuming you invaded Karelia and didnt reinforce) and England has a 56% chance of having at least an armor, 2 fighters and a bomber survive for claiming of Finland/Norway.

    Now Germany is not out 1 fighter, but rather 2 fighters and a bomber.


  • Hey Jen,
    Your still missing my point.  If you place a sub in the Atlantic with the Axis bid of 8( i forget which SZ it is but its just south of England and starts with 1 sub in it already)  Then those numbers you just posted change dramatically.

    The engagement is now as follows;

    Germany attacker:  2 subs, 1 fig, 1 bom
                          vs
    UK/Russia defenders: 1 bat, 1 trn, 1 sub(russian)

    If Im not mistaken(Idont have a die simulator) the most probable outcome of that battle is Germany flies its planes out safely, hence the need for Norway to be in Russian hands at the start of G1.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea.  If you put a sub in SZ 8 you have a good chance of sinking everything but 1 british transport.  However, England still can kill off Norway with 1 Transport, 1 Infantry, 1 Armor, 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber if she so wishes. (unless you keep a submarine.)

    Even though, I’d send USSR’s fighters on Russia 2 to Fin/Nor to kill at least the bomber on a strafing run.  Odds are you’ll get 1 hit, he gets 1 hit and has to decide on a fighter or the bomber.  Eitherway, you come out even or a head.


  • @nooob:

    Hey NP,
              I was talking about the taking of Norway by Russia on R1 if there is a second sub in the atlantic.  Having Norway that eliminates the possibility of the UK battleship, transport, and Russian sub from being sunk.(no runway for bomber/figher).  The economics are much better.   
    CONS;  Germany can easily take out the tank/fighter(tank in Norway, fighter in Karelia)15ipcs

    PROS;  UK’s fleet is floating, 32ipc’s + the Russian Sub can still block later on in the game.
              Another huge pro is that the bid is pretty much wasted. The sub now has to perform          a  secondary  function.  The intended target(UK battleship) is safe.

    The big con, I think, is the fact that now USSR has to use 1 inf 1 art to trade territories held by 1 German infantry, since 3 inf, or 2 inf 1 art are just not cost-effective.  But 1 inf 1 art has a considerable chance of failure.  2 inf 1 fighter requires less commitment of resources and has a better chance of success; even 1 inf 1 art 1 fighter is far better.

    Each Russian fighter lets Russia trade with Germany in one territory for almost certainly 3 turns (it takes that long for Germany to move in serious infantry reserves from Germany).  It adds up.

    Helping preserve the Allied fleet does help the Allies to get to Europe and/or Africa faster, but I think I might rather just let Germany attack the Allied fleet and risk losing air in the process.  Even if the German air does survive, Germany must fortify Norway against 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighters 1 bomber.  If Germany doesn’t keep units in Norway, the UK will attack, taking out the fightre and bomber; UK loses its transport to the German counter on G2, but it’s well worth it. (+25 IPC for German air, probable +3 IPC from territory, -8 IPC transport, -3 IPC infantry, -3 to 5 IPC second transported unit).  If Germany does keep units in Norway, that slows any attack against USSR.


  • Hey Guys, a couple of comments…

    1. Yes,russia will be down a fighter. But if you build a fighter on R1 then you have recoved the lost fighter that has to land in Karelia.
    a R1 buy of fig, arm, 3 inf will allow for 2 spaces to be traded. (Karelia,Ukraine/Bellorussia) Im not sure Russia can afford to be trading more than 2 zones anyways. NP your points about it being much easier for 2inf 1fig are correct. I hate having to attack 1inf with 1inf,1art(see it fail too many times)

    2. Norway can easily be defended against 2 trns let alone 1.  With a defense in Norway of: 3figs(1from WE, 1from EE, 1from NOR), 2arm(1bridged, 1 from EE), 4 INF(3 starting, 1bridged). That makes a G1 attack of Norway a very uphil battle.

    I love holding Norway for as long as its feasible.  Keeps 3 IPCs out of UKs pocket. Puts pressure on the SZ to the north west of UK.  And also lets you stage just as close to most of Russias holdings as EE would.


  • You shouldn’t do it, IMO.

    Every russian unit is needed in the battle v/s Germany. Attack Ukraine or West Russia first., but leave Norway to the UK, the british can get Norway much easier than you. Plus, Germany’s main preocupation won’t be that fighter attacking London.


  • @nooob:

    Hey Guys, a couple of comments…

    1. Yes,russia will be down a fighter. But if you build a fighter on R1 then you have recoved the lost fighter that has to land in Karelia.
    a R1 buy of fig, arm, 3 inf will allow for 2 spaces to be traded. (Karelia,Ukraine/Bellorussia) Im not sure Russia can afford to be trading more than 2 zones anyways. NP your points about it being much easier for 2inf 1fig are correct. I hate having to attack 1inf with 1inf,1art(see it fail too many times)

    2. Norway can easily be defended against 2 trns let alone 1.  With a defense in Norway of: 3figs(1from WE, 1from EE, 1from NOR), 2arm(1bridged, 1 from EE), 4 INF(3 starting, 1bridged). That makes a G1 attack of Norway a very uphil battle.

    I love holding Norway for as long as its feasible.  Keeps 3 IPCs out of UKs pocket. Puts pressure on the SZ to the north west of UK.  And also lets you stage just as close to most of Russias holdings as EE would.

    1.  You haven’t “recovered” the lost fighter.  You just built a new fighter, which cost you 10 IPC.  Russia cannot afford to buy tons of fighters, even one fighter is pressing it, and two is right out. Russia needs cost-effective infantry and tanks, with a late all-artillery buy when Germany or Japan presses on Moscow.

    2.  You want to trade 3 zones.  No question.  Why trade?  Because 1) if you hold the territory, you can get IPCs from it.  2) Germany has to counterattack because Germany can’t just let you hold on to IPCs at no cost.  3) When Germany counterattacks, if it attacks with a light force, you can COUNTER-counter attack and wipe out the German forces.  4)  When you wipe out German forces, it depletes their forces for when they DO attack you.

    Let’s say that you attack 1 infantry with 2 infantry and 1 fighter.  If you get lucky, you keep BOTH infantry, if you have moderate luck, you keep one infantry, if your luck is not so hot, you lose both infantry.

    Now what happens if you keep BOTH infantry?  Say Germany counters with overwhelming air plus two infantry.  That means Germany moved its fighters out of position (good for the US/UK fleet), and that you killed 2 IPC expected of units (say each of your infantry has a 1/3 chance of killing a 3 IPC infantry).  SO - you killed 3 German IPC (an infantry) to take the territory, plus you got 2 IPC from the territory itself, plus you got 2 more IPC from the expected kills that your surviving infantry got.  Of course, you lost 6 IPC of units (your infantry).  So you got SEVEN IPC worth of units and IPCs, while losing SIX.  And since all YOU have to do is defend, you have a considerable positional advantage.

    Same thing if you only have 1 infantry surviving, but now you get six IPCs for your six IPCs.  Still quite good, considering that positional advantage - you sapped Germany of one of its forward placed infantry, while not losing any.

    What if you lose both infantry and don’t take the territory?  That’s unlikely, but even then, if you kill the German infantry, a single UK infantry can march in and take the territory.

    Germany COULD attack with mass ground early in the game, but that usually gets wiped out by the Russian counter, so the Germans won’t do it in the first place.

    3.  Holding Norway prevents early infantry pressure on USSR.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You won’t hold Norway anyway.

    Germany has a Transport and plenty of fighters to get there.  And I’d much rather spank Russia and cost if 100% of it’s offensive starting forces then play around with naval attacks.

    I can take care of England and America’s navies after i set up a puppet government in Red Square.


  • Russia should take Ukraine and WR. It leaves the troops near the front they need to be, and it leaves NORWAY for the UK who is supposed to take it. Same IPC’s for each territory, but your success rate is better with the UKraine attack. Plus, the counterattack is eminent from Germany on Karelia and on Norway with the dormant Trannie in the Baltic.

    I think by this point, anything new sounds interesting, and can even look good on paper. :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :| :wink: :wink: :wink:


  • A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

    sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?


  • No, SUBs can NEVER attack aircraft

    (OK, one exception… an attacking aircraft carrier has an allied FIG on it… the defending SUB score a hit on the AC, the Allied FIG dies with it since it is cargo).

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 32
  • 12
  • 13
  • 29
  • 16
  • 38
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

24

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts