• @Mr.Biggg:

    My last night bold move R1

    I’m not 100% on numbers, so you may have to use imagination.

    Buy: 1 sub, 6 I

    Attacks:
    3 I 1 T 1 F to Norway
    3 I 2 T 1 A 1 F to Ukraine
    6 I 1 A 1 T to West Russia

    Went into Ukraine and West Russia figuring heavy losses but good odds on taking (We play a homemade low luck variant. Not sure on what actual low luck rules are, but we just give the option of taking any six die points as a hit or you can roll). Norway I didn’t figure on taking, just wanted to be sure to kill the plane.

    Results
    Heavy losses in West Russia but took, Got reasonably lucky in Ukraine, Lost everything but fighter in Norway. I chose to keep my fighter alive instead of taking Norway. The territory wasn’t important, just getting the fighter.

    Overall: Crippled Germany’s fighter squads and opened the door for R1 UK into Norway. Left Russia weak and spread thin, but with Ukraine and west Russia taken, had multiple rounds to reinforce the line while Allies stormed in. Landed fighters in Caucasus for R2 kill German BB and T.

    Actually now that I think about it R1 buy was 1 Sub 3 inf 1 A 1 T


  • What are the consequences to only hitting Norway and the Ukraine on R1? Generally, I like to be aggressive with Russia, but a failed triple often leads to the loss of the game. If Russia only hit Norway and Ukraine, what would be threatened? If Russia won in the Ukraine, I would think that Russia could fortify Moscow and the Caucasus enough to protect both.

    A loss in the Ukraine could lead to a fight over the Caucasus and would be catastrophic to Russia. It might trade hands every round, and Germany might not be able to build there for a while, but it would take Russia’s attention away from every other fight.

    I’m trying to remember, does Germany have 3 inf and 1 fighter in Norway, and 3 inf, 1 art, and 1 tank in West Russia?

    What would Germany do if it lost both fights? Reinforce West Russia? Pull back?  Drive to Moscow or the Caucasus? The West Russia troops could be supported by the bomber and a fighter (or 2?). I would think losing two fighters in round 1 would make quite a difference in rounds 3+.

    I know this isn’t going to be a popular strategy, but I’m hoping you guys can help me think it through.


  • @MtnGoatJoe:

    What are the consequences to only hitting Norway and the Ukraine on R1? Generally, I like to be aggressive with Russia, but a failed triple often leads to the loss of the game. If Russia only hit Norway and Ukraine, what would be threatened? If Russia won in the Ukraine, I would think that Russia could fortify Moscow and the Caucasus enough to protect both.

    A loss in the Ukraine could lead to a fight over the Caucasus and would be catastrophic to Russia. It might trade hands every round, and Germany might not be able to build there for a while, but it would take Russia’s attention away from every other fight.

    I’m trying to remember, does Germany have 3 inf and 1 fighter in Norway, and 3 inf, 1 art, and 1 tank in West Russia?

    What would Germany do if it lost both fights? Reinforce West Russia? Pull back?  Drive to Moscow or the Caucasus? The West Russia troops could be supported by the bomber and a fighter (or 2?). I would think losing two fighters in round 1 would make quite a difference in rounds 3+.

    I know this isn’t going to be a popular strategy, but I’m hoping you guys can help me think it through.

    If G doesn’t want to go after Russia or Caucasus then it can always retake Ukraine and Norway, blitz through Archangel and fortify Karelia, allowing it some 46 IPCs. The Russians will destroy 2 fighters but will be pushed back on territories and lose income on turn 2 because of the loss of Karelia and not being able to take Belorussia.

    It’s really a choice between killing those 2 G fighters and helping the UK defend its fleet, but at the cost of a less powerful Russia and allowing the Germans control of the Russian front.


  • I think Karelia and the Ukraine would fall anyway. Russia could put a troop in Archangel to prevent a blitz, and in any case, Russia could easily take it back. Even if Germany takes Norway, I don’t think it’s the end of the world.

    Depending on where Germany’s fighters and subs are, the Allies would have a couple of options. 1) The UK could take Norway back on UK1 depending on German troop locations . Or 2) The US could take Norway on US2. The Allies would run into problems in Africa, but the US could still be in Africa by US2 anyway. It just depends on what Germany does with its air force and subs. If the bomber fights in Egypt, it would likely land in Libya. If that were the case, then Germany would likely only have two or three fighters in Western Europe. If that were the case, the UK could do its naval build in SZ8, and by the end of US1, the allies could have 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, and 1 aircraft carrier with two fighters in SZ8 to protect the US transports. If Germany consolidated its whole air force and all its subs within range of SZ8, the Allies would obviously have to go with a different strategy.

    What are your thoughts on a US IC in Norway on round 3? There could be some use for that. And if Germany wanted to fight over it, well, the Allies would build their invasion force up until they could take and hold it. And, if Germany is sending units north, then those units aren’t going east, and that’s good for Russia. Also, with Ally forces in Norway, it would put a serious dent in the Axis’ ability to hold Karelia, which is vital in order for them to get 9 victory cities.

    Again, there are a lot of ifs here, but it’s a scenario that could play out.


  • well i don’t think it’s inherently a horrible thing to not take west russia on R1, but if you attack both norway and ukraine, the units you can bring to bear are basically the same as if you were doing a triple.  and that gives you less than favorable odds.  i guess what i’m saying is, by not attacking w. russia, you aren’t really increasing your odds of winning in norway and ukraine so then the only reason to do it is to possibly play it safer at the probably cost of sacrificing more of your income to germany. unless i miss something.  i think it’s still a high-risk move due to it being quite possible to fail in one or the other, and if you’re going to go high risk, you might as well just do the triple.


  • @MtnGoatJoe:

    What are your thoughts on a US IC in Norway on round 3?

    Depends on how much you’re willing to see the UK income drop. Usually the UK really needs Norway to make up for the loss of India/Persia/Trans-Jordan/Africa, otherwise it won’t be able to build up to its maximum capacity.


  • I was just looking at the board and you’re right, I don’t like the move. Leaving Germany with the troops in West Russia put them in too good of a spot. They can hit Moscow with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 2 fighters, and 1 bomber.

    You can reinforce Moscow to withstand that, but that would leave the Caucasus wide open. And Germany can hit the Caucasus with an additional 1 inf, 1 tank, and 1 fighter. Of course, Germany would give up a lot doing that, but I really wouldn’t want to be fighting over the Caucasus starting in round 1.

    I might try a triple, but whatever I do, it’s going to include the Ukraine and West Russia.


  • @MtnGoatJoe:

    I might try a triple, but whatever I do, it’s going to include the Ukraine and West Russia.

    I just redid the math concerning the 3 attack options for Russia (NOR/UKR/WR, UKR/WR/BR, UKR/WR). If I haven’t made a major mistake on my math (quite possible) here’s the outlook:

    • Attacking Norway and the other 2 is really a gambit: regardless of the way you distribute your forces the odds of all 3 attacks being successful are about 1/3 (for instance: 60%(Norway) * 87%(Ukraine) * 63%(West Russia)).

    • The 2nd triple has better odds at 60% of winning all attacks but you’re still risking that something might go wrong.

    • Just attacking West Russia and Ukraine/Norway gives you 90% success


  • Re:  Russia opening attacking West Russia, Ukraine, and Norway or Eastern Europe or Belorussia.

    With dice -

    If you get real lucky, you do very well.  If you have bad luck, you get toasted super fast.  If you have bad luck in some places and good luck elsewhere, you can still get toasted super fast depending on what happened where.

    Since I think I have a really good chance to win with Allies, I usually won’t take a chance on blowing the game on R1 with a triple attack.  Usually, I’ll just hit 2 territories and engage in what is for me conservative play.  Why risk the game when I think I can usually win normally?

    Why do you get toasted super fast?  Worst case scenario sees Ukraine, West Russia, Caucasus, Karelia, and Norway all in German hands at end of G1, with 8 tank G1 build.

    More generally speaking, the Germans have a logistic problem of getting cheap cost effective infantry to the front to absorb hits.  (Tanks are 166% the cost of an infantry).  The German units at West Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia are at the Russian/German front.  Hitting these territories with Russia depletes Germany’s infantry reserves, meaning Germany will have to start losing tanks pretty quickly.  BUT the German units at Norway are analogous to the units at Eastern Europe/Balkans, which are NOT at the front.  SO what happens with a West Russia/Ukraine/Norway attack is that you send the Russian units to hit Germany’s REAR reserves, which makes Germany’s logistic problem of getting cheap infantry to the front EASIER on those initial important turns.  So if things go a bit wrong, with a WR/UKR/NOR attack, Germany can make a fast and deadly counter.

    WR/UKR/Belorussia is a bit “safer” in terms of the German counter, but a few bad dice still see Germany in awesome position to counter.

    So my thought is - a triple is flashy, but not “sound”.  If you don’t think you’re going to win in the first place (say you’re sure your opponent is more skilled), you can try a Russian triple and hope to get lucky, since you don’t think you can win without getting lucky anyways.  Or if you just like being flashy, sure, go ahead.  Or if you think you’re a lot better than your opponent, you can try it for fun, maybe give your opponent a better chance to win.

    But if you’re trying to win, and don’t know your opponent’s skill level, I’d say just play conservatively and watch for opponent errors.  Why risk blowing the game with a few bad dice rolls early on?  Play conservatively, and watch for an opening.

    With Low Luck, the triple isn’t bad, even recommendable (esp WR/UKR/Belorussia), because you simply can’t suffer the sort of bad luck you can with dice.  For example, with dice, you can use a fighter and an infantry to attack 2 infantry, but it’s risky - if the defender hits twice, you’ll lose a costly fighter.  With Low Luck, you will NEVER lose the fighter.  This sort of thing adds up.  But with dice, triple is just too risky IMO.


  • I’m not sure I understand the benefit of a sub buy on R1.  Russian fighters from the Caucusas can’t reach sz 14 to support the sub.  The only benefit would be if Germany used its fleet to attack Egypt on G1, leaving the fleet in sz 15 and within reach of the fighters.  However, if Russia buys a sub, I’d expect Germany to buy a destroyer on G1, leave the fleet in sz 14 and send supporting units to Lybia, and then maybe attack the sub with the battleship and destroyer in G2 (with or without an amphibious assault on the Caucasus).  Or Germany can just ignore the sub, not buy a destroyer and stay in sz 14 and wait for the usual threat from either the US or the UK.  Am I missing something, or is the only reason for this buy to keep Germany from taking Egypt in R1?


  • Just realized sz 16 and 14 are connected, so Russian fighters in Caucasus can support a sub attack on German Med fleet.  However, if Russia buys a sub, still seems like Germany would respond with buying a destroyer and increase the chance of hitting one or two valuable Russian fighters upon a Russian attack on the Med fleet in R2.  Still doesn’t seem to make sense to spend limited Russian IPCs on a sub that may never achieve its sole purpose.


  • Especially if Germany just buys guys since Russia will already be down 2 inf with that purchase. UK and US can take care of the Med fleet no problem. Russia has more immediate concerns.


  • @LMD:

    I’m not sure I understand the benefit of a sub buy on R1.  Russian fighters from the Caucusas can’t reach sz 14 to support the sub.  The only benefit would be if Germany used its fleet to attack Egypt on G1, leaving the fleet in sz 15 and within reach of the fighters.  However, if Russia buys a sub, I’d expect Germany to buy a destroyer on G1, leave the fleet in sz 14 and send supporting units to Lybia, and then maybe attack the sub with the battleship and destroyer in G2 (with or without an amphibious assault on the Caucasus). Or Germany can just ignore the sub, not buy a destroyer and stay in sz 14 and wait for the usual threat from either the US or the UK.  Am I missing something, or is the only reason for this buy to keep Germany from taking Egypt in R1?

    If G doesn’t take Egypt on R1 then the Med fleet is sunk on UK1. The good part is that G then gets 6 land units on Libya but the UK can reinforce Egypt to defend against such an attack.

    The pros for a Russian sub are that the Allies can secure Africa quite early on the game. The cons are that Russia needs its fighters to contest Karelia/BR/Ukr, otherwise it will have to use its precious armor if it wants to regain those territories. The 2 inf that it doesn’t buy to get the sub are less relevant.


  • I’d rather rather sink Germany’s med fleet on UK1 with the bomber and fighter from SZ 35.  I’ll lose the bomber first it’s probably toast anyway in Trans-Jordan and the fighter can be a real boon to d the defense of Caucasus.

    Unrelated question: UK has placed a carrier and a destroyer in SZ 7 (English Channel), which already contained 2 German subs.  A US bomber can attack the sub (because of the presence of an allied destroyer. Right? Are the subs unable to defend?  Can they return fire against the UK fleet? Can the fleet fight; or just die?


  • @Nomarclegs:

    I’d rather rather sink Germany’s med fleet on UK1 with the bomber and fighter from SZ 35.  I’ll lose the bomber first it’s probably toast anyway in Trans-Jordan and the fighter can be a real boon to d the defense of Caucasus.

    Unrelated question: UK has placed a carrier and a destroyer in SZ 7 (English Channel), which already contained 2 German subs.  A US bomber can attack the sub (because of the presence of an allied destroyer. Right? Are the subs unable to defend?  Can they return fire against the UK fleet? Can the fleet fight; or just die?

    I do not believe the US bomber can attack the two German subs. Because attacks cannot be joint, the US player can utilize the UK’s destroyers in the battle… which includes both the identification and attack of the subs.


  • @football2006:

    @Nomarclegs:

    I’d rather rather sink Germany’s med fleet on UK1 with the bomber and fighter from SZ 35.  I’ll lose the bomber first it’s probably toast anyway in Trans-Jordan and the fighter can be a real boon to d the defense of Caucasus.

    Unrelated question: UK has placed a carrier and a destroyer in SZ 7 (English Channel), which already contained 2 German subs.  A US bomber can attack the sub (because of the presence of an allied destroyer. Right? Are the subs unable to defend?  Can they return fire against the UK fleet? Can the fleet fight; or just die?

    I do not believe the US bomber can attack the two German subs. Because attacks cannot be joint, the US player can utilize the UK’s destroyers in the battle… which includes both the identification and attack of the subs.

    Correct. The UK destroyer may be on the same SZ but it can’t influence the attack on the subs since there are no multinational attacks.


  • @Hobbes:

    If G doesn’t take Egypt on R1 then the Med fleet is sunk on UK1. The good part is that G then gets 6 land units on Libya but the UK can reinforce Egypt to defend against such an attack.

    Unless it takes Gibraltar. Rare, but a valid option nonetheless. Or if G buys naval in the Med.


  • @coorran:

    @Hobbes:

    If G doesn’t take Egypt on R1 then the Med fleet is sunk on UK1. The good part is that G then gets 6 land units on Libya but the UK can reinforce Egypt to defend against such an attack.

    Unless it takes Gibraltar. Rare, but a valid option nonetheless. Or if G buys naval in the Med.

    Very true, but if G takes Gibraltar then it will have to pull out to Algeria to prevent the destruction of the units on Libya. If G buys an AC and stays put on SZ14 then the Med fleet is secure for some more turns but that means less ground units for the Russians to deal with.


  • @coorran:

    I think the attack on Norway by Rus is overrated because we usually focus on what it saves (UK BB). But you have to remember what it costs: 1 if not 2 Rus FTR. That’s a heavy toll. 10-20 Rus IPC is certainly worth at least 20 UK IPC.

    Also, keep in mind that the G sub you usually commit to this attack is freed to take a 50/50 shot at the US fleet. Not a bad tradeoff. The BMB can put its heavy weight in another fight, like AE, to make sure more units survive the attack.

    So, I say “No-Way to NorWay”.

    And I say go, Norway, go.

    I really cannot get over my amusement of people whining over the russian fig (and you really would have to be stupid to lose them both) while at the same time sending their precious russian tanks to be slaughtered in Ukraine (not mentioning willing to risk the very same figs in an advantoures sea battle with the ger bb to preserve something so out of touch with the real Russian early rounds’ need as is the UK Africa income…). You lose a fig, that is the unpleasent certainty, but the rewards are sweet.

    The Norwegian attack is not just about Norway. You send all your remaining units to WR, and with you 3tnk, 3inf buy R1 and 4tnk, 3inf buy R2, you suddenly R3 have a Russia with 10 tnks nested in cauc, wrus or even ukr or kar. That is at least what happens in most of my games.

    Moreover the UK battleship is not just a battleship, it is an absolutely critical tool in bringing the UK to Europe as a major force early. You will keep norway from UK R1 in most cases or you can send help to russia via archangel. With the standard buy of AC and 2dds it basically gives UK the fleet to operate against germany on its own which is also essential in coping with the Fortress Europe strategy designed by Hobbes. The independence of UK Atlantic fleet is also essential in games when you decide after a suboptimal J1 to go after Japan.

    So basically what the Norwegian attack achieves through preserving the precious UK battleship is that it broadens the scope of your strategies.

    And as for the german sub used against the US fleet off EUS… well, the mighty sub can do many things: it can kill the unguarded tranny, it can help sink the UK cru sparing you fig or two for other fights, and it can of course try its luck hiting at the US fleet, BUT there is just one thing it cannot do anymore – to assist in sinking the UK BB. And that is all that matters, because who needs the US cru when you have the UK bb.


  • @Granada:

    I really cannot get over my amusement of people whining

    Much anger I sense in this one.

    Welcome to the dark side of the Force.   :evil:

    from now, your name will be . . .

    DARTH FURY

    !!!

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts