Norway!

What two NO’s are they?

@Tavenier:

The Swedish iron ore and I think the one for which you also need all of France. I am not at home, so can’t check it.

I looked it up, and found in E40(not global), Norway is involved in 2 NO’s.

Also, you must fear the US getting Norway and building a major iC there, where they can build into the Baltic

Does anyone think Sweden and Denmark should have a land bridge like in Diplomacy?

That land bridge could make things much worse for Germany.  Still ticked that Italy/Sicily didn’t get one though.

Maybe the land bridge idea could work in certain areas on condition that the transporting side controls both sides of the “strait” and all adjacent sea zones; that is it’s assumed to be using barges, small boats etc that would be unable to cross hostile waters.

So, the Germans could not use the straits of Dover to invade England, but the UK could use them to evacuate units from Normandy to England provided SZ 110 was still Allied controlled.

Other possibles:

Gibraltar - Morocco
Saudi Arabia - British Somaliland & Persia
India - Ceylon

@calvinhobbesliker:

Does anyone think Sweden and Denmark should have a land bridge like in Diplomacy?

That would be pretty unrealistic since there’s a body of water between them. But if it makes the game better, then sure.

I found that Norway needed an Air Base if it was going to be used as such.  It needs the extra range to threaten the Western approaches of the UK and support the war in the East at the same time.

i knew it would be important one day.

Norway-North
Italy-South
France-West
Russia-East
Germany-Central

Seems important to have the North.

It’s also grossly over-valued at 3 IPCs.  As is amply demonstrated above, the real value of Norway lies in it’s strategic position, not it’s industrial output.

An American factory in Oslo churning out Shermans is quite ridiculous.

Yeah our German player found out the hard way how important Norway is (we were playing E40 w/2 NO’s tied to Norway). He lost his German fleet (came out to the North Sea to early), and couldn’t reinforce Scandinavia. That cost him 10 ipc/round plus the tt $.  Building a German IC there would be rather ballsy, but I can see the benefit of a sub pen up there to harass the convoys, and take out allied navies.

@Yoper:

We noticed the increased importance of the Norway territory last night- as it relates to the IC idea.  (And the twin NOs)

As a play tester for E40, I would have thought you wound have seen the importance of Norway like 8 months ago (LOL).

I think I might try the G IC build, that w/tpts in the Baltic gives you more options in the battle for Scandinavia. It also gives you units up there in case you do something silly w/German fleet.

@Yoper:

I was already cognizant of its movement advantages as it concerns it being one territory.  An idea for it would be to split it into two territories- one in the south worth 2 IPCS and one to the north worth 1 IPC.  That way it is a longer path around the top to Karelia and it takes away the ability of the US/UK of building a major IC in Norway.

Yeah the US should only be able to put a minor on Norway (what was he thinking?, 10 US units?). If you want a major invade Sweden, and deal with the consequences (but that should probably be worth just 2 ipc’s too IMO)

If the U.S. chooses Norway over Rome…not sure they would.

Then they can have 2 major factories (taking Sweden turn 6 may be too late to help the axis much). 67 IPCs (Brazil IPCs) would give the U.S. 20 units (13inf,7art) a turn that could be transported directly into Europe afterwards. Granted it would be turn 7 before you could produce out of both. (Thats why I would prefer Rome and N. Italy.) Norway would be a land route to the liberation of Russia’s Northern Victory City, which would draw the game out in favor of the Allies I believe.

Its this reason that leads me to believe its a race for the Axis to seize Russia as the 8th city as soon as possible.

@Yoper:

We noticed the increased importance of the Norway territory last night- as it relates to the IC idea.  (And the twin NOs)

I was already cognizant of its movement advantages as it concerns it being one territory.  An idea for it would be to split it into two territories- one in the south worth 2 IPCS and one to the north worth 1 IPC.  That way it is a longer path around the top to Karelia and it takes away the ability of the US/UK of building a major IC in Norway.

I agree with the split. The distance from south to north Norway is the same as from south Italy to Denmark, and that distance is split in several spaces. But as the IC issue is conserned, I belive a population of less than 3 millions can easily establish a major IC and build 10 US tank divisions each turn. The fact that Germany start with a minor IC only reflect that the nazy moral was derogatory to the labour force, while we norvegians are superhumans.