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: