• After some posts in other discussions, and after some play testing I would like to share my take on the Allied strategy.

    Norwegian gambit: an overview

    Norwegian gambit is my way of calling the opening in which Russia on R1 attacks Norway with the support of both figs. Hence I call it the gambit: you sacrifice the fig from Russia in the process of getting Norway.

    I. Objectives and characteristics The crucial objective is to develop maximum pressure on Germany early on in the game. This does not necessarily mean strict commitment to the KGF, because in any successful Pacific strategy you need to keep Germany honest only with combined forces of the Russians and the Brits. A successful Norwegian gambit usually creates a situation when Allies can decide before the US1 whether to go for a quick KGF or hunt Japan if it mishandles or gets unlucky R1.

    The opening has two clear disadvantages: one is mandatory – Russia loses the precious fig. The other disadvantage is accidental: the gambit might fail. I will deal with that under the point III.

    Let us first look on what are the obligatory costs of the other popular openings: in the Ukraine push, Russia ends up usually losing three of it starting tanks, in the “submarine protection” move, Russia risks – and many times loses – a fig anyway, not talking about other risks of being lighter on infs and tnks.

    The essential advantage of the Norwegian gambit is that it keeps the UK BB most of the times. The UK BB is really an invaluable asset for it allows UK to get to Europe much earlier then otherwise. Allies might even keep Norway from R1.

    The UK BB really is a ship UK cannot afford to buy any later in the game. It allows the UK fleet to operate on its own without US support. And even with heavy German air buys and Japanese air presence in Europe it allows to create an unsinkable allied fleet in time to settle it safely in the SZ 5.

    SZ 5 is by far the best place for an allied fleet to offload troops to Europe. The fleet must include 4 Uk trns and 4 US trns because then you can pick up 16 units a round in uk and you threaten KAR, EE, Ger, WEU at the same time. Germany cannot stand the push for very long.

    Just to make the picture complete: the other 4 US trns are stationed in the SZ 2 and they ferry the 8 US troops from EC to UK. They might even not need any protection in most of the games, since WEU will not be save place for Axis bombers. I like to produce 4 US tnks in WUS (just to keep japan honest) and 4 inf EUS a round for this chain using the rest of US IPCs usually for contesting africa or buying air.

    II. The first Russian turn and the strategy R R1: Buy: 3tnk/3inf, Combat move: sub SZ 2, 3inf, 2 fig, tnk Norway. All units of cauc and russia to WR, 1-2 inf stay in arch, 0-1 arch to WR. Combat: you always do WR first. WR you have 7-8 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk and 100 % win with 9.43–10.55 units remaining.

    You should have 5 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk in WR after the combat. If you have less you are going to move the arch inf(s) there to make it safe, if you have 5 or more, you can move it to kar to block, or both of them to combine with the lame fig in kar to make it more expansive for the Germans to take.

    You do Norway second. You have 89 % with 2,86 units remaining. Usually you take the last hit on the lame fig and you have 1-2 infs and a tnk in Norway.

    So in the average set up you have 5-6 inf, 2 art, 3 tnks WR, 1-2 art, tnk Nor. Germany has to do Cauc, kar, Nor, AE, SZ13, SZ15.

    Non-combat: according to the outcomes you do the moves with the asian inf. A standard good move is: 1 inf Cauc, 5inf Russia, 6 inf Bur and cauc AA gun to WR. Place: all Russia. Collects 29 IPCs.

    It is difficult to describe in the same detail further moves since they will vary significantly depending on G1 and J1. But generally, UK has these priorities: sink 59trn, retake AE, keep 2 guys and AA gun in India, sink German dd and trn in Baltics. I like to do New Guinea gamble and the Australian sub should go SZ38.

    Depending on how strong is Germany’s presence in AE I sink the SZ 59 trn either with cru or with the fig to land in Bur. But lately I really like to have the AC with the fig on SZ 33, bmb in novo and 2 UK figs on WR. This allows me to sink the German med fleet R2 or to threaten Japanese ships SZ 35 and 36 with UK sub in 38.

    Most often I build AC and 2 dds with UK, but especially if SZ1 trn lives and Germany is not strong with air, I might go for the AC, dd, trn buy, taking Norway and setting up the fleet at SZ 3. Believe it or not I was able to take Germany by surprise R3 with 6-8 UK units plus air in a few games already.

    I also might setup the fleet SZ8 with US sending 2 figs on the AC and bmb to uk, UK2 the fleet moves SZ 12 and the 2 us figs with bmb off UK sink the G med fleet which is a very neat move developed by Hobbes or Bunny I believe.

    In general I send some US troops to secure Africa early but my plan with Allies is to have 4 UK trns, 2 sets of 4 US trns moving 16 allied units from UK to Europe a turn as described above.

    Once the allies hold EE, trade France and threaten taking SE, they do not need to bother about Japan retaking Africa because Germany days are numbered. But since US spends just 32 IPCs on 4tnks and 4 infs a turn in most games they have something to spare to contest Africa anyway. Alternatively they could buy air.

    My favourite Russia R2 buy is 4tnk and 3inf, because I simply love the 10 R tnks stack. It can do good things on both fronts for you. But in general unless Germany really falls apart quick, Russia from R4-6 starts to do what it always does: tries to survive as long as it can. The infantry and some tnks for trades do the trick best.

    Another advantage of the SZ5 allied fleet is that if Germany is too tough to crack earlier then Japan really threatens Moscow you can use the allied troops to move against Japan – Hobbes wrote about it many times and I have myself tried the deadly US-R-UK 1-2-3 against Japan a couple of times already. It really can be a game changer.

    Forgive me for not going into details of the strategy involving US push against Japan in Pacific. I played very entertaining games based on Russia and UK fighting Germany on their own while providing minor assistance to US in dealing with Japan.

    These strategies can really include a US IC in Sinkiang and UK IC in India built in the later early stages of the game (R 2-4). As it is absolutely essential for UK to win Africa on its own it might even include SA IC in some cases. Moreover the SA IC can be later of a use for assisting in the push against the Japanese islands.

    III. The failed gambit The statistics say that once in about every five-six games you will fail either in Norway or in WR on the Russian R1. This makes it for the failed Norwegian gambit. In 1 of 100 games both attacks would fail. If this happens you better resign and go to watch a good relaxing movie instead since you know the day was not made for an AAA game.

    Of the two possible failures, to be honest, the WR is worse than Norway, since you might have Germans on your back door as early as R1.

    You can still win a failed Norwegian gambit but it will really be bloody difficult. I have recently won a game when I have not got a single hit on the Norwegian attack R1 while my opponent got all 4 leaving me with bare 2 figs after the first dice rolls. I was down a fig and a tnk, plus the 3 norwegian IPCs and potentially the UK BB.

    Fortunately my opponent did not choose to take out the UK BB and decided to invest into German ships. Still it took me 20 rounds to win. The failed Norwegian attack potentially equals to a bid of 40 (BB, 2-3 INF, 3 IPCs from Norway and the german fig) so it really has to be felt.

    Basically the strategy after the failed gambit does not change very much. Unless Japan really screws things completely you go after Germany because it is your best chance. And you have to be from the R1 more defensive, more effective, more cautious and more stubborn player to win. It is winnable, but it is very difficult. Good luck.

    IV. Conclusion 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.

    Enjoy.


  • Nice article (and I even get quoted :-D)

    I agree with nearly all of it, but i’d like to emphasize the following points:

    1. It is crucial that the Russian stack on WR survives any G1 attack. Which means that R needs to get everything it can, including all the inf on Archangel. It is nice to have an spare inf to move to Karelia to stop the G armor on EE from blitzing to Norway but if R loses too many units on that attack then you should reinforce WR at all costs. You can always keep Caucasus fortified with 6 units (the 2 from Kaz plus new builds) - if the Germans decide to take a swing at it they will have to use their expensive armor to take it and then you can simply retake it on R2, along with Ukraine.
    2. The rest of the strategy really depends on the Allied player’s choice, either KGF or with a US Pacific. One thing to point out though is that most likely the US will need a 2nd defense fleet, either on SZ2/8 to protect the transports shuck-shuck from E. Can to the UK from Axis bombers.
  • '16 '15 '10

    Interesting write-up.

    I will give this a shot in low luck, and see how it goes.  It’s a different sort of game for me because I’m used to the Black Sea sub gambit, but if I went with the Norway too I would need to buy another fig to do it, and that’s too risky for consideration.

    I’m reluctant to attempt this in dice because I’d be scared of bad luck at West Russia and then getting destroyed G1.  But against a strong enough opponent, I might conclude the risk is worth it.

    It’s very difficult to evaluate this strategy in the context of dice games.  If the gambit works, it’s a totally different game then if the gambit doesn’t work.  Hence the need for low luck games to test it out.

    Looking forward to playing this and having it played against me and seeing how it goes.


  • @Zhukov:  Low luck is not like dice in much the same way that a hamster is not like a large moon rock.  :lol:  Also, Granada specifies not buying a R1 fighter.

    The validity of a strategy in low luck is completely irrelevant to its validity in dice, and vice versa.  If you propose a Russian triple in dice, your preferred excitement and/or sanity level probably includes things like bungee jumping naked from a suspension bridge to meet your in-laws for the first time.  If you propose a Russian triple in low luck, your penchant for excitement probably extends to Meatloaf Thursdays at the retirement home.  Which is not to say that Meatloaf Thursdays are not exciting; I am personally quite fond of meatloaf.

    Saying the strategy “works” if it works in low luck means nothing for its validity in dice.

    Another way of looking at it is this - let’s say that we have a six sided die, and decide to ignore 1 and 2 as being “low” and 5 and 6 as being “high”.  Basing our predictive model on this, we find that when we add the sums of these “low luck dice” when, say, 1000 dice are thrown, is approximately the same as the sums of regular dice.  That said, we smile and say that we are now Scientists with an Accurate Idea Of How Things Work.  Low Luck involves less of those evil, evil numbers, but gives us about the same results - right?

    However, 66% of the results are being ignored in any throw of a REAL dice when compared to one of these “Low Luck” dice.

    Besides that, Axis and Allies games in dice tend to go down extremely different paths when you get the equivalent of a 1,2,5, or 6.  From that point on, you start going down a whole new road that you never even see in the Low Luck scheme of things.

    Suppose you have a door on your left, a door on your right, and a door in front of you.  Behind each of these doors are another three doors; beyond each of those doors are yet another three doors, and so on.  Low Luck says you’ll always go through the door in the center.  Actual dice say you pick the door randomly every time.  As you can imagine, the sort of view you see when going through a few doors in low luck and going through a few doors in dice tend to end up very differently.


  • I had been thinking of writing a Russian strategy article for a long time and after this post I think I now know what it should focus on, the several openings possible and some clues for mid and late game. Wait for news. :)


  • Nice read, Granada.


  • @football2006:

    Nice read, Granada.

    Yeah, Gran, I think they’re buying it!  :wink:

    Juuust kidding.  It’s a long-standing joke between Gran and me.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Bunnies:

    The validity of a strategy in low luck is completely irrelevant to its validity in dice, and vice versa.

    Saying the strategy “works” if it works in low luck means nothing for its validity in dice.

    There’s some merit to what you are saying but these statements aren’t accurate.  Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls.  IMHO, in order for a strategy to be ‘good’ it should meet the criteria of success given average results.  Isn’t that also the criteria for the ‘validity’ of a strategy?  Low luck shows us these average results.  So yes, low luck experimentation is extremely useful imho.

    Granted, there are some strategies that work better in dice and vice versa.  KJF in Revised is a good example–it thrives on exploiting the sort of below 25% outcomes you never get with low luck.

    It goes without saying there are additional complexities to a dice game that you don’t find in a low luck game.  I think becoming a good low luck player gives me additional perspective on these complexities and potentially makes me a better dice player.

    Anyway, I only brought up the dice/low luck dichotomy to make a point about Granada’s case.

    I don’t believe the Norway Gambit is a good move in dice, unless you have reason to gamble.  If elite players are capable of winning consistently with Ukr/Wr, why risk a Norway Gambit unless I’m up against one of those elite players?

    But Norway could be promising with low luck dice and I’d like to test it further.  I just haven’t seen much of this because it’s been played against me primarily in dice games–where the outcome of the games is heavily dependent on those R1 dice.


  • Many thanks for feedback. I am looking forward to reading Hobbes’ piece on the Russian strategy. His two comments to my article are spot on. I will be keeping just 1 INF on Arch to see whether it is neccassary as reinforcement in WR or it might go to block to KAR. And I have not thought of keeping six units in Cauc yet but I just might start doing this if things go well.

    @Zhukov44:

    I don’t believe the Norway Gambit is a good move in dice, unless you have reason to gamble.  If elite players are capable of winning consistently with Ukr/Wr, why risk a Norway Gambit unless I’m up against one of those elite players?

    I play only dice, I have never tried to play LL. While I accept LL might be good way to test a strategy and might do it myself, I think it ruins the game just because it deprives it of many variants you experience only with good or bad luck. But I know there are LL devotees and I do not want to insult them, it is just that I am a dice stalwart. But while I see the connection Zhuk makes, in general this is an old debate on a different subject.

    My point here is different: are there really any players who win consistantly with WR/UKR? If I am Axis, I like to face this opening most. And in general I would say it leaves both sides with the same chances to win. As a German player I think I will never tire of the sinking of the UK BB R1. :wink:

    But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.


  • @Zhukov44:

    Anybody who is skilled at low luck and dice can tell you low luck is a good testing ground for any strategy–to determine its overall soundness, in the case of average rolls.

    . . . in other words, playing Low Luck games is a good predictor for Low Luck games.

    That bit about being skilled at low luck and dice is just tooting your own horn.  In my opinion, if you really understood the difference between low luck and dice, you wouldn’t be claiming that testing a strategy in low luck has any say towards its validity in dice.  Yeah, that IS inflammatory, but when you make such a strong claim, I leap in with equally strong words for the counter!  (yay internetz!  do not try this in real life, kids . . . you’ll put an eye out . . . real life disagreements are usually best avoided . . .)

    Playing dice means doing risk management - in particular figuring out what battles are high risk high reward, and figuring the possibilities of failing at make or break battles.  This simply does not come into play in low luck games.  All you do in low luck is count up hits and casualties; you know the result of a battle with extremely high probability when compared to dice, you need only commit relatively minimal forces when compared to dice, and you absolutely never have to figure on contingency plans in case of poor round 1 dice in low luck - at least HARDLY so when compared to dice.

    On the other hand, the ease of predicting outcomes in low luck means a player needs to do all the hit and casualty counts for at least one entire round in advance, because the opponent will easily be able to exploit any openings.

    How about a bit of substantiation for what I’m saying?

    Let’s say you have a Low Luck battle of 32 tanks against 30 tanks for a capital.  Under Low Luck rules, the attacker ALWAYS wins.  Under dice, though, the attacker loses about 25%.    After the first round in dice, the odds are extremely high that neither attacker nor defender got the exact “average” number of hits, and that drastically changes the numbers going into the second round, and so on and so forth.  So in dice, the attacker needs to look at board position.  If the attacker is probably going to lose, the attack should be made, for a 75% chance of a high IPC swing.  If the attacker is winning anyways, the attack probably should not be made, so the 75% chance of a high IPC swing can be increased to 80% or more.  If the attacker is winning in some places and losing in others, the attacker needs to size up the situation.  But in any case, in dice the attacker needs to plan for what will happen if the first round of combat doesn’t go well, which is something the attacker NEVER needs to do in Low Luck.

    Try carrying out a few dummy battles in TripleA of 32 tanks vs 30 tanks using dice.  You will very quickly see exactly what I mean, especially when you start throwing a few odd assorted destroyers/carriers/transports/infantry/fighters/artillery on the board to complicate the situation.  Under Low Luck, it’s a no-brainer.  Under dice, you have to consider contingency plans.

    How about another example?

    In Low Luck, 2 infantry 2 bombers attacking 6 infantry is not a monumentally stupid idea, because under low luck, the defenders always get exactly 2 hits.  But in dice, there’s a pretty good chance that attack loses a bomber.  Repeatedly doing 2 infantry 2 bombers vs 6 infantry in a dice game will lose the attacker games.

    . . . and another example

    Under dice, a Russian triple attack will usually fail at one or more points, leaving the attacker open to a nasty German counterattack.  But under low luck, none of the attacks in a Russian triple need “fail”, because the results are so rigidly controlled.

    More specifically, under dice, you can do three Russian attacks on R1 with around 62%, 62% and 82% (something like that) chances of success.  If you succeed at all of them, you’ll do great, but a little dice deviation at any, and you fail.  It’s not a question of failing all the Russian attacks, just one leaves you open to a counter, and with 38%, 38%, and 16% chances of failure, there’s good odds the Russians will fail at at least one of those points.

    But under Low Luck, the deviations are slashed, so it’s just a question of degrees of success.

    For a real world example - let’s say you have a betting game in which you have 10 coins and flip them all.  The single best chance is that there will be 5 heads and 5 tails.  Let’s say you can choose between two bets; 5 heads and 5 tails which pays out at 2 to 1, and any other result which also pays out at 2 to 1.

    Run this game under “low luck”, and you get real rich real fast if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails.  If you bet on “anything else” under “low luck”, you’ll lose all your money instantly.

    Run this game under “dice”, and you’ll lose all your money in time if you always bet on 5 heads 5 tails.  If you bet on “anything else”, though, you make money hand over fist.

    Considering the best strategies for this game are literally opposite between “dice” and “low luck”, how can anyone say that low luck strategies are good for dice and vice versa?

    I give the PEOPLE’S ELBOW to that!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3Zi6t7W4s


  • Re: the old shingle about dice vs. low luck:

    I don’t claim greater skill is necessary to play one or the other.  I just say different skill sets are required.

    But I will say that you don’t hang fuzzy “low luck” on your rearview mirror.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Bunnies I already conceded that there are many different factors and levels to a dice game that aren’t present in a low luck game.

    My point was that low luck is an excellent testing ground for the overall effectiveness of a grand strategy against average dice.  Nothing you said in your post indicates I am wrong about this.  Your examples are about battle-to-battle tactics and are beside the point.  Deviations in dice are also beside the point–of course a good dice player needs to take dice deviations into account, and that a dice game requires a more engrossing analysis of multiple risk factors.  Yes, tactics in dice are considerably more complex. But that’s tactics–not strategy.  A good strategy is going to take the law of averages into account–and low luck games will give you a good idea what the law of averages is.

    Anyway this is a pointless tangent and I don’t want to distract from Granada’s thread.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Granada:

    But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.

    The thing is, the chances of something going bad are greater than 20%.  That is, there is the probability of clearing Nor with 1 fig or less or not taking it (approx 20%) in addition to the probability of taking WR but losing 4 or more inf (approx 20%).  So taken together the probability of something going bad in this opening is more like 30%, and the consequences depend on the severity of the dicing.

    Of course, if you are playing someone who you know would otherwise have your number, then a 70/30 risk could very well be worthwhile.

    One more thing I wonder about the Nor gambit is what to do with the German sub.  I guess I usually take out the lone UK tran, but maybe it’s a better move to go for the USA fleet (50/50 odds).  I still kinda like going for the lone trn because so many players sacrifice the USA fleet USA1 anyway.


  • I tried the Norwegian Gambit last night with LL. I hadn’t tried it myself for a while (but I’ve played a few times against it) and decided to have a swing at it.

    Russia bought 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr. Took Norway with 1 inf, 1 arm remaining, landed 1 ftr on Karelia. Ended turn with 10 units in WR and 6 on Caucasus. G replied with a bomber and inf buy and conquered Caucasus, Norway and Karelia, plus Egypt for a total of 46 IPCs.

    The thing with this strat is how much it turns the Eastern front into a meat grinder for units. If G had bought instead 5 armor + 5 inf (my usual counter for the Gambit) it could have made things harder for the Russians. Instead, what happened was:

    • G permanently lost Norway on R2 to the UK
    • G bought 1 plane each round, ending up with 7 fighters and 6 bombers
    • Russia was a bit low on units at the beginning of R3 since it hadn’t placed any on the Caucasus and had to kill 3 German armor + art on R2 to retake it, plus attacking Kar, BR and Ukr
    • But since the German army had also taken such a blow on the 2 first rounds the Allies were able to keep the Eastern front under control, with UK/US landings and prevent the Germans from advancing.
    • Meanwhile the Russians turned most of its production to holding Japan, along with UK/US assistance, mainly armor landed on the Europe
    • Game ended with the Axis conceding on round 12 - the German airforce never had a chance of sinking the main Allied fleet and the while the Japanese fleet ended up sinking the US transport fleet it was also obliterated on the US counterattack. Meanwhile the Allies were earning 1/3 to 1/2 more than the Axis, so the writing was on the wall.
    • It was an unusual game on Asia: the Russians had managed to send a huge army into Sinkiang, forcing the main Japanese army to retreat from Yak into Buryatia to protect their Manchurian IC but losing temporarily Kwantung and FIC.

    All of this to say that the sucess of the Gambit also depends on the German response: if G attacks Caucasus and follows with a large armour buy then they may have a shot at controlling Karelia or Ukraine by G3 since there won’t be much Russians left after the 2 initial turns.


  • @Zhukov44:

    A good strategy is going to take the law of averages into account–and low luck games will give you a good idea what the law of averages is.

    well i’m convinced.  for a strategy to be really considered viable i think it would have to work in low luck.  if it doesn’t work in LL, then you don’t have any reasonable expectation for that strategy to succeed.  i don’t expect the opposite would be true, however.  therefore a reasonable position is that LL could be a sort of litmus test, failure in low luck meaning don’t bother in dice.


  • Hobbes, thanks for playtesting.  :-D

    Two comments:

    @Hobbes:

    • Russia was a bit low on units at the beginning of R3 since it hadn’t placed any on the Caucasus and had to kill 3 German armor + art on R2 to retake it, plus attacking Kar, BR and Ukr

    I think this is the reason why i prefere to leave cauc with just one unit.

    @Hobbes:

    All of this to say that the sucess of the Gambit also depends on the German response: if G attacks Caucasus and follows with a large armour buy then they may have a shot at controlling Karelia or Ukraine by G3 since there won’t be much Russians left after the 2 initial turns.

    And there is another thing: I do not buy the other russian fig R1 but rather have 2 tnks. I know it is counter-intuitive, but you really do not need the other fighter as much as the 2 tnks early on in the game. Thus you can have 7 more units after R2…  :wink:


  • @Zhukov44:

    @Granada:

    But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.

    The thing is, the chances of something going bad are greater than 20%.  That is, there is the probability of clearing Nor with 1 fig or less or not taking it (approx 20%) in addition to the probability of taking WR but losing 4 or more inf (approx 20%).  So taken together the probability of something going bad in this opening is more like 30%, and the consequences depend on the severity of the dicing.

    I do not think our numbers are the same. You have 89 % of taking kar with 1 unit surviving. It sometimes happens that you have the last attacking fig and a tnk on the last German fig. You usually kill the G fig, and get R tnk killed. It does not change that much. You killed that nasty fig. I think this is the worst of the 89% it can get.

    Attacking WR with 8inf, 2 art, 3tnk, leaves you winning with 10,54 units, when you are really fine with nine. Cannot tell what is the likelihood you will be on 8 or less, but i guess it should not be much over 10 %. On this acount my estimate is about 20 % the combined likelihood one of the two things goes wrong.

    Did I make any mistake in the risk assesment?

  • '16 '15 '10

    My post above was based on 2 aa calcs

    http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=9&aArt=2&aArm=3&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=1&dArm=1&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    WR
      5.84% 14: 9 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
      21.34% 13: 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
      29.14% 12: 7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
      23.98% 11: 6 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
      12.78% 10: 5 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 4 Inf. : 12 IPCs
      4.96% 9: 4 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 5 Inf. : 15 IPCs
      1.38% 8: 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 6 Inf. : 18 IPCs
      0.46% 7: 2 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 7 Inf. : 21 IPCs
      0.08% 6: 1 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 8 Inf. : 24 IPCs
      0.02% 5: 2 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf. : 27 IPCs
      0.02% 4: 1 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf, 1 Art. : 31 IPCs

    http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=&aArm=1&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=1&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    Nor
      1.98% 6: 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. no units. : 0 IPCs
      12.48% 5: 2 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
      23.46% 4: 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
      25.1% 3: 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
      17.78% 2: 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm. : 14 IPCs
      8.12% 1: 1 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig. : 24 IPCs
      11.08% 0: no units. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. : 34 IPCs

    So yeah my numbers for Nor were 8% (1 fig remains) plus 11% (defeat)=19% for Nor, plus 13% (4 inf die) plus 5% (5 inf die) plus 2% (6+ ind die) for WR.

    I’m not sure how to do the numbers to determine the probability that one of the battles will go bad (eg defined as taking Nor with 1 unit or less or losing 4 or more at WR), but I believe its at least 25%, possibly as high as 30%.

    It may be that we have different criteria for the success of Nor also.  IMO if Russia loses all its units or all but 1 unit at Nor the attack was not a success and Russia would have been better off with WR/Ukr.

    Also, if Russia has 10 units in WR, then Germany has a 76% chance of clearing it with 2 figs, and 89% with 3 figs, 94% with 4 figs.  So I think 10 is borderline–its definitely not safe with 9 units.


  • Good post by Zhukov about the probability breakdown.

    @ Granada:  I already agree on R1 NOT purchasing a fighter - in a close game, it’s best to concentrate on ground units.  But why 3 inf 3 tanks on R1?  Why not, say, 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank?  For battles with 1-3 ground units on each side, artillery are like cheap tanks - for example, inf/art vs 1 inf is about 5% worse overall than inf/tank, but is also 1 IPC less expensive, which adds up pretty quickly.

    Is it specifically because you’re trying to avoid a G1 capture and hold of Karelia?


  • Another thing me and Zhukov were discussing the other night is that the survival of the UK BB also means that G will survive with other units:

    • The sub on SZ8 can be sent to SZ1 to sink the transport (-7 IPC for UK) while the sub survives (+6 for G)
    • The fighter on Ukraine survives (0 IPC gained since G would lose a fig anyways) and can be used with the bomber to attack Egypt, allowing in theory for at least 1 more German ground to survive the assault
    • The 2nd Russian fighter dies (-10 IPC for R)

    So, according to average results the situation is essentially the same regarding gains/losses. Tactically, if the Germans retake Norway the UK may be able to take it, unless Germany buys 1 bomber and manage to land 4 fighters on W. Eur and the other bomber in range on SZ3. In that case it is impossible for the UK to take Norway without risking the destruction of its fleet (assuming a 1 AC, 2 DD buy).

    @Granada:

    I am looking forward to reading Hobbes’ piece on the Russian strategy.

    The 1st part was posted today to the Articles section. It is an overview of its objectives and the map board. 2nd part dealing with tactics may take longer…

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 3
  • 3
  • 5
  • 9
  • 3
  • 5
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts