• I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
    There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

    There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.


  • @Advosan:

    I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
    There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

    There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.

    G can retake all 3 territories and destroy most of the Russian army in the process. And losing WR on G1 is bad for Russia.


  • @Hobbes:

    @Advosan:

    I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
    There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

    There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.

    G can retake all 3 territories and destroy most of the Russian army in the process. And losing WR on G1 is bad for Russia.

    :-D This is surely not a spin-off of the NG. If it was a move with japanese I would call it a seppuka move. Don’t believe in any psychological demage in AAA. The difference to real war is that the player can plainly sea all of the battlefield all of the time. So against a cold-blooded experienced player any attempts to do a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” move are likely to end up in a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” on the wrong side of the table. Never do a triple attack in V4.


  • @Granada:

    @Hobbes:

    @Advosan:

    I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
    There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

    There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.

    G can retake all 3 territories and destroy most of the Russian army in the process. And losing WR on G1 is bad for Russia.

    :-D This is surely not a spin-off of the NG. If it was a move with japanese I would call it a seppuka move. Don’t believe in any psychological demage in AAA. The difference to real war is that the player can plainly sea all of the battlefield all of the time. So against a cold-blooded experienced player any attempts to do a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” move are likely to end up in a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” on the wrong side of the table. Never do a triple attack in V4.

    I m just kidding :-D, I know you are right. Fortifying WR is the single most importand thing for R1-and for every round acctually. Losing WR “decapitates” the russian frontline, and this is IMHO the only major weakness of the NG: It leaves WR troops exposed to a devastating G counter, and combined with a 5 inf-5 arm purchase Europe will become a no man’s land for the Russians pretty fast.


  • @El:

    By the way, is there a short and sexy name for the R1 Ukraine attack? Norway Gambit sounds sweet, but “Standard R1 Ukraine attack” is kinda dull… Ukraine Bash, Ukraine Crush, Ukraine Beats?

    Sigh pretentious names . . .
    Call it Russian Bear Rampage, or whatever as you please.  Only don’t expect anyone to understand you.


  • @Advosan:

    I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
    There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

    There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.

    Cute name for it Advosan!  (I hate cute names . . .)

    I personally would call the Nor/WR/Ukr attack “Stalin’s Nightmare” or perhaps “Three Little Bears Wander Into A Wolf’s Lair” or “Russian Roulette”

    The odds are good that at least one of the attacks fails, and depending on dice results, you can set Germany up for TURBO TANK DASH, which is about ten times nastier than a regular German tank dash.  Basically Germany forgoes Africa, lands enough units in Caucasus to hold it against the UK1 fighter/bomber/infantry combo, whacks West Russia with the Belorussia infantry and air, then Japan flies in 4 fighters to reinforce Caucasus, leaving Russia unable to recapture.  G2 sees the G1 tank build rush into Ukraine, while Germany starts popping units out on Moscow’s doorstep, while Germany doesn’t even have to recapture Western Europe from UK - it’s IPCs in UK’s bank, but UK can’t mount any sort of serious threat to Berlin or Rome, while Moscow’s about to break in half.

    This whole scenario is pretty much impossible for a WR/Ukr attack, but a Nor/WR/Ukr sets it up.

    If you’re talking about playing Low Luck, better mention that.  Low Luck is a house rule.  Dice is the default.


  • In all seriousness, the names are useful when you’re typing up a strategy post and need short references like NG. Ukraine Opening will do just as fine, if it sticks (but still less cool than Norwegian Gambit).


  • @El:

    In all seriousness, the names are useful when you’re typing up a strategy post and need short references like NG. Ukraine Opening will do just as fine, if it sticks (but still less cool than Norwegian Gambit).

    Clarity > Coolness.

    Although just CHECK out my new profile image and saying.  Yeah.


  • @Bunnies:

    @El:

    In all seriousness, the names are useful when you’re typing up a strategy post and need short references like NG. Ukraine Opening will do just as fine, if it sticks (but still less cool than Norwegian Gambit).

    Clarity > Coolness.

    Although just CHECK out my new profile image and saying.  Yeah.

    How about instead of TURBO TANK DASH,
    we call a German response to a failed triple;

    Rapid Attack Plan Epsilon
    Or “RAPE” for short. :-D


  • We have talked a lot about the cases when NG does not or might not work. Let me for once tell you a story of how it looks when it actually works, a story of a perfect Norwegian gambit I would say. A Norwegian Gambit when you enter Berlin with russian tanks on R4  :mrgreen:.

    You do everything as usual in R1, you get good dice, so you leave 6inf, 2 art, 3 tnk on WR, you have 3 units left on Norway, you have 2 infs and the lame fig on Kar and 6 units on cauc.

    Germany takes AE, takes Kar, builds defensively only ground units and does not kill SZ1, but uses the sub on SZ 13, thus preserving all subs (cru does not hit) and all 5 figs.

    UK takes back AE and luckily with all 3 infs surviving, sinks SZ 59, kills the SZ5 trannie, and builds AC, dd, trn, hence having 3 trns on R1 on SZ8: not bad really. The figs land on WR, the Indian Ocean fig plus the bmb land on Belgian congo.

    Japy does some ussual shimy shumy as she usually does on China and Pearl, builds an IC and something else.

    US builds 3 trns, AC and inf plus art, thus having 6 units to move off EUS, plus four on UK with the trns and cru on SZ8. Lands 2 figs on UK AC SZ8. Bmb kills the dd SZ7.

    Russia R2 builds 3infs and 4 tnks, because I really love having 10 R tanks on R2 and story of this game will show you why.

    G2 is a major mistake since the guy really does not feel like losing the med fleet so he builds an AC and fortifies Libya like Kaddafi.

    He gets KAr, bel and ukr but just, and fortifies WEU.

    UK is cold as ice and does not move anywhere from SZ8, build 3 more trannies and ground units, so it has 6 full trannies to unload R3. And moves all air to cauc. Retreats 2 units from AE leaving there just one, and keeping 3 on Kenya (one is the original SA guy) and 2 in India, with 2 on the aussie trannie in SZ 30.

    J goes west with its ships which is really interesting, it tooks Hawaii, bury, sink, and gets some more guys to FIC, to invade india, where the 2 annoying gurkhas were able to keep it for her majesty on UK1 and UK2 really.

    US2 builds 2 more trannies /so it has 8 o them which is all it needs really/ and 7 ground units in order to have 8 units ready to be shipped off Eastern Canada from R3 on (one of the 8 being the AA gun from EUS).

    R3 Russia is having real feast since Germany is fighting for Med like a fire engine going to a wrong fire. So it takes Karelia, with 7 infs and 10 tnks, it takes bel and ukr too.

    Germany on R3 makes another real bad decision because some mistakes tend to produce more mistakes and builds another AC on med. The guy does not want to lose the ships including the AC he has build the previous round. So it ends with trying but not taking UKR, trying but not taking bel, leaving one guy on EE, and having BB, 2 ACs, 3 subs and 4 figs off Italy, but only 5 inf, 1 bmb and  2 figs on Berlin. Impressive. Just for the record: Germany takes AE with three units.

    UK uses its trannie that on R1 moved the guy from NZ to Aus, and on R2 moved 2 guys od Aus to SZ30 to move the 2  infs to AE where they merge with 3 infs from Italian East Africa (2 retreated from AE, 1 came from Kenya) and since there are 4 planes from cauc, they kill all three Ger units on AE with not a single hit back, thus taking AE with 5 infs. UK also moves everything it can to Norway, setting up the fleet SZ3. The important thing is the US figs move on board of the UKs AC.

    Japs come with really strong fleet to South Atlantic, take india, Sink and yakut, but they are nowhere near anything important really.

    US kills the Gerrys EE guy with bmb and 2 figs off the Uk AC SZ3. Just for the record, the Gerry did not strike back. They move the fleet to SZ 3 too and all UK units to Norway, 4 trannies are there at SZ 3, 4 others are at SZ1 with the bb, and there are 8 ground units on ECanada, there are also 3 infs and 4 tnks at WUS to keep the japs honest, and 4 infs on EUS.

    Round 4: Russia attacks Berlin with 10 tanks taking it 5 tanks remaining. Russian also take balkans. Although Gerrys were able to retake it, Axis player resigns before the round ends. It is obvious Allies would prevail not before too long.


  • @Granada:

    Let me for once tell you a story of how it looks when it actually works, a story of a perfect Norwegian gambit I would say.

    The description of the game is way too vague to get a real concrete grasp on exactly what happened.  Sounds like Allies got very lucky on multiple early rounds in Africa, Germany screwed around with too much Med fleet.  Besides that, it seems Japan messed around without focus evinced by its attack on Hawaiian islands on J2, while Germany either really got screwed on dice or messed up its buys and moves on G3, or both.

    If that’s true, the game doesn’t speak much to the validity of the Norwegian Gambit (i.e. two fighters to Norway on Russia’s first turn).  Allies had good luck, Axis screwed around; all the Allies had to do was avoid tripping and falling on their own swords.

    The way I see it, WR/Ukr is a ‘safe’ opening for the Allies; even if things go badly, noncombat moves and unit placement minimizes the damage the Germans can do.  But Norway is ‘dangerous’.  If things go badly with Norway/WR, the Germans can SMASH the Russians, and there isn’t much the Allies can do except hope for some extremely crappy G1 dice.

    (edit) - I would say the Norway two-fighter opening has one advantage - if you’re going against an Axis player that doesn’t know how to counter properly, and that isn’t able to improvise an effective counter, then with average to good dice, you will have a better edge than you would with a WR/Ukr open.

    BUT I would say if the Axis player IS prepared, the Norway opening is at best only a little better, if that.  Early game, the Russians lose a fighter; mid to late game if Norway is in Russian hands, UK doesn’t have Norway income (which I am increasingly thinking is very imporant in the face of UK territory losses in Africa/Asia/Pacific).  If Norway is still in Russian hands and Moscow falls, the Allies will lose that many IPCs in income as Norway becomes effectively dead territory.  Yes, Norway in Russian hands increases Russian income, but in a worse-case (not worst case) scenario, the Allies can really afford to lose Moscow - and if they do, Norway in Russian hands does the Allies no good, but if Norway is owned by anyone else, the Allies can at least contest it.


  • Bunny, here you go again.

    We all know the criticism, all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully. Of course, Allies were blessed with some kind dice early on, of course the Axis game was suboptimal to say the least because Germany really should not be sinking IPCs in the water, but it does not diminish my joy of having Russian tanks in Berlin R4. Priceless.

    On balance, I have to say the only recent time when I felt I was thouroughly outplayed, the guy, apperantly an old Revised Pro at the end of the game told me the only mistake I made was going Norway R1 since “all the senior players agree, it is way too risky”.  :-D I think the guy has meant it as a flatter but in fact he was just adding an insult to an injury.

    So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Granada:

    So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?

    That’s basically the jist of it.  Norway was/is popular because since it works 80%+, it’s the sort of risk that might increase Allied winning percentages against most Axis strategies.

    Logically, if you think you are better then your opponent and will beat him over the long game, then you shouldn’t try NG R1, because the risk is too high.  This is part of the reasoning of experts not doing it….  For me the main case FOR NG is in cases where you have great respect for your opponent and need a leg up.  For example, Lukalion and El_Ravager both do (or did) alot better with Allies than many experts in expert-on-expert settings, and alot of that has to do with NG R1.

    Hobbes has been endeavoring to demonstrate that if Axis is capable of changing up and taking more risks following NG R1, then the Axis’ situation following a successful NG R1 is not as bad as it might seem; and that in fact it’s possible NG is not a good risk at all.  His arguments are very interesting…I wish I had some time to test em.


  • @Granada:

    Bunny, here you go again.

    We all know the criticism, all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully. Of course, Allies were blessed with some kind dice early on, of course the Axis game was suboptimal to say the least because Germany really should not be sinking IPCs in the water, but it does not diminish my joy of having Russian tanks in Berlin R4. Priceless.

    Nothing like winning that Battle of Berlin award! :D

    @Zhukov44:

    Hobbes has been endeavoring to demonstrate that if Axis is capable of changing up and taking more risks following NG R1, then the Axis’ situation following a successful NG R1 is not as bad as it might seem; and that in fact it’s possible NG is not a good risk at all.  His arguments are very interesting…I wish I had some time to test em.

    Next game you play with Axis check the Case Blue strategy I’ve outlined on the Article Submission section and do the West Russia counterattack with Germany, regardless of Russia doing a Norwegian Gambit or not. In most cases you’ll have the odds on theory to win WRus, the main problem is really the will to sacrifice most of the Luftwaffe due to that Russian AA.
    The more I’ve been thinking (and playing) the more I’m convinced that it is one of the best Axis openings, to hit West Russia on G1. And NG just makes it even juicier - 1 Russian fighter destroyed and a large portion of the Russian army diverted to a side territory, while the German units on Ukraine and Belo remain intact… priceless :)


  • @Zhukov44:

    the main case FOR NG is in cases where you have great respect for your opponent and need a leg up.

    Yeah, good call.  I agree.

    But also NG is good in my opinion if you think you are much better than your opponent.  If NG gets diced, then you gave yourself a challenging game.  If NG doesn’t get diced, you end the game quicker.  It’s a win-win.  :-D

    It’s also a decent opening if you’re playing Allies, and are having problems dealing with German bomber buy strategies.

    Like Hobbes writes, it’s a lot about West Russia on G1, but I’d also mention Caucasus.

    Since this thread has gone on a bit, I’ll recap the arguments for each side as I see it.

    Germany’s attack on G1 (Germany’s first turn) gets big bonuses if it can successfully take West Russia, and even more if Caucasus can be thrown in.  A NG opening helps Germany with that goal by dropping five units (3 infantry 1 tank and the Moscow fighter which at best lands on Karelia where Germany destroys it on G1)

    Germany taking West Russia is important because West Russia is where Russia needs to be to contest Karelia (2 IPC), Belorussia (2 IPC), and Ukraine (3 IPC).  If Germany breaks West Russia, that usually means Russia is down some income and Germany up some income.  It doesn’t SEEM like a big deal, one or two 2-3 IPC territories, but it does add up.

    Germany taking Caucasus is usually not a good idea, because Caucasus is usually not a viable target for G1.  Sure, Germany can often take Caucasus on G1 but at ruinous cost; on R2 Russia reclaims Caucasus and since Germany paid such a high cost to take Caucasus in the first place, Germany is then too weak to do anything useful.  Even if Germany takes Caucasus on G1 and starts with an eight tank build, that still sets up an R2 reclaim of Caucasus, followed by a G2 stall where at best Germany can move tanks to Ukraine - Russia can hit Ukraine and kill a lot of valuable tanks, or can use its R2 hold of Caucasus to put its R3 build in Caucasus to stall out the Germans.

    BUT the situation changes if West Russia and Caucasus can BOTH be hit by Germany.  Sure, Russia can reclaim both West Russia and Caucasus, and Germany is not very strong, but Russia itself is very weak after losing so much.  This usually means Germany can contest West Russia or Caucasus or both on G2, which makes things much more difficult for Russia, especially if both Japan and Germany focus on tank push.  Granted, hitting West Russia and Caucasus usually means make or break for the entire game on G1.  But it’s decent odds, especially if Russia opens with a Norway attack that sacks five units from the West Russia-Caucasus front.  If you open with a West Russia/Ukraine attack, you’re hitting German units that can hit West Russia and Caucasus.  If you open with Norway, you’re hitting Germany units that couldn’t hit West Russia or Caucasus anyways, and losing five defenders from the West Russia/Caucasus front.  Besides, you’re losing a Russian fighter which is very useful for trading territory without committing valuable Russian attack units.

    So much for the early Axis game.  How about the early Allied game?

    Preserving the UK battleship allows UK to open with carrier-destroyer-transport, for a possible 2-3 transports to Europe on UK2 instead of 1-2.  UK is almost guaranteed to be able to use the battleship’s support shot ability on most turns, with so many targets to choose from.  If Germany DOES do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US will have an easy time of building protective fleets, with Germany’s airforce weak.  If Germany does NOT do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US can use the durability of the battleship to discourage German air attacks against the fleet.

    Suppose Germany does WR/Caucasus, and suppose Germany killed the UK Canada transport (worst case for UK)  UK can drop 2 ground to Norway on UK1, threatening 6 ground to Karelia on UK2 (2 from Norway, 4 from transports).

    Suppose Germany didn’t do WR/Caucasus; Germany will likely have 5 fighters 1 bomber; UK will have 1 battleship, 2 fighters, 1 carrier, 1-2 destroyer.  Germany can still kill the Allied fleet with moderately poor to decent odds, but it will definitely be extremely expensive.

    After the first 1-2 rounds, though, things start to be worse for the Allies in my opinion.

    Late-early game:

    What have the Allies gained from preserving the UK battleship?  The ability to drop to Europe a bit faster, a heftier fleet to discourage German air attacks, and the battleship support shot (which is very useful).  But in my opinion that’s about it.  Landing at Algeria on UK1 is still a deathtrap even with a UK battleship.  Landing at Algeria on UK2 was never a problem to begin with depending on the US1 build.

    What have the Axis gained?  If they went West Russia/Caucasus and failed, well, they gained nothing and probably resigned.  If they hit West Russia/Caucasus and succeeded, all the important stuff is happening in Belorussia/West Russia/Caucasus, and it’s happening too fast for the UK’s early drops to make a big difference - this is what I refer to by saying the Norway opening potentially shoots the Allies in the foot.  If they only hit one of West Russia or Caucasus, they’re gaining some IPC advantage or some positional advantage.  Regardless, Russia’s down a fighter.
    Besides all that, Germany can screw with UK/US logistics in Europe by keeping its bomber on Western Europe.  If UK keeps its fleet on the coast for a turn, that offsets the speed advantage it gains from having an early battleship.  If UK doesn’t keep its fleet on the coast, it needs to build more defensive fleet or wait for US defenders, either of which suck up IPCs or time, again offsetting the speed advantage from keeping its battleship.

    Of course, with the Allies ramping up their fleet and reinforcing to Karelia/Archangel, the German front against Russia deteriorates pretty fast.  This usually means Germany has to send units east, rather than west, so Germany usually cannot actually hold Western Europe as a landing spot for its German bombers.  So the Allies do have some counterplay to Germany’s counterplay.

    Late game -

    The usual as the Axis try to secure Caucasus with JAPAN (NOT GERMANY!) and try to secure as much African territory as possible with GERMANY (NOT JAPAN!).  Even though the early to mid game is pretty different with a NG opening, the late game more or less resembles the usual animal, with the exception that Russia is down a fighter so is particularly weaker in its ability to counter both Japan and Germany at the same time.

    Summing up - in my view, the Allies have some potential gains - particularly, Germany may try West Russia/Caucasus and fail, which pretty much means game over.  The Allies have a bit of accelerated development against Europe; though Germany can counter, any German counter probably gives the Russians that much more breathing room.  However, this does not add up to a winning position in general in my opinion, particularly because if Germany tries West Russia/Caucasus and does well at it, probably it’s game over, only this time Allies lose - additionally, the loss of the Russian fighter hurts the Russians pretty quickly.  The loss of the Russian fighter isn’t game-deciding, though, by any means; in fact, I’d say it probably makes very little significant difference until R4+, by which time a single Russian fighter probably wouldn’t have made much difference in the overall game anyways.

    I think NG’s a nice strategy to keep in one’s back pocket.  First, opponents may not be prepared to deal with it.  Second, I think it makes for quicker games, whether win or lose.  Third, it pushes the game in a different direction than usual, so makes things more interesting to players that are jaded with the WR/Ukr open.

    @Granada:

    all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully . . .
    So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?

    Well, when a Russian triple works, that also works beautifully.  Of course, I’d say NG is much less risky than a Russian triple (and also less potentially rewarding).

    Anyways, if you at least are not claiming NG is superior to West Russia/Ukraine, that’s good enough for me.  :evil:

    Truth be told, I like a brutal fast game, so I am MORE likely to use things like Russian triple and two-fighters-to-Norway than most players.


  • @Bunnies:

    Well, when a Russian triple works, that also works beautifully.  Of course, I’d say NG is much less risky than a Russian triple (and also less potentially rewarding).

    Anyways, if you at least are not claiming NG is superior to West Russia/Ukraine, that’s good enough for me.   :evil:

    Truth be told, I like a brutal fast game, so I am MORE likely to use things like Russian triple and two-fighters-to-Norway than most players.

    Russian triple depends on the type of dice. Regular one, 57% odds of winning all 3 battles. LL, 90%. The only bad thing about it is that Russia ends up as spent as Gerrmany once the lead rain stops.


  • What specific moves and buys are you referring to when you mention a 57% on dice for winning all 3 battles for a Russian triple, Hobbes?  I made the odds to be something like 30% at best.


  • @Bunnies:

    What specific moves and buys are you referring to when you mention a 57% on dice for winning all 3 battles for a Russian triple, Hobbes?  I made the odds to be something like 30% at best.

    What formula did you use to calc? Maybe my math skills are a bit rusted…

    EDIT: I think I did it the right way. Odds of winning all 3 battles with regular dice:
    Odds (Ukr/Belo/WRus) = (1/Ukr)(1/Belo)(1/WRus) = (87/100)(73/100)(90/100) = 571490/1000000 = 0.57 = 57%

    Odds of losing all 3 battles:
    (13/100)(27/100)(10/100) = 0.00351 = 0.351%


  • @Hobbes:

    What formula did you use to calc? Maybe my math skills are a bit rusted…

    EDIT: I think I did it the right way. Odds of winning all 3 battles with regular dice:
    Odds (Ukr/Belo/WRus) = (1/Ukr)(1/Belo)(1/WRus) = (87/100)(73/100)(90/100) = 571490/1000000 = 0.57 = 57%

    Odds of losing all 3 battles:
    (13/100)(27/100)(10/100) = 0.00351 = 0.351%

    (re:  earlier posts regarding a Russian Ukr/Belo/WRus attack)

    Hobbes, the discrepancy between your calculated 57% and my 30% arises because the win percentages you list are based on Russia surviving each battle with at least one attacking unit.  The win percentages I used to compute the 30% were based on additional factors.

    For example, the Ukraine attack is 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.  Russia has around 87% to “win” in dice, but that’s considering a single Russian fighter surviving counting as a “win”.

    However, my “win” condition is Russia keeps at least 1 tank and 1 fighter, which changes the percentage for the “win” condition to - maybe 60% or 65%, I forget.  Keeping both tank and fighter alive means Russia keeps its valuable fighter, takes a 3 IPC territory, and most importantly, stops an additional 2 German tanks from blitzing through Ukraine into Caucasus.

    I also factored in retreat conditions.  For example, the Belorussia attack is 3 infantry 1 fighter vs 3 infantry.  Battle calculators usually evaluate fights to the death, not factoring in that an attacker may choose to retreat, for example if 1 Russian fighter were left attacking 1 German infantry.  This also changed the “win” percentage I computed for Belorussia.


  • @Bunnies:

    Hobbes, the discrepancy between your calculated 57% and my 30% arises because the win percentages you list are based on Russia surviving each battle with at least one attacking unit.  The win percentages I used to compute the 30% were based on additional factors.

    For example, the Ukraine attack is 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.  Russia has around 87% to “win” in dice, but that’s considering a single Russian fighter surviving counting as a “win”.

    However, my “win” condition is Russia keeps at least 1 tank and 1 fighter, which changes the percentage for the “win” condition to - maybe 60% or 65%, I forget.  Keeping both tank and fighter alive means Russia keeps its valuable fighter, takes a 3 IPC territory, and most importantly, stops an additional 2 German tanks from blitzing through Ukraine into Caucasus.

    I also factored in retreat conditions.  For example, the Belorussia attack is 3 infantry 1 fighter vs 3 infantry.  Battle calculators usually evaluate fights to the death, not factoring in that an attacker may choose to retreat, for example if 1 Russian fighter were left attacking 1 German infantry.  This also changed the “win” percentage I computed for Belorussia.

    How much Russian units are you bringing into Ukraine round 1? With 3 INF, 1 ART, 3 ARM, 1 FTR that’s a 81% win with 2 Russian units surviving. Bring 1 less armor and you get the 60 something odds you were referring.

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 3
  • 6
  • 9
  • 3
  • 5
  • 7
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

50

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts