• 2007 AAR League

    Your thoughts??


  • I have always been a fan of keeping UK’s income up and having them take Norway.

    Also, it allows the UK to be the lead in an advance, with USA following up on each UK move (a tried and true tactic that I ignored in my current game and which ultimately will lead to my defeat in the near future).


  • I say Japan.  :roll: but  russia shoudn’t difert the resouces on the us shouldn’t have the time to do so that leaves the uk. also it is very easy for the uk to trade back and forth( hopetfull this shouldn’t happen) and also what else ar they going to attack while they wait for france to weaken.

  • 2007 AAR League

    if russia can take it, I say let em.

    however, if USA can take it, I prefer USA.


  • It is better for the US to take Norway than it is the UK or Russia, so the US can set up an industrial complex there.  However, it is very difficult for the US to retain control of Norway early, and if the Allies leave Norway alone so the US can take it later, then Germany gets those three additional IPCs every turn.

    I will not go into the mechanics at this time.


  • If i am the US/UK, or Russia, i would prefer that Russia takes Norway.  If i am Germany/Japan, i prefer that the US/UK take Norway. 
    I don’t ever see the US building an IC in norway in my games - it just never happens that way.
    Russia usually can take Nor w/ little effort in the 2nd/3rd turn.  Then it holds it for the rest of the game.  This is one extra infantry for free.  Of course this would be true for the UK/US, BUT Russia needs that extra infantry much more than the us/uk needs the extra 3 ipcs.  AFterall - Sea Lion is rare, as is any attack on the US.  However to stave off the attacks on Moscow and allow for the machines of the UK/US to reach Europe, then Russia needs as much delaying ability as it can have.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Yes, Norway should be taken as soon as strategically possible.  No one should ever wait if norway is open for the taking.

    However, which country takes it depends on what the Allied strategy is.

    Building an IC in USA depends on a few things though.  Basically, if there is no aa available, then maybe not a good idea.  If Germany has secured Leningrad, not a good idea.

    However, if US is going KGF, and the option is available, it’s not a bad investment.


  • Ideally I would love it if Russia could take it that extra INF every turn with little needed to defend it (contingent upon the Axis Navy) would help a great deal. If I had to pick a second place it would have to be UK because the US already makes just under what Russia and the UK make together.

    -LT04


  • Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US


  • wow you make a good point. I always thought that the US having the most income and for the most part never looses it needed Norway the least, but the US has the most income and therefore should take Norway b/c they won’t miss the income is a better idea.

    -LT04


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US

    IF russia was in countrol of st, petersburg then i say it would make more sense for the US to take it but this is usally not the case. so the uk should take it beacuse the are with in immediate threat to it and should not give norway an extra in axis hans so that the us can trade norway with germany. the us usally goes to africa in the first place so that dealys the time it has to go to norway.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    My thoughts exactly.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    Russian held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    UK held Norway.  Additional infantry.  Big whoop.
    US held Norway.  Industrial complex.  Three tanks.  kewwwl.

    Russia shouldn’t need an additional infantry if the Allies are doing their job in the first place.

    UK should be taking an IPC hit from Africa, but should recover pretty quickly.

    US has to spend 15 IPC on an industrial complex to get 3 tanks a turn in Europe with 9 attack.  You need FOUR transports to get two sets of two transports going through from E. Can to London, and London to Europe, and that only gets you two infantry and two tank with 8 attack.  Two inf two tank is superior to three tank, but spending 15 IPC vs 32 IPC makes it a good deal for the US

    key question:

    how many rounds should the allies wait (if given the chance) to let US take Norway?

    one round?  Certainly
    two rounds… perhaps
    three rounds…?  Is that worth it?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ditto on Coberts post.


  • My own overriding thought on Norway…

    3 IPC not going to Germany and instead held by the Allies…  GREAT!

    If I am playing the Allies, I don’t care who has it, so long as it is not Germany or Japan.  :mrgreen:


  • If it were easy to chose which country obtained Norway, then I would want the Russians to have it. They need the money more than any of the other allies. They are always in the most immediate danger.

    The USA would do well with Norway because they could afford to build a factory there any start pouring out tanks.

    However, England is always in the easiest position to take it (with USA following up with reinforcements) and Russia usually attacking German units in Karelia on their turn.

    At any rate, as long as the allies have it, they should be happy.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I like the UK with Norway.  If I can keep UKs income above 30 (Norway, Africa) then I am not only shuttling 4 loaded transports per turn to Europe, but I also have additional income to help Threaten German shores even more.  Whether buying a fighter, an extra trn, or just filling my transports with 1 inf 1 arm, I am putting the screws to Germany and forcing them to protect their core territories (WEU, GER, EEU) that much more.  The more they have to protect home territories, the less they have to pressure Russia.


  • I have fallen in love with the idea of the US taking Norway b/c I build an IC in India and another in Australia or S Africa. I like the UK to focus on those to slow down Japan. If the US could take Norway and build an IC and boost Russia’s front line with 3 tanks every turn, unless the US also builds a navy and augments Russia with additional forces the allies would be as my uncle always says “they’d be standing in tall cotton.”

    -LT04

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’d like to see your UK in action some time.  I haven’t seen a good UK IC strat yet.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Asia wall dont work


  • @ezto:

    Asia wall dont work

    Depends on your purpose.

    If used correctly, it CAN be effective.  But the risk (for both dice and error) is greater than with a traditional KGF.


  • RJ,

    My UK game is very contingent upon what happens on J1. If they are very aggressive on the mainland my UK suffers heavily initially. Typically I like to place a IC on India and S Africa. India produces a ARM INF mix at first then moves to only INF. The S Africa IC only produces ARM to at first push Germany out of Africa then push to India. Granted it doesn’t always work like that depending on other matters, but that’s my ideal starting strategy for the UK.

    I hope that didn’t take us off the Norway subject to much.  😄

    -LT04


  • If you care gong to spend $30 (the cost of 2 IC’s), a better option would be to build a WCan IC and 2 TRN for $31 IPCs.

    By building in WCan, you can build 3 units (the same as india), and with the extra TRN, UK can re-take Africa without drawing force off their European landings.  It also allows you to increase the amount of punch on a European landing anytime you choose.

    An India IC without a US IC is asking for trouble in most cases, and usually ends up as a cost savings to Japan of $15, as well as being able to produce in India a turn faster than if they had to build their own IC.

  • 2007 AAR League

    u mean Eca?


  • Oops, yes, sorry.  EASTERN Canada.

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 8
  • 2
  • 38
  • 1
  • 17
  • 17
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

65
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts