BTW, I’m guessing Aretaku’s thinking about 2 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway. Long odds, with a pretty good outcome if successful, but I don’t like the attack myself. I’m a proponent of W. Russia/Belorussia or W. Russia/Ukraine.
Yes, I was advocating 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig.
Yeah these here beer goggles make some things seem BIGGER and some things seem SMALLER. heheehe. 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 fighter, I knew it. Somehow I typed “2” instead. wups.
You have to be careful if Germany has a good first roll, otherwise the fighter is at risk. The odds are long…but I like 'em better than 3 naked tanks in the Ukraine!
I usually do West Russia/Belorussia or two-tank Ukraine if I’m feeling randy. Which I mostly am. naked tanks. yeah baby.
Three games now, and in two I have ended with 1 Arm, 1 Fig remaining in NOR, and one saw 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig survive.
The reason I don’t like doing Norway is I prefer brunettes. But also I don’t like seeing German-held Ukraine and Belorussia on G1; that can end in a nasty early position for Russia if Germany decides to attack with air force and sometimes its Med transport. The Germans have SIX fodder infantry, that’s a lot.
That armor is safe unless Germany wants to waste needed infantry against a UK counter, and it can be used on the following turn to retake Karelia, or wait until Inf/Figs do the job and blitz it back to Archangel. Also, provided that Russia and UK know their stuff, Germany will NEVER get that money back unless they do the turn 1 counter, and follow it up with Baltic fleet investment, which is not always feasible. A (semi)-permanent 6 IPC shift in favor of the Allies before the Axis even get a turn is worth the longer odds, IMHO.
I knew it, ur a ho! don’t touch me! no wait, baby . . . yeah . . . u know i can’t stay mad at u . . . yeah, it is a pretty attractive gain . . . are u sayin i’m fat? er no baby . . . anyways
I think that although a R1 Norway attack offers decent odds and a gain, the risk of G1 kitchen sink attack is just not something I like to deal with. Then again, I’m pretty confident in my Allied game.
Moreover, I do not see NOR as an Easier attack, I used TripleA battle calculator with 10000 runs and odds are:
NOR: 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 fig -> 60% propability of winning (with 1,36 units left….)
UKR: 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fig -> 96% probability of winning (with 4,84 units left)
It seems to me that UKR is far better as attack
But what is the goal? If the goal is simply the destruction of any and all German forces, then perhaps UKR is better,
Precisely. Killing Ukr on R1 depletes a German artillery, a German tank, and a German fighter. Plus assorted infantry. That’s hawt.
but if the goal is the destruction of a German fighter…
Norway attempts this while putting only 1/4 of Russias starting tank force at some risk.
Ukraine attempts this while sacrificing 3/4 of Russias starting tank force, along with half the artillery…and this is if the attack goes well!
I’m not saying that a strafe of the Ukraine isn’t a viable option, but after seeing how advantageous a successful Norway attack can be in my last three games, I don’t think I’ll bother trying to take and hold Ukraine ever again. It costs too much for too little gain.