Posts made by Granada

I am suprised not to see anybody to speak in more detail in favour of the Norwegian attack I call Norwegian gambit, that has become the standard opening for me. I do send both figs though, sacrificing one of them, hence gambit. I feel it is absoluteley essential for the Russians to get the UK help as soon as possible and the survival of the UK BB is simply priceless in this respect. In my games most of the time UK is able to hold Norway from R2 due to the Norwegian attack which I think is absolutely crucial.

I have elaborated more on the Norwegian gambit in another forum so let me add few other notes here. It includes taking NOR with all you can (3inf, tnk, 2 figs) which 89 % likelihood, and sending the rest but the arch units to WR (100 % with 8,4 units remaining). Of course, you are leaving cauc empty with just one inf but you do not need to worry, you will get it back.

There is also always at least one inf in karelia at the end of R1 from arch to make norway more difficult to retake for germany. If both attacks went exceptionally good (happens much more often than a failure in one of them), you can save both figs, and move all 3 arch inf to kar with the sacrificed fig, to make it more costly for germans to retake. Otherwise, I just take the last hit on the lame fig above norway and send the 2 inf from arch to reinforce WR.

Germany can of course attack WR with quite a good likelihood of succes most of the time on G1 which i think scares most of the people of playing Norwegian gambit. But closer look shows IMHO there is not so much to worry about. Any single fig Germany does not send there makes the likelihood substantially lower, and you really do not want to skip all the other attacks as a German player do you? So what you ussually see is Germany doing the 2 med SZ, AE, nor, kar, cauc and painfully considering WR, with Nor, SZ 13 and AE all potentially risky attacks.

Now, if the Germans really commit to WR, let us see what are the odds. Say you have in WR standard 5inf, 2 art, 3tnk and AC gun at the end of R1. Germans can bring 6 inf, art and 3tnk as their ground units if they skip cauc which they have to. This on its own gives them 33 % so you still need to send some air. With 1 fig it is 56 % with 2 units alive and this is too high a risk, with 2 figs it gives them 73 % with 3,5 units alive which looks nice… but what if AA gun hits which should happen exactly 1 in 3 times? So you better send 3 figs. Then it is 85,5 with 4,8 units alive which is just fine – almost as good odds as for the russia to take NOR. But at the same time this is max you can send if you do not want to skip other vital attacks altogether. And just one AC gun hit still can turn things really ugly for Gerrys. And German remaining WR units are doomed anyway taking with them aprox. 2 more russian infs.

On G1 though you are left with just a bmb and two figs to clear SZ 15, do AE and kar or nor. All of the attacks supported with just one plane. And you skipped cauc, you better skip nor or kar, or you take really crazy risks somewhere. It also means you need SZ 8 sub in SZ 13. Thus UK has SZ1 trannie alive and FOUR UK units landing Norway R1.

And the worst is usually still to come, because most of the time one of the attacks goes bad for the Germans which is perfectly in the likelihood. The combined likelihood of the failure of one of the 4 attacks (SZ13, AE, KAR/NOR, WR) is usually around 50 %. Hence although you see the players mumble about bad luck the naked truth is they were lurked into taking grossly risky decisions. Which is exactly where you want to have them.

What will happen next, most of the time is Russia will retake WR with hardly any loss and no chance for Germans to take it back R2, Russia will still be able to trade kar, retake and hold cauc R3 the latest and Germany will be in trouble since UK will put a pressure on it from R2 being able to threaten EE, WEU and indeed Germany itself with 8 units from R3. I took Germany R3 with UK more than once. But even without the aid of your opposition’s blunders you make the great use of the battleship that will allow you to spend precious UK IPCs on trannies and ground units much earlier. The bb will give you all the value for the sacrificed russian fig.

Although I lost twiced with severely suboptimal dice, this opening remains for me the best of all Russian options. Because although I cannot recommend attacking WR on G1, many times it just might be the best option Germany has.

@Bunnies:

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

First of all I think US would leave a pack of 3 bmbs to strat bomb japan so that she cannot even think of starting production again.

In standard KGF you do not send more then 8 US units a round to Europe anyway and it takes four rounds to get them to Europe usually. It is definitely not slower to get them on the front from Asia then through the standard four rounds taking way EUS, EC, UK, chosen landing spot in europe.

Say you produce 4-5 in mainland Asia (2sink, 2china or 3 FIC) and you produce 4 Borneo or EI using 2 sets of 2 trannies to move them India/Persia. And you use your fleet the protect the trannies. Here you are in the worst case on R4 in cauc for borneo but much earlier with the mainland units.

I have never got that far in my games, but this is what I tought I would do and it does not look as a too much of a problem to me.

@Hobbes:

Regarding the Allies building ICs, I just had one an unique situation on a game, playing as Axis.

R1 attacks WRus and nothing else and builds 6 art. G loses the battleship while killing the destroyer on SZ15 and fails to conquer Egypt but clears it of UK units. Then the UK builds 1 IC on Egypt and moves the Indian fleet to the Med but doesn’t attack the Japanese transport on SZ59.

With Japan I made 3 attacks: India, China and SZ52, all successful and transported 4 units to French Indochina. Then the US buys an IC as well and places it on Sinkiang (I would have placed it on Brazil actually). Then the US starts building a Pac fleet since Japan builds an IC on India and goes after Egypt. It could have been quite an interesting game actually, since an IC on Brazil would be able to support the Egypt one while the US would keep growing on the Pacific.

The problem? Germany. Russia build a lot of offensive units and moved a large stack on Ukraine on R2 but Germany crushed that stack on G2, winning the territory with 6 armor remaining. From that moment on Germany completely controlled the Russian front. It’s almost impossible to keep the Germans away while having to defend an IC on Sinkiang.

Hobbes, without questioning your brilliance I do think this game was too special to give a final verdict. Moreover this was not the India + Sink ICs strategy. And from what you say it seems evident Russia did play in a largely suboptimal way. But UK too was not played very well. What? Not sinking the second japanese trannie? Give me more of this in the games i play please…

Basically i would not write the double ICs strategy completely off, but for the UK India IC to be build the UK2 only. The reason is that I think the right time to decide whether to go agressively after Japan is right after J1. The agressive game might actually include under special circumstances given to positioning of Japaniese units the two ICs. Say Japan screwed Pearl, or what was left there appears to be an easy prey. Say India is kept by UK and FIC is weak. Say China did not go very well. Say Bur stack is intact. Why not to build sink IC, some ships off LA, a bmb with Russia, and an India IC. I would not like to face all of that if i am japanese player.

At the same time, in the games I played so far when I decided to go after Japan, Air and ships builds with US and an IC in SA with UK to contest Germans there and to support the US efforts in South Asia later in the game served me better.

The moves in my games basically created set-up where US was fighting Japan that was strugling heavy to get the same income as US which kept sinkinag and stood on 40. When it was not possible for Japs to keep the pace in the arms race in PAcific and lost the first island, she was practicaly finished as a potential threat to Russia.

Meanwhile Russia did trade UKR, BEL and KAR as usually and UK was slowly step by step building its fleet to put pressure on Germans just to remind them russia is not the only thing they have to think about. I would build an IC in SA UK3 the latest if the situation in Africa required it, but rather R2 if the Germans retook AE G2 and I saw I cannot counter.

Sinking the med fleet and getting the upper hand with UK in Africa i did see as the major Strategic priority to keep UK as the power capable of supporting Russians in their fight with Germans effectively. If you keep Russia 20+ and UK 20+ in the critical stage among R3-6 and you do not let Germany exceed 40 too much you should be ok I guess. Because when US contains Japan, and starts to divert most of the resources against Germany, no one can stand it for too long.

@Keredrex:

interesting debate guys … think what is happening here is the double IC’s in asia R1 for the allies is a strategy that does not work with the strategy suggested for the axis in the posts above.  maybe it is only a strategy that can be used against an amateur player.  Ive only ever played with the people in my group and we have only played on the original, Revised and now spring 42.  must admit i would like to play a game with a few of you based on what I read in these forums.  interesting debate guys

Please do play. Triple A is really easy to install and most of the people discussing the topic here you can find there.

It’s more easily the other way around: rolls don’t get you a victory if the strategy is not there. The best definition of luck i know is: when opportunity meets preparation. If your opponent is not prepared to take advantage of good rolls, or, if you are not prepared to deal with unexpected results then you’ll be at a severe disadvantage.

This is so beautiful definition of the charm of the game! Best I have ever read. And I think it also explains why many of us praise Hobbes as the master of the game.

On the subject: I think it is correct that UK and Russia can fight Germany on their own for a while. And if Japan screws things up and/or meets some bad luck then why not give it a try to lock it out of the sea. More succesful strategy for that IMHO could be based on different moves then the double asian ICs though:

1. Use the UK planes and the australian sub and the AC (if it survives) to kill the Japanese Indian ocean fleet. It can be done by wisely moving all or most of the initial UK air to moscow and keeping the SZ 35 fig or AC in range of SZ 34 and most of all moving the Aussie sub to the SZ 30.
2. Sink the Japanese Pacific ocean fleet with the US air force and the flleet – the best are ACs.
3. Use the original allied units to stall japan on mainland and push it out of it once the supply lines are cut for good.
4. If necessary build an UK IC on South Africa to stop Germans there.

I won 2 games using more or less this strategy for which I decided intuitively after Japan totally screwed Hawai and got some bad luck in over-ambituious moves R1. And I definitely prefer it to the double ICs strategy which i potentially – if things go bad – see as the ICs producing japanese units. And I am not willing to give the japanese equivalent of 10 inf in IPCs just for the low reason my luck went bad.

I have to say, i have not seen anybody to build those two ICs R1 in my games ever.

While I agree the strategy is much weaker then standard KGF, I believe there actually may be situations after J1 when going Pacific is the safer way to victory.

I think there are two preconditions: 1. Germany fails to take and hold AE and 2. Japan screws Hawai. Then to go naval, build IC to sink US R1 and IC to India UK R2 gets japan really in the trouble because it will not be able to contest both the mainland and protect the islands. If it loses foothold on the mainland and starts losing islands too, it can be contained with realtively small patrol, while the production of SINK and Ind ICs may turn west to deal with the Germans.

I saw an interesting Pacific strategy though with US going all pacific, UK building an IC in Australia, to produce a few boats to give the cover for the US fleet while spending most of its ipcs on fighting Germany. While Allies lost it at the end, it was not that hopeless it may sound to somebody who was not forced to confront it.

Hey, Bunnies, this is just too much words for me. I am a simple man raised on the faith that tanks are strong. Though I agree with most, I think there are some minor differences.

What I do with Japan in standard KGF is based on the plan to develop pressure on russia from the East ASAP. And to do it I use 4trns shippping 4inf, 4tnk via bury. No preliminary ICs since that would only slow your march!!! Only when I have enough IPCs i use them on building another IC ussually in FIC R4. The details of the build up go like this:

1. If not feeling patricularly threatened in Pacific I build 2trns, 2art, dd J R1. I do Pearl just to kill it ussualy with cru, 2fig and bmb sacrificing the cru, if I use the sub to kill the trannie off australia, I kill the UK ships off Africa, and i do china heavy. I may take india depending on how many uk units are there, but it is not my priority. Neither is bury R1 which i may depending on how the situation on western front looks.

2. R2. I build two more trn and four tnk, I take bur as to priority. I send two trn to Frindo with 2 inf and 2 art to trade or keep India. The general idea is not to push through south or trhough sinkiang, but to have just enough there to trade them or to keep them before the FIC IC is build. You do not keep them really, you just need the IPCs so it is just fine to control them at the end of the turn. If the situation is opens you can move further to trade kazakh and novo early in the game, but the top priority is to have the 8 units flowing northern way and not expose china or fic to counter till R4. Because there will be no chance for a russian counter later.

3. R3 I move the 4tnks and all the 4 inf from OKW, WI, PI to BUR and I start the push, I buy 4inf and 4tnk and save the rest for the FIC IC to be build R4. In this way I am ussually able to take as soon as R5 Novo with about 6inf and 8tnks backed by 4inf in Yakut, 4 tnks in bury and 3 in china if i managed to build the FIC IC R4 which i usually do. This should be enough for the russkies to stop thinking about Germans and start defend Moscow. It also makes US and UK to understand that suddenly not breaking Germany but saving Moscow must be their top priority. R7 Moscow can be hit with 18tnks 10inf, and a lot of planes and Germans should have their eastern army ready to come in support. If you see, you will not make it R7 you will have to go for contesting Africa and the the long strategic tussle in which you ought to know the allies do have the better chances.

4. For all the time I have 1 trn left. And I use it in a fleet, if possible with both the BBs, to get assorted allied teritories in Pacific before turning it towards Africa. I agree it would be better to have two trannies raiding Pacific and I actually sometimes buy another one, but at the same time i really think it should not compromise a bit on the main goal which is to bring Moscow down before the strategic Allied advantage prevails.

5. I use the brilliant Hobbes idea with the jap figs and the bmb in Europe. I am trying to rush them there in the quickest possible way usually using the AC in the Indian Ocean and I manouver with them in such a way to do everything possible to prevent allies getting substantial amount of units to Moscow in time.

Well, well. Even Hobbes cannot beat the dice. And this is the way anybody can get him, I reckon.

I played Hobbes ones, we interupted at R6 with statistics pretty even, but deep in my heart I knew I was going to lose that one already.

Concerning the German boats buy I dont think this is the way to go for Axis and I only hope I will have a chance to prove it. I have three strategic ideas, meantime.

I. Contain Japan first. If Germany weakens itself on the soil, isnt it a good chance for Allies to push japan out of asia and the precious islands? I guess Allies have one more round to do it without russia being threatened by Germany as it would be otherwise.

II. If you stick to conventional KGF, why not to build ground units with UK and let the US navy and planes to kill the G navy? I would go all AC and figs with us for that purpose. In meantime you can also save IPCs for some trannies ewith uk to be build once the Gerry fleet is gone and to join with the remianing US flleet (R4 the latest)?

III. This might be actually the rare case when setting up the US and UK may be right in WEU. I mean with the three ACs, Gerrys have 14 inf less, correct? And I say 14.

My intuition is against any naval Ger buys. As much a I respect Hobbes as one the greatest player I have played against, I think he was simply really lucky for his opposition going with Russia east. If german player spends that much on boats, imho Russia can kill him almost singlehandedly if really runs after him tough.

While I agree that to find out the best strategy to deal with german naval buys is not trivial, i simply cannot be persuaded to belive that you will not miss the 42 IPCs on 3 ACs (that is 14 inf man!) on the ground. And if you have russia trading Eastern Europe and Balkans R3 with you, I doubt you find yourself in the shape you wanted to be in even if you make the normal progress in Africa.

It is an old idea od Caspian Sub of organizing the transport from US to Europe using two sets of 4 transports via EC.

But the major difference is you do not land in WEU but you go through UK and Norway. The difference is that while Germany can deal with isolated landings in WEU or SEU, or prevent them to occur altogether, the Norwegian way reinforces the push in each round with the new units, while you preserve almost all of the original ones so that when you enter neighbourhood of Germany – EE in this case, you have such a mighty force there, Germany cannot think of wiping out. Moreover it may allow Russia to reinforce it too, or a sweet 1-2-3 on Berlin.

You have two fleets operating, one mighty combined UK/US SZ5-SZ6, the other one SZ2 to ship the units from EC to UK.

Ideally you have 8 or more UK units in Norway when starting the push, you reinforce them with 8 US, next round you go with those 8 UK plus new 8 to Karelia, you reinforce with 8 US plus 8 new, thus you will enter the EE with about 20 UK units, 24 US reinforcements and anthing russia can spare and you would be able to hit Germany itself with all that brutal force.

It usually does not go that ideal, you might need to drop some units to africa, from time to time you might trade WEU in case it pays off, but nothing should destract you from this basic scheme, i would say. And there is another thing it takes four rounds from the units produced at EUS to get to Europe so it requires some good planning and patience really.

I am a great fan of Norwegian attack with both planes R R1. And I do not think the germans ships can be an effective counter to stop it. OK Gerrys buy ships, so I will keep buying the planes with UK, push hard with ruskies and get the us press from the southwest from R1.

My instinct is that R3, R4 the latest the gerrys will lose will to put anything on water any longer and will be sunk by the mighty UK RAF R4, R5 the latest while really suffering on the land. The thing is that any water even the Blatic one does not produce IPCs.

What I think is the strongest strategy to the counter the Norwegian gambit is the WR attack with all the units Germany got. Those are the games when Russia can really bleed hard and early.

With all the respect to your experience which is much broader than mine, with a well played Germany i still do not see allies “rolling by R3” esspecially if they sacrificed all their trannies R1 and axis surely loosing without a bid. A well played Japan can be effective force both in contesting Africa and stregthening Germany in Europe. I have won 2 games with Axis recently only in R7 or 8 respectively and i really do not think axis has to blitz or is lost… I would take both sides without a bid and if my opposition insists allies are the stronger side from set up, i really want to see it… I like playing allies more but that is because i believe it is more difficult to win with allies. Russia still is the weakest force on the table.

Well, while I completely agree it all deserves more analyzes, i have just a few points to make now as an advocate of Norwegian gambit:

@Zhukov44:

1. G retakes Nor with the tpt.

It is not that easy. The usual outcome is that russia takes norway with an inf and a tnk. You cannot take that out just with a tpt, you have to send at least one fig too. And that fig cannot be used elsewhere.

2. R is likely to lose at least 1 fig and whatever air is left will be far away from the Med fleet.

Russia will never lose more then one fig, unless the things go completely wrong. You can always take the russia bound fig  on retreat. The Med fleet has to be dealt with by UK or US, that is an obvious trade.

3. G gets the Cau walk-in (or kills the 4-6 units there with the ukr units and supporting armor) and G may be able to pressure R early via Ukr stacks.

Correct, but not that easy. On contrary Germany might get itself into a trouble soon, with UK and US starting to pressure effectively R3. But if Germany is to get under pressure, it would only happen with an aggressive russia.

4. G has an extra fig, and gets to use an extra bomber in Egypt…this eliminates the need for risks on G1.

You do not have an extra fig – you have lost one in Norway, and you will need at least one of your existing figs to take it back. If you send fig to norway, bomber and a fig to AE, you have three figs to deal with SZ8, just like after standard WR UKR R R1 attack.

If you try to take west russia R1 than things get even much trickier for germany. you can do it, and honestly I fing myslef in gretaest trouble against opponents who do try, but you still have great sacrifices to make: no AE, no Norway, maybe no Karelia, maybe no SZ 8. With any single plane asigned to another mission the likelihood gets lower.

5. G still gets to choose b/w the free Uk trn or a 50/50 shot at the American fleet with its ss.

Which is true anyway, only that the choices are broader for the UK BB and tpn in the standard UKR WR R R1. And this is the only choice i really do not want the germans to have.

@Zhukov44:

@Granada:

Well, IMHO, in V4, contrary to the revised, it is not the best opening with russia to attack ukraine R1.

I belive if you do the standard ukr, wer opening, the G7 R1 attack (SZ2, SZ5, SZ13, SZ 15, AE, kar and ukr) if succesfull, which is by far more then 50 %, gives the axis dramatic advantage. Hence, I play the norwegian gambit with russia R1, i leave ukraine and i go there with 10 tanks only R3.

Granted this is a Germany thread, but could you go into more detail here?  Are you talking about low luck or dice?  Do you take 1 or 2 fighters to Norway?

I’m not terribly experienced playing this game but I’m inclined to believe that if you go Nor/WR in dice, it will lead to disaster around 50% of the time or more.  However if you take both figs to Norway then at least Norway is still in the 80%ish range, and if you use low luck dice then you don’t have to worry so much about losing the game because of bad dice at West Russia.

Zhuk, I see your question only today, sorry. I do Norway with both figs and i do WRus with all the units from cauc, where i leave only AA gun. I get cauc back R2. I usually move 1 inf to karelia, and i take the one last hit on one of the planes.

I only play dice, and I think the game we played was the only one when i did not get to kill the norwegian fig R1. When this happens, allies are of course in a deep trouble, because after a succesful german SZ2, the TUV difference is 40 for axis compared to what it should have been (german fig lives, russian fig gone, UK bb gone). This equals to a bid of fourty in a way and is very difficult to recover from unless you get some outstanding dice later on in the game.

Before combat I also leave 2 inf in arch to move at the non combat. In cases when the dice went exceptionally well, i might move the second fig back to karelia and reinforce it with the two inf from arch to make an attack on kar more costly for germans. Otherwise they reinforce WR.

I usually move all six units from eastern bordering territories to moscow, though with a very good dice, i might keep 2 inf in Sinkiang. I buy 3inf and 3tnk, thus I typically have 1inf and 1tnk Nor, 1 inf Kar, 4-6inf, 2art, 3tnk, AA WR,  7-9 inf, 3tnk Moscow. Might have 2 in Sink and always put 6 to Bur.

Germany might surely retake Norway but if I am able to trade karelia for at least one or two more rounds, than UK and US will set up in Norway R2or3 to the large extent due to the surviving SZ2 battleship and that is the main strategic value of that move.

My favourite sea unit are submarines.

If you have ever fought a good fight in Pacific you will easily understand why. Recently, I was able with modest buys of subs to block US Pacific ambition for enough time till it was too late for them (admitedly with a little help of my friends – dice). And the way they have got to Solomons at the end was only due to UK subs that came as a cover. Subs are the infantry of sea battles. I like how they change completely the dynamics of sea battles whether you are on defensive or offensive… Subs are great and the new rules for subs (and transports) make IMHO for the difference that makes this game so much better than revised.

But I like all ships. The only ship i think is not worthy its price are cruisers. For 2 cruisers you get 3 DDs with the same punch, one more hit and the extra sub power, or even 4 subs. The ability to shorebombard does not make for the disadvantages. I really think the cruisers should have been 1 IPC cheaper for them to make ever any sense to buy.

@Col.:

I like to look at the dice rolls as representing the things we can’t control in war, as well as tactical decisions (since this is more of a strategic game). Weather, maybe poor officers, bad intelligence, as well as luck itself are all included in the dice.
Other games factor in the weather, terrain, etc. when doing combat. In this game, the dice covers those things.

Exactly. If larry harris meant the game to be played with low luck, he would design it that way. Saying that, I lost a game today round 2!!! because of russia attacking with 8 units of combined 19 A-punch 5 German units of combined 12 D-punch in west russia, killing none of those in the process. Would not you call it just a treason? In four rounds of rolls I have not got a hit!!!

Based on my modest experience i do not believe any bid is necessary. I think a better player would have higher chance to win with either side.

And also as I do only play with dice, the outcomes of the first round differ so wildly that it makes for a much higher scale than any bid can cover.

For instance if you play the norwegian attack R R1, if you fail, to kill the Germany’s fighter you are 10 ipcs down already compared to what was planned and than you would most likely lose your SZ2 UK fleet on G R1. which is another 20 IPCs in the Battleship there. So this is the 30 ipcs difference in only one single attack.

You could analyze the standard German attacks R1 and you will see that the scale of possible outcomes grossly extends any possible bids.

Anyone who plays AAA will simply have to live with the fact that luck is simply a part of the game.

I do play occationally both board nad tripleA. I have never played revised since Spring 1942 came and i do not think i ever will. IMHO, the new rules make for a more complex and balanced game.

@Hobbes:

And finally most players seem to consider that it is balanced and a bid is not required.

For me, this the thing. I really belive the V4 is definitive AAA just because the fact it really is balanced.

Well, IMHO, in V4, contrary to the revised, it is not the best opening with russia to attack ukraine R1.

I belive if you do the standard ukr, wer opening, the G7 R1 attack (SZ2, SZ5, SZ13, SZ 15, AE, kar and ukr) if succesfull, which is by far more then 50 %, gives the axis dramatic advantage. Hence, I play the norwegian gambit with russia R1, i leave ukraine and i go there with 10 tanks only R3.