it's stupid not taking norway

[schury]

for both sides, it's stupid not taking norway [:D]

[JanSorensen]

Maybe your many posts would be better if you cared to accompany them with some actual reasoning rather than simply making brass statements. Reasoning, based on playing the game as PBEM or atleast on Hard against the AI just goes so much further than calling things "stupid". 
 
As it stands I disagree with your statement but unless you care to post an actual analysis of why you find Norway worth taking in AWD I see no reason to explain myself further.
 
If your post was made in jest I missed it.

[schury]

maybe i haven't used a proper words, maybe "unwise" could be more official? i just wanna make fun of it. should a game be that serious with out jokes? as a matter of fact, i simplely wanna show a tip to the new comers, and to a good player, i believe it's a good advice or commonsensible idea rather than a brass statement. maybe you just haven't realize it, that's ok, i can show you.[:)]
well, i cdidn't said that much, or all my opponents would use that against me in our games though they may not have such idea before[;)] i saw lots of people didn't do that, just leave it alone. as axis the only reason to take it is to prevent WA from it!
i don't fight AI anymore after a successful repluse in eastern germany in 1944 with the difficulty of impossible(of cource i am Russia, not poor Germany[:D]).
what about a discussion? i showed my point of view, and maybe i can give you one obvious reason you may not find, anyone controls Norway decides the fate of axis leaning Sweden~
can sb back me up?[:D]

[Avatar47]

The only problem attacking Sweden too early from Norway as Allies is that Finland might join the Axis effort. If they do, then Germany (pre-Barba), can land troops in Finland and end the Allied adventure. Post-Barba, it is a real option for the WAllies to attack Scandinavia, because even if Finland does come in, Germany will not have enough to contend with both Russia and the WAllies.
 
So the real question is, is a post-Barba scandinavian campaign worth it? Well, the answer lies in each individual game. It really depends what other options the Allies have. Since they cannot extend their power everywhere, especially in the early years, they have to choose carefully. More benefits might be gained by investing in other parts of the world. I do agree killing the 3 resources in Sweden is a motivation for attacking, but resources are spread all over.
 
In my current game against Schury, I attacked Norway the turn before he attacked Russia, but that decision was based on his Barba troop deployments. I saw his entire panzer force in E Prussia, and assumed he would take Leningrad on the first turn. If he had (he decided on Belorussia instead) taken Leningrad, then Finland might have joined the german side anyhow. Plus, because Leningrad would be German, then the Allied field army in Finland would have been a very effective second front I believe.
 
I do support schury saying that the only reason for taking Norway is to prevent the Allies getting it, but that is of course the original historical reason for Germany having invaded it anyhow.

[schury]

attack Sweden would cause finland change to be axis?[&:]
and if germany land and retake norway, you earn more time for russia.
and with norway in hand, your reachment enlarged, you know what i'm talking about and what i am suffered, right?[;)]

[Avatar47]

Yep, it's definitely good for the Allies if Germany gets distracted in Scandinavia. Oh yeah, and Norway can be a great airstrip for attacking german ships in the Baltic. Before Germany reaches Range 3, the Allies can really use Norway effectively that way.
 
And yes, attacking Sweden has a 50% of making Finland a full Axis partner, because Sweden is Axis Leaning. Norway in our game was Balanced, so there was no chance. As a matter of fact, invading an Axis Leaning Norway could be a bad idea as the Allies. As I said just above, if the Allies attack too early, and draw Finland in, the net loss will be greater I think. Attacking an Allied Leaning Norway will get diplomatic penalties too. The best is to attack a balanced Norway.

[schury]

and another good point is West Germanycan't be defended bu a single fighter cause you can reach it now with speed two. you can threat East Germany, too. the most important aim of this is to force Germany consuming hr with you, he'll soon deplete. that limits his land forces, and can soon open a second front if Germany attack leiningrad, or you can Land Lease safely.
hehe, we get it all out, so everyone will take norway since now, lol

[JanSorensen]

I concur that the main reason for Germany to take Norway is to prevent the WA from taking it.
 
I dont, however, concur that its wise for the WA to take Norway and hence I dont concur that its wise for the Germans to take Norway.
 
I find that the WA has enough other places to hit that I consider more worthwhile - be it Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands or Denmark. That does not mean that I cannot see that taking Norway is an option but I just dont see it as the better one.
 
As for the Axis - I find that taking Norway costs too much - and doesnt even prevent the retaking by a determined WA player which is why I dont consider Norway a wise Axis move.
 
I find it a strenght in the game system that we can agree though - so I am very fine with agreeing not to agree

[schury]

cool~ agree to disagree and discuss! that's what a BBS for most of the time[8D]
but i think defending norway is easier than france, and before 1942, totally impossible to do that without autohit[:D] that draws more troops, but as germany you have to. i think not many people understand the severe situation Germany face. Allies are motive, they may attack any place they like and want to. you have to distract. that's the delimma, hard to deal with[:(] it's certain with USA entering the war, you can't hold all the places, there must be a preak point, so you'd better finish or paralyse Russia before that!!!

[kondor]

IMO taking Norway as axis is futile... You have your forces stretched enough already, there is not much gain in defending Norway also...
I would go for Norway only if I already have England, or am determine to stop north land lease...

[schury]

you are right, under the situation that no one violate the neutrality of norway[;)]

[Avatar47]

I do agree with Jan as well that there are many places for the WAllies to hit, but I now believe that taking Norway should be higher on the priority list. Attacking Nor/Sweden does use 20 supply, but usually there are no casualties, and the Axis lose 3 1/2 resources per turn, 14 per year. An Allied airforce presence in Norway can threaten the German baltic fleet and prevent a transport chain to Finland, adding another resource not gained per turn, 4 1/2 * 4turns/1 year is 18. A serious Axis counter attack is also highly unlikely if Barbarossa has already started, or better yet, will start the next turn. If the Germans are going for Leningrad, then taking Norway->Finland (before Germans have a chance to use it) can provide an effective 2nd Front. Again, I wouldn't do this normally contemplate an invasion before 41, unless the Germans have started Barba in 40. So maybe it possibly is the wiser decision for Germany to take Norway before the Allies do...

[Petiloup]

Doing wargames (Boardgame not computers) for 20 years I noticed there are no perfect move unless a big flaw in a game. There are always strategies that can be countered if properly done or can't if planned well and the opponent doesn't see the pattern soon enough.

Attacking Norway for the Allies was never an option for me if Germany might be going for a strong move in the Med. True you can be menacing against the Baltic but usually the German fighters are better than the Allies one and with speed 1 you can protect the Baltic effectively. On top the fighters in Norway seems not to do OPP Fire along the Coastal Sea regions if you move your Luftwaffe from Germany to attack the supplying ships. Then if from there you try to move to Finland it's indeed a good move to support Russia but if Germany just doesn't go for Leningrad then it just open the Northern supply road but tie in part of your ground assets for defense. Which means if there is a fight in the Med at that same moment you can't effectively use your British carriers against the Italian navy at the same time as defending the convoy lines to Norway. With HVY air and a speed of 4 the German can even base in Austria and still strikes both way to Norway or to the Med effectively imposing the British to split his airforce to defend both side while Germany can still concentrate his attack on one side only.

Now once Barbarossa is on or almost started then it's another matter as Avatar47 mentions and it can effectively distracts Germany but I still prefer a move against Greece or any continental countries which really force Germany to send troops right away and weaken Barbarossa. From Malta or Crete you can use your Allies fighters with speed 1 to strikes Greece and use a few TAC to destroy the ART in defense if there is one (most probably). I think TAC air is a very strong weapon to use for the Allies but I don't see a lot of player favoring them.

Now if Germany doesn't go for the Med strategy then taking out Norway asap can indeed be a nice move for the Allies. As such you secure the convoy road to Russia, can defend it effectively. Still can land in Denmark or ship your troops out fast enough to mount an attack the turn after somewhere else. Take out Finland so if Leningrad falls you can fight Germany in Russia directly.

Does that mean Germany needs to invade Norway all the time? well maybe as it indeed drains some troops for an effective defense but considering that with a few planes there you can blockade the Northern convoy Road to Murmansk and not just destroy the transport fleets after they supply Russia this means the Allies needs to invade Persia and send supplies via it which takes one more turn of delivery if the Caspian sea convoy is destroyed.

Well at last I think the game creates this issue because of an improperly pictured Finland. That country was eager to take back the territories stolen by Russia during the Winter War of 1939 but it was not a fascist country. In fact after taking back what they had and maybe a bit more the Finns did stop mostly to attack till Russia crushed them in 1944. They never did attemtps to close on Leningrad and take that city. They did help a bit the Germans troops in the North against Murmansk but again it seems not in a major effort way. If ever AWD could do a specific marking of Finns troops and restrict them to move between Finland and Murmansk only then it would be more faithfull to reality.

[schury]

one point you don't need to defend Norway if there's an emergency, it mean nothing to you if lost[:)]

[BenTaylor]

If Norway goes Pro Allied before Barbarossa it is definitely worth taking Norway to try and get Finland Axis and then exploit an invasion of Leningrad from Finland

[schury]

believe me, everytime you have a chance, just do it.
as a matter of fact, i think WA should take every nertral Europian country if permited, just think of it[;)]