Scandinavian gambit

[BPINisBACK]

Playing as axis i am trying to explore a "new" tactic.
Ignore the diplomatic battle for Spain and invest heavily on Sweeden and Norway (this way).
Usually the allied player "only" take care of the Mediterranean area and it could be suscessful.
Of course, i know that this is not the "ideal gambit" but the Scandinavian area is quite hard to conquest by any side, so it's quite secure for axis... and if you manage to connect with Germany thought Finland the income is quite interesting...
In my current game as axis i managed to incorporate both countries (Norway in the last turn before Barbarrosa) and i could keep the Russian and US readinnes quite low...
Is this crazy or do you think it could have any chance?

On the other hand, playing as allies. I usually land on Norway if there is no hurry in Russia. You get a very close base over Germany, it's a very unnusual movement and the axis are not usually "watching" that area...
Again, what do you think?

I repeat: if you wan a quick victory this movements are useless but... they can be funny, dont' you agree? And, even, they can be suscesfull!

Greetings,

[Markiss]

It is a little crazy, and very interesting, but I don't know if it can be successful. In this same game, as a result of being ignored, Spain is getting ready to join the WAllies. [X(] That is going to hurt.
Also, the British have been left unmolested in the Med. They are causing trouble, and are just getting started. Axis usually deals with them between France and Russia, but with Barbarossa already begun, that ship has now sailed. They are going to be a thorn in your side the rest of the game, and no Middle East income for you! [:-]
On the other hand, with a strong Barbarossa, maybe you can knock out the Russians quickly.
I can't wait to find out! [:D]
Very entertaining game that is not following the usual script.
And I must mention your incredible good fortune with the diplo hits, 6 out of 7 turns on Sweden and then 2 more in a row on Norway. That's 8 out of 9 turns!!!! Left me no time to counter, I was in the middle of something and it happened so fast!! [X(]

[Sugar]

That strategy would be far more interesting, if the whole income from Norway and Sweden wasn't represented by the convoys you already get. Both Oslo and Stockholm are just a paradrop away anyway, with nearly no opportunity to counter for the Allies, in which case you'll get the same income than if they joined.

Next downside is their armies, you won't be able to buy a tank or tac. bomber like in Spain. Not to mention Gibraltar.

A second choice after Spain would be Turkey, with the strategic outcomes nearly as good as Spain and a turkish tank as well. The whole Middle East would benefit from the railway link, and you could reach Cairo via train.

Sadly enough there are not too many ways for the Axis to prevail due to this ingame mechanics. Even the one way railway links through the straits hasn't been fixed so far.

[LLv34Mika]

What railway link do you mean? Istanbul?
If yes I have to say I like that one... some open spaces between links make sense to me. Operate from Calais to Istanbul, move one turn and operate from Turkey to... let's say Cairo. Far enough and very fast anyway.

The other thing is that a full connection via railway would mean the income for whole Africa and Middle East would go up improving Axis income. If the Axis controls France, BeNeLux, Denmark, Norway, the Balkan States and huge parts of Russia and then Turkey joins the situation for the Allies is really bad. Bad enough! A further increase of the income would be too much imho.

GB also suffers from the low income in North Africa what I never understood. Giving a higher supply to GB in Cairo and Alexandria, Transjordan and Palaestina would be a nice idea. Fighting with the British in North Africa is always a lost cause against a dedicated player. Not because you don't have enough units, the bigger problem is that the UK income is not enough. Not even to repair your units - not to speak about buying new ones.

So when it comes to Asia/Africa that is fair if you ask me. No railway link means no higher income/supply for both sides.

[BPINisBACK]

I know it's crazy, that's why is funny!
I am still looking for a way of alternative playing axis that could be successful in a "no-quick" victory.
I know, it's crazy (again), but it's very funny.
In our game, british has been quite for a long time, yeah, but Italians too... They have prepare large fortifications around Tobruk and could develop his army. Let's see..
My subs are raiding (low level but raiding) atlantic during this monts... You have been losing around a 20-30% or your incomes by this way with very little losses for me... That's interesing too..
Futhermore your movement (as i expected) over Greece is interesting but quite expensive... Let's see if its a pain in the ass for me or for you...
And, Spain... It depends on how much support you can afford for them...
Anyway... the game is still open... We have a very much funny game ahead.
Greetings!

[Sugar]

What railway link do you mean? Istanbul?
If yes I have to say I like that one... some open spaces between links make sense to me. Operate from Calais to Istanbul, move one turn and operate from Turkey to... let's say Cairo. Far enough and very fast anyway.

Turkey and Sicily. Makes no sense, the link works in one direction, but not in the other. Either there is a railway or not.

The other thing is that a full connection via railway would mean the income for whole Africa and Middle East would go up improving Axis income.

That's exactly what's happening.

[Markiss]

One advantage to what you have done is that you now have plentiful troops for the Leningrad/Murmansk theater which will be hard to counter with all that the Russians have to deal with early in the game.
And you don't have to wait for precious German troops to transport over, you can attack right away, forcing the Russians to stop yet another offensive while they are under maximum pressure and have no units to spare.
If you can get the Russians to collapse quickly, your whole gambit may just be worth it yet. With the Russians subdued, you could then deal with the British at your leisure.
But you must be quick, and you can't allow the British to distract you, no matter how they try. And they will try.

[Keenan]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

That strategy would be far more interesting, if the whole income from Norway and Sweden wasn't represented by the convoys you already get.

Indeed imho the convoys for Scandinavia basically forbid any efficient Axis Northern Strategy. Any Swedish income is slashed to 45%, Finnish to 50% and Norwegian to 49%, so even if you connect them via Leningrad you get only less than 50% of the increased value. (In contrast Saudi Arabia gives 100% to the US.)

Therefore getting Sweden to join does not give you any considerable income (Original Convoy in Summer nets 40 MPP increasing to a whooping 73 max after you take Leningrad). In comparison: Spain provides beyond 150, Turkey around 110 and even Vichy adds 80 MPPs if you get any of those to join diplomatically.

The Swedish Military lacks offensive punch (no Bombers, no Tanks, not even arty - even Hungary or Romania got more firepower) and takes forever to march to Finland (operating them basically costs the same as transporting German units via sea). So unless you have maxed out German units or need their (for a Minor) considerable Navy (2 CA, 1 CL, 2 DD), going for Sweden does not look anything like a viable Strategy for the Axis to focus on.

Would be different if the convoys would cancel or change after them joining... but the scenario is not designed like this. This way UK or the Russians can get more MPP income from Sweden than the Germans. Unless the convoy or the Force pool get tweaked, Sweden will possibly remain a mid/late game snack to get plunder and a tiny boost of income from Axis perspective.

@BPINisBACK: I would also love to see more variety for Axis strategies. Not sure if the current scenario design allows. Good luck with trying out new approaches...

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

That strategy would be far more interesting, if the whole income from Norway and Sweden wasn't represented by the convoys you already get. Both Oslo and Stockholm are just a paradrop away anyway, with nearly no opportunity to counter for the Allies, in which case you'll get the same income than if they joined.

Do you mean that even if Sweden is allied to the Axis, the Axis get no additional MPPs (beyond what they would already get from convoys) at all from the MPP-producing hexes (such as the high MPP value Swedish mines)? Or just that the extra income is the same whether Sweden is occupied or allied?

[Sugar]

Do you mean that even if Sweden is allied to the Axis, the Axis get no additional MPPs (beyond what they would already get from convoys) at all from the MPP-producing hexes (such as the high MPP value Swedish mines)?

Exactly, there's no additional benefit but the convoys, and their income is increased by ca. 60% after the fall of Leningrad, when the then undisrupted railway connection will improve production. That`s already the case if Sweden keeps its Axis` leaning, without any invasion.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Do you mean that even if Sweden is allied to the Axis, the Axis get no additional MPPs (beyond what they would already get from convoys) at all from the MPP-producing hexes (such as the high MPP value Swedish mines)?

Exactly, there's no additional benefit but the convoys, and their income is increased by ca. 60% after the fall of Leningrad, when the then undisrupted railway connection will improve production. That`s already the case if Sweden keeps its Axis` leaning, without any invasion.

Oh, I see - so the only real benefit is the additional units (and presumably no chance for the allies to use diplo to stop the convoys)?

[Sugar]

Yupp. Makes Scandinavia a third priority theatre, after Spain and Turkey. Both provide potentially more valuable armies, and furthermore a huge increase of income of the behind lying countries. The whole Middle East and NA will step up production and supply by 60%, and a railway connection directly to El Alamein in case of Turkey.

[Dorky8]

When Turkey joins either the Axis or Allies the result isn't even giving the Axis a large benefit. When Turkey joins the Allies the Axis has a garrison , no one & corp to deal with, when Axis the SU has to go up against much stiffer 3 corps & army. Axis then gets the ports. Also the Brits (for some reason) get control of Turkey and when Axis the Germans. Given that the Germans get 2-3X the MPP's of the Brits its a large advantage to Axis. With the extra MPP's and research the Axis get to take more advantage of new units.

This may be to compensate because its tougher for Axis to sway Turkey, or just an old rule never addressed.

Fighting In Turkey is a real pain either way with the supply and terrain. Much easier to defend with better supply on both sides.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

When Turkey joins either the Axis or Allies the result isn't even giving the Axis a large benefit. When Turkey joins the Allies the Axis has a garrison , no one & corp to deal with, when Axis the SU has to go up against much stiffer 3 corps & army. Axis then gets the ports. Also the Brits (for some reason) get control of Turkey and when Axis the Germans. Given that the Germans get 2-3X the MPP's of the Brits its a large advantage to Axis. With the extra MPP's and research the Axis get to take more advantage of new units.

Not sure I entirely understand...