Flipping Norway worth it?

[Bavre]

Aggro is short for aggression. If you invade Norway, then the US perceives it as aggressive and increases its mobilization, which increases the US's total income over the course of the game. When Germany invades Norway, the US probably profits more than Germany does -- the US economy is what, about 800 MPPs? So if you increase US mobilization by 5%, they are now earning an extra 40 MPPs per turn every turn until they would have been at 100% anyway -- and you're very unlikely as Germany to be losing 40 MPPs/turn in Norwegian convoys, plus you have to pay up front to invade Norway.

So, yeah, probably not worth it to invade Norway for the cash...but I have had success in many games invading Norway in order to have it as a base of operations for submarine campaigns in the north Atlantic, and/or as a staging ground for Operation Sea Lion. From Norway you have decent access to Scotland, which doubles how many resources the UK has to guard.

Exactly!
MPP wise both Denmark and Norway are very bad deals for the Axis if the Allied players plays it halfway smart. Strategically however especially Norway can be quite valuable.
Imho going intentionally for Axis Norway (with diplo) is probably only reasonable if you're going for Sweden and Leningrad, too. This almost doubles your income from Scandinavia if successful and also makes it very defensible since you can now operate there, but is very costly and difficult to pull off against an alert Allied player.

[Tanaka]

Aggro is short for aggression. If you invade Norway, then the US perceives it as aggressive and increases its mobilization, which increases the US's total income over the course of the game. When Germany invades Norway, the US probably profits more than Germany does -- the US economy is what, about 800 MPPs? So if you increase US mobilization by 5%, they are now earning an extra 40 MPPs per turn every turn until they would have been at 100% anyway -- and you're very unlikely as Germany to be losing 40 MPPs/turn in Norwegian convoys, plus you have to pay up front to invade Norway.

So, yeah, probably not worth it to invade Norway for the cash...but I have had success in many games invading Norway in order to have it as a base of operations for submarine campaigns in the north Atlantic, and/or as a staging ground for Operation Sea Lion. From Norway you have decent access to Scotland, which doubles how many resources the UK has to guard.

Exactly!
MPP wise both Denmark and Norway are very bad deals for the Axis if the Allied players plays it halfway smart. Strategically however especially Norway can be quite valuable.
Imho going intentionally for Axis Norway (with diplo) is probably only reasonable if you're going for Sweden and Leningrad, too. This almost doubles your income from Scandinavia if successful and also makes it very defensible since you can now operate there, but is very costly and difficult to pull off against an alert Allied player.

I've noticed that a neutral Norway gives Germany about 40 MPP per turn while an Axis Norway gives Germany about 20 MPP per turn. This makes no sense why is this? Should be the other way around?

[BillRunacre]

I've noticed that a neutral Norway gives Germany about 40 MPP per turn while an Axis Norway gives Germany about 20 MPP per turn. This makes no sense why is this? Should be the other way around?

If you amend the convoy route to flow from Oslo then this is the case, however Sweden's convoy production will increase too. Please see the Decision text and notes below for a full explanation:

Führerhauptquartier

Now that Norway has surrendered, we need to reconsider the current convoy route from Narvik.

The route from Narvik is very susceptible to attack from Allied aircraft and shipping. It could also be threatened by enemy forces were they to land at Narvik.

One solution would be to have all our Iron Ore come directly from Sweden, with only a reduced convoy sailing from Oslo in southern Norway (YES).

If we do so say (YES) then our potential income will be less, as no convoys can sail from Sweden in the winter, but what we do receive from Scandinavia will be safer from attack.

Would you like to amend Norway's convoy route (YES) or take the risk that our convoys from Narvik will be able to reach Germany largely intact (NO)?

Notes:

Except during winter when Sweden cannot export directly to Germany, this increases the value of Sweden's convoy to Germany while reducing that of Norway's. Norway's convoy will also now travel directly from Oslo, which is a far shorter and more secure route.

Overall this is only of economic benefit if the Allies are capable of causing significant disruption to the Norwegian convoys. Bear in mind when deciding that their ability to do so will likely increase as the war progresses. Should Narvik fall at any time to the Allies, then the Norwegian convoy will automatically switch to sailing from Oslo even if you do not transfer it via this Decision.

[Tanaka]

I've noticed that a neutral Norway gives Germany about 40 MPP per turn while an Axis Norway gives Germany about 20 MPP per turn. This makes no sense why is this? Should be the other way around?

If you amend the convoy route to flow from Oslo then this is the case, however Sweden's convoy production will increase too. Please see the Decision text and notes below for a full explanation:

Führerhauptquartier

Now that Norway has surrendered, we need to reconsider the current convoy route from Narvik.

The route from Narvik is very susceptible to attack from Allied aircraft and shipping. It could also be threatened by enemy forces were they to land at Narvik.

One solution would be to have all our Iron Ore come directly from Sweden, with only a reduced convoy sailing from Oslo in southern Norway (YES).

If we do so say (YES) then our potential income will be less, as no convoys can sail from Sweden in the winter, but what we do receive from Scandinavia will be safer from attack.

Would you like to amend Norway's convoy route (YES) or take the risk that our convoys from Narvik will be able to reach Germany largely intact (NO)?

Notes:

Except during winter when Sweden cannot export directly to Germany, this increases the value of Sweden's convoy to Germany while reducing that of Norway's. Norway's convoy will also now travel directly from Oslo, which is a far shorter and more secure route.

Overall this is only of economic benefit if the Allies are capable of causing significant disruption to the Norwegian convoys. Bear in mind when deciding that their ability to do so will likely increase as the war progresses. Should Narvik fall at any time to the Allies, then the Norwegian convoy will automatically switch to sailing from Oslo even if you do not transfer it via this Decision.

Ah yes so it is the same for neutral or Axis Norway either way when the convoy is moved? Just wondering if we could give more benefit for an Axis Norway...

[Chernobyl]

Honestly I feel that these aggro/mobilization effects need tweaking. It is getting mentioned in AAR how Axis players can shrewdly avoiding a number of these historical war declarations and it definitely sets the USA back quite a bit, not to mention I believe the USSR also suffers in mobilization % as well to a lesser extent.

Another way to look at it is that the Axis is "punished" for choosing to occupy Denmark, Norway, Greece, Lux, Belgium/Netherlands, or being too successful in China, and benefits greatly from intentionally declining to attack or saving these conquests for later (the fact that you get a global morale swing from this is a separate issue that compounds the problem).

While I do believe that Axis aggression towards minor countries probably had a historical effect on US preparations for war (hard to quantify, as Roosevelt was hell-bent on bringing USA into war against Germany even before 1939), I think for game balance reasons it would be helpful to severely reduce the mobilization/aggro "penalty" for these historical invasion choices, to incentivize the Axis player to choose them (again, especially in the cases of several small nations on the continent that can be "saved" for a morale swing during a more critical time). Because right now it doesn't really make sense for the Axis to go the historical route on multiple invasion/conquer choices, all things considered. Obviously you want to increase USA/USSR mobilization in other ways to compensate. I would suggest increasing the mobilization for both countries from the fall of France event, and increasing USA mobilization boost when Axis first attack the USSR.

[lwarmonger]

Honestly I feel that these aggro/mobilization effects need tweaking. It is getting mentioned in AAR how Axis players can shrewdly avoiding a number of these historical war declarations and it definitely sets the USA back quite a bit, not to mention I believe the USSR also suffers in mobilization % as well to a lesser extent.

Another way to look at it is that the Axis is "punished" for choosing to occupy Denmark, Norway, Greece, Lux, Belgium/Netherlands, or being too successful in China, and benefits greatly from intentionally declining to attack or saving these conquests for later (the fact that you get a global morale swing from this is a separate issue that compounds the problem).

While I do believe that Axis aggression towards minor countries probably had a historical effect on US preparations for war (hard to quantify, as Roosevelt was hell-bent on bringing USA into war against Germany even before 1939), I think for game balance reasons it would be helpful to severely reduce the mobilization/aggro "penalty" for these historical invasion choices, to incentivize the Axis player to choose them (again, especially in the cases of several small nations on the continent that can be "saved" for a morale swing during a more critical time). Because right now it doesn't really make sense for the Axis to go the historical route on multiple invasion/conquer choices, all things considered. Obviously you want to increase USA/USSR mobilization in other ways to compensate. I would suggest increasing the mobilization for both countries from the fall of France event, and increasing USA mobilization boost when Axis first attack the USSR.

I would agree with some of this... a big part of the Axis early game is how you manage (and micro) U.S. and Soviet mobilization. It might be better for a set rate of increase regardless of what the Axis does, with punishing mobilization penalties for early or ahistorical aggression (on both sides).