Page 1 of 1

Middle East and Norway

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:24 am
by pmiranda
Hi,

I'm still quite a beginner at W@W but I'm wondering why the general opinion for german initial strategy seems to be:
1. NOT to attack Norway
2. Getting involved in the Middle East

My reasons for being puzzled:

1. Norway looks like a good place to me to base aircraft and artillery to interdict supply convoys sent from USA/UK to the USSR.

2. Why attack the Middle East? Don't the resources there reach Germany via free trade anyway (by land through neutral countries). And anyway Malta makes it apparently quite costly to send troops to North Africa (because of interdiction).

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:00 am
by a511
hi, heres my idea:
Norway looks like a good place to me to base aircraft and artillery to interdict supply convoys sent from USA/UK to the USSR.

imo, not much strategic adv for taking norway, as
1) u can base aircraft in denmark to attack the supply convoys;
2) u can shut down WA's assess to Baltic sea by taking denmark and place an artillery there;
3) u dont want to put a heavy garrsion to defend norway (w/ only 1 RP) as u got many other higher value regions to defend along the "altantic wall" anyway.
Why attack the Middle East? Don't the resources there reach Germany via free trade anyway (by land through neutral countries)

u are right to say so re: the free trade part but remember free trade is not counted for AV, only occupied RPs count. so that make sense to attack (and its also true for norway, if the axis got 69 PPs).
besides, attack middle east opens the door for the axis to india.

hope that helps!

AN

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:47 am
by aletoledo
I have 3-4 decent german strats (one really good one). none involve attacking the middle east. norway is a toss-up IMO.

IMO you have to have clear focused objectives and concentrate on them exclusively. germany can easily take the north atlantic or conquer russia, but not both. anything in between seems to dilute this concetrated effort in either direction.

on the other hand if you're looking for a pure AV based on taking neutrals, then norway and the middle east are nice for points.

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:49 am
by schury
Middle East is of little importance and you can hardly keep it if the wa attacks and cut off your supply line.
to aletoledo:can you take the us while facing human payers?it's a little more difficlut for japan to take the far east now.the axis is weaker ,very sad modification......

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:50 pm
by MikeB
Schury :
What modication for what version ?

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:47 pm
by Lebatron
Are you referring to Franco's Alliance v2.0? Its the only mod that changes the Far East. I was very carefull in not making the Axis weaker. In fact I help them out in many ways. I removed one Russian factory and moved the US's x4 production mutiplier from 1943 to 1944. This drop in Allied production will make the middle and end game more exciting. The stock game is broken in that regard because the Axis go downhill to fast once the US comes in. Everybody keeps saying the Axis have no chance to hold on for a draw even when they play very well. With my mod now a draw is more likely when play is even.

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:51 pm
by aletoledo
to aletoledo:can you take the us while facing human payers?it's a little more difficlut for japan to take the far east now.the axis is weaker ,very sad modification......

yes its still possible to take the USA against a human opponent, but never completely. its very difficult to spend the necessary supply rebuilding and still try to take the northeast (it has 6 militia, in addition to whatever the player creates).

he's not refering to any Mod, he's refering to changes since he last played since before the first patch.

RE: Middle East and Norway

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:45 pm
by silodhlehan
ORIGINAL: pmiranda

Hi,

I'm still quite a beginner at W@W but I'm wondering why the general opinion for german initial strategy seems to be:
1. NOT to attack Norway
2. Getting involved in the Middle East

Better to attack scotland-> than norway. Better bases.

In the war some of the reasons they went to norway were

1 it made it easier to get subs into the atlantic
[the seazones allow 1 extra way out to show this]
**[edit above]**

2 raid convoys to russia.

3 protecting sweedish iron convoys. [Via Narvik?]


The mideast is the gateway to india / caucuses if you win and shutting the allies out of the med if you get gibralter. Attacking it via spain is fun holding? tough.