Slitherine

I have concluded that it never makes sense to take Norway in '39. Consider:

-The weather will be against you. The onl real hope you have is to take Denmark in one turn. If so, you can land in Norway on turn 4, when the weather is usually clear. But if Copenhagen holds out and it takes two turns to conquer Denmark (this happens in most games) then the chances of landing in Norway on turn 5 are slim, weather-wise.

-Supposing you get to land on turn 4, your amphibious invasion capacity will still be at one, assuming you used a transport to attack Denmark on turn 2 (which I gather everyone does). The cap won't be back at two until turn 5. That means that if you land on turn four, the second corps will cost 35 PPs! Norway is only worth 3.5 PPs (7/2). And that's after Oslo has fully recovered from the assault. So two transports (2x8) plus 35, plus two more transports to return those corps (2x8) = 71 PPs. That's before you factor in repair costs. So in the very best case scenario it will take you 20 turns to earn back all that expenditure, and the best case never happens (because Oslo WILL get battered and you WILL take casualites) so in reality it's going to be more like 25 turns.

-There is a slim (one in ten?) chance that you will have good weather on turn 5. By then your invasion cap will be at 2. However, you won't know until the beginning of the turn. So you have to load the transports and send them up to the coast AND protect them with the navy. All this costs PPs and oil--for an operation that possibly can't come off. Cost is still high: 36 just for the transports, plus oil and repairs. Minimum 10 turns to recoup investment.

-If you are "lucky" enough to land on turn 5, you can be pretty sure that northern winter will arrive by turn 6 (i.e., the first turn you can possibly attack). Hence your effectiveness will be way down. You will take more casualties. Oslo will hold out longer. The overall cost of the operation will rise.

-And here, I believe, is the kicker. You can't bombard Oslo from the sea. Which means you MUST have at least one TAC to throw into the fight. You start with two. Even if you forgo all labs and other purchases, you can't buy a TAC until (I believe) turn 3, which means it won't be available for action until turn 8 (place on turn 6, rebase on turn 7, start bombing on turn 8 ). Long time to wait for an essential unit. Also, it's probably not smart to forgo all labs in the early turns. The soonder you get your research up and running the better.

-Or you can use one of your existing TACs. But if you do that, that's one less vital air unit you have against France. (This is assuming you are not waiting until spring to attack France.) I have, a number of times, taken Paris on the Feb. 8, 1940 turn. This is possible ONLY when I have two TACs in the fight. When I have gotten "lucky" good weather in the North and landed in Norway in the fall of '39, operations in France always go slower. Solely (or mostly) because of that missing TAC.

Conclusion: wait until the first good spring weather in 1940 to attack Norway.

Ancillary question: is it worth taking Norway at all? I think it is. In the spring, you can conceivably throw two TACs into the fight. Your corps won't take an effectiveness hit from the weather. The fight will be over fast and you won't spend much. You will recoup your investment quickly (10 or 11 turns). The port at Bergen is vital for sub repairs and upgrades. And later in the game, when you have money, you can base a STRAT there to harass the RN and the Murmansk convoy.

patton wrote: Ancillary question: is it worth taking Norway at all? I think it is. In the spring, you can conceivably throw two TACs into the fight. Your corps won't take an effectiveness hit from the weather. The fight will be over fast and you won't spend much. You will recoup your investment quickly (10 or 11 turns). The port at Bergen is vital for sub repairs and upgrades. And later in the game, when you have money, you can base a STRAT there to harass the RN and the Murmansk convoy.

That's pretty much what I do.

Just to make it more complex, I want to add some arguments against Norway.
1. Its not connected to your supply and rail network, so it need independent garrison.
2. Following 1st, allies can invade Norway as soon as spring '42, since they normaly can get naval domination, if they want. Only way to get reinforcements to Norway can be cut off with allied subs, for example.
3. If you are going to use Norway as airfield, keep in mind, that its quite bad airfield with 3 supply and in northern weather zone. British planes and CVs, which will probably oppose you, will operate from central european weather zone.
Good thing though - Norway never spawn partisans.
Also if you want to use Norway as naval base against Murmansk convoy, probably its worthy to deploy couple of BBs there. Area is in range of allied strategic bombers and BBs endure strats much better. Also ASW don't help against BBs, naval attack of strategic bomber depends on close air support tech and its still relatively low. Also naval attack lowers at bad weather, while ASW - not. And either you use BBs or subs, fighter cover always helps.

Plaid wrote:Just to make it more complex, I want to add some arguments against Norway.
1. Its not connected to your supply and rail network, so it need independent garrison. <snip>

Well I normally invade Norway with two INF units. And leave them there, as there's no real point in swapping them for GARs and paying the 16PPs transport cost (8PP each way) for each swap. So I send an extra GAR unit to Norway and that's it. As you say Norway doesn't spawn partisans so that makes it easier to garrison.

The one thing that does slow me down in garrisoning Norway is having to keep 3-4 u-boats blocking it's ports for a few turns in case the Brits decide to send some land units to norway to occupy the vacant ports. That's a few turns they aren't attacking convoys

Plaid wrote: <snip>
2. Following 1st, allies can invade Norway as soon as spring '42, since they normaly can get naval domination, if they want. Only way to get reinforcements to Norway can be cut off with allied subs, for example.<snip>.

Well if they're invading Norway in Spring 42 then they are not invading somewhere else.

Hey, I don't mean to come across as negative or dismissive in my previous replies.

I think invading countries like Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece is a personal preference thing, there are benefits and cons to each. I think the key thing is how invading one of those countries underpins your long-term strategy. I invade Norway as I see it a key way of hassling the Murmansk convoys, and diverting the allies attention away from other sectors. My normal anti-Russia strategy as the Axis s to attrition them as much as possible, reducing the Murmansk convoys aids in this as it helps reduce the ability of the Rusians to rebuild their armies.

massina_nz wrote:I think invading countries like Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece is a personal preference thing, there are benefits and cons to each. I think the key thing is how invading one of those countries underpins your long-term strategy. I invade Norway as I see it a key way of hassling the Murmansk convoys, and diverting the allies attention away from other sectors. My normal anti-Russia strategy as the Axis s to attrition them as much as possible, reducing the Murmansk convoys aids in this as it helps reduce the ability of the Rusians to rebuild their armies.

I agree 100%. I only invade Norway if I plan to deploy strong forces there to interdict the Murmansk convoy. A typical deployment for me would be two strategic bombers, 1 tactical bomber, 1 or 2 fighters and a leader. I do pull out my infantry corps and replace them with garrisons. Also, I use Norway as a base for German surface raiders and u-boats to go after the Murmansk convoy. The strong air force there creates a death zone for allied naval units if they dare enter it. This death zone does wonders for discouraging an allied counter invasion of Norway.

That is a lot of PPs to put into Norway. I don't see how the German player can afford it, given all that he has to do in Russia.

rkr1958 wrote:I agree 100%. I only invade Norway if I plan to deploy strong forces there to interdict the Murmansk convoy. A typical deployment for me would be two strategic bombers, 1 tactical bomber, 1 or 2 fighters and a leader. I do pull out my infantry corps and replace them with garrisons. Also, I use Norway as a base for German surface raiders and u-boats to go after the Murmansk convoy. The strong air force there creates a death zone for allied naval units if they dare enter it. This death zone does wonders for discouraging an allied counter invasion of Norway.

Sounds interesting and promising. But I want to ask, what airforce you have for eastern front and med, when you keep this many in Norway.
Or do you deploy planes in Norway later then 1941?

patton wrote:That is a lot of PPs to put into Norway. I don't see how the German player can afford it, given all that he has to do in Russia.

Russia is not so important, if its not your main target. There is difference between strong and moderate barbarossa - strong one breaks Dnepr-Dvina soviet defensive positions.
But there is very little difference between moderate and week barbarossa - you either destroy border troops and advance to Dnepr-Dvina lines, but can't break it, so you have to retreat when SW hits, when your barbarossa is moderate, or you just destroy border troops and don't advance into SW zone, when your barbarossa is weak and late.
Check rkr1958's AAR "Spanish Gambit", it can ilustrate, how axis can play without focus on barbarossa. Still victory, by the way.

Plaid wrote:

rkr1958 wrote:I agree 100%. I only invade Norway if I plan to deploy strong forces there to interdict the Murmansk convoy. A typical deployment for me would be two strategic bombers, 1 tactical bomber, 1 or 2 fighters and a leader. I do pull out my infantry corps and replace them with garrisons. Also, I use Norway as a base for German surface raiders and u-boats to go after the Murmansk convoy. The strong air force there creates a death zone for allied naval units if they dare enter it. This death zone does wonders for discouraging an allied counter invasion of Norway.

Sounds interesting and promising. But I want to ask, what airforce you have for eastern front and med, when you keep this many in Norway.
Or do you deploy planes in Norway later then 1941?

Probably the best way to answer that is through my AAR tutorial. In general, I build the air force up in the fall and winter of 1941 and have it mostly in place by 1942. This force serves as my reserve for an early incursion of the Brits into Libya. I did play a game once, against a human opponent, where they did such a move and I moved two strategic bombers, a tactical bomber and a fighter slated for Norway to Crete. Even though the Brits out numbered me on the ground two to one this force along with the nominal defenses there inflicted serious losses on them and forced them back to Egypt.

The Norway airforces also serve as a reserve to protect Italy and/or France from an early allied invasion attempt. In terms of reserves, you might as well have them doing something (like going after the Murmansk convoy) until, and if, they're needed.

In terms of cost effectiveness if this force can destroy 400 to 500 PPs worth of Murmansk convoys and / or two or three allied naval units then I view it well worth the investment. I haven't kept stats on the PP's destroyed but this is something I'll try to do for my AAR tutorial.