Finland

[googabooga]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> gunslinger iam *not sure* if you are aware but (about M-line):

Here's an excellent site describing the fortifications in great detail:

http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line/M-Line2.htm#figures

Gunslinger</font>

[Wolfpack]

Wow Norse, you manage to describe yourself pretty well. What happened to all the parts of my post refuting you that you cut out of your reply? What's the matter? Couldn't think of a sufficiently witty retort? Your quoted casualty figures are great...I didn't laugh those off, I laughed at your assertion that you think that the Soviets became so horrified by those casualties that they "gave up" which they didn't. They WON the winter war...just as they WON the Continuation War. What part of that do you not understand? They didn't annex Finland no. Winter War, they were faced with British and French intervention if they tried, in the Continuation War, they were otherwise occupied by finishing off Germany. Instead they annexed some of the best Finnish land and hit them with very heavy reparations.

As for the Finns heading for the Urals...exactly what did you prove? They couldn't get there, giving them a HQ in the game would allow them to do it, so it's a bad idea. If you think they could do it in real life I'd love to see a real justification since a better equipped nation that was 20 times their size couldn't get there.

As for proving you wrong...yes, I want to because you're making rediculous statements and then attacking me for pointing out that you were wrong. You want to know what you're wrong on? Okay...

1: You think Lappland would open up large strategic possibilities, which it wouldn't.

2: You seem to think that if they had leaders who wished to, they would have strolled over to the Urals smiting the Soviets all along the way.

3: You contend that the Finns beat the Soviets in the Winter War and Continuation War, neither of which would be true.

4: You seem to think that 200,000 casualties would completely cow a country that lost 16-20 million people in the 4 years on the Eastern Front.

Now...can you defend any of those assertions you've made here?

Edit - Okay Harala...you win...I suppose keeping your independence could be construed as favorable. I would tend to think otherwise, but that's just me.

[ August 21, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

[Aloid]

Wolfpack and Norse... both of you to your corners...

send a PBEM game to each other, and settle this like men!

I'd love to hear the AAR from that one!

Aloid (pickle hube, pickled herring, it's all ficking pickles to me!)

[ August 21, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Aloid ]

[WoIfpack]

I like to play with barbie and wear diapers...

[ August 21, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: WoIfpack ]

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by WoIfpack:

I like to play with barbie and wear diapers...

My my how original.

[Gunslingr3]

The Isthmus Gateway, between river Summa and Lake Muolaanjärvi (a sector some 15 km wide), was the most heavily defended, and it had an average of 10 mg bunkers / nests, 7 shelters and 6 km of trenches (including the connection trenches) per kilometer of front"

If a MG bunker ever 100m and SIX kilometers of trench line ever kilometer isn't extensive, what is? Nobody claimed it was the Maginot with rec rooms and hot cots. Since your contention is entirely semantical tell me a better word for describing the Mannerheim Line. It's not like the Finns fought from their bellies in a slit trench.

Gunslinger

[Lars]

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. In the grand scheme of things Finland was a sideshow. We can make just as good an argument (if not better) for extending the map south into Africa.

The game is the game. Maybe in SC2 everybody will be happy.

[Juha Keratar]

Just a few thoughts from a demo player.

Remember, whenever thinking about how "realistic" the game is, and what should be changed, that SC is a somewhat abstracted game to start with, and some compromises probably have to be made.

Naturally I'd like to see Finland that can stand on it's own against early Russian assault for a time, or effectively attack with Germany if it comes to that, on its own small front, but if this cannot be achieved by reasonable changes in patches, so be it. There's always a danger that instead on underpowered, Finns would become overly strong. Having a HQ (is it even possible to have one, as unlike Germany and Italy Finland doesn't accumulate MPP?) could be exactly this, if it allowed Finns to attack to the Urals. Probably not good either.

Just my two cents. And please, do keep the flames down, I've seen a few Finn-flamewars in general forum in the year and a half I've been lurking and posting here - they ain't pretty.

-Lunael

[SS Viking]

Originally posted by harala:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> gunslinger iam *not sure* if you are aware but (about M-line):

Here's an excellent site describing the fortifications in great detail:

http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line/M-Line2.htm#figures

Gunslinger</font>

[SS Viking]

Ok guys, it has been intressting to read all the posts in this topic I started. At least we can all agree this is a subject that many have ideas about.

I still think that Finland should have a HQ, as well as Turkey should have a habor in Istanbul and a cruiser unit and Sweden should have a sub and a cruiser unit.

But I change my oppinion regarding the strength/supply of the HQ. It could be reduced. I've no interest to lobby for a change from one imbalance to another.

Finnaly I want to say that I've sometimes noticed a lack of history knowledge regarding WWII. Finland played a much greater roll then the history books tells. Never forget that the winners writes the history.

Best Regards, Erik

[Willard]

I like Finland.

They make good vodka and have hot chicks that live there.

If giving them an HQ will make the vodka free and the Finnish chicks more willing, then Hubert, get to work on the new patch!

[Norse]

Hello Wolfpack! As this thread is about to fade away and die off... well I mean we can't have that now can we and since you were kind enough to write down the exact points that we are discussing, (you see, I wasn't even sure what exactely it was that you were whining about), then I'll be nice back and answer each one specifically. Who knows, perhaps we can agree on some things and agree on our differences, and then wow, you know what, life moves on (*shock*) :eek:

Alright, here we go

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

1: You think Lappland would open up large strategic possibilities, which it wouldn't.

I understand that you do not think that it would be feasible to have some kind of fight in Lappland, because the terrain is difficult etc. That's alright, you got some valid points. My stance on this is that if either side, the axis or the Sovjets, could manage to breake thru the enemy lines, then there are strategic objectives to be reached.

Imagine, if the axis managed to rout the Sovjets, and the axis either takes or cut's off Murmansk, then we can see a big loss in Sovjet MPP's as they are represented in the Lend-Lease.

I already covered what the Sovjets could reach, so moving along.

Now, what you must understand, is that I don't neccesarily want this in SC. I am only saying that the possibilities would open up, and they wouldn't be incorrect. However how hard it was in real life, this game is all about "what-if's", and "what-if" the Sovjets managed to rush thru souther-Finland for example, take Helsinki, and then the Axis forces in lappland begin to retreat to Norway much earlier in the war. Next, Sovjet can assault Sweeden and rush on, forcing the axis to retreat even further. Something like this, or whatever. Like said, it wouldn't be incorrect. What we CAN discuss is wheter it would be correct to include this in the game.

You probably say no already just to challenge my point. If Hubert made the map bigger, then I wouldn't be against it. But personally, it's the same for me. The map at the size it is right now is fine, as long as we can operate units from Norway, thru Sweeden, and into Finland. That is my request.

2: You seem to think that if they had leaders who wished to, they would have strolled over to the Urals smiting the Soviets all along the way.

Nope.

I said if Finland had leaders who were willing, then the Finnish forces could fight together with the Axis forces, onto Sovjet soil instead of just on Finnish soil. What comes to mind is that the Finns make an attack from north of Leningrad, while the Germans make an attack south of Leningrad.

Now this is already implemented in the game, if you want to get the Finnish units along on the offensive inside Sovjet, then you can.

Why is this such a big issue anyway. Do you think the game is wrong? Do you think the game must be changed? Because you know, as it is, you can take ANY Finnish unit, and let it charge against any Sovjet city. Leningrad, Urals, whatever, your choice.

I am not against that. If you manage to do that good, then both thumbs up. You are the ones with major issues here

3: You contend that the Finns beat the Soviets in the Winter War and Continuation War, neither of which would be true.

4: You seem to think that 200,000 casualties would completely cow a country that lost 16-20 million people in the 4 years on the Eastern Front.

I put theese two "points" together because they are all part of the same thing.

As per the German-Sovjet pact, where they drew up the European map between them, Finland was now in Sovjet sphere and was to be annexed to Sovjet just the way the Baltic States etc got annexed.

However, the Finns didn't bend over backwards and give them their land, they fought to defend it. I doubt that Sovjet loved loosing 200.000 men or 20 million men, but they had a much higher tolerance for losses than many other nations do.

Now, as the war dragged on, and the Sovjets were beaten like that, despite that the Sovjets were eventually going to win - they did so at a terribly slow pace considering the odds here. Sovjet was loosing international prestige bigtime. If the war dragged on, France and Britain were getting closer to intervene on Finnish side and declare war on Sovjet. For Sovjet, the war in Finland had consequences far beyond the Finnish borders. So eventually, settling with some borderland, and demanding war-reparations was acceptable for Sovjet.

So let's see, Sovjet's objective was to conquer Finland. Finlands objective was to stay alive.

Result? Finland stayed alive, but using their diplomatic skills, managed to do so by accepting that Sovjet is the top dog (or whatever way you want to put it). Based on this, Finland won it's objective, but you can say that Sovjet won an alternative objective.

How about this then, can we agree on this?

Finland won the peace, Sovjet won the war. Yes?

Cheers

~Norse~

[Wolfpack]

Okay Norse, to address your points. You think that someone could actually break through and perform a strategic level advance in the north which I'm quite positive they couldn't. Like I've posted, the conditions would make it impossible to support any kind of SC level force there. I can't convince you of that so oh well. Like I said before, I can't comment on the rail and transportation systems in northern Finland, Sweden, and Norway...Since I don't know anything about those, I leave the idea of allowing movement through there to others.

You know that this whole thing started over the idea of giving the Finns a HQ unit. I still maintain that that wouldn't be wise because that would give them abilities they just didn't have. As Gunslingr pointed out above, if you give the Finns a HQ, they could perform a march to the Urals with a small amount of German support...mainly just keeping the Soviets occupied. That's unrealistic. Yet, you countered that arguement by telling us we had to prove they couldn't. I'd like to think that was just a misunderstanding. From what you've said since I assume you're just saying that they could have joined the German advance and been in the Urals along with the Wehrmacht. If so, yes, they could have, with a lot of luck. You have to draw the line on historical events and "what-ifs" somewhere in this game. I believe that the lack of a Finnish HQ was one way Hubert used to simulate the Finnish reluctance to advance out of their area. Adding a HQ would alter that and allow totally unrealistic results.

As for the last part...you call that a victory....sorry, guess my definition of victory is a bit more narrow. If you win, you get stuff, if you tie, nobody gets anything, if you lose, you have to give stuff up. If you want to qualify victory like that then we can argue that Germany "won" WWII because they weren't dismembered back into their small feudal states like some countries would have preferred. Oh, and Japan "won" too because they didn't have to give up their Emperor. I try not to put too many qualifications on my definitions. The Finns fought 2 wars in the span of 5 years with the Soviets. Considering the territory they gave up, and the reperations they paid, I say they lost both of them. Besides, I seriously doubt the Soviets really wanted to conquer all of Finland...why? When they got nearly everything they wanted either in reparations or land ceeded? Regardless, we've wandered a bit off the original topic here which was about the Finnish HQ.

[Tha_Field_Marshall]

Finns - sminns, who cares.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Okay Norse, to address your points. You think that someone could actually break through and perform a strategic level advance in the north which I'm quite positive they couldn't. Like I've posted, the conditions would make it impossible to support any kind of SC level force there. I can't convince you of that so oh well.

I am only keeping the possibility open. What if some German player decides to place most of his Luftwaffe in northern-Norway and bombard the Sovjets and stuff like that. But I agree with you, this is a dead horse and we both got our opinions so let's move on

Like I said before, I can't comment on the rail and transportation systems in northern Finland, Sweden, and Norway...Since I don't know anything about those, I leave the idea of allowing movement through there to others.

I made another thread where anyone for and against this can state their opinions and arguments.

You know that this whole thing started over the idea of giving the Finns a HQ unit. I still maintain that that wouldn't be wise because that would give them abilities they just didn't have. As Gunslingr pointed out above, if you give the Finns a HQ, they could perform a march to the Urals with a small amount of German support...mainly just keeping the Soviets occupied. That's unrealistic. Yet, you countered that arguement by telling us we had to prove they couldn't. I'd like to think that was just a misunderstanding. From what you've said since I assume you're just saying that they could have joined the German advance and been in the Urals along with the Wehrmacht.

Exactely! Some of the posts here are saying that the Finns can't do *anything* outside Finland, and I wondered why (I still do), and I used the example of the Rumenians who got all the way up to Stalingrad - yet they have no HQ either. Of course, they marched *with* Wermacht, and not on their own. I understand more and more that we have misunderstood each other, as you may have thought that I ment in a 1 on 1 showdown between Finland and Sovjet, that Finland will truimf and conquer all of Sovjet, that wasn't what I was saying but it might have been misunderstood that way.

If so, yes, they could have, with a lot of luck. You have to draw the line on historical events and "what-ifs" somewhere in this game. I believe that the lack of a Finnish HQ was one way Hubert used to simulate the Finnish reluctance to advance out of their area. Adding a HQ would alter that and allow totally unrealistic results.

If you go back in this thread and reread what I originally said, where SS Viking wonder why the Finns are underpowered and have no HQ etc., then I suggested that the German player move a HQ himself, with an army and an airfleet. It was others who were talking about giving the Finns a HQ, I didn't say that. By giving the Finns a HQ, you have pointed out that it can have severe sideeffects that isn't realistic at all, ie that they move into Urals on their own.

As for the last part...you call that a victory....sorry, guess my definition of victory is a bit more narrow. If you win, you get stuff, if you tie, nobody gets anything, if you lose, you have to give stuff up. If you want to qualify victory like that then we can argue that Germany "won" WWII because they weren't dismembered back into their small feudal states like some countries would have preferred. Oh, and Japan "won" too because they didn't have to give up their Emperor. I try not to put too many qualifications on my definitions. The Finns fought 2 wars in the span of 5 years with the Soviets. Considering the territory they gave up, and the reperations they paid, I say they lost both of them.

Yes, the Sovjets won the wars but IMO, Finland proved it's own worth as well and won it's independence. You know Finland was a very new nation, I mean, Finland had exsisted for a long time but as a nation they had been annexed by Sovjet for a long time. They got "free" in 1917, and in worldwar2 they fought for their own survival as a nation, and from this point of view they won their excistance now and in the future.

Besides, I seriously doubt the Soviets really wanted to conquer all of Finland...why? When they got nearly everything they wanted either in reparations or land ceeded? Regardless, we've wandered a bit off the original topic here which was about the Finnish HQ.

Don't give the Finns a HQ, but increase their initial entrench value on atleast the army to 1 or 2. That's my suggestion.

~Norse~

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Sorry i havent been around, with the first few days of highschool and cross country practice, homework. You get the picture...

But isnt it odd that most of the anti-finn people here are junior members? Im not making any judgement calls here, but perhaps they should read some of my old posts. However, the comment was made that the map should extend more south then north, i disagree, more action took place above the artic circle than 100 miles from the coast in africa (at least im pretty sure). And it would be far more fun and add more depth to the game if it was expanded to the north. As, imho, it is more fun to simulate the allied landings at narvik in 1940 or the Battle of suomussalmi(sic? in not sure, im tired) or even the allied convoys to archangelensk, as opposed to the impassable quattara depression.

CVM

[Timosenko]

Wow, huh! Nice thread...

The game should be extended to the north, since there was notable importance in ww2 scale. If one should stake to the north, it's up to the opponent to determine if it's worth to couter-react.

It's easy to oppose everything, to push brakes. A bit harder to develop something new.

[JerseyJohn]

The only big actions south of the map -- aside from South Atlantic surface raiders (most famously the Graf Spee in 1939) would have been the attack on Dakaar and the Ethiopian campaign.

Unless Il Duce's boys in Libya somehow conquered Egypt and the Sudan, his troops in East Africa (200,000 or so) were doomed to run out of supplies. As everyone knows, his 1940 Egyptian drive was a fiasco and the overly large Ethiopian garrison, after putting up a hard fight considering their hopeless circumstances, were lost after a year or so.

In the war's early stages Wavell feared a simultaneous drive from both Italian African areas, but it's doubtful that the East African troops could have been supplied from Ethiopia for an offensive through the Sudan. And if they had managed to link up, the land route would have been very long and probably not of much use.

I agree with Carl vM about the activity north of the game map: Narvik 1940 and the Murmansk Run would be interesting elements and of great relevance to the war.

The Finnish/German drives on Archangel may have been interesting tactically but on this scale would only be a couple of deadlocked units eye-balling each other. The Axis was sensitive about Northern Finland because it was their only source of Nickel. Hitler thought it was very amusing that the Allies didn't go all out to capture the region and probably end the war!

An extended Northern region could add realism in allowing German naval units to escape northward along the Norwegian fjiords into the Atlantic and possibly allow the Iceland and Greenland action I'm always pushing for, but it would probably involve map scrolling -- which most players seem opposed to.

[ December 09, 2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Finnish/German drives on Archangel may have been interesting tactically but on this scale would only be a couple of deadlocked units eye-balling each other. The Axis was sensitive about Northern Finland because it was their only source of Nickel. Hitler thought it was very amusing that the Allies didn't go all out to capture the region and probably end the war!

Good lord, someone actually resurrected this post? The extent of the fight in the north could be shown ingame as one corps on each side both highly entrenched. And of course, you wouldn't be able to reinforce because the territory really can't support much more in the way of troops. Strategic options? Win in the south and force the other side to pull out, otherwise you aren't going anywhere.

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

An extended Northern region could add realism in allowing German naval units to escape northward along the Norwegian fjiords into the Atlantic and possibly allow the Iceland and Greenland action I'm always pushing for, but it would probably involve map scrolling -- which most players seem opposed to.

Actually, this is the only legitamate reason for extending the map north. There was a lot of naval action up in this area, and the limits of the map make it hard for the Axis to move units out into the Atlantic...not impossible, just harder than it should be. Unfortunately, any changes of this type will have to wait for SC2, so it's all academic anyhow.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

... and possibly allow the Iceland and Greenland action I'm always pushing for, but it would probably involve map scrolling -- which most players seem opposed to

I don't think that most players would be opposed to a little scrolling so to get that expanded map that would open up the North Atlantic to German raiders, among other interesting things.

I know I wouldn't be, so there is one vote in your column. My guess is that the majority would actually prefer a larger map all around -- how about ~9-12 hexes vertically and horizontally?

As for the northern expanse, Murmansk convoy could be modeled, and your timely suggestions as to Iceland and Greenland becoming critical way-stations -- by either side, could be modeled. Let' do it!

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Heres what we can have with a map that extends further North:

Winter War

Allied North Russia Convoys

SINK THE BISMARCK!

Allied landing at Narvik

Swedish Iron Ore and its Railway

Drive on Murmusnk and Archangel

And if it goes further south:

Eithiopia

.......

.......

Well, you get the idea

CvM

[JerseyJohn]

" ... Well, you get the idea." CvM

And a damn good one it is!

Thanks for the vote Immers, it's appreciated!

Wolfpack

Pretty much agreed on role of far North -- deadlocked ground action of a small scale but it's the Murmansk convoys going from the Sea of Norway to the Barents Sea and the Battle of the North Atlantic running from the east coast of North America, skirting south of Greenland and Iceland to England. I'd be very pleased to see something covering it in V 2.0 and believe most players share Immers views on the subject.

[ December 09, 2002, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Vodka]

Here goes my vote

[DeGaule]

About that 3rd most powerfull ally stuff....no offense , I admire the Finns for the hardship they faced and the courage they showed in combat against the Red Army but there could be a little debate as too wheter Rumania, a country wich actually participated in the Invasion of the USSR could not also pretend to this title.

After all, the Rumanian army, even led by one of the most imcompetent bunch of Officers the World has ever seen (outside of Italy and France of course who were just "Out of this world") did manage to register more than a few success( short-lived I know..I know !! ).

As for the Air Force question. yes its true the Finnish Air Force quality and determination came as a huge surprise to the Red Army, but in the great scheme of things it still had only a very minor influence.

Sweden,s air force while basically untested and unchallenged was both more recent in equipment and more numerous. Its not unreasonnable to show then as more powerful.

Comparisons are always dangerous and often less than satisfying in the abstract, but until someone invent a time machine and let us actually go back and experience the actual events..we are stuck with the abstract...makes for some nice lively debates , that,s a fun fringe benefit.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by DeGaule:

About that 3rd most powerfull ally stuff....no offense , I admire the Finns for the hardship they faced and the courage they showed in combat against the Red Army

Exactly DeGaule, I would argue that finland wasn't germanys 3rd most powerful ally. When you look at it Finland's attitude towards the whole conflict, they weren't much of an ally.

They stopped at the 1939 Finnish/Soviet border during Barbarossa. That made it easy for the soviets to shift troops to oppose the Germans. Then they were the first to bail when the war turned against germany. Even going as far as attacking the german troops trying to retreat to Norway. Then allowing the soviets to purse the Germans in Norway, yes Soviet soldiers moved into Norway.

Finland's whole me first attitude is not something that makes it a great ally. That shouldn't take away from the fact that they fought well. But a Germany's 3rd? Naw.

Of course if anyone thinks that Germany was good to Finland, read article I of the secret protocol in the Soviet-German non-agression pact.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Germany basically said that Finland was Russia's to deal with.

With friends like that who needs enemies. LOL

-dave