Exel Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Finland's borders are ahistorical in SC. Now they start their Continuation War against Soviet Union with their pre-1939 borders, ie. they have not lost the Karelian Isthmus. It ought to be fixed. There should be a Winter War event (similar to the Soviet annexation of the Baltics) that makes Finland lose the territory it did historically. It may sound like bitching about an unimportant little detail, but it is a gameplay issue as well: Finland did not start the war with an army at the gates of Leningrad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Hubert has the situation as it existed prior to the Winter War. The problem with Finland's physical connection with Sweden and Norway is it's pretty far north in game terms, but you're right, it would be better to have the countries linked even if it is a bit of an abstraction. I mean, it isn't like the United States and Canada map situation, where the the two countries are clearly separated by the Atlantic! [ October 02, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82ndReady Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Hello Gentlmen, If a winter war option is included, how will this affect game balance. This type of option would have to allow German forces to freely stage within Finland as long as they were within the German sphere of influence but also would provide for I believe a very serious impact upon the game play balance. This thread is very intresting to me because I have thought many-oh-times about why the Finish winter war had not been included before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 82nd CvM made inmerable posts on this subject last Autumn. Unfortunately they're buried so far in the back pages that it would be a real effort to find them. Searching Finland would probably uncover a lot of them. Also, there was one long crazy Thread on this that kept reemerging ad nausium, but has been under the page one line for several months now. [ October 02, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: 82nd CvM made inmerable posts on this subject last Autumn. Unfortunately they're buried so far in the back pages that it would be a real effort to find them. Searching Finland would probably uncover a lot of them. Also, there was one long crazy Thread on this that kept reemerging ad nausium, but has been under the page one line for several months now. Just thought i'd pop in, those posts are back there, ahhh, the good old days... I hope there will be a winter war in SC CvM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordy Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I was wondering how long it was going to take CvM to comment. I do have to say, I expected more though. What about the level 4 Mannerheim HQ? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 inmerable -- couldn't decide whether there are one or two Ns in the word so I compromised and spelled it that way. I still don't know for certain so I can't write it. But I meant the word that means too many to count? Uhhhh -- Innumerable! And they say we need a spelling checker! [ October 02, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 4, 2003 Author Share Posted October 4, 2003 I didn't mean that the Winter War event would trigger a war with Soviet Union and Finland, and thus make Finland prematurely join the Axis. All I want is Finland to start with it's historical borders once it goes to war with Soviet Union in 1941. What I mean is an event similar to the annexation of the Baltics: the Finnish-Soviet border is moved to the 1940 level (ie. Finland loses Karelian Isthmus) with a message saying "Winter War ends". Of course it would be nice to have the actual war simulated, but the current game mechanics wont allow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 There should be a Winter War event Some sort of historical political trigger would be good. A popup asking the Allied/USSR player if he wants to fight, then a determination whether Finland cedes the border hexes or not. The risk to USSR is a slight effect on war readiness factors and possibility that Finland activates, but the benefit is a buffer zone for Leningrad. There should always be a risk and benefit to consider with these decisions. Same sort of thing can apply to Eastern Poland, Bessarabia, the Baltic States, and perhaps other territorial areas (I'm thinking Austria and Czechoslovakia for 1938 scenarios). These all would require different map combinations for SC2. It shouldn't be too hard, just something Hubert needs to consider as part of the political model enhancements. Advanced Third Reich has a lot of relatively simple political events that could be implemented in SC2. Alternatively, USSR could declare war against Finland at their convenience and once the border hexes are occupied and/or sufficient Finnish units are eliminated, then a popup asks if USSR accepts Finland's surrender. If yes, the border hexes go to USSR and Finland becomes a neutral again. This requires USSR to be an active neutral, something else to be considered for SC2 that's been requested before. The early surrender option needs to be explored for SC2. Examples: Finland in the Winter War, Denmark, Italy in 1943, and Romania in 1944. All these countries surrendered prior to their capitals being captured, so the game should provide for these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 More Importance would be the Balkan Wars I & II that divided the borders up entirely setting up the Pro-Axis sentiment, although not reflected. The Karelian Isthmus would be more important on a larger game scale. Finland and Sweden definitely are very much connected Though there are many such huge Map Errors... Prague no Vienna??? DUH? What, hmmm. That's not up for dispute ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I've noticed several games that omit Vienna while leaving Prague and other cities. Presumably Vienna didn't have as much economic and/or manufacturing importance. I guess Prague would represent the Skoda factories. Aside from our usual observations about where there should or shouldn't be ports, for me the worst omission is with North America; there are two Atlantic hexes that should be turned into land terraign, allowing the U. S. and Canada to be joined. A single hes would link Finland and Sweden, though connecting Finland with Norway would be more difficult; the only way that could be done would be if that part of the map were abstracted and distorted toward the north; the southern connecting hex being with Sweden and the one above to a line of "Norwegian" hexes. That being the case, the two Swedish ore mines would need to each be dropped a hex farther south. I doubt Hubert will never make any of those changes, but they'd definitely prove useful. [ October 04, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 I doubt any map changes will be made at this point. Nor do I see them necessary. (But obviously a better and bigger map is needed for SC2) More complex political events would be nice for SC2 too, but not for SC anymore. Just a simple event simulating history and moving the Finnish border a bit... Btw, Finland did not surrender. It was the only European country west of Soviet Union whose ground was fought on but wasn't occupied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 "Nor do I see them necessary." Sure, everyone knows the United States and Canada are separated by the Atlantic Ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Strange Prague and no Vienna. Although the population and ethnic base was all German. Being historically the Austrian-Hungary Marriage from WW1 would make Vienna a key Map Feature of Prague IMHO and to include Hungary<Budapest>, especially that and Albania<hehehe again>, Bulgaria Sophia. None of those nations combined likely had the industrial or Manpower more importantly<infrastructure> of Vienna itself. I think the Finland issue is a small one. I'd prefer to see an HQ for it, so it's troop fight with supply [ October 05, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I don't recall whether Clash of Steel showed Vienna but I'm sure it showed Prague. High Command showed both but Vienna was only a place name while Prague was an industrial center. I think it's done as a generalization to represent the importance of Slovakia, where Aurtria is considered already inter-connected with other German production. A good compromise would be to separate Austria/Germany with some ocean hexes similar to the U. S. & Canada situation! [ October 05, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 John: The Canadian situation can be a bad one, since it's disconnected, it can be invaded as well as defended by the Axis making it a geographic disaster area. I suppose I can see where Austria included in Germany. Though in some places you have too much detail and others not enough. Swiss start with 2 full armies, pretty good mobilization in comparison with other European Nations. The Yugoslavians start with 3 corps? They had a million men, shouldn't that be closer to 4 armies or equivelant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Liam, Agreed all the way round. Hubert, in a long forgotten post about the Balkans, explained why he set Yugoslavia up the way he did. Not surprisingly he researched the subject, knew the names and locations of the historical Yugoslavian units, and decided they wouldn't have preformed effectively due to ethnic squables within the country and differences over the deposing of their monarch. At least, as I remember the discussion, that was the gist of it. So I guess those corps represent what Hubert felt the net effective force would have been that the Belgrade Government would have been able to control and issue orders to. Presumably the others would have melted away as effective units, keeping their weapons hidden, reappearing later as partisans. That, because they wouldn't like a conquerer any better than they originally liked the Belgrade government. You do make a good point about Austria as a part of Germany, but I don't think it would matter much in the long run, unless the game is converted for options prior to the start of 1938, when Austria was absorbed into the Reich. [ October 05, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Interesting, I didn't know that Hubert did research on Yugoslavia. It was definitely not bunch of happy campers. Partly things are half sized or 1/3rd sized in SC. i.e. the Russian Front. No HQs to represent the poor quality of Minor Nations...rather than less units. Even Poland had a decent General who later moved to Palestine named after their famous King<a lot of Minors moved on and fought more bravely and in greater #s than the Free French. The Swiss would definitely not be a backwards Army, but 500k seems a bit high for them as for some other Minors. The Fins would definitely show the Ruskies a thing or two about War! Probably was a big help to teaching the Russians a lesson or two. The Fins a lot should be included into the German Army rather than an independant army however if you want to get very strategic about things. The fins had about 160k during the Winter War and I don't know what that moved up to but that wouldn't equal what is represented in SC. Though the quality of their troops are quite poorer than Russians without a real HQs for them<sadly misrepresented> During the Winter War the Ruskies had 400k, and the fins had about 50k casualties..hehe talk about a Laugh. The Fins almost had an Airfleet sized unit as well with 300 fairly modern aircraft<i'm sure all German backed>Depending on whose figures one uses, the FAF shot down 190-280 enemy planes while losing only 35-62 of their aircraft. The consensus is that the Finns were vastly superior pilots compared to the Soviets particularly in air-to-air combat situations. Would also shock some to learn that Germany lost more Air to Poland than Poland did to Germany [ October 05, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Finlands Air Force was very mixed: Italian Fiat G50, British Gloster Gladiator, US Brewster F2B Buffalo, French Super-Morane (Morane-Saulnier MS406), captured Russian I-16 & SB2, german ME-109 (Mersu) and many more. The pilots were excellent trained. --- Poland-Campaign (Fall Weiss): as far as i know the german Luftwaffe lost 285 planes (among them: 109 bomber/dive-bomber) and Poland lost 333 planes (among them: 82 bomber) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 German casualties (8082 to 10572 killed, 27,278 to 30322 wounded and 3404 to 5029 missing) were very low compare to Polish casualties (66300 killed, 133700 wounded and 420000 taken prisoner). Poles lost 327 out of their 435 airplanes in combat, while 98 flew to Romania. In addition, 26000 civilians were killed during the fighting. Germans lost some 993 to 1000 armored fighting vehicles (mainly destroyed by anti-tank guns), 370 to 400 artillery pieces, 697 to 1300 airplanes (damaged and destroyed) along with 11000 motor vehicles. According to the German sources only 89 PzKpfw I, 83 PzKpfw II, 26 PzKpfw III, 19 PzKpfw IV, 5 command tanks, 7 PzKpfw 35(t) and 7 PzKpfw 38(t) were completely lost. In addition, Polish Navy sunk 2 destroyers, 2 minelayers (some sources state that only one vessel was sunk) and damaged numerous other vessels including "Schleswig-Holstein", while losing single destroyer "Wicher", minelayer "Gryf", artillery training ship "Mazur" and two small vessels. Soviet losses amounted to 737 killed and 1859 wounded. Some sources state that Soviet losses accounted for 10000 dead, wounded and missing. Soviets also lost 42 tanks and 429 that broke down along with some 30 airplanes. Soviets took prisoner some 242000 Polish soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 "...in general the bravery and heroism of the Polish Army merits great respect." Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by Liam: Germans lost ... 697 to 1300 airplanes (damaged and destroyed) from where did you get these numbers? I could only find the amount of 282 german planes lost in poland!? Btw.: Polands anti-air units downed appr. 100% more polish planes than the german anti-air-units Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 "Btw.: Polands anti-air units downed appr. 100% more polish planes than the german anti-air-units" xwormwood A pretty serious problem throughout the war. In Libya, 1940, Marshal Italo Balbo, a renowned pilot, was shot down while attempting to land at Tobruck, which was part of his command! There are many instances among all combatants of AA batteries opening up on their own aircraft. Many U. S. paratroops were killed in their transports and gliders while passing over "friendly ships." It makes sense that a lot of Polish aircraft would have been shot down by friendly fire as right from the start the gunners always expected to see German aircraft. A weird twist in which it worked in the invader's favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 XWormWood: My resources are websources from two seperate sites. Also via a very good novel I do not have the name of I heard a very interesting account of actually how the PAF had destroyed more German fighters than vis versa the first day... which began my intrigueing research Hard to believe that the Polish Air Force was actually very well trained.. their mainline fighter was just not a comparison with the 109s. They accounted for 13% of BOB German Aerial losses at the cost off 33 lives so says the latter link!!! Jesus http://www.electricscotland.com/history/ww2/ww2-3.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/polcamp.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 To boot!!! The Poles had an Army size Free Pole Army. I doubt the French came close to qtr of a million FF fighters??? hehehe... so why do we have Free French, they didn't put up as much of a resistance as the Poles did to be quite frank they acted a defeated people altogether and conspiracy in Southern France. They're too busy eating cheese and drinking wine in Vichy to care about fighting on after losing so badly. [ October 06, 2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts