Taking Sweden

[Jollyguy]

Another poster pointed out that taking Sweden was still too easy, and an attractive target. I think some of you are missing the broad scope of this game. Had the Nazis wanted, they could have taken Sweden, Spain, Portugal, rolled the Brits east of the Suez canal, you name it. Hell, if they had pursued a one thrust southern strategy in Russia, they could have probably pushed clean through the Caucauses, sliced right through Iraq and Persia and India, and joined hands with the Japanese in Burma. They were close to unstopable the first two or three years of the war.

The point is, we get to play those what-ifs. But not in a vacuum. If Hitler takes Sweden, then the Russians interest will be piqued. If the Germans take Spain and Portugal and Gibralter, that's a lot of real estate to protect, while the the Russian Bear waits and builds up. If I'm looking at the Spanish Peninsula correctly, it would be fairly easy for the Allies to land and snip it off near the French border, deprive Hitler of all those MPPs, then slowly reclaim the territory from out of supply units.

That's the point, folks. The Nazis can do everything except Operation Sea Lion the first two or three years at little cost. The Allies need to figure out effective stalling and attrition tactics, until the weight of their production can be brought to bear.

If Herbert determines the balance of the game is off, he'll fix it. But don't complain because initially the Germans get to slice through any opponent like a hot knife through butter, because that's exactly what happened. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hitler had not turned east, he could have easily conquered all of Europe and Scandanavia and Northern Africa, then dug in. It would have been a lot harder to dig him out.

Good Luck

[Sol Invictus]

I agree, getting a general feeling for the effects of an overly aggressive Germany is a very important factor that needs to be arrived at. As you say, Germany has a great many options that she can choose from in the first few years. Some options will be better than others. It seems that there will be a fine line that Germany must follow.

[arax3]

Just played two games with AI playing allies at +1. Finished off France in Summer of 1940. Turned Italy loose on Vichy France and moved to invade Sweden. Had several air units, three armor units, all the fleet and two or three corp units. Still had not taken Sweden by the end of the scenario!! Ergo, Sweden is too tough! IRC Germany would not bother Sweden because the Swedes were smart enough to give them what they wanted, iron ore, without a struggle. In game, no Ore without conqust. Hubert, Sweden is too tough. L3

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Sol Invictus:

... Germany has a great many options that she can choose from in the first few years. Some options will be better than others. It seems that there will be a fine line that Germany must follow.

Very true. As example, in a recent game I had USA declare war-preparation on the last turn of the Demo, fully 7 months ahead of schedule! :eek:

Why? I followed a typical script -- after Lowlands and France, I conquered (in order) Sweden, Greece, Yugoslavia and then invaded Russia. That's it. (... note, no Sea Lion)

This had never happened before, so apparently the slight tweaking that Hubert did has had its desired effect. Either that, or this was an infrequent series of events when all the consequences were extreme.

The percentages for declaring war can vary slightly, so this WAS one game where they added up to a premature war response -- I don't think any Axis player would want this, for obvious reasons. Having to defend against USA activity in Atlantic and European offensives before Russia is remotely on the ropes, cannot be a good omen.

For those who suppose that we can just pluck little countries off the tree -- la di da... here I'll grab Spain, and Portugal, Switzerland, Vichy, Sweden, all the Balkans, and oh, I may as well reach for Iraq and Turkey too! -- and drop them in the sack like so many prize plums, this example might suggest otherwise.

(OTOH, could be... the aggressive Axis player may then have JUST ENOUGH additional MPPs to withstand any early USA initiative, I don't know, we'll have to see how this kind of strategy plays in the full game)

Truly, we will have to be a bit more selective in which countries we will choose to conquer, depending on variables unique to each game and our playing style. But it is apparent that we cannot just take whatever we please unless willing to face the consequences.

[Old Patch]

I found that taking Sweden is very easy - don't do an amphibious invasion. By invading from Norway, Sweden will fall easily and the amount of time it takes depends on how many troops you send there. If you are on a budget, send a corps and an army from Poland, a corps from Denmark, and an HQ and two airfleets as soon as France falls to Norway. If you are in a hurry change the corps for armies or even a tank group. My worst performance was six turns, my best three turns, and there is usually plenty of time to ship the troops back to Poland for Barbarossa. Since Sweden adds 56 MPP's a turn to the German Economy, and only about 15% to the war meter for the USA and Russia, I can see taking Sweden becomeing a standard strategy very quickly.

[Ancient One]

An amphibious invasion is still the best way to take out Sweden. All you need is 2 airfleets, 2 armies, and 1 corps. Upon declaring war, unload an army north of Stockholm, and another one south of Stockholm. Make them both attack the city (usually 4 points of damage each), then make the 2 airfleets attack (this almost invariably finishes off the unit). Finally the corps (or whatever) enters the city.

One time I didn't even need the airfleets, both armies did 5 damage!

For relatively little trouble, the Axis get ~300 MPP immidiately, as well as a per turn income increase by 77 (yes I'm counting the Norway rise to 8 here as well). There's nothing the Allies can do to stop this, and there's no reason why the Axis shouldn't do it.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Had the Nazis wanted, they could have taken Sweden, Spain, Portugal, rolled the Brits east of the Suez canal, you name it.

Perhaps, but it would not be nearly as easy or as profitable as in the game (Sweden is effectively worth more than France).

[Desert Dave]

I would agree with Jollyguy's initial observation and go so far as saying this -- IMO, Germany not only COULD HAVE, but -- WOULD HAVE taken Sweden if the government of Sweden had not seen the eerily burning light :eek: and granted Hitler his precious iron-ore.

And, they probably did so to forestall any future invasion. After all, there were many other nations that would have liked to receive that supply of ore. By this time, Germany was a genuine belligerent Renegade, with plenty of method, means & opportunity.

Hubert has already said that he didn't want to clutter the game with a lot of "special/exceptional" rules. This one doesn't bother me very much, since it is not that far fetched to imagine this conquest taking place.

Maybe next edition, we'll see this iron-ore dilemma solved, along with The Winter War, and Lend Lease, and two of Straha's favorites -- Minor reparations & tribute (as with Vichy) and Suez City with an around-the-Horn transport possible.

If not, good enough. :cool:

[angel]

[ July 30, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Massattack]

Arax3, did you have a HQ unit with your forces attacking Sweden? I have attacked Sweden several times with forces roughly similar to yours, and most times take Sweden by Jan41.(I am presently playing at Intermediate difficulty and computer experience bonus +1) I must admit I have not managed it yet with forces as lean as Ancient Ones! A human opponent might make Sweden a little harder(just a little!) to take in a pbem game with the extra forces Hubert has provided.

Regards

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Hubert has already said that he didn't want to clutter the game with a lot of "special/exceptional" rules. This one doesn't bother me very much, since it is not that far fetched to imagine this conquest taking place.

There doesn't need to be any "special/exceptional" rules. Nobody's saying that it should be impossible to conquer Sweden, but I'm saying that it should be a tough nut to crack and that it should not be so valuable.

An easy fix would be to simply move the Swedish corps to directly south of Stockholm, and not make all the resources in Norway/Sweden rise to 8 after Sweden is conquered (why does this happen anyway, I thought this was only supposed to happen if connected by land to a major power).

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Ancient One:

There doesn't need to be any "special/exceptional" rules. Nobody's saying that it should be impossible to conquer Sweden, but I'm saying that it should be a tough nut to crack and that it should not be so valuable.

There is no historical precedent for establishing just how tough a nut it was, is there?

You can merely go by the Army and Navy forces that were available and assume they would perform in a "typical" fashion, no matter how great or small their parade-ground reputation. As I understand it, Hubert has said that he has already gone beyond their actual capabilities.

Likewise the economic value. The iron ore was quite critical to the Germans. You cannot just pretend it had less import than it actually did, can you? Or that the Swedish cities would be of less value than other cities?

As for Norway having a small increased value, I can't say what the rationale is -- perhaps Hubert can comment?

[Old Patch]

How tough was Sweden? In the Beta Demo their army was smaller than that of Greece (two armies) and in the Gold Demo it was the same size AND has an Air Fleet! Anyone have the actual numbers?

[Hubert Cater]

The increase in supply is due to the narrow straights between Denmark and Sweden and this passes on to Norway as well. The same affect/effect? (I believe) will happen from Gibraltar to Spanish Morrocco. Not a special rule really, but automatically calculated by the game engine as narrow enough to count as a virtual connection.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

There is no historical precedent for establishing just how tough a nut it was, is there?

You can merely go by the Army and Navy forces that were available and assume they would perform in a "typical" fashion, no matter how great or small their parade-ground reputation. As I understand it, Hubert has said that he has already gone beyond their actual capabilities.

Likewise the economic value. The iron ore was quite critical to the Germans. You cannot just pretend it had less import than it actually did, can you? Or that the Swedish cities would be of less value than other cities?

As for Norway having a small increased value, I can't say what the rationale is -- perhaps Hubert can comment?

It doesn't matter how big the Swedish military is if it's so poorly positioned as to allow you to take Stockholm on the first turn of the invasion. Also, I thought the iron ore is represented by the ports in northern Germany, adding the value of Sweden in the game makes the Axis far richer than they should be. This severely hurts the play balance of the game, which is already skewed in favor of the Axis.

Am I the only one looking at this from a multiplayer point of view?

[ July 30, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

[Camicie Nere]

Sweden maintained a standing army of 600,000 by '44, with about twice that in reserves. Pretty high numbers for a nation of 6 million. After the Polish invasion, they developed a nice little domestic armaments industry (which exists to this day) and dramatically increased military spending and readiness. During the war, Sweden was fond of likening itself to a porcupine - small but bristling with defenses.

Their realpolitik-based foreign policy probably did more to forestall invasion, but the military measures and Finland-like terrain certainly did not hurt.