Col. Gen. Guderian Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Do you ever invade Sweden and Finland before doing so? So as to create a 4th army group and a second front against the Russians? You could even take the rump of what would have been army group south and deploy them in Finland, and leave Army group south to be made up of the satellite armies, including Italy. Does anyone ever do this? Or is this a common tactic? P.S. My birthday tomorrow, will finally get to play the full version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BochiW Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 yep I like to take sweden then transfer a German HQ & army or 2 plus an airgroup to finland & use them to take lenningrad often in combination with advancing armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 You don't need sweden for this. Just send the troops from east-prussia. Sweden and Norway are always taken before barbarossa for MMP reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Sweden, yes! Finland, no! USSR readiness increases substantially for Finnish involvement. If your already at war with Soviets, Finland can be easily held and/or takes many assets to conquer, better to use elsewhere. Besides Finns join later with imminent demise of Leningrad. Wait for them to join and then reinforce with Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 SeaDonkey is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 I invaded the baltic states for the craic straight after I conquered France, it really stretches out your front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I invaded the baltic states for the craic straight after I conquered France, it really stretches out your front. Don't do that ! Go for Norway, Sweden, Vichy, Greece, Iraq, Egypt. Leave the bear to it's sleep as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by kurt88: Don't do that ! Go for Norway, Sweden, Vichy, Greece, Iraq, Egypt. Leave the bear to it's sleep as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I of course put the USA at Random. Ofcourse. Now come one, set the USSR to random and play with the pressure of Russian WE, if you ever want to play other players you can use the practice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Kurt is right Colonel,...if you ever want to be a General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstantin V. Kotelnikov Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian: To be honest, I set it so that Russia is neutral. Some may call me a wuss because of that, but my decision isn't out of cowardice, it's to add realism to it. Stalin was petrified of going to war with Germany and he would do everything to avoid provoking Hitler. Thus, I keep them at neutral to make the most realistic politics setting. I of course put the USA at Random. Setting Russia as Neutral is not correct. According to vast amounts of materials coming out of soviet archives the Soviet Union was planning on attacking the Germany in the Spring/Summer of 1942. Then of course there was Zhukov advocating attack in 1941 only to be brushed aside. A couple of good sources for Soviet intentions on starting a war with Germany exists in Dave Glantz's Books "Stumbling Colossus; The Red Army on the Eve of World War" and "When Titans Clashed; How the Red Army Stopped Hitler"." Also some additional material can by found in Overy's book "Russia's War; Blood Upon the Snow" All good reads. Want a fun game against the AI, play as the allies and set the USSR neutral. Makes for some very odd situtations. Peace [ June 17, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Konstantin V. Kotelnikov ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrika31 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 i acctually take the baltic states and i take turkey so i have a wide front as well as pressure from underneath i find it to be a useful tactic and it doesn't provoke the soviets to much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 I've read Barbarrossa by Alan Clark and Stalingrad by Antony Beevor and they both agree that Stalin would do anything to avoid provoking Hitler. That's the basis of what i'm saying. Yes, the military and industries were preparing for war, but it is doubtful that Stalin would have ever given the order unless Germany's fortunes were in decline, which is unlikely because the Soviets were the only ones who could actually stop Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 According to vast amounts of materials coming out of soviet archives the Soviet Union was planning on attacking the Germany in the Spring/Summer of 1942 Yeah well that might have been the plan in 1940 or early 1941 but I bet you anything when 1942 rolled around those plans would have been pushed back. Wayyyy back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolzemFrumFloppen Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by blackbellamy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />According to vast amounts of materials coming out of soviet archives the Soviet Union was planning on attacking the Germany in the Spring/Summer of 1942 Yeah well that might have been the plan in 1940 or early 1941 but I bet you anything when 1942 rolled around those plans would have been pushed back. Wayyyy back. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstantin V. Kotelnikov Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian: I've read Barbarrossa by Alan Clark and Stalingrad by Antony Beevor and they both agree that Stalin would do anything to avoid provoking Hitler. That's the basis of what i'm saying. Yes, the military and industries were preparing for war, but it is doubtful that Stalin would have ever given the order unless Germany's fortunes were in decline, which is unlikely because the Soviets were the only ones who could actually stop Hitler. I too have read both those books. Clark is ok, and I can't stand Beevor as half his book deals with nothing but atrocities. German ones in his Stalingrad book and Russian ones in his Berlin Book. David M Glantz is the cutting edge of Red Army research. The man knows his stuff. He is constantly getting NEW information from the old soviet archives as it opens up. Last time I got an email from him he was editing a book on the structure of the red army that was currently sitting at 1000 pages. LOL In his books he provides overwhelming evidence that the red army was fully gearing for war with Germany in 1942. I would tend to believe it, as Hitlers failure to subdue England and the entry of the United States into WWII in Dec would have had signnificant influence on the decision to go to war or not. To truly understand the Red Army on the eve of Barbarossa you really should read Stumbling Colossus by Glantz and Stalins Reluctant Soldiers by Reese. A lot more material is coming out about the Red Army pre-barbarossa and it is truly fascinating. Totally debunking the myth of the purges being the reason for the poor showing by the red army in 1941. Better late than never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Gen. Guderian Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Konstantin V. Kotelnikov:I too have read both those books. Clark is ok, and I can't stand Beevor as half his book deals with nothing but atrocities. German ones in his Stalingrad book and Russian ones in his Berlin Book. He doesn't just list off atrocities. When I was bought Berlin the downfall last christmas, I was dreading reading the book because it was so dense on a part of the war which I didn't find very interesting, but that was really only because I didn't know much about it. It's an excellent book, much better than Stalingrad. I think Clark is amazing, I love the way Barbarossa focuses on the personal intrigues and jealousies withing the Nazi framework and the military. His account of battles is excellent too. Whatever you were talking about that 1000 page essay on the friggin red army, let me pose this question. Have you ever been skull-****ed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I prefer throwing in 2-3 German Carriers to work over the Russian Northern Flank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltero Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 you and those damb carriers, Rambo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Waltero in 'da house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltero Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 As far as what Stalin would have or could have done or never done is Irrelevant. The fact is Russia's Millitary was fastly becoming reinforced and organized. There was no stopping it. One day you have an Army and no tellin what a person might do. you are taking out the realism when a neutral Russia play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanmaya Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 well you might take out realism or not but what is more important you cannot loosse the game when playing with ussr neutral you simply conquer all neutral lands, turkey , iray , sweden norway, vicyfrance, spain , portugal, greece, yugoslavia... and russia does nothing??? not really realistic when hitler invaded yugoslavia, the soviets were i doubt wether or not to take up arms... but they thougth, time was not good.. so they didn't. but well, so you put ussr on neutral, you simply conquer all neutral lands, turkey , iray , sweden norway, vicyfrance, spain , portugal, greece, yugoslavia then you conquer with your massive amount of mp's england..., you will get then triple usa/allied mp's, you conquer england then you conquer usa and then you declare war on ussr.. because they are are neutral they just sit back, let you take the whole damn world, including their allies, and do nothing well when you finally attack them in 1944, of course with an overpowered force of 5-1, because you othermight loose, an migth get an exiting game you will get triple soviet mp's, and can't simply not loosse it looks like you are a bit of a coward to me, to play that way every kid can win that way btw axis are already at advantage, so why do you need to delay ussr entry? if you want, i will play a game against you anytime, you can be allied WITHOUT ussr as neutral, but as random i'll show youn how axis kick ass -Sanmaya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Joe Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 dude whats with all the spaces in your post... [ June 24, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Little Joe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts