Question Re. Liberated Territory -- Norway

[MJY]

I am playing SCII as the Axis. My British opponent conquered Norway early in the game and I subsequently liberated it. I have occupied all the Norwegian cities and resource hexes and even sent a corp to the north edge of the board to convert all the hexes to "Axis." Finland is an active Axis ally and while Leningrad is still controlled by the Soviets I have a broad and continuous land connection to Finland to the east of Leningrad (i.e., direct operating ot Finland, Finnish resources max 10 and the like).

My question is this. Shouldn't Norway not now have a "virtual" connection via Finland to Germany? And as such, shouldn't Norway's resources be max 10 (instead of max 5)? Souldn't I be able to operate overland to Norway? And shouldn't I be able to build German ground units -- and not just Norweigen units -- on Norway's cities (like I can in Finland)?

If not, why not? Am I missing something?

Thanks.

[Iron Ranger]

You need Sweden to make that connection.

[MJY]

Thanks for the quick response, Iron Ranger.

I assume this is a software issue as Norway and Finland shared (and obviously still have) a several hundred miles long border just off screen!

Does anyone know if the expanded map of the expansion pack will go all the way to the top of Scandanavia? The press release refers to passing north of Iceland and alludes to new polar convoy routes, but does not define the extent of the new map.

[Colin I]

MJY: Not sure a large amount of near arctic terrain counts for much. It seems fair you need Sweden because they had more infrastructure. Its not an issue whether countires are connected but whether the connection allows mass movements of material. In WaW one imagines its easier to calculate - whether there is a rail connection seems a good criteria for economic benefit.

[Blashy]

Land connection or not is of no consequence in WaW.

With WaW rail lines are what you need for increased supply. So even with the land connection you would still need Sweden since Norway and Russia did not have a rail line at that time (don't know about now).

[MJY]

Colin/Blashy,

Thanks also for the quick response.

As a member of the "historical realism" camp, I agree a shared border consisting of 300 miles of barren Arctic terrain is pretty useless for purposes of operating units, supply, and the like.

At the same time, from a gaming/play balance perspective it is no less realistic than the current situation with regard to operating units from, say, Casablanca to Tehran across the vast reaches of very poorly developed North Africa or across vast regions of the old Soviet Union (many of which even today are essentially undeveloped with regard to infrastructure) and so on and so on.

I suppose I will just have to wait and see how operating units is covered under the context of the new road and rail rules in the expansion pack.

[Blashy]

MJY, you can no longer operate in Africa as you stated. Because we now use rail lines and since allot of that area had no rails, you will not find them in WaW.

As for Russia, each city represents major areas, so having a rail connected to them is ok, but some of them can be easily cut off as they only have one or two rails. Some good strategic bombing or use of rockets are needed to do so.

You can not operate a unit if it is not a rail tile, roads only permit unhindered movement in any kind of weather but no operating.

Basically it opens up the possibility for more tactics in a strategic game.

You will love it.

[targul]

I think I like what you said about the new rail movement. I am still unsure I like the busy look of the map but I like the use of it from what I hear.