Why bother with Norway?

[Jim Mason]

I'd like to know why I should bother attacking Norway if I get the stuff from them anyway for a long time?

The downside is you have to garrison it, your Soviet activation goes up, etc.

Yes, I know that later on, like in YEARS Norway goes away, but I think that's a chance I'm willing to take, or else do it AFTER the Russians attack.

Oh - and don't tell me it's because of all the plunder I get from them . . .

[Fartknock3r]

Well plunder is the probably one of the main reasons you'd attack certain countries. Plus you get the convoys and the 30 mpp's from the 3 cities and mine.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I think Jim is right.... you get supplies anyway, and you need at least two corps to guard it... and Soviet activation. I don`t attack Norway at all... there are worthier targets around.

[hellraiser]

Some players target it after Barbarossa and definitely before or immediately after USA joins -> a preemptive strike might be advisable since the Wallies (after USA is in) may target it as well. The main reasons are not plunder or mpps - the costs surpass the benefits (3 corps for garrisoning it is quite a lot) - if you're thinking only Norway.

Long term wise, if you plan to take control of Sweden as well, it is not that bad -> you connect the whole skandinavian peninsula via Finland and the skando resources go up to 8 instead of 5.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Good point.... so basically if you plan to conquer whole Scandinavia, it`s fine.... but Norway alone is useless.

[Simonsen]

The problem with Norway is that u dont have the norway / rusian border. If this has been included it would have been an oppertunity to counquer murmansk from finnmark and stop the convoys to russia early in the war.

In WII, about 300 000 german troops was placed in Finnmark/Kirkenes, and about the same amount on the other side of the border, but now one seem to know about this!

Br.

Simonsen

[blackbellamy]

There was no real good reason to take Norway in real life and there is no good reason to take it in the game.

[TaoJah]

It's soooooooooo easy to take : just land one single army, attack, move in and it's yours.

Even if you don't garrison it, it will take a number of turns for the enemy to come in, so you get the 30 MPP's.

The benefits are small, but the costs are even smaller, so...

[Comrade Trapp]

Another benefit to taking Norway is position, it makes it a lot more difficult for the Royal Navy to prevent the Germans from entering the Atlantic. Yes, you have France for that once they surrender, but its nice to have other friendly ports available to you.

Not to mention, you can base aircraft in Norway. The British Home Fleet / Scapa Flow make nice targets for the Luftwaffe.

Also, UK/Russian convoys go right past Norway, just base 1 or 2 u-boats in one of the northern ports...

[Blashy]

The real key would be to make uboats available to be built in Norway and reinforced to STR 10. After all, it was done in WW2.

[ April 27, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Exel]

Like I suggested in another thread before the invasion of Norway should be an activation criteria for Finland and also a factor for Britain.

1) If Germany occupies Norway, Finland joins Axis and declared war on Soviet Union.

2) If Germany doesn't occupy Norway there is a chance that UK will. If Norway stays neutral there is a reduced chance of Finland joining Axis. If UK occupies Norway or persuades it to join Allies, Finland will align itself to the Allies and stays out of the war with the Soviet Union.

[Edwin P.]

Another reason is the morale penalty that enemy units take when you conquer a neutral nation.

[J P Wagner]

If the Allied AI had the cajones to invade Norway then it might be prudent to beat them to the punch..otherwise, it's not a bother....

[Terry]

I always take Norway - it's easy to take, opens up your routes to the Atlantic for subs and raiders, is easy to defend, is a good platform for attacking Sweden, threatens Scapa Flow and northern Britian, can go for Iceland. Plus if things go bad the Allies may waste time taking it instead of getting on with the real deal!

[Panzerkeil]

Historically, the British and French were planning to take Norway; the Germans beat them to the punch. Their plans were to pre-empt the Germans and threaten Germany supplies from Scandinavia.

[Liam]

Norway ? Nah, a waste of energy!

Figure 3 Corps, at 300.. The Operational cost to ensure that you do not accidentally just smack the defending corps to 1, could be as high as 150-250 after France and your forces are spread across the Globe. that's already 500 plus MPPs to take this nowhere place and defend, now you get about 150 back though what is the value now? Only value is to keep the Norwegian and Swedish Supply to your side and preventing the Allies from taking it. Though the penatly the Allies get in Spain is nice Might just give you An Ally there and your Northern Flank is now harassed along with Finland...France is a more difficult target than Scandanavia...

If the Kriegsmarine is weak, take it, if not, leave it... Unitially the though, leave it unless you are attempting to Conquest all of Scandanavia

[Guest Mike]

Considerations for the invasion of Norway - I suspect Norway is not important enough in SC2 hence it's invasion, or otherwise, is a matter of whim rather than necesity for both sides.

[blackbellamy]

Hmmmm, read the overly long and pedantic Chapter 2 of "The German Decision To Invade Norway and Denmark" by Earl F. Ziemke or......

Oh yeah baby time to invade!

[jon_j_rambo]

If you gotta get your chicks that way...that's sad. That's the best the GF types can do?

Back to topic, Norway has a time/place invade in the game.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

muhahahahaha.... always depends on what choice you have...

[Chris G]

“The problem with Norway is that u dont have the norway / rusian border. If this has been included it would have been an oppertunity to counquer murmansk from finnmark and stop the convoys to russia early in the war.

In WII, about 300 000 german troops was placed in Finnmark/Kirkenes, and about the same amount on the other side of the border, but now one seem to know about this!”

This is a very good point. I’ve been thinking the same myself. SC2 lack of simulation of this fact as well as the absence of a simulation of the very important Murmansk railroad (if cut the convoy option should be closed) has “killed” the whole northern strategic option.

This is one of the biggest flaws in SC2 regarding simulating WWII on an strategic level.

PS. jon_j_rambos stupid/PC remark re. blackbellamy cool post is hilarious. Lol

[Exel]

Murmansk railroad, along with Leningrad, was one of the biggest reasons why Hitler was interested in Finland and why Germany send so much men and material up there.

Norway on the other hand was important for keeping the Allies out of there and for securing the Swedish supplies - as well as for sub bases.

I haven't inspected all the scripts, but based on what I have observed it seems that atm SC2 fails to simulate any of those points. The subs can't be fully reinforced in Norwegian ports. Norway has no influence on Sweden or Finland. Allies have no intentions of taking Norway even if Germany leaves it alone. Finland is largely irrelevant for both Germany and USSR.

A long list, but rather simple to fix with just a couple of events and scripts linking them together.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I also noticed that surrounding Murmansk with units

doesn't affect the inflow of MPPs...

[Hubert Cater]

Historically Sweden sent supplies to Germany via Lulea but this port froze over in the Winter thus the importance of Norway and specifically Narvik to the north as many supplies were then rail shipped over to Narvik during this time. While the map does not go up that far I'm using Trondheim to simulate the additional supplies being sent to Germany not only from Norway but from Sweden as well.

In general, two of the main reasons Germany decided to invade Norway were to protect these supplies (from possible Allied invasion) and for forward naval/sub bases for strategic reasons.

Essentially if the German player does not invade Norway then status quo remains, as it did in real life, but they risk losing their Norwegian convoys should the Allies invade. Similar choices but on the opposite end of the strategic spectrum for the Allies.

In the end I tried to model it in the sense that it gives both sides the options to do whatever they prefer, depending upon their overall strategy, with similar causes and effects as was the case historically.

This is not to say that this did not come up as a debatable subject during development, not everyone agreed with the current simulation, and I am still open to suggestions but while it may not be perfect in everyone's point of view, if you read the Stalin's Organist's link I don't suspect it is that far off.

Note, allowing maximum reinforcement for naval units with full supply is something I am considering to change for the first patch. For example this would not only effect subs in Norway but Allied naval units in North Afrika as well and so on.

[blackbellamy]

I just don't see how a battleship could be repaired from strength 1 to 10 in Egypt. Right now the Allied player has to cycle his ships to keep the freshest ones closest to the battle area. For the sake of fixing a few submarines this dynamic would be destroyed.