Why bother with Norway?

[Exel]

Hubert, what about the diplomatic effects on the England-Norway-Finland axis?

A. Neither Germany or UK invade Norway -> Finland less probable to join Axis. Swedish supplies at 50%?

B. UK invades Norway -> Finland doesn't join Axis. Swedish supplies stopped.

Is the invasion of Norway "doctrine" scripted to either Axis or Allied AI? In my three games so far the AI has never made a move on Norway.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by 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.

He can do it for country specific only. This is what I read from his post.

[Hubert Cater]

Exel, some of this is possible via scripts although wrt Finland I would argue that Finland would still likely join the war on the Axis side, regardless of Norway, simply to try and recover their losses from the previous war with the USSR.

If the UK invades Norway then Germany loses that particular convoy yet still only gains MPP from Sweden during the Fall/Spring/Summer turns so the current simulation is pretty close to what you are after.

Now, if however the Allies do want to stop Swedish convoys then they simply have to damage Kiel, Lulea or patrol the historical convoy routes with subs.

For the AI, currently neither side is scripted to invade Norway although some diplomatic scripts (for the Allies) exist.

[Hubert Cater]

Exel, just wanted to add that your ideas are not bad at all and in fact even came up during testing but the problem is that the scripts are not flexible enough (in this department) to re-create the exact historical situation... essentially I tried to get it as close as possible within the current framework.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Exel, some of this is possible via scripts although wrt Finland I would argue that Finland would still likely join the war on the Axis side, regardless of Norway, simply to try and recover their losses from the previous war with the USSR.

If the UK invades Norway then Germany loses that particular convoy yet still only gains MPP from Sweden during the Fall/Spring/Summer turns so the current simulation is pretty close to what you are after.

Now, if however the Allies do want to stop Swedish convoys then they simply have to damage Kiel, Lulea or patrol the historical convoy routes with subs.

For the AI, currently neither side is scripted to invade Norway although some diplomatic scripts (for the Allies) exist.

Personally, it seems the pain of Norway is that if you take it as Axis you will more than likely not hold most of it, because you cannot operate Corps to defend and Allied ships can mutilate Axis units anywhere along the Norwegian coasts. We all know it's impossible to simulate the exact feeling of the Norwegian Coastlines, Fjords, that protected the Axis fleets there that raided the Reds with Tirptiz, Scharnhorst and subs. Most of the first Brit Convoys went to the bottom, Churchill feared sending more. I know that many U.K. Supplies went to the bottom in the N. Sea above Norway on the LendLease Pipeline. The Axis did repair Tirptiz in Port and was well protected in Norwegian Ports. The Allies repaired Major Battleships from Italian Frogman attacks Harbour in Egypt. Either way it's a lot of work for a little gain. I think the best thing you can do is Make it PROFITABLE for Axis to invade, thus simulating the Strategic Overall impact of possessing Norway. The Mountains and the scenery though are perfectly etched, making it very impassable terrain and you really need an HQ on Norwegian Soil with many units to keep control of it along with Sweden.

on a SideNote: The Italians never knew they had the upper hand in the Med when they had badly damaged the UK fleet in port in Egypt. Though the UK repaired took a year or two. Perhaps the ability to Repair to 10, but not in 1 turn would be a more healthy simulation...and realistic, as it would take 1 to 2 years to repair ships far from home. Just adding two cents

[Blashy]

It does not matter if it only takes one turn, it will take A LOT more than 1 turn so there is your repair time.

Norway was never a good idea in the first place, they only took it to mainly prevent the other guy from taking it.

IMHO, once some Allied players start taking a neutral Norway its value will increase.

I find the current setup just right, historically.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Blashy:

It does not matter if it only takes one turn, it will take A LOT more than 1 turn so there is your repair time.

Norway was never a good idea in the first place, they only took it to mainly prevent the other guy from taking it.

IMHO, once some Allied players start taking a neutral Norway its value will increase.

I find the current setup just right, historically.

All current Allied players, take Norway if Germany doesn't, big penalty Diplomatically, no other realistic goal

[Exel]

I think that Sweden would be too afraid to keep sending supplies to Germany if UK had forces in Norway or if Norway joined Allies. After all Churchill had plans to move troops through Norway and Sweden to Finland during Winter War, with or without the consent of the respective countries, with the goals of a) helping Finland with reinforcements and securing Norway and Sweden with troops.

Sweden was in much similar situation to Finland. They wanted to stay out of the war entirely, felt sympathies for England and their neighbours (Finland-Sweden-Norway-Denmark) but cooperated with whomever they could to preserve their interests - first with the Allies and the US, then with Germany. They both also tought that the USSR was the biggest evil of them all and wanted security against that threat even if it meant cooperating with the Germans.

[Desert Dave]

After all Churchill had plans to move troops through Norway and Sweden to Finland during Winter War, with or without the consent of the respective countries, with the goals of a) helping Finland with reinforcements and securing Norway and Sweden with troops.

Well, Exel, Winston the amateur commander

Had all sorts of goof-ball plans,

Usually,

But not nearly often enough,

Over-ruled by wiser tacticians.

Dieppe fiasco,

Premature landing AND premature withdrawal

In northern Norway,

Not to mention utter lunacy

Of trying to enact

Some dumb de dumb

Version of his cherished "Balkans" strategem

By inserting, then removing to WRONG

Fall-back position of Crete,

And having to salvage once again,

With severe losses to RN

From GErman naval bombers in Greece,

Meanwhile,

Chance to drive Italians all the way back

To Tripoli, and beyond,

And possibly knock them out of the war,

Was aborted.

Do you really think this guy,

Given the realitites of VERY limited

UK ground forces, augmented

By very meagre and reluctant French,

Could have gotten - into Sweden

To grab them Gallivare mines?

Doubt it, seriously doubt it, and

"Consent" was the least of his worries.

[Exel]

I didn't say it was a rational plan, just that it was his plan.

Perhaps it's only good that his plan never realized - UK was better off without two more enemies to worry about.

[Panzerkeil]

Originally posted by Liam:

[QB]

The Mountains and the scenery though are perfectly etched, making it very impassable terrain and you really need an HQ on Norwegian Soil with many units to keep control of it along with Sweden.

Good point. The Germans kept a significant garrison in Norway, right up to the end of the war. They were still there when Germany capitualated, all 300,000 or so of them. That's the personnel equivalent of the number of men they lost at Stalingrad, a not insignificant number.