Col. Gen. Guderian Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I've tried it but I see no easy solution. I've devised a way of taking it in two turns max once the operation begins, but it costs that much using the amphibious transports and transporting the units back and generally affects your pre barbarossa schedule. Then I was thinking, if you invade Sweden, Finland won't join you unless you invest chits in diplomacy. Overall I'm wondering if the amphibious/regular transports, operations and reinforcements of units probably costs more than the plunder of taking Sweden, coupled with losing out on Finland. The alternative is just to leave it be and invest a chit or two in it to ensure its convoys. Maybe everyone realises this and I haven't until now, or do people always take Sweden after Norway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Imho its not usually a good idea to attack Sweden,especially before Finland joins.Like you said your best bet is to invest in diplo.Its much cheaper and time consuming and you might just get lucky and have Sweden join your side.However once Finland joins and the Allies combined have more chits then you can put in then thats the time to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleiton Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Hi, would you like to play Strategic Command 2 Weapons and Warfare expansion by email? My email address is aleiton@tiscali.it Let me know. Alberto, Italy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I find that taking Sweden is primarly usefull only if the allies have taken Norway. 1) Its easy to drive them out of Norway with supply from Sweden 2) Once you have a link through Finland the extra MMPs from Norway (now 10) make up for the cost of the invasion 3) You gain slighly to the axis force pool 4) Normally in the mid summer of 1940 you dont have that many other places to use your units unless your attacking Spain, or England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It general I think invading Sweden is a very bad idea, as all you have to do is invest 2 chits diplomatically in the early stages of the game and she won't go below 20%. This of course means that you will continue to receive iron ore shipments. Not to mention once you take Sweden out all you accomplish is doing is nothing at all as you don't gain any MPPS at all until you establish the rail road connection. From there you also had to waste time with the units that invaded Sweden which could have been put to good use in other theaters, not to mention you will now have to garrison your new conquest to prevent the Allies from simply landing and retaking her. In general it’s just a waste of time and resources that could have been put to good use elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts