Finland Surrender

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Finland Surrender

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Finland Surrender

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Finland Surrender - 2/24/2011 9:42:11 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

Playing the 1944 GC the Finnish Army just vanished in mid-September 1944 although my PBEM opponent had only made a few minor attacks and had only gained one or two hexes. Is this working as intended? If the game has Finland surrender on a historical timeline, there is no reason for the Soviet player to bother with it. Obviously Stalin thought it was worth thinking about....

Post #: 1

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/24/2011 9:45:06 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

There is a chance Finland will surrender if Sovs (re)take Pskov, Narva and some other place, I believe Viborg, there's a rule in the manual, perhaps that happened?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 2

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/25/2011 3:22:31 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

Finland does not surrender because of timeline but because of conditions stated in the previous post. In my game vs. the Axis AI.� Finalnd surrendered in winter 1941! In theory, they surrender (sue for peace with USSR) when it looks like the prospects of the Axis are bleak.

< Message edited by jomni -- 2/25/2011 3:24:34 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 3

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/25/2011 5:18:01 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

Thanks. So there is no need for the Russians to launch two major offensives directly against the Finns as they did historically. Instead, in game terms it makes more sense to strip the Finnish front and go after AGN.

While I understand the concept of the Finns bowing out because of the declining fortunes of German exhibited by the loss of terrain in the Baltic States, the result in game terms is not very realistic.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 4

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/25/2011 5:24:42 PM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

In my 42+ Soviet GC. I never attacked AGN, I just blew thru AGC till the Polish border, the idea being AGN would then be able to be isolated as soon as I have captured all the ports.

I gave up the campaign as I had broke the AI's back and was just counter shoving

_____________________________

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 5

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/25/2011 5:35:31 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Thanks.� So there is no need for the Russians to launch two major offensives directly against the Finns as they did historically.� Instead, in game terms it makes more sense to strip the Finnish front and go after AGN.

While I understand the concept of the Finns bowing out because of the declining fortunes of German exhibited by the loss of terrain in the Baltic States, the result in game terms is not very realistic.

Sovs need to take three cities and at least one among them is a city that's important to Finns and that's in this case Viborg, it was a second biggest city in Finland prior to 1940, may not seem much to you but losing it is/was a pretty big deal for them.

It's not enough just to "go after AGN" or after "terrain in Baltic states". Besides, even if they get those three cities, probability for surrender is still low turn after turn. The calculation seems pretty elaborated to me, it's explained on page 256 of the manual.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 6

RE: Finland Surrender - 2/25/2011 10:18:26 PM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Thanks.� So there is no need for the Russians to launch two major offensives directly against the Finns as they did historically.� Instead, in game terms it makes more sense to strip the Finnish front and go after AGN.

While I understand the concept of the Finns bowing out because of the declining fortunes of German exhibited by the loss of terrain in the Baltic States, the result in game terms is not very realistic.

Maybe we should use the editor and rename it as the "Finish" Army?

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 7

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/1/2011 4:40:49 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

Sovs need to take three cities and at least one among them is a city that's important to Finns and that's in this case Viborg, it was a second biggest city in Finland prior to 1940, may not seem much to you but losing it is/was a pretty big deal for them.

It's not enough just to "go after AGN" or after "terrain in Baltic states". Besides, even if they get those three cities, probability for surrender is still low turn after turn. The calculation seems pretty elaborated to me, it's explained on page 256 of the manual.

You are incorrect. Viborg is already in Soviet hands at the start of the 1944 GC, so the only remaining requirement is for the Soviet player to "go after AGN" and after "terrain in Baltic states" in order to force surrender by capturing Narva or Pskov.

The game provides no need or incentive for the Soviets to continue fighting against Finland after Viborg is captured, which is historically inaccurate. Heavy fighting continued until mid-August.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 8

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 12:27:49 PM

TR_D

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/2/2011
Status: offline

Your lack of knowledge what happened in Finland between '39-'45 is understandable. First of all, Finland did not surrender after the winter war in Nov '39- Mar '40 - there was a peace made after the Soviet army was stopped after very heavy casualities (Soviet). Russians were the agressors, Finland lost 11% of it's land area (incl Viipuri or Vyborg). Due to these losses Finland was motivated to a new war alongside Germany to gain the area back. So in this stage I don't find any losing a was or being Finnish.

The Continuance war, Jun '41 - Sep -44, is with the game. Finland did not lose that war either, since Finland has been independent country from 1917 up to this date, which wouldn't be the case othewise. The 41-44 war ended to a peace treaty signed by the both Finland and Soviet.

Nicolas is correct, the heavy fighting continued to the mid-August, the the Soviets final cruntc was stopped. Due to the defencive win Soviets ceased to demand ultimate surrender and they agreeded on the treaty.

Interesting fact for you might be is that after the war with the Soviets Finland fought a war in Lapland against Germans to drive them away, that was Sep '44 - Apr -45, and was agreed with the treaty signed with Soviets. So in fact the Soviets did not worry about the Finland and that Germany using the Finland as a base for the northern operations as it became a problem of Finns.

One angle to the resolution of the argument between Finland and Sovits is that USA and England did not want to see Finland to fall under Soviet command due to Geopolitical reasons.

And aplogies for this long burst, I am a Finn so excuse me

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 9

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 5:23:09 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

TR, Finland lose as it did not acheive their political objective (annexion of some soviet territory) though it did manage to preserve its independance.

The soviet did not worry about Finnish but did not trust them either. They pressure them to make the lapland war.

The problem is that with insight, Soviet don't need to worry at all for Finland for all war and with a free move-attack Finland we have something very un-historical. Some randomness or garrison value might help. VP can help too.

The peace treaty offer by Finland can be tied to relative loss or Finland could have 2 status : conditionnal surrender (with the actual setting if I am not worng) or inconditionnal surrender (this will yeld more VP to the Soviet). The Soviet player could refuse the conditionnal surrender, but then all finnish limitation are withdrawn as Finland have no other hope than fully support the Axis. I think that a Soviet peace offer to Finland alone is un-historical, though could be a fun what-if option.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to TR_D)

Post #: 10

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 6:58:14 PM

Theng

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline

Another option would be that in addition to the 4 cities, Finland surrenders if it either loses Helsinki or a certain amount of casualties. That way there might be more of an incentive to take them out.

In the big picture, does it really matter? That border is being guarded by NKVD border guard regiments anyway when a human plays the Soviets. I'd be surprised if anyone wastes rifle divisions on guarding the finnish non-attack line.

_____________________________

Molon Labe!

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 11

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 7:39:31 PM

Mike Parker

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I think part of the point is what is occuring NOW and what we likely want to occur is NOT a Finnish Surrender, but a Finnish cessation of hostilities with the Soviet Union.

The problem as its put forth is exactly as its been said in here, its way to easy for the Soviet Union to for all intents and purposes ignore Finland and instead concentrate on AGN. They know this is a winning strategy and they can force an evantual seperate peace with Finland without any sort of legitimate threat to Finland. Perhaps TR our resident Finlander (Finlander is proper?) would know better the political climate at the time, but from what I know of the period and region without a credible threat and display of force Finland would not have felt compelled to negotiate a peace with Stalin.

What is needed is to require the Soviet Union to make such a credible threat through deployments and a certain amount of offensive actions against the Finns, coupled with a waning of Axis hopes in the Northern Region. What we do not wish is

1. Finland signing a seperate peace with Stalin while AGN is raising havok in the local region
2. Finland doing so when the Soviet Union has no credible military force in the region threatening Finland

What we need is a situation where military force and/or success in the North coupled with a general decline in the Axis power in the region will cause the Finns to negotiate a peace. We would also want thresholds where even if the Axis is knocking on Leningrad's door, a certain amount of Soviet Success against Finland (such as credibly threatening Helsinki) could bring about Finnish peace.

What is occuring now basically means the SU can defend Leningrad up until the point its obvious the Axis will not take it (very likely in HvH games). Then basically throw minimal troops on the border with Finland and go on a general offensive against AGN to get a Finnish peace. This is IMO ahistorical, it took both a strong SU presence and a decline of Axis power to bring Finland to this point.

I would welcome those more knowledgable in this to comment as I am by no means an expert on this issue.

(in reply to Theng)

Post #: 12

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 8:38:19 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Eventually the Soviets need to take Vyborg or some other finnish town. That means the Soviet player must eventually launch an offensive to take one of these things and the Axis player can use the Finnish army to defend against it. We may be a little off on the timing, but if the Soviets don't attack, they will never take out Finland in the GC. It does appear that the 44 campaign is too easy on the Soviets so eventually a change in the rule should be considered.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Mike Parker)

Post #: 13

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 9:34:46 PM

Theng

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline

But from a human Soviet player's perspective, what is the incentive to take out the Finns? You are guarding the border with 15 or so worthless NKVD border guard regiments. The battle against AGN is not going to be tipped either way by those 15 or so regiments.

_____________________________

Molon Labe!

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 14

RE: Finland Surrender - 3/2/2011 11:18:20 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Axis gets points for controlling cities in grand campaign games. By taking cities from them you are getting closer to overall victory, and by putting Finland out of the war altogether, you (I believe?) deny Axis bunch of points for Finnish towns.

Correct me if I am wrong. Personally, playing as Soviet I would always want to make Finland sue for peace in summer 44.

In 44 GC Soviets start controlling Viborg right from the start, but they still have to take Narva and Pskov to activate the chance (chance, not 100% certainty) that Finns will sue for peace.

(in reply to Theng)

Post #: 15