Finland

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

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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Finland

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Finland - 1/18/2017 1:31:20 AM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

I keep trying different tactics so I have started over more than several times, when German units approached Finland 5 or 6 hexes away Finland always joined with Germany, I do not remember changing anything but Finland did not join the last two times. What an I missing here.

Bo

Post #: 1

RE: Finland - 1/18/2017 2:22:04 PM

vonRocko

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

They have to be favoring the axis on the diplomacy table. Perhaps that is the problem?

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 2

RE: Finland - 1/18/2017 10:47:23 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

I've had the British and French successfully intervene in the winter war with Russia a few times and that kills the Finish support as they go Allied and you have to spend on diplomacy to get them bac to Axis favored

(in reply to vonRocko)

Post #: 3

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 8:59:05 AM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I've had the British and French successfully intervene in the winter war with Russia a few times and that kills the Finish support as they go Allied and you have to spend on diplomacy to get them bac to Axis favored

Yup, that's probably it - if the Allies ahistorically support Finland it ends up being more pro-Allied.

I wonder what will happen with this in multiplayer, though. Supporting Finland feels like a very good move for the Allies as you get two cheap Special Forces plus the diplomatic benefit. Will all Allied players do it?

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 4

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 11:35:32 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I've had the British and French successfully intervene in the winter war with Russia a few times and that kills the Finish support as they go Allied and you have to spend on diplomacy to get them bac to Axis favored

Yup, that's probably it - if the Allies ahistorically support Finland it ends up being more pro-Allied.

I wonder what will happen with this in multiplayer, though. Supporting Finland feels like a very good move for the Allies as you get two cheap Special Forces plus the diplomatic benefit. Will all Allied players do it?

yep, at the moment its a ridiculously one sided option. Ok you annoy the Soviets but vs the AI you know that is not going to matter. In a PBEM I guess a German player could try to exploit that to create the space for a SeaLion but I think the event needs to be rebalanced

_____________________________

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 5

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 2:35:49 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

Reduced Soviet mobilization means reduced Soviet MPP earning. That has to be factored by the Axis and the Allies in making decisions.
Anyone examined the total cost in that sense? How many MPP per Soviet (and US) mobilization point?

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 6

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 2:46:34 PM

crispy131313

Posts: 2055
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline

The actual cost is very high when you consider that lowered USSR MPP stemming from these mobilization events means talking longer to research infantry tech and industrial tech. Oppurtunity cost is much higher then actual lost MPP.

< Message edited by crispy131313 -- 1/20/2017 2:47:13 PM >

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 7

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 2:48:19 PM

ILCK

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I've had the British and French successfully intervene in the winter war with Russia a few times and that kills the Finish support as they go Allied and you have to spend on diplomacy to get them bac to Axis favored

Yup, that's probably it - if the Allies ahistorically support Finland it ends up being more pro-Allied.

I wonder what will happen with this in multiplayer, though. Supporting Finland feels like a very good move for the Allies as you get two cheap Special Forces plus the diplomatic benefit. Will all Allied players do it?

yep, at the moment its a ridiculously one sided option. Ok you annoy the Soviets but vs the AI you know that is not going to matter. In a PBEM I guess a German player could try to exploit that to create the space for a SeaLion but I think the event needs to be rebalanced

The real kicker is letting those units go to Norway and, almost always, seize Narvik and create an easy bridge head for the U.K. To retake Norway.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 8

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 4:14:40 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

When playing the Allied side, I've never taken the option to Support Finland in their war against Russia as personally it seems like a bad move that would put the UK and France at war with Russia. When playing the Axis I've never seen it be successful. So I don't know what the effects are. The manual says:
It costs 50 MPP's each to the UK and France.
A 50% chance of preventing the Soviets from gaining Finnish territory and the USSR will move 4-6% towards the Axis.
If successful, France and the UK would both gain 500 National Morale points.
If successful, Finland will swing 25-35% towards the Allies.
If successful, the expedition will return to Scotland, giving the Allies two Special Forces units and the opportunity to land them at Narvik by DE.

So, if taken and successful, it costs the Allies 100 MPP's to keep the Soviets from gaining Finn territory while the Allies gain 500 NM points, two units and an opportunity to attack Narvik, and will swing Finland 25-35% to the Allies [disadvantage Germany].
The only downside is Russia will swing 4-6% to the Axis.

Based on this I think I would agree with loki100 that it is a one sided option, because the 4-6% Soviet swing represents less than one turn of mobilization [I'm pretty sure].

So, historically what does anyone think would happen if the Soviets found themselves fighting British and French units in Finland ? Historically, Russia was allied with no one at the time, had a pact with Germany, was constantly blocked by western powers in their attempts at expansion, and was being given territory by German politics. Seems like a real bees nest

(in reply to ILCK)

Post #: 9

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 6:21:12 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

The actual cost is very high when you consider that lowered USSR MPP stemming from these mobilization events means talking longer to research infantry tech and industrial tech. Oppurtunity cost is much higher then actual lost MPP.

I confess I don't really understand how the diplomacy % affects industrial production - do you happen to know what the MPP cost of a 4-6% move towards the Axis would be?

I agree with you that Soviet MPPs are more valuable before mobilisation, so the effects will be bigger than the direct MPP figure suggests.

(in reply to crispy131313)

Post #: 10

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 7:17:09 PM

crispy131313

Posts: 2055
Joined: 11/30/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

quote:

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

The actual cost is very high when you consider that lowered USSR MPP stemming from these mobilization events means talking longer to research infantry tech and industrial tech. Oppurtunity cost is much higher then actual lost MPP.

I confess I don't really understand how the diplomacy % affects industrial production - do you happen to know what the MPP cost of a 4-6% move towards the Axis would be?

I agree with you that Soviet MPPs are more valuable before mobilisation, so the effects will be bigger than the direct MPP figure suggests.

I don't know the exact cost but the current game I'm playing I had roughly 40 MPP per turn reduce to 20 MPP because of some mobilization events which meant it took me 20 turns to invest a chit in each of infantry and industry instead of 10 turns. Which is significant in the early game for USSR.

< Message edited by crispy131313 -- 1/20/2017 9:27:27 PM >

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 11

RE: Finland - 1/20/2017 8:25:49 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

MPP Collection = Total Resource Value * Industrial Modifier * Mobilization Value

It's going to vary slightly based on whether USSR seizes the Baltics and their level of Industrial Production tech level, but the important thing to factor is that the 'price' of reduced income due to mobilization decrease is paid each turn until they get to 100%

Maybe worth the price, especially if it keeps Finland out of the war or compels the Axis to spend on diplomacy to offset.

On the subject of Finland, if the Soviets win the Winter War and get Hanko, that's a helluva back door into Finland. While the Russians are limited in transports, they can immediately unload and thus are not really restricted to 2 in any given turn.

(in reply to crispy131313)

Post #: 12