RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 10:55:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...



Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.



warspite1 -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:03:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...



Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.
warspite1

You are obviously ignoring my posts for a reason but cannot think why. The reasons were of Churchill's making. If the CW gives Hitler no reason to be interested in Norway he will leave well alone....



joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:07:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.



The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.



joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You are obviously ignoring my posts for a reason but cannot think why.



Seriously? It's not possible that you posted while I was responding to another post and so hadn't had the chance to read yours yet?



Orm -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...



Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.

So the incentive to invade Norway should not be based on facts but what they percieved at the time?

----

I think that the Narvik rule in WIF, and MWF, is to strong. As it turned out, after the occupation, Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany

----

And why is this on Germany? Why is it not on the Allies?



warspite1 -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:10:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.



The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.
warspite1

And a British invasion of Norway would not have stopped delivery most of the time in real life. The plan required British troops to move into Sweden (on the way to helping the Finns of course) and occupy the Iron Ore fields.



paulderynck -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:13:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs.

Could you please post something in Tech Support on your partisan crashes. There are a couple threads there about partisans but I don't know the details on yours. They're likely in the AAR but I collect the issues for Steve from the Tech Support forum and unfortunately don't have enough time to catch items in the other sub-forums.

Thanks.



joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:17:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

So the incentive to invade Norway should not be based on facts but what they percieved at the time?

----

I think that the Narvik rule in WIF, and MWF, is to strong. As it turned out, after the occupation, Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany

----

And why is this on Germany? Why is it not on the Allies?


It's on both. Churchill thought "hey, if we invade Norway, we can stop those iron ore shipments. Let's invade!" Turns out he might have been wrong (although really all we can do is speculate). Germany thought "Hey, if they invade Norway, they're going to stop our iron ore shipments. We better invade first!" In WiF, the British player thinks "Hey, if I invade Norway, I might get lucky enough to stop the occasional iron ore shipment. Seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. I'll pass." and the German player thinks "Hey, if the CW invades Norway, it might cost me an occasional ore shipment, but I'll gain US entry benefits, free naval units, he'll lose some units, and I can still march into Oslo or defend Narvik. Don't let me get in your way, Churchill"



Orm -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.



The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.
warspite1

And a British invasion of Norway would not have stopped delivery most of the time in real life. The plan required British troops to move into Sweden (on the way to helping the Finns of course) and occupy the Iron Ore fields.

I doubt that a British invasion of Norway would have stopped any delivery at all. Unless, of course, they invaded Sweden as well.

But with that said if the Allies occupied all of Norway then UK might have been able to put political pressure on Sweden that might have affected things. But the result of that would have been affected on how the war went in general as well. The Swedish government worked hard to stay out of the war and would not have liked to been pushed into the war on the German side either.

Historically, when the Allies had a strong position (when Germany was no longer in a position to invade Sweden) the ore shipments ended. Unfortunately this is not reflected in WIF.



joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:20:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs.

Could you please post something in Tech Support on your partisan crashes. There are a couple threads there about partisans but I don't know the details on yours. They're likely in the AAR but I collect the issues for Steve from the Tech Support forum and unfortunately don't have enough time to catch items in the other sub-forums.

Thanks.


I've posted plenty about the partisan crash and I no longer have a save file for the most recent. There isn't anything about it in my AAR because that game was partisan free because of the constant crashes they were causing. The issue seems to be better now, but not 100%. And even if I had the save, it wouldn't do you any good since replicating it is very hit and miss.



Orm -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:23:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


It's on both. Churchill thought "hey, if we invade Norway, we can stop those iron ore shipments. Let's invade!" Turns out he might have been wrong (although really all we can do is speculate). Germany thought "Hey, if they invade Norway, they're going to stop our iron ore shipments. We better invade first!" In WiF, the British player thinks "Hey, if I invade Norway, I might get lucky enough to stop the occasional iron ore shipment. Seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. I'll pass." and the German player thinks "Hey, if the CW invades Norway, it might cost me an occasional ore shipment, but I'll gain US entry benefits, free naval units, he'll lose some units, and I can still march into Oslo or defend Narvik. Don't let me get in your way, Churchill"


Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.



joshuamnave -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/16/2014 11:39:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.


No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.



brian brian -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 12:16:39 AM)

I think one of the reasons Norway loses significance is the generic nature of the resource hexes in WiF. A lot of those hexes, perhaps a majority of them, are coal mines. Only a few of them are Iron Ore mines. Germany couldn't get Iron Ore in just any hex with a little pick and shovel in it. You need several things to make steel…the Swedish ore was extremely important to Germany - it could not be replaced by taking the coal mine hex in the Ukraine. And in particular it was a high quality ore, superior to many other sources Germany could access.



gravyhair -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 2:14:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think one of the reasons Norway loses significance is the generic nature of the resource hexes in WiF. A lot of those hexes, perhaps a majority of them, are coal mines. Only a few of them are Iron Ore mines. Germany couldn't get Iron Ore in just any hex with a little pick and shovel in it. You need several things to make steel…the Swedish ore was extremely important to Germany - it could not be replaced by taking the coal mine hex in the Ukraine. And in particular it was a high quality ore, superior to many other sources Germany could access.


This quite true, and spot on.



Klydon -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 2:39:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.


No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.


One of the differences is that Hitler or Churchill didn't know the rules about what would be the result if they occupied Norway or what would happen in terms of shipping the ore. Players playing a game, be it WiF, MWiF or whatever, will know when they do X in terms of something like a invasion of Norway for specific reasons, then Y will likely occur as a result. The rules in WiF/MWiF are such that the impact on Swedish ore getting to Germany will be minimal, even if Norway is occupied by the CW. This appears to be based on the fact that Narvik wasn't used hardly at all after being captured; IE, it turned out not to be as big of a deal as a port for the ore because other ways were found to get it delivered.

It would have taken the CW first invading and occupying Norway and then invading Sweden in the ore fields to effectively stop the ore shipments. What would have happen as a result of all this is very unclear because it would be speculation since it never happen. I have to believe many neutral nations would have looked at the CW in a very harsh light if they ever had tried such a thing.



IKerensky -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 9:06:43 AM)

I will never considering DOW of Norway with Germany simply because I will handle CW far too much CPs. This nearly write out early Battle of Atlantic.

I will never DOW Norway as the allies because I'r rather had thoses CPs. I could consider it in 1942 in an attempt to join with the USSR and put Finland of game and open the Baltic for invasion but it would require the Axis to already be in a bad shape. Could be an interesting move against a sitzkrieg.



gravyhair -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 4:53:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.


No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.


One of the differences is that Hitler or Churchill didn't know the rules about what would be the result if they occupied Norway or what would happen in terms of shipping the ore. Players playing a game, be it WiF, MWiF or whatever, will know when they do X in terms of something like a invasion of Norway for specific reasons, then Y will likely occur as a result. The rules in WiF/MWiF are such that the impact on Swedish ore getting to Germany will be minimal, even if Norway is occupied by the CW. This appears to be based on the fact that Narvik wasn't used hardly at all after being captured; IE, it turned out not to be as big of a deal as a port for the ore because other ways were found to get it delivered.

It would have taken the CW first invading and occupying Norway and then invading Sweden in the ore fields to effectively stop the ore shipments. What would have happen as a result of all this is very unclear because it would be speculation since it never happen. I have to believe many neutral nations would have looked at the CW in a very harsh light if they ever had tried such a thing.


You are absolutely correct. And yet - in the interest of food for thought - one would have been tempted to draw the same conclusion about the British attacks on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir after France surrendered, and the U.S. ended up seeing it as proof that Britain was serious about staying in the fight. Politics is a wiggly beast. I would advocate a table that one rolls in if UK invades Norway, with a range of possible reactions. That way you couldn't be sure one way or the other.



WarHunter -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 5:10:12 PM)

Without any facts other than my own game history.
Every German player tries to invade Norway one time to recreate history or just try it. No matter the outcome, they don't repeat it.

Why?
The risk is great, the reward is weak. Oh! Don't forget about extreme weather conditions. You hope that doesn't derail you.
I'll admit trying as the allies and the axis. In both cases it was not worth it.

Say you are successful. A core decision for both sides is what to do after you have Norway. Neither side wants to leave the cream of the army in Norway. So impulses are spent redeploying. Precious impulses.

This is what makes Norway hard to justify. Impulse selection and the side effect on units used in an extreme weather zone.

If i could add an option to sweeten the pot. 1 Offensive chit to the player who conquers Norway. 1 Offensive chit to the player who liberates Norway. Much easier to implement in the boardgame among friends. So this is just fools gold. Nice to look at and dream.

The history is rich, and the simulation of that history is better done with a game specially tailored to recreate it.
Try these for example.
http://www.greniergames.com/ow/description.html
https://www.gmtgames.com/p-253-invasion-norway.aspx

For those wanting to know more.
Norway during WW2
http://www.nuav.net/ndWW2.html



micheljq -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 5:18:12 PM)

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

Michel.



micheljq -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 5:21:53 PM)

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

A good move is to invade Norway just after Germany began Barbarossa and is too busy in USSR. He hardly can afford naval or combined actions at this point to help Norway, that would have an impact on his invasion of USSR.

Historically the british were pressuring Norway a lot. Churchill had plans for an invasion he even had plans for an invasion of the iron ore mines in Sweden but he was not supported in those plans. Churchill sometimes had strange ideas, remember the Dardanelles?

Michel.




paulderynck -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 5:38:24 PM)

The chances for snow or blizzard in the Arctic on the last impulse of a turn, based on a simulation run of 1 million games, are as follows:

S/O 03.6%
N/D 57.2%
J/F 81.8%
M/A 34.2%
M/J 08.3%
J/A 00.0%

Below is a chart of the expected weather per turn for all the zones. S/O 39 is different because it starts with a pre-determined weather roll. The last line is the expected total number of impulses (without any powers taking Passes). That number divided by two is the expected number per side.

[image]local://upfiles/24497/4A73469B1D0243F8BB6B3D60D3ADE554.jpg[/image]



Centuur -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 7:17:48 PM)

Norway is strategically not important. There it is.

Now, that during WW II the British and the Germans thought otherwise, is a major mistake on both sides.

Would Sweden allow for the occupation of the Iron ore mines by the British? I don't think so. I think they would go to war with the British if they tried this.
Don't forget that the Swedish army isn't that weak in 1940. The British didn't have the forces available to attack them.

Would they have terminated the deliveries to Germany? I don't know what the reaction of the Swedish population in the general elections of september 1940 would have been. Would they vote anti British or not in that case? I don't know at all.
Historically speaking, the Swedes were more pro British than Pro German after the attack on Norway (since they gave the Socialist Democratic Party an absolute majority in the Rikstag). This means the Germans weren't that popular at that moment anymore. The fact that the Germans still got Iron ore and were allowed to send supplies through Sweden was more of the fact that the government (which had all parties participating except the Communists) was trying to keep Germany friendly, so they could keep the precious neutrality...

It is possible that, if the British would have invaded Norway and Germany would than have supported the Norwegians, the outcome of the general elections might be totally different, putting a government in place which was on the German side. In 1936 a Nazi party took part in the Swedish elections. In september 1940 it didn't participate in the general elections in Sweden, due to the attack on Norway by Germany. Now, if the British would have attacked Norway, couldn't the Swedish Nazi party have won the elections (or other right wing parties in Sweden)? I think so, because there were pretty strong ties between Sweden and Norway...





warspite1 -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 7:26:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

A good move is to invade Norway just after Germany began Barbarossa and is too busy in USSR. He hardly can afford naval or combined actions at this point to help Norway, that would have an impact on his invasion of USSR.

Historically the british were pressuring Norway a lot. Churchill had plans for an invasion he even had plans for an invasion of the iron ore mines in Sweden but he was not supported in those plans. Churchill sometimes had strange ideas, remember the Dardanelles?

Michel.


warspite1

I think its generally recognised that the Dardanelles Campaign was not a strange or bad idea. Sadly it was incompetently executed, but as an idea to try and break the deadlock of the trenches, it has been described as one of the few imaginative strategic ideas of the First World War.



Klydon -> RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW? (1/17/2014 9:14:39 PM)

Dardanelles came a lot closer to success than not a couple of times. As Warspite mentioned, a lot of the issues were with the execution of the plan along with some of the events leading up to the start of it. (Turks got some warning that the Allies were thinking about some sort direct action when the Allies tried to force the straights with just ships alone a couple of months before. The Turks moved in more units, especially some artillery and also worked on strengthening the minefields, etc).



Omnius -> A Reason Not to Invade Norway (1/18/2014 2:46:57 PM)

gravyhair,
An interesting rule observation regarding Norway and Narvik in particular. This really does simulate history fairly well and gives a good reason for why a British player should be ready to take Narvik if Germany invades Norway.

It actually serves as a decent deterrent for the German player to not invade Norway so as to ensure the British don't take Narvik and stop Swedish resources from being transported during winter turns when Swedish ports are ices in. Taking Narvik as Germany isn't easy, especially if the British put sea power in the sea area adjacent to Narvik.

Omnius



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875