Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Norway

 
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] >> World in Flames >> RE: Norway Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Norway - 5/6/2008 1:10:52 AM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
There is a good reason why the Allies didn't try to liberate Norway until after Germany's surrender: It was an unimportant sideshow, and it kept nine German Divisions 'imprisoned' in their northern garrison duty.


And Hitler nearly was obsessed by the possibility of an Allied invasion of Norway from 1943 onwards. Not only and foremost against the allied arctic convoys he orderd bigger parts of the remaining Navy (surface and Uboats) up there as fleet in being, but in order to secure the Northern flank, the Baltic, the Swedish ore, etc.

Regards

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 31
RE: Norway - 5/6/2008 2:18:28 AM   
Sewerlobster


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

So at the end of the day, is it worth it for either Germany or the Allies to invade Norway?


Great question. How important will the Murmansk route be? It ends up being a sort of get there before the enemy does; but if they do alter your plans so they feel it's a wasted effort, unless they captialize on your change of plans.

The point is Germany invaded Norway. Sometimes in war you do, or fail to do, something in anticipation of your idea of the enemy's plans. Sucess in a theatre may lead to the enemy changing plans, or never even thinking of certain options. Historically the Allies left Norway out of their attack plans, but who's to say they would not have pursued a "Soft overbelly (?)" plan if Germany had not occupied Norway? How much more supply would have arrived in Murmansk and Archangel?

Play out these strategies. It'll be fun.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 32
RE: Norway - 5/8/2008 11:52:02 AM   
Manic Inertia

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline
Now that's interesting to consider. A successful CW invasion (or DoD alignment) of Norway. Would such a thing be necessary though? In WiFFE, doesn't Germany lose all the swedish iron ore resources even if the Allies occupy nothing of Norway but the Narvik hex?

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 33
RE: Norway - 5/8/2008 5:41:47 PM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline 		>>Now that's interesting to consider. A successful CW invasion (or DoD alignment) of Norway. Would such a thing be >>necessary though? In WiFFE, doesn't Germany lose all the swedish iron ore resources even if the Allies occupy nothing >>of Norway but the Narvik hex?

Close. The Germans cannot get any of the 3 Swedish resources IF the Allies have occupied (control) Narvik AND it is winter/blizzard in the Arctic zone in the last impulse of the turn. See 8.2.10. This represents that "resources were transported through neutral Norweigan coastal waters during Winter."







_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to Manic Inertia)
Post #: 34
RE: Norway - 5/9/2008 9:02:24 AM   
morgil


Posts: 114
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Bergen, Norway
Status: offline 		In all the games I have played, and we play with Politics, UK usually heaps large amounts of points into Norway to secure the 2 TRS, 20 CP and whatnot. And usually Germany responds with an invation of Norway, to grab the one SS unit and the resource, and maybe try to sink a few points before Norway joins the war on the UK side.
Also, you secure the swedish resources during winter if you hold Narvik, you can base those 15 range navbombers north of Oslo to interrupt Murmansk convois, and there will be no Allied bombers based on the south coast.

Norway, in WIF, is a candellight dinner for two, and the faster you show up the better it tastes.

The Ore was shipped with a narrowtrack rail to Narvik and then along the norwegian coast. The rail to Narvik is really short and its basically just "down the hill" to a good, ice free port.
And the transport along the coast is as secure as if it had been going the other way, through the Baltic, as the Norwegian coastline is a nightmare, even in perfectly good weather.

< Message edited by morgil -- 5/9/2008 9:11:57 AM >

_____________________________

Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein.

(in reply to sajbalk)
Post #: 35
RE: Norway - 5/9/2008 5:26:31 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Norway, in WIF, is a candellight dinner for two, and the faster you show up the better it tastes.


An interesting way of putting it for sure.

quote:

The Ore was shipped with a narrowtrack rail to Narvik and then along the norwegian coast. The rail to Narvik is really short and its basically just "down the hill" to a good, ice free port.
And the transport along the coast is as secure as if it had been going the other way, through the Baltic, as the Norwegian coastline is a nightmare, even in perfectly good weather.


Thanks to all the fjords, no doubt, that Slartibartfast got an award for doing.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to morgil)
Post #: 36
RE: Norway - 5/14/2008 10:26:47 AM   
Øystein

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		<flippant>
So, is there any way in WiF to play minor nations. I just have the urge to pre-emptively invade Sweden as Norway :D
</flippant>

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 37
RE: Norway - 5/14/2008 1:04:18 PM   
Norden_slith


Posts: 166
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: expatriate german
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

What intrigues me is why the Swedes shipped iron ore by sea through the Gulf of Bothnia when in real-life (as well as in the game) they had a good rail net reaching all the way to the south of the country. From there it was just a short hop across to Lubeck ... or they could even have continued overland transport through Denmark.

That the Germans were so worried about losing the winter route (Narvik-based coastal shipping) that they invaded the country suggests that the alternative winter route (by rail to the south of Sweden) was not viable. Yet in the game, resources move by rail freely, while taking them overseas is costly (in the sense of needing convoys) and risky.

Perhaps the game exaggerates the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving resources by rail in the forties?

Millions of tons by rail requires a lot of ore cars and is very hard on the rail bed. This is especially true if the rail line is also being used by passenger trains. For such a long haul (from northern to southern Sweden), you also have all the empty ore cars going back, putting further demands on the rail transportation system.

I expect that the rail network in WIF is comparable to ports, in that it serves a dual purpose in the game: military and commercial. Unless you start differentiating between single line rail from double, etc., and throw in a lot of other considerations (e.g., grade/slope, weather effects), the rail lines in WIF are going to be an oversimplification of reality.


There wasnt a landroad from Sweden via Denmark to Germany either. There is today.

Norden


_____________________________

Norden
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexagonally challenged

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Norway Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.439