Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

From time to time there is a discussion on how to make Norway be invaded more often in MWIF. Many ask for a rule change so that Germany will suffer if they do not conquer Norway.

I do not agree with this at all. I think that attacking Norway was a mistake. And I see no reason why MWIF should force you to repeat the mistakes of WWII.

One reason that Norway see so little action is that Allies do not want to DOW Norway and Germany knows this. Germany, historically, believed that the Allies would occupy Narvik and hence decided that they could not allow this. If it became common Allied practice to occupy Narvik then I am sure that some German players would prefer to occupy Norway themselves. Some may wait for the Allied DOW before aiding Norway. But Norway would see more action. My point is this; why punish Germany when they do not want to dance when it takes two to tango.

So I wonder why there is a discussion about punishing Germany for being to passive in Norway. Why not discuss punishing the Allies for the same. If CW and France do not DOW Norway then bad thing should happen to them.

I think that the special rule about Narvik has to strong effect compared to what the likely historical outcome from it would have been.



I seldom see CW declare war on Vichy France as soon as it is installed. Yet during WWII UK did attack Vichy Forces almost at once. But I do not see the same discussion about Vichy France and CW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

From time to time there is a discussion on how to make Norway be invaded more often in MWIF. Many ask for a rule change so that Germany will suffer if they do not conquer Norway.

I do not agree with this at all. I think that attacking Norway was a mistake. And I see no reason why MWIF should force you to repeat the mistakes of WWII.

One reason that Norway see so little action is that Allies do not want to DOW Norway and Germany knows this. Germany, historically, believed that the Allies would occupy Narvik and hence decided that they could not allow this. If it became common Allied practice to occupy Narvik then I am sure that some German players would prefer to occupy Norway themselves. Some may wait for the Allied DOW before aiding Norway. But Norway would see more action. My point is this; why punish Germany when they do not want to dance when it takes two to tango.

So I wonder why there is a discussion about punishing Germany for being to passive in Norway. Why not discuss punishing the Allies for the same. If CW and France do not DOW Norway then bad thing should happen to them.

I think that the special rule about Narvik has to strong effect compared to what the likely historical outcome from it would have been.



I seldom see CW declare war on Vichy France as soon as it is installed. Yet during WWII UK did attack Vichy Forces almost at once. But I do not see the same discussion about Vichy France and CW.

quote:


I seldom see CW declare war on Vichy France as soon as it is installed. Yet during WWII UK did attack Vichy Forces almost at once. But I do not see the same discussion about Vichy France and CW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Except if you're playing with oil, it's a rare day that you have enough resources and oil to run all of Germany's factories, and all of Italy's factories, and reorganize everyone. An extra factory doesn't mean much without an extra resource to put in it, and resources are usually the limiting factor for the axis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

From time to time there is a discussion on how to make Norway be invaded more often in MWIF. Many ask for a rule change so that Germany will suffer if they do not conquer Norway.

I do not agree with this at all. I think that attacking Norway was a mistake. And I see no reason why MWIF should force you to repeat the mistakes of WWII.

One reason that Norway see so little action is that Allies do not want to DOW Norway and Germany knows this. Germany, historically, believed that the Allies would occupy Narvik and hence decided that they could not allow this. If it became common Allied practice to occupy Narvik then I am sure that some German players would prefer to occupy Norway themselves. Some may wait for the Allied DOW before aiding Norway. But Norway would see more action. My point is this; why punish Germany when they do not want to dance when it takes two to tango.

So I wonder why there is a discussion about punishing Germany for being to passive in Norway. Why not discuss punishing the Allies for the same. If CW and France do not DOW Norway then bad thing should happen to them.

I think that the special rule about Narvik has to strong effect compared to what the likely historical outcome from it would have been.



I seldom see CW declare war on Vichy France as soon as it is installed. Yet during WWII UK did attack Vichy Forces almost at once. But I do not see the same discussion about Vichy France and CW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Stockholm is a major port that doesn't ice in. In fact, I think most of the ports in Sweden don't ice up, and I'm sure Oslo doesn't either.

You'd need to ice up every port in Scandinavia that borders the Baltic to make this work, and if you did THAT, you'd mess up the Germans a real big deal, since you'd need convoys in the Arctic and the North Sea to get those resources in (at least until and if the Germans take Leningrad and get the overland route secure). Good luck keeping them alive for more than 2 impulses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Stockholm is a major port that doesn't ice in. In fact, I think most of the ports in Sweden don't ice up, and I'm sure Oslo doesn't either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

They could also Bomb the UK further North from Norway airfields I believe.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

One of the strong points of WiF is the multiple "what if" scenarios. It doesn't really "channel" action in the game to match what happen in history. In hindsight, Norway was a mistake and the Germans got little benefit while paying a pretty hefty price.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gravyhair

Yes, but 8.2.10 explicitly states that, if the Allies hold Narvik, you can't ship the Swedish resources in the Baltic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

One of the strong points of WiF is the multiple "what if" scenarios. It doesn't really "channel" action in the game to match what happen in history. In hindsight, Norway was a mistake and the Germans got little benefit while paying a pretty hefty price.

Sure, but by that logic, the invasion of Russia was a mistake, or the attack on Poland, or the entire war. It's all just a matter of scale. Any simulation of historical events has to make some decisions in terms of how much hindsight to give the players. In the case of Norway, it's possible that the perceived costs/risks involved were very different from the actual costs and risks, for both sides in the war. The only way to give the German and the CW commanders the same perceptions is to make them real, which would be inaccurate. But perceptions drive every political (and geopolitical) decision much more so than the realities on the ground, so playing without the same perceptions will also skew the game.

Short answer - The invasion of Norway (and the planned allied invasion of Norway) was not a random arbitrary thing. Churchill and Hitler had rational motivations for their actions, motivations which do not exist in WiF. This makes it a less accurate simulation in my mind.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

One of the strong points of WiF is the multiple "what if" scenarios. It doesn't really "channel" action in the game to match what happen in history. In hindsight, Norway was a mistake and the Germans got little benefit while paying a pretty hefty price.

Sure, but by that logic, the invasion of Russia was a mistake, or the attack on Poland, or the entire war. It's all just a matter of scale. Any simulation of historical events has to make some decisions in terms of how much hindsight to give the players. In the case of Norway, it's possible that the perceived costs/risks involved were very different from the actual costs and risks, for both sides in the war. The only way to give the German and the CW commanders the same perceptions is to make them real, which would be inaccurate. But perceptions drive every political (and geopolitical) decision much more so than the realities on the ground, so playing without the same perceptions will also skew the game.

Short answer - The invasion of Norway (and the planned allied invasion of Norway) was not a random arbitrary thing. Churchill and Hitler had rational motivations for their actions, motivations which do not exist in WiF. This makes it a less accurate simulation in my mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

One of the strong points of WiF is the multiple "what if" scenarios. It doesn't really "channel" action in the game to match what happen in history. In hindsight, Norway was a mistake and the Germans got little benefit while paying a pretty hefty price.

Sure, but by that logic, the invasion of Russia was a mistake, or the attack on Poland, or the entire war. It's all just a matter of scale. Any simulation of historical events has to make some decisions in terms of how much hindsight to give the players. In the case of Norway, it's possible that the perceived costs/risks involved were very different from the actual costs and risks, for both sides in the war. The only way to give the German and the CW commanders the same perceptions is to make them real, which would be inaccurate. But perceptions drive every political (and geopolitical) decision much more so than the realities on the ground, so playing without the same perceptions will also skew the game.

Short answer - The invasion of Norway (and the planned allied invasion of Norway) was not a random arbitrary thing. Churchill and Hitler had rational motivations for their actions, motivations which do not exist in WiF. This makes it a less accurate simulation in my mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


That is just it. WiF isn't a simulation. Trying to force a historical path in a game is fraught with danger. WiF gives players wide latitudes to try "what if" strategies and also avoid the pitfalls of what historically happen.

Some have pointed out that the Germans got some gain out of Norway from stationing Kriegsmarine units there along with air units to intercept convoys bound for Russia. That may be true, but these are not the reasons the Germans invaded Norway in 1940. There was no way they knew the Allies would supply Russia with war material using that route and it could be argued they didn't even know they had a war looming with Russia at the time.

In WiF, the Germans are not required to attack Russia and in fact, there are games they do not for a variety of reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


That is just it. WiF isn't a simulation. Trying to force a historical path in a game is fraught with danger. WiF gives players wide latitudes to try "what if" strategies and also avoid the pitfalls of what historically happen.

Some have pointed out that the Germans got some gain out of Norway from stationing Kriegsmarine units there along with air units to intercept convoys bound for Russia. That may be true, but these are not the reasons the Germans invaded Norway in 1940. There was no way they knew the Allies would supply Russia with war material using that route and it could be argued they didn't even know they had a war looming with Russia at the time.

In WiF, the Germans are not required to attack Russia and in fact, there are games they do not for a variety of reasons.

There's a difference between forcing a historical path and presenting the same historical choices. "what if's" fall into two types: What if the underlying situation was different, and what if the people made different choices? WiF (and most war games) generally fall into the latter category. Change the underlying situation, then it's no longer a world war 2 game.

The German/Russian war actually supports my position, not weakens it. WiF doesn't require Germany to attack Russia (just like it shouldn't require Germany to attack Norway) but it simulates the historic pressures that compelled Germany to do so. If Germany doesn't attack Russia, there are consequences. With Norway, the historic pressures that pushed Germany into attacking are absent. Instead of playing "what if Germany decided not to attack Norway", we're playing "What if the reasons Germany attacked Norway weren't present". That's a different kind of game.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805