Finland

[dhucul2011]

There is alot of discussion on why the Finns should enter at all if there was no Winter War.

There is absolutely NO reason for them to.

There is also really no reason for the USSR player to launch a Winter War.

1. Why not make it a mandatory event instead of a DE. "Stalin feels it is now the time to attack Finland....". Don't have any MPP cost but have a small morale boost for the attack and maybe a morale loss if it fails from Allied intervention.

OR

2. If it is kept as a DE and the USSR says no to the Winter War then a later DE for the Germans to spend MPPs to entice the Finns to enter the war if Tallin and Riga fall. "Germany offers equipment and arms to the Finns and guaranteed territory in the Kola Peninsula and near Leningrad if they join the Axis in their anti-Bolshevik crusade".

Thoughts?

[xwormwood]

Trickery.

Because we will never know for sure. What reasons did Hungaria, Rumania, Bulgaria or Italy had to go to war?

Would Hitler had dared to attack as soon as 1941 if he wouldn't have seen the poor success of the Red Army?

Would Hitler have attacked Norway with Finland still intact?

What would have Stalin done if he wouldn't have attacked Finland? Maybe he would have attacked Romania?

Does the Russian player has a reason to attack Finland? Well, at least a small one. To protect Leningrad.

I would opt for a DE for the Axis player if the Allied player refuses to start the Winter War.
A DE where has a chance to get diplo hits on Finland for little money.

Stalin grabed eastern Poland and more and more and more. A trait which Finland could easily discover.
Even without the Winter War Finland would be interested in defense pact with its Neighbors, or even with Germany.

[TheBattlefield]

Really very complicated. The historical plausibility should better make only the framework for the game and not vice versa. I think that in the current setting of the game the Russians should always have an interest in conquests north of Leningrad, because Finland will join very likely in the countries of the Axis powers. The situation at the outbreak of war is somewhat more favorable for Russia with a winter war event. This is even up to expectations of a game beginner. It should only be ensured that a Finnish declaration of war without a winter war carried out only after a serious threat of Leningrad by the Axis forces and not at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.

[ReinerAllen]

But isn't this where diplomacy is suppose to kick in? The absence of a Winter War would suggest that the Russians spent enough on its diplomatic efforts to achieve its goals. These goals (annexing Finnish Territory to remove Leningrad out of Artillery range [or so I've read]) would have been very difficult to achieve. This difficulty would have been increased if Germany equaled or outspent Russia in diplomacy. Also, in reality no nation would permit annexation of its territory.

Now, I have not read up on the history of the Russian diplomatic efforts to achieve their goal, or how close they came. But game wise, I think annexing the Finnish territory would have been a very hard diplomatic nut to crack and without some random luck the Winter War was inevitable.

Let me know if I'm way out in left field here. All comments welcome.

[sPzAbt653]

Yes it is complicated up there, and I'm sure that SC3 has a complicated way of dealing with it, but I have yet to understand all the workings of the many scripts.

No one has mentioned Petsamo yet, and it was part of Finland until Finland gave up in 1944 and Petsamo was then occupied by Russia. Currently in SC3, I think but am not sure, that Petsamo is given to Russia after the Winter War.

Soviet occupied Hanko was not able to be supplied once the Finns were in the war, and the garrison was evacuated. In SC3, I think Hanko can be used as a Soviet base after Finland is in the war.

Historic quick points:
According to the Non-Agression Pact between Germany and Russia, the Baltic States and Finland were in the Soviet sphere of interest. After Poland was conquered, Stalin demanded ports and territory in the Baltic States and Finland. The Baltic States 'agreed' but Finland did not, so Stalin attacked Finland in the Winter War. Finland was defeated and the Soviets got areas north of Leningrad and Lake Ladoga along with the port
of Hanko.
After France was defeated Stalin quickly occupied first the entire Baltic States and then Bessarabia. This included parts of
Lithuania and North Bukovina which were in the German 'sphere of influence'.
Germany was receiving exports from Finland and Sweden, and now these were threatened by the Soviet presence in the Baltic. Therefore Hitler made aggremment with Finland in Aug. 1940 to allow German troops passage thru Finland to Norway in exchange for arms and material. These agreements allowed Germany to station troops in Finland, securing the Petsamo area from possible Soviet occupation.
June 22, 1941 found Finland as a neutral. Stalin ignored this and ordered the bombing of 18 areas in Finland, including Helsinki,
after which Finland declared war.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
No one has mentioned Petsamo yet, and it was part of Finland until Finland gave up in 1944 and Petsamo was then occupied by Russia. Currently in SC3, I think but am not sure, that Petsamo is given to Russia after the Winter War.

Hi, you're right and I am changing that, thanks for pointing it out.

Soviet occupied Hanko was not able to be supplied once the Finns were in the war, and the garrison was evacuated. In SC3, I think Hanko can be used as a Soviet base after Finland is in the war.

I've looked into this and it seems that the battle lasted some time without any significant movements on either side, and it would appear that one of the main reasons for the evacuation was that its retention by the USSR became largely irrelevant. The other being the failure of the Soviet fleet to keep the supplies coming.

[sPzAbt653]

Hanko - My memory failed so thanks for pointing this out. I see that Hanko actually held out until December 1941 when the last Soviet troops were evacuated.

So in this case it seems to work well as designed, as does the rest of the Finnish theater. In my game I have moved German XIX and XXXVI corps units into Finland and have not accomplished anything with them, supply and movement being what it is. This is a difficult area to represent in a game, so thanks for a good design job there !

[John B.]

My two cents is that there should certainly be a possibility for Finland to enter the war if the Soviets don't invade but it should not be a given. Unlike the countries in the Balkans who had to placate the Germans who could come spilling across the border at any minute, the Finns were insulated from direct German pressure by the Baltic and the Soviet Union. I like the idea posted by dhucul that if Russia does not attack the Germans can tempt the Finns to jump on the gravy train if they take the Baltic ports. It would also give the Russians a reason to defend the Baltics since now it can be a pretty viable strategy to run back as fast as your corps can move.

[BillRunacre]

I don't disagree, but I do worry that having multiple different triggers for Finland might confuse players and require more explanation.

Especially as Finland's war entrance isn't guaranteed anyway, because Finland will currently only enter the war if it is pro-Axis.

Diplomacy or the Anglo-French expedition during the Winter War could make it pro-Allied, and therefore neutral when the Axis go to war with the USSR.

Unfortunately players will forget the rules on Finnish war entry, even though there is a Pop Up message to Germany on this subject, and coupled with the above I am erring on the side of simplicity.

One positive from this would be that it keeps the USSR's incentive for the Winter War intact, as if we remove or significantly weaken that incentive then no one will carry out the Winter War.

[John B.]

Bill, I certainly hear what you're saying but if your goal is to have a winter war why not just make it automatic rather than present a choice that's not really a choice?

[John B.]

In fact, why not just wrap it into the Soviet agreement to take eastern Poland etc...?

[dhucul2011]

I think a mandatory winter war solves most problems.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: John B.

Bill, I certainly hear what you're saying but if your goal is to have a winter war why not just make it automatic rather than present a choice that's not really a choice?

My goal isn't necessarily to have the Winter War, so much as to encourage the player to do what the USSR did historically.

Which is why I agree in principle with having more varied triggers for Finnish war entry, but I fear that even the simple rules that are in place at the moment can cause confusion, as has been seen on this forum already.

I'll think about this some more though, as I would much rather retain the choice, no matter how illusory it might be, than to make it a given. Especially because if we made it automatic then some would demand the choice... so an illusion of choice effectively gets the desired historical result.

[xwormwood]

I would demand the choice, guilty as charged.

[sPzAbt653]

At the end of 1944 the Finns joined the Allies so I thought I would move some Soviets up around into Norway. The Finn's supply looks normal, but the Soviet units get little or none. Supply Levels are shown on the map, but at the bottom left you can see that the Soviet HQ unit is at 0[5] and all the Soviet units are at 0, while on the right side I have inset a nearby Finn unit, which has typical supply of 5.

If this is normal then I think it is fine, as the Finns may well have not given any support to Soviets moving thru their territory. But thought I would point it out in case it is not intended.

[dhucul2011]

Bill:

For the DE to start a Winter War, why not remove a few USSR units from the starting OOB (in the north) and have an MPP cost to "activate" these units for the Finnish campaign; Timoshenko HQ and a couple of corps (all with one experience bar) after the end of the Winter War. Explain this in the DE.

If the USSR still says no then activate half strength units around Leningrad with no experience.

This gives some real incentive to start the war.

"Attacking Finland will activate the Leningrad Army Front and provide our troops with some experience in winter combat..."

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

At the end of 1944 the Finns joined the Allies so I thought I would move some Soviets up around into Norway. The Finn's supply looks normal, but the Soviet units get little or none. Supply Levels are shown on the map, but at the bottom left you can see that the Soviet HQ unit is at 0[5] and all the Soviet units are at 0, while on the right side I have inset a nearby Finn unit, which has typical supply of 5.

If this is normal then I think it is fine, as the Finns may well have not given any support to Soviets moving thru their territory. But thought I would point it out in case it is not intended.

I'm not sure, are the Soviet forces receiving supply from Finnish resources when they are in Finland?

[sPzAbt653]

I would say no, because as the Soviet units move thru Finland and areas that display different supply levels, they remain at '0' unless they are next to the one Soviet HQ that I moved there, in which case they go to '1'.

[sPzAbt653]

I think I set up a test. I started the game in hotseat and made the Axis declare war on Finland and USSR. Then I could move a Soviet unit into Finland. After a few turns, you can see in the screen shot that the Soviet unit is in a '3' hex but is at '0' and can only move one hex. I continued moving it up to Lahti, thru a '4' hex and into the '5' hex at Lahti, and it never changed from '0'. So I suppose that the Soviet units do not draw supply from Finn resources.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks, I've fixed this now. [:)]