Norway

[Essro]

Very much looking forward to this game. It looks like the one. I’ve read every post here and am quite confident that this development team is making something special.

WW2 Strategic games are my favorite genre. I have played most of them (seriously most) and have strong opinions about each. I also believe that most fall short.

Paper games (AWAW,A3R, AETO/APTO, WiF, and literally dozens more) have come close to meeting my expectations but each one, in its own way, is just slightly short of what I’d like to see. {note: AWAW is okay...there, I said it..it’s just okay]. On the computer side, the options have always been far worse. Most are just plain garbage in my opinion. Not going to pick on any of them in particular because some folks really seem to like many of them but to each his own, right?

Over the years I have found a few events that, to me, often indicate the failure or success of a game’s engine. It’s kind of like a canary in a coal mine I guess.

Often I have observed that many of these games are incapable of modeling certain events. Since I usually play 1939-45 campaigns, I typically hit the first snag in early 1940. This one is usually the make or break feature for me since it tells me early on how the rest of the game is going to go.

So, let’s say I’m the Axis player: why am I invading Norway and what does it look like? If you are familiar with this campaign you will know what I’m talking about. If you don’t understand that question, let those who do answer. Conversely, let’s say I’m the Allied player: what are my motivations with Norway?

Weserubung is my canary in the coal mine. I find that strategic level games more often than not cannot model it reasonably. Either the reasons for the operation are not realistic or the operation itself plays out in a bizarre fashion (e.g. it is tough to model such an operation at corps level).

There are other canaries, but because this one will typically be early game, it is critical to me to understand how it is going to play out.

Again, I am very much looking forward to this title. Thanks for any response.

[juntoalmar]

Nice post.

Just curious about your opinion, do you think that it's properly modelled in WiF? It helps the Germans to threaten the Murmansk line. I don't remember if they can send all the Swedish resources through the Baltic when the ports freeze (I think yes), but that could be another reason.

[AlvaroSousa]

Norway is a double edges sword.

Advantages in WarPlan if you take it.
#1 Production
#2 Positioning for naval units to raid the Atlantic or the Arctic Route
#3 Protect iron ore
#4 Escape route for any units in Finland

Advantages in WarPlan if you leave Norway alone
#1 Norway will defend Norway for you so you don't have to garrison it
#2 If the Allies invade it you have a minor country Ally and a free naval unit, merchant marine, and escorts

The double edge
No matter what the Allies can make an effort to attack Narvik.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Nice post.

Just curious about your opinion, do you think that it's properly modelled in WiF? It helps the Germans to threaten the Murmansk line. I don't remember if they can send all the Swedish resources through the Baltic when the ports freeze (I think yes), but that could be another reason.

I don’t really want to weigh in on other games too much. I have a love/hate relationship with WiF. But, in my opinion, WiF takes an approach based primarily on production. It is really a game about production. As such, it probably handles the situation only in part.

I do truly enjoy the later game Arctic War going on up there and it is fun to see a single German BB or two raise some pulses with how much threat they can generate. WiF does that well enough. But that kind of planning is based largely on our own hindsight as to the conduct of the war, hardly a valid reason to invade Norway in early 1940.

Norway is (should be) complex. Most strategic level games don’t handle it that way. The approach is usually “German player needs production, invade EVERYWHERE!” In reality, it is a complex combination of Churchill + Swedish Ore + Vague Soviet Goals in Finland/Scandinavia + Quisling + Admiral Raeder + shipping in neutral (Norway) coastal waters + violating said shipping + sub bases + Hitler + OKW vs OKH + many other things.

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: fuzzypup

Norway is a double edges sword.

Advantages in WarPlan if you take it.
#1 Production
#2 Positioning for naval units to raid the Atlantic or the Arctic Route
#3 Protect iron ore
#4 Escape route for any units in Finland

Advantages in WarPlan if you leave Norway alone
#1 Norway will defend Norway for you so you don't have to garrison it
#2 If the Allies invade it you have a minor country Ally and a free naval unit, merchant marine, and escorts

The double edge
No matter what the Allies can make an effort to attack Narvik.

Double edge approach is good. Norway can and should be able to completely backfire for either player. Same with Balkans I suppose. Or even Italian entry into the war.

Thanks again fuzzypup

[Michael T]

On the computer side, the options have always been far worse. Most are just plain garbage in my opinion

I could not agree more.

[AlvaroSousa]

WarPlan tries to center around decisions that have benefits and consequences without it being an absolute yes or no. These decisions are in the form of operational planning. If you invade Norway you better have a transport run up to Narvik and occupy it as you invade hoping to dodge the Royal Navy.