Blocked Trade Agreements

[Chocolino]

Just had the following situation arise in my PBEM: Swedish Iron Ore Trade agreement blocked.

Is this caused by the Allies occupying Narvik? Makes historic sense. But I could not find anything in the manual about it. Short of taking Narvik, what can the Axis do to reinstate the trade? Will occupy Sweden for example activate it again?

Also, in the convoy screen below the Nordic Iron Ore Route shows still as active despite the blocked agreement. Is this correct?

[Flaviusx]

If the Allies have Narvik and the Baltic is frozen, then yes, that is it.

[Chocolino]

Thanks for the quick answer.

Yes, in the very vicinity of Lulea the ocean is actually frozen. Didn't check this out.

So it turns out to be bad - but not as bad as I feared since the shipments will resume for most of the year.

[AlvaroSousa]

During winter months the route gets shipped via Narvik. If you botch Norway that's what happens.

[AlbertN]

The problem with occupying Sweden is that you get:

A) More partisans (which for me are still excessive)
B) Resources are worth 1/3 (So you'd gain less by invading than through trade. I feel conquest and occupation too is netting far too little)

[gwgardner]

If the AXIS will agree to withdraw from both Norway and Denmark completely, and restore freedom to the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, the Allied governments will cease interdicting the iron ore shipments. Make the right choice ....

[Chocolino]

If the AXIS will agree to withdraw from both Norway and Denmark completely, and restore freedom to the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, the Allied governments will cease interdicting the iron ore shipments. Make the right choice ....

A very gracious offer by the Allies .....but we don't feel that would be in the best interest of those nations.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg have just been liberated by the Axis at great cost. They have all the freedom from Capitalism and Bolshevism that they could possibly want. If necessary Germany is willing to pay the Swedish Iron price to maintain their freedom.

[Chocolino]

The problem with occupying Sweden is that you get:

A) More partisans (which for me are still excessive)
B) Resources are worth 1/3 (So you'd gain less by invading than through trade. I feel conquest and occupation too is netting far too little)

Yes, this makes the occupation of Sweden merely for the Ore seem very unattractive. Thanks for the input.

[Chocolino]

During winter months the route gets shipped via Narvik. If you botch Norway that's what happens.

Thanks for the input.

Wondering now how to avoid that the Allies are taking Narvik if Germany declares war on Norway.

- At least early in the war Germany does not have the landing craft to land in all ports at once amphibiously.
- Once you rely on occupying Oslo first and then transport to the other ports after Norway surrenders you give one turn to the Allies where they can outrun you.
- With a much stronger Navy the British will also have the upper hand should Germany try to defend the northern Norwegian ports for one turn with the Kriegsmarine.
- One can of course take Sweden first and attack across the mountains over land. Never tried this and seems overkill.

I am not complaining about this - IIRC the German conquest was a pretty lucky gamble after all......so only fair if it is difficult to pull off. But is there at least a small chance of doing it successfully in WarPlan?

For the more seasoned players out there: How do you approach Norway or is it best left alone?

[AlvaroSousa]

Buy more landing craft.
Don't invade Norway.
Invade while fighting France.

Make the British pay for occupying narvik

[Chocolino]

Buy more landing craft.
Don't invade Norway.
Invade while fighting France.

Again thanks for the input.

I assume you mean these 3 things as 3 alternative approaches since they would otherwise be mutually exclusive.

Also not sure what would change if you wait until fighting in France (the British need not get involved / distracted).

[AlvaroSousa]

There is no easy solution for Norway as really they just wanted to stay our of the war and not join the Axis.

[Chocolino]

Understand - that is fine.

Thank you for the advice.

[gwgardner]

You only have to invade Oslo and Narvik. After that, you can wear down any UK invasion of the other ports. If you wait patiently till April '41, you can build up enough landing craft for those two. Probably only need a 20 strength unit, maybe even 10, for Narvik.

[Chocolino]

You only have to invade Oslo and Narvik. After that, you can wear down any UK invasion of the other ports. If you wait patiently till April '41, you can build up enough landing craft for those two. Probably only need a 20 strength unit, maybe even 10, for Narvik.

Ahh - experience speaks.....

Yes, makes sense. Thank you for the good advice.

[tyronec]

Doesn't look like it is worthwhile for Axis to invade Norway, requires a lot of resources for a limited return.

So at present Allies get a free hit on the winter convoys, and even if there is the option for Axis to shut them down then they will loose the Swedish ore during the winter.

Would it be possible to implement that Allies can only interdict those convoys if they declare war on Norway ?

[Chocolino]

You may be right (that it is not worth taking Norway) - but I assume another benefit of taking Norway is that you have airfields to harass the RN and can also protect (with aircraft) raiders that go after the arctic lend lease convoys.

Of course not sure if that is enough to justify a Norway occupation. But at least it is a reason.