Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

[gravyhair]

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.

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

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

You know, I never noticed that. Hmm. That's quite interesting really. Sorry about the earlier post then, I'm wrong.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

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

warspite1

Hee hee [:)] Yes and we know how that turned out for Air Fleet 5 don't we?

[joshuamnave]

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.

[paulderynck]

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.

If the weather co-operates. Most Allied players don't feel the gamble is worth the downside.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

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.

warspite1

I would say they are different things. Why? Because while Barbarossa was a mistake, it was one that Hitler could not, not make. Lebensraum was Hitler's raison d'etre and Poland was a block that had to be overcome to achieve it.

However, had the Allies left Norway alone then Hitler would not have given Norway another thought. Weserubung came about because of other peoples actions. Barbarossa and Case White before it, were fundamental to Hitler's very being.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

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.

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.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

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.

Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...

[joshuamnave]

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.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

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.

warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...

Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...

Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.

warspite1

You are obviously ignoring my posts for a reason but cannot think why. The reasons were of Churchill's making. If the CW gives Hitler no reason to be interested in Norway he will leave well alone....

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.

The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You are obviously ignoring my posts for a reason but cannot think why.

Seriously? It's not possible that you posted while I was responding to another post and so hadn't had the chance to read yours yet?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Orm
Many Allied players attack Portugal. With this logic it should be a hefty cost for the Allies to do this. And Italy must DOW Greece or they should be punished. And USSR should not be allowed to DOW Japan until 1945...

Well yes, I think there should be a larger cost for DOWing Portugal, and I'm hardly alone in that. Italy is punished if it doesn't attack Greece. Greece is strategically valuable for protecting convoys into North Africa, just as it was in real life. With Greece, the game does model the cost/benefits of war with Greece nicely. And why should Russia be not allowed to attack Japan until 45? Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that Germany should be required to attack Norway. There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs. In other words, once again the game models the real life pressures that kept Russia from attacking Japan until the war was virtually over. But those pressures are lacking in Scandinavia. Germany shouldn't be required to attack Norway, but there should be an incentive to do so that mirrors the reasons Germany did in real life.

So the incentive to invade Norway should not be based on facts but what they percieved at the time?

----

I think that the Narvik rule in WIF, and MWF, is to strong. As it turned out, after the occupation, Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany

----

And why is this on Germany? Why is it not on the Allies?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.

The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.

warspite1

And a British invasion of Norway would not have stopped delivery most of the time in real life. The plan required British troops to move into Sweden (on the way to helping the Finns of course) and occupy the Iron Ore fields.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs.

Could you please post something in Tech Support on your partisan crashes. There are a couple threads there about partisans but I don't know the details on yours. They're likely in the AAR but I collect the issues for Steve from the Tech Support forum and unfortunately don't have enough time to catch items in the other sub-forums.

Thanks.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Orm

So the incentive to invade Norway should not be based on facts but what they percieved at the time?

----

I think that the Narvik rule in WIF, and MWF, is to strong. As it turned out, after the occupation, Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany

----

And why is this on Germany? Why is it not on the Allies?
[/quote]

It's on both. Churchill thought "hey, if we invade Norway, we can stop those iron ore shipments. Let's invade!" Turns out he might have been wrong (although really all we can do is speculate). Germany thought "Hey, if they invade Norway, they're going to stop our iron ore shipments. We better invade first!" In WiF, the British player thinks "Hey, if I invade Norway, I might get lucky enough to stop the occasional iron ore shipment. Seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. I'll pass." and the German player thinks "Hey, if the CW invades Norway, it might cost me an occasional ore shipment, but I'll gain US entry benefits, free naval units, he'll lose some units, and I can still march into Oslo or defend Narvik. Don't let me get in your way, Churchill"

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But what are the historic pressures? The pressure came from what Hitler thought the British would do. The British wanted to stop the Iron Ore traffic.

Neither of those possibilities disappear in MWIF. The British can chose to invade Norway (and Sweden) to stop German access to the Iron Ore. That is no different to Churchill's thinking. If the German player sees that happening he may try and stop it. Same as real life. If the German player sees no threat to Norway he will likely leave well alone.

The difference is that the game rules tell us that a British invasion of Norway won't stop the resource deliveries most of the time. The game also deemphasizes the importance of Norway in Germany's nuclear weapons program. Certainly the Norwegian heavy water plant factored into both the CW and German invasion plans.

We can argue all day long about how serious the ramifications would have been to the German war effort if the allies had held Narvik - but the decision to go to war, as is true with most decisions of that nature, was based on perception.

warspite1

And a British invasion of Norway would not have stopped delivery most of the time in real life. The plan required British troops to move into Sweden (on the way to helping the Finns of course) and occupy the Iron Ore fields.

I doubt that a British invasion of Norway would have stopped any delivery at all. Unless, of course, they invaded Sweden as well.

But with that said if the Allies occupied all of Norway then UK might have been able to put political pressure on Sweden that might have affected things. But the result of that would have been affected on how the war went in general as well. The Swedish government worked hard to stay out of the war and would not have liked to been pushed into the war on the German side either.

Historically, when the Allies had a strong position (when Germany was no longer in a position to invade Sweden) the ore shipments ended. Unfortunately this is not reflected in WIF.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
There are in game reasons for Russia to not attack Japan early. If you choose to (as I'm trying in a solo game, or was until Partisans crashed the game again) go to war with Japan early, there are multiple costs.

Could you please post something in Tech Support on your partisan crashes. There are a couple threads there about partisans but I don't know the details on yours. They're likely in the AAR but I collect the issues for Steve from the Tech Support forum and unfortunately don't have enough time to catch items in the other sub-forums.

Thanks.

I've posted plenty about the partisan crash and I no longer have a save file for the most recent. There isn't anything about it in my AAR because that game was partisan free because of the constant crashes they were causing. The issue seems to be better now, but not 100%. And even if I had the save, it wouldn't do you any good since replicating it is very hit and miss.