Matrix Games Forums

While we are talking about Finns. Is there any reason for not receiving Finish HQ so cost of assigning units is 2 instead of a 3?
I don't remember but I think that message about fall of Leningrad mention something about HQ. But last time I checked it - I got no HQ.

I suppose, if you think about it. A Grand Campaign with the map extended to Murmansk and full Finnish control might almost serve as the equivalent of the "4th Supreme Command" grand Campaign from WITW. A more balanced game with Allied victory expectations pushed back.

An alternate history. "What if the Finns fully committed to the destruction of the USSR, instead of hedging their bets".

And since obviously many people would find that intolerably irritating to play with because it is ahistorical, you would need to retain the current campaign scenarios, and say that the locking of Finland into a TB is specifically to replicate the historical nature of it.

I posted a Feature suggestion here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5133641

What has not been mentioned is that the Finns/Mannerheim were under pressure from both the British and the US not to advance deeper into Soviet territory. From my readings there are no official documents which outline the extent to which this affected their offensive and potential offensives.

If there to be a Finnish DLC I wish it to be locked to those who purchased it and not to be shared if host has it and accepting party don't. Finnish theatre (if we are talking north of Petrozavodsk at the least) is a totally different war to the one represented already and to be represented historically it should have all sorts of handicaps and have basically no gameplay. Otherwise we are treading on alternative history in which soviets have 50% less lend lease or they ought to prioritize the theatre much more then irl (irl they paid to it not much more attention, if not less, than to Manchuria theatre). If it's represented historically I see no sense in having it but to provide the game AI some arbitrary handicaps not relevant (if not damaging) to other theatres.

I would instantly buy a Finnland DLC, but only if this would be in such way implemented that the Finnland map would be added playable into the Grand Campaign.
If it would be only a scenario with an extra map I would be less interested.

My biggest hope would be that every new DLC could make theatre boxes playable on the GC map. The whole Europe map is already in Wite2.
So that after a few DLCs there would be something like War in Europe.

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
I posted a Feature suggestion here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5133641

What has not been mentioned is that the Finns/Mannerheim were under pressure from both the British and the US not to advance deeper into Soviet territory. From my readings there are no official documents which outline the extent to which this affected their offensive and potential offensives.

We have letters between Finnish PM Ryti and Mannerheim as well as between Mannerheim and Finnish generals. They illuminate these considerations.
In Sep 41 the biggest factor why Finns discontinued their offensive in the Karelian isthmus towards Leningrad was optimism that Germans would reach Svir and Leningrad would be surrounded regardless.
In Dec41 Mannerheim had lost confidence in ultimate German victory as the Wehrmacht suffered setbacks. Britain declared war against Finland anyway.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
I posted a Feature suggestion here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5133641

What has not been mentioned is that the Finns/Mannerheim were under pressure from both the British and the US not to advance deeper into Soviet territory. From my readings there are no official documents which outline the extent to which this affected their offensive and potential offensives.

We have letters between Finnish PM Ryti and Mannerheim as well as between Mannerheim and Finnish generals. They illuminate these considerations.
In Sep 41 the biggest factor why Finns discontinued their offensive in the Karelian isthmus towards Leningrad was optimism that Germans would reach Svir and Leningrad would be surrounded regardless.
In Dec41 Mannerheim had lost confidence in ultimate German victory as the Wehrmacht suffered setbacks. Britain declared war against Finland anyway.

Thank you for your comment. In my post I was specifically meaning the Murmansk railway even though I did not mention it. In this case I understand that diplomatic pressure played a significant part in curtailing the Finnish advance. Specifically the Finnish III Corps.

USA was discreetly threatening to declare war if Finland did cut Murmansk railroad. That was the most serious political consideration. Goodwill of USA was seen vital for national survival.

To add, those Finnish divisions after fall of Leningrad should IMHO logically appear in Leningrad area, not in Germany.

I am perfectly happy with Finnish front being TB, considering rather unique nature of front and programming challenge related to that.

I do not believe many players would be interested in a 'Finland / Norway front' DLC where the Finns are subject to political hindrances and limitations; because then the TB suffices enough for that to limit them to the historical advance boundaries.

If people is to buy a DLC, they want something that they can factually play with wide degrees of freedom. Or at least so I think.

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
Thank you for your comment. In my post I was specifically meaning the Murmansk railway even though I did not mention it. In this case I understand that diplomatic pressure played a significant part in curtailing the Finnish advance. Specifically the Finnish III Corps.

The possibilities for cutting the Murmansk railroad existed from Dec 41 onwards when Finns reached Karhumäki (Medvezhyegorsk). In East Karelia the balance of forces was advantageous for continued offensive in the winter.
For the Finnish III Corps and the German forces, the resistance of the Red Army was too formidable in that sector of the front.

Diplomatic pressure was a factor in connection to the general military situation. After the Wehrmacht suffered a reversal of fortune in the front of Moscow, Finland had to consider a long war and a strong possibility that Germany will be defeated. Finland wouldn't care about British/American pressure if the Russian Colossus crumbles.

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
Thank you for your comment. In my post I was specifically meaning the Murmansk railway even though I did not mention it. In this case I understand that diplomatic pressure played a significant part in curtailing the Finnish advance. Specifically the Finnish III Corps.

The possibilities for cutting the Murmansk railroad existed from Dec 41 onwards when Finns reached Karhumäki (Medvezhyegorsk). In East Karelia the balance of forces was advantageous for continued offensive in the winter.
For the Finnish III Corps and the German forces, the resistance of the Red Army was too formidable in that sector of the front.

Diplomatic pressure was a factor in connection to the general military situation. After the Wehrmacht suffered a reversal of fortune in the front of Moscow, Finland had to consider a long war and a strong possibility that Germany will be defeated. Finland wouldn't care about British/American pressure if the Russian Colossus crumbles.

German reversal near Moscow was also combined with one of the Hitler's less than stellar decisions, declaring war on USA.

That certainly caused government and military leadership of Finland to reassess situation.

Was it possible for the Germans to not be in a war with USA while their allies - Japan are?

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Was it possible for the Germans to not be in a war with USA while their allies - Japan are?

It was. The German alliance with Japan was as loose as an alliance gets. There was barely any coordination between the two. Hitler declaring war on the USA was one of his biggest mistakes.

Tripartite Pact was entirely defensive - thus yes Eu-Axis could have washed hands of US and let the Japan have a go at it.

Then people may argue about what USA would have done in that situation. With an active war at hand would the 'democratic popular demand' sway it to a Japan only business and not wanting to bleed further for someone that ... have not exactly directly aggressed them in a way akin to Pearl Harbour, the 'Day of Infamy'? Would have it be steered to get involved in European war over time, through popular opinion, propaganda and congress battles?

It's a huge What-If business; which in general in WW2 games for balance sake - where kept as option - merely delays US entry in a 'total war' by some months; and that is a quite viable way to handle it. But it is entirely out of the scope and purpose here.

Roosevelt had stretched neutrality a lot towards UK side, but isolationist public opinion and politicians had prevented further steps.

With Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, focus would have shifted quite totally towards Pacific. Roosevelt would have had great difficulty getting support for declaring war on Germany also. Thus Hitler did a great favour for Allies by declaring war on USA.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Roosevelt had stretched neutrality a lot towards UK side, but isolationist public opinion and politicians had prevented further steps.

With Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, focus would have shifted quite totally towards Pacific. Roosevelt would have had great difficulty getting support for declaring war on Germany also. Thus Hitler did a great favour for Allies by declaring war on USA.

This has always been my view on the matter as well. It would have been hard for Roosevelt to "sell" a European war to the American people when Germany had made no aggressive moves towards the US. Hitler foolishly declaring war on the USA meant that the decision was made for the Americans and all they had to do is declare war back.

To the matter at hand: I think it is more than plausible that a German player that is doing a lot better than history and that has captured Leningrad would have caused the Finns to have an opinion change on whether they would pursue further offensive action against the Soviets or not.

It would be nice to have some events that reflect that and would make the game more dynamic/would incentivize the Soviets to defend the North harder while at the same time incentivizing the German player to not neglect AGN.

Not only was Hitler declaring war against the US a huge error, he missed a grand opportunity.

What if post Pearl Harbor, Hitler voided the Tripartite Pact and declared war against Japan and offered support to the US.

No way the US congress could have ever declared war against Germany with that olive branch extended. Too many German-American heritage population (I seem to recall about 60% of US population at the time was either German heritage or partial heritage).

Thankfully the world didn't have to deal with that mess.

Regards,
Feltan

I am reasonably happy with Finnish TB. There are few things I'd change though.

1. Finnish divisions should arrive north of Leningrad when city is captured. Finns did not want to have anything to do with the city, btw.

2. Combat intensity after capture should be set higher with theater troop commitments adjusted.

3. Event for (small) chance of severing Murmansk rail connection. That'd require reducing Lend-Lease a bit (most of it came via Persia).

I am not sure if that could be modded or requiring a code change.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I am reasonably happy with Finnish TB. There are few things I'd change though.

1. Finnish divisions should arrive north of Leningrad when city is captured. Finns did not want to have anything to do with the city, btw.

2. Combat intensity after capture should be set higher with theater troop commitments adjusted.

3. Event for (small) chance of severing Murmansk rail connection. That'd require reducing Lend-Lease a bit (most of it came via Persia).

I am not sure if that could be modded or requiring a code change.

1. Most likely they would deploy to East Karelia. If there is no Svir front due to German advances, it’s a different matter. Then put as many as 9 on the map.