Winter War

[warspite1]

The Soviets have invaded Finland in an inept attack.

I like not giving an extra RP to Germany, but if I continue to attack I'm going to lose a ton of units. If I just retreat with the Soviets to the borderland area in front of Leningrad, what is the downside? The Germans can't enforce a peace and it's unlikely the Finns will get much joy.

What is the downside for the Soviets?

[Orm]

I do not understand the extra resource part. While the Finnish resource now goes to Germany the demand of the borderlands that preceded the DOW on Finland reduced the resources traded from USSR to Germany. Hence there is no resource gain for Germany by this.

Besides that it is a long road down to a port that can be used to transport the resource to Germany and USSR should easily be able to ZOC that route. And if CW allows it to the shipped through the North Sea then that would be a sad day The the Royal Navy.

The real downside to let Finland be once they are at war with Finland is that Germany can ship units to that front before declaring war on USSR. Making Leningrad and Murmansk hard to defend.

I see no reason at all for USSR to withdraw from Finland until a German DOW on USSR is close to reality.

USSR can trade units with Finland on a one to one base and then they are ahead in my book. While it is true that USSR gets weaker by this so will the German offence be on other fronts and especially on the USSR front once it is open.

You have an entire year to kill Axis units in Finland. No reason to rush it.

The main attack should go along the coast line. And you should be able to slowly blitz your way to Helsinki. Use the superior Soviet air force to get positive die roll modifiers. Once you get one hex on Helsinki place your artillery around Tallinn and bombard Helsinki across the sea. Shore bombardment and air power should give you a decent attack on Helsinki during the long summer. Let the German units be destroyed in Finland so they can not take part in Barbarossa later on.

At the same time capturing Petsamo should not prove all that difficult. Just cut the Finnish supply and ground strike until they get disorganized and easy to kill. Same procedure with annoying Finnish units blocking your way in the middle.

This campaign is fun, fun, fun. Just go slowly until the weather clears up. No real need to rush it. Just make sure you have loss units in the attacks.

[warspite1]

The resource referred to the 7th resource that Germany does not get - and will do if peace is declared.

Why can Germany set up units in Finland before war with the Soviet Union if USSR and Finland are still at war?

Edit: I've got my answer - multiple States of War??? REALLY hate this whole concept. Absolutely not a good rule [&:] (IMO).

Edit 2: Does anyone else have any feelings on this - one way or the other?

[Orm]

The resource referred to the 7th resource that Germany does not get - and will do if peace is declared.

Once the number of resources that USSR trade to Germany is reduced it stay reduced. There is nothing that can get the number of resources to increase. So Germany does not gain that resource if peace is declared.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The resource referred to the 7th resource that Germany does not get - and will do if peace is declared.

Once the number of resources that USSR trade to Germany is reduced it stay reduced. There is nothing that can get the number of resources to increase. So Germany does not gain that resource if peace is declared.

warspite1

Do you know where it states that?

[Orm]

5.1 Trade agreements
.....
USSR and Germany start the 1939 scenario with a trade agreement in place to exchange German build points
for Soviet resources. In each turn, Germany must lend lease 2 build points to the USSR while the USSR must supply
Germany with 7 resources (2 of them must be oil). These numbers can change if circumstances vary. For each of the
following countries that an Axis major power either declares war on or aligns with (see 9.7, 9.8 and 19), reduce the
number of resources the USSR must supply by 1 (minimum 0):
• Finland,
• Latvia,
• Estonia,
• Lithuania,
• Bulgaria,
• Hungary,
• Rumania, and
• Turkey.
Reduce the ordinary resources before you reduce any oil resources. Reduce the number of resources by 1
from the turn that Finland allows a USSR claim on the Finnish borderlands (see 19.6.1) and by 1 from the turn that
Rumania allows a USSR claim on Bessarabia (see 19.6.2). Note that each minor country only reduces resources once
even if claims are allowed and the minor is declared war on or aligned.
For each of Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Sweden or Yugoslavia that the Soviet Union declares war,
or a Soviet controlled unit enters, Germany may choose to either keep one of the build points it would normally send
to the Soviet Union, or receive an extra oil from the Soviet Union, each turn. This choice cannot be changed later.
The USSR and Germany stop supplying these resources and build points once the Nazi-Soviet pact is broken
and keep them for themselves, even the turn the pact is broken.

----

Note that my statement in my previous post was a bit to strong since the resources can increase if USSR declares war on or send units to any of the following countries; Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Sweden or Yugoslavia

[paulderynck]

Another problem with sitting still is the Finns ZOC your units and they won't count for garrison but German units in Finland - even if adjacent to your Russkis - do count. If you back-up, they can follow you and even stack with Germans in the hexes they take. Mind you, if you allow them to get into even one hex of Mother Russia, you will get a nice production bump.

[warspite1]

Thanks - but that won't be an issue. I have agreed a house rule with my opponent, no Multiple States of War allowed. I can't understand the justification for it and frankly, will never agree to play it.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Once you get one hex on Helsinki place your artillery around Tallinn and bombard Helsinki across the sea.

Can you also do ground strikes over sea? I was not able to use artillery for ground strikes in Denmark (except from hex to hex with arrow)...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

ORIGINAL: Orm
Once you get one hex on Helsinki place your artillery around Tallinn and bombard Helsinki across the sea.

Can you also do ground strikes over sea? I was not able to use artillery for ground strikes in Denmark (except from hex to hex with arrow)...

Artillery can ground strike to the next hex even if it is a all water hexside between those hexes. So your artillery should have been able to ground strike in Denmark. But do remember that when artillery ground strikes it is affected by weather like a aircraft. Maybe it was storm or blizzard?

Edit: When a artillery bombards it is either performing a ground strike or a ground support mission.

[warspite1]

142 views and no one has a view one way or the other on Multiple States of War? Does that mean everyone is fine with it - its the bestest thing since sliced bread? So angry about it they cannot bring themselves to utter its name? or are currently residing in couldn't careless one way or the other, corner? or what? [:D]

Just curious for people's thoughts please on the rule.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

142 views and no one has a view one way or the other on Multiple States of War? Does that mean everyone is fine with it - its the bestest thing since sliced bread? So angry about it they cannot bring themselves to utter its name? or are currently residing in couldn't careless one way or the other, corner? or what? [:D]

Just curious for people's thoughts please on the rule.

No, the Multiple States of War rules are some of the worst rules in WiF. They aren't the worst rules in WiF -- that honor goes to either the peace keeper rule or the rule that states the US loses a victory point city if it aligns both Mexico and Brazil -- but I think that it ranks as third worst after those two. I might be forgetting another bad one, but it is pretty bad.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

142 views and no one has a view one way or the other on Multiple States of War? Does that mean everyone is fine with it - its the bestest thing since sliced bread? So angry about it they cannot bring themselves to utter its name? or are currently residing in couldn't careless one way or the other, corner? or what? [:D]

Just curious for people's thoughts please on the rule.

No, the Multiple States of War rules are some of the worst rules in WiF. They aren't the worst rules in WiF -- that honor goes to either the peace keeper rule or the rule that states the US loses a victory point city if it aligns both Mexico and Brazil -- but I think that it ranks as third worst after those two. I might be forgetting another bad one, but it is pretty bad.

warspite1

So if we ever get to play each other at MWIF - we can have a house rule NO MSoW!! [:)]

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Wait, I don't get the problem with peacekeepers or Multiple States of War. What exactly is the problem with them? I'll admit that MSoW can be complex, but you do kind of need it for issues where you're at war with some people but not others. You do need them, I find, to stop even worse abuses of the game.

[Courtenay]

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

Multiple states of war: Yes, Japan and Russia stayed at peace throughout most of the war. That is not the same as the MSoW rule, which mainly affects Italy. If Italy were to come in, it would have to come into the war against both Western powers. Yes, in WW I, Germany and Italy were neutral for a fairly long length of time after Italian entry into the war, but that was not a MSoW situation -- Italian and German forces simply weren't in contact. The option of coming into the war against just one Western power really wasn't an option.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thanks - but that won't be an issue. I have agreed a house rule with my opponent, no Multiple States of War allowed. I can't understand the justification for it and frankly, will never agree to play it.

There in fact were "Peacekeepers" that were sent to Finland! The only rather odd thing about it versus WiF is that they were CW and French, not German!

One of them was Sir Christopher Lee, the actor.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

142 views and no one has a view one way or the other on Multiple States of War? Does that mean everyone is fine with it - its the bestest thing since sliced bread? So angry about it they cannot bring themselves to utter its name? or are currently residing in couldn't careless one way or the other, corner? or what? [:D]

Just curious for people's thoughts please on the rule.

No, the Multiple States of War rules are some of the worst rules in WiF. They aren't the worst rules in WiF -- that honor goes to either the peace keeper rule or the rule that states the US loses a victory point city if it aligns both Mexico and Brazil -- but I think that it ranks as third worst after those two. I might be forgetting another bad one, but it is pretty bad.

Two birds with one stone. The "Peacekeeper" rule is just WiF-slang for something you are allowed to do because of the Multiple states of War rules. They aren't optional, though.

If you didn't have some kind of rules for Multiple States of War, you would have to make up your own for when those situations take place because there are so many ways it can happen in WiF. So maybe they could be different and better rules, but they do need to be in the rules.

Agree the Mexico and Brazil thing is a bad rule, but usually only when I'm the Allies.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

The problem is that if you don't have peacekeepers, you run into all sorts of gamey tricks. Which aren't any more historical than sending hundreds of thousands of men into fronts you're not at war with, but you can run into game-shattering problems.

If there are no peacekeepers, what do you do as Germany, when on the first turn, I play the Soviets and declare war on Belgium?


MSOW sees a lot more action than just declaring war on say, France but not the CW. You'd want it for situations where, prior to entering the main war, Italy declares war on say, Greece on her own. Which, given the political state of WW2, is actually a very plausible scenario. Or any time an otherwise neutral major power attacks a minor country which then comes under the wing of a protecting major who might not want to risk an all-out war with the opposing major. Proxy conflicts happened a lot through history.....

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

The problem is that if you don't have peacekeepers, you run into all sorts of gamey tricks. Which aren't any more historical than sending hundreds of thousands of men into fronts you're not at war with, but you can run into game-shattering problems.

If there are no peacekeepers, what do you do as Germany, when on the first turn, I play the Soviets and declare war on Belgium?


MSOW sees a lot more action than just declaring war on say, France but not the CW. You'd want it for situations where, prior to entering the main war, Italy declares war on say, Greece on her own. Which, given the political state of WW2, is actually a very plausible scenario. Or any time an otherwise neutral major power attacks a minor country which then comes under the wing of a protecting major who might not want to risk an all-out war with the opposing major. Proxy conflicts happened a lot through history.....

[warspite1]

Thanks for the feedback.

Peacekeepers

Well I’ve searched RAC but can see no reference to Peacekeepers but presume this is where “neutral” troops are sent to a country at war with another.

Multiple States of War.

Situations that I find absurd.

1. Its June 1940 and Mussolini bravely declares war on France – not the UK – just France. France is holding on for dear life – the UK need France in the war… but Churchill just sits back and does nothing. Instead the UK waits for the inevitable French defeat, allowing in the meantime, the RM full access to the Western Med to pulverise defenders of Toulon or Marseilles. Then when Mussolini is ready he can declare war on the UK.
It’s a personal thing I know, but that, to my mind, is ridiculous and cannot happen in my games. If Mussolini goes to war with France, he has to declare war on the UK too.

2. The situation in Finland. Germany and the Soviet Union have a peace pact. They both need it for different reasons, but it is an uneasy peace with neither trusting the other, and both being more than happy to break the pact – but only as soon as their purposes are served, not before.
We are supposed to believe that German forces could engage the Soviets in Finland without there being a war? Paul you mentioned there were peacekeepers but come on, what is possible in WIF is not Count Dracula suddenly appearing on the Mannerheim Line. This is whole German army corps (a whole army in one stack) + Kriegsmarine + Luftwaffe fighting against the Soviets - while there is a peace pact between the two countries in place! On that scale, that is war my friend – and to have such allowed is totally unrealistic.

3. Someone mentioned the Soviets declaring war on Belgium. I admit I did not know that was possible, but that is about as gamey as it gets. There would, for me, need to be a house rule to prevent such nonsense. One of the things I love about WIF is the ability to go and explore outcome of invasions of the likes of Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey. But just as ADG perfectly put in place a framework to ensure a WWII feel for each game – so it needs to modify things to stop abuses that take “what-if” scenarios to ridiculous lengths i.e. “couldn’t be” fantasy scenarios.

4. There was mention of Italy declaring war on Greece (or Yugoslavia) alone. I do not have an issue with that although am thinking off the top of my head here. If Greece is attacked by Italy after Italy is at war with France and the UK then no problem. Germany can join in that war or not. Either way the Western Allies are at war with both Italy and Germany. If Germany declines to declare war on Greece then she cannot send troops to Greece; Italy has to fight that war on her own. If Italy attacks Greece while neutral the same rule applies as per Finland above. If the Western Allies want to defend Greece then they have no option but to declare war on Italy. They cannot send hundreds of thousands of men, aircraft and ships to defend Greece, while Mussolini laughs at the mild inconvenience….