Matrix Games Forums

Has anyone tried to conquer Norway as Germany in the early stages of a Global War Scenario (about Mar/Apr 1940)? Any ideas how to accomplish this on the MWIF map, using an historically reasonable amount of forces and effort?

with kind regards

Never tried, but probably use combined action, move Krigsmarine + Amph out from Kiel - probably in North Sea; with loaded like 2 divisions and 1 INF / MNT unit and invade somewhere. Lots depends too on how the Norway units are deployed.
You'll need precious air needed in France / Belgium too.

And by most probabilities the Brits will sail out with the Royal Navy, and if they find the Kriegsmarine ... well ... it won't end well.
Then the Germans have only 1 TPs to ship in more troops in Norway. Whereas the Brits can bring more eventually (but have they the forces).

Also best of luck to keep Northern Norway supplied later on.

As a Strategic game, the gaming of this exercise with historical forces is not really possible i.e. battalion, regiment, divisions.

I believe with the MWIF divisions rule a Norwegian campaign might be possible if not for the supply problem. It is impossible to reach Northern Norway via land without the use of an HQ as far as I can see.
That was not necessary when using the original WIF Europe map where I played this operation in some games albeit it does not make much sense strategically for the large convoy and transport fleet the allies most likely get when Norway is dowed.
NevertheIess I think that this option not being possible in MWIF is somewhat unsatisfying.

with kind regards

Yes, but it is not just the Germans - the Norwegians operated in smaller units than a corps. Not to mention how they are going to be at sea for at least an impulse (too many historical invasions required for a combined to work).

Re being satisfying I think that, as has been borne out in previous threads, the whole Norwegian situation is mildly unsatisfying; not just that it cannot be played out as per real life (given this is a Strategic game that is perhaps understandable) but the impetus for Germany doing what it did in real life just isn't there (although probably shows what a stupid move it was in the first place!).

In the board game an implementation of a little houserule often can solve such a problem with relative ease.
For the MWIF map as a possible example ...
1) Reduce the Norwegian MTN to a MTN Div.
2) "Create" a "Notional HQ" by allowing Germany to choose an Inf or Mtn Div which has the abilites of an HQ when operationg inside Norway.
3) Award a (Victory Point) bonus to Germany when conquering Norway and/or some threat (CW mining Norwegian coastal waters) when it does not.
... then wait and see what happens in MAR/APR 40 when Germany is played by a creative Fuhrer [;)]

with kind regards

Norway again... If you look at the heavy losses the German navy got there, they never recuperated from that. Effectively, the German navy lost 40% of it's modern ships there (especially destroyers...).

That's why in WiF you don't see a German DoW on Norway.

The way to do it: spend an offensive chit, do a supercombined and invade Narvik with a division (hope the invasion succeeds) and the Oslo region with Para's and invading INF out of the AMPH, with the TRS as backup to move an additional unit unto the coast for the attack on Oslo next impulse. Stuka's are needed for ground strike and ground support.

If you don't use an offensive chit, you give the Home Fleet a chance of slaughtering your invasion force on the ships at Narvik, and if that isn't on the high seas, you give the CW the chance of landing an INF in Narvik, which isn't that easy to get rid of.

Conclusion: too expensive for the economic value you get out of the country (even with the Iron ore flowing in winter turns). Which is historically correct, I believe.

As Warspite put it: the invasion of Norway was a mistake (and a costly one too)...

The German OKW for sure took it for a splendid idea when it planned the operation back in these old days [;)]

The game should help the German player a little to see it the same way ...


with kind regards

What about the US entry hit for Germany?

I remember my first WiF game (everyone that played that game was their first as well)...I tried it, and was able to pull it off. However, I got stuffed in France. We had to end the game around the end of 1940 because of demoralization[X(]. It was because of this experience that I favor a modified version of "Fall Gelb" (I never let France get out of hand again).

The benefits vs cost does not come close for Germany to consider it. Maybe if there was no US entry hit, the Germans had a better chance than the rules allow for capturing the Norweigan naval assets combined with a tiny chance the Allies get those assets, a rework of the sea zone(s) in the North Sea making it more difficult for the CW to get into a high box, VP would be good as well as someone mentioned, etc...

The use of US entry to at least not discourage Germany to go to "Weserübung" looks as a sound idea to me.
No roll for the DOW Norway or alternatively having to roll anyway wether Germany dows Norway or not may be both feasible.

with kind regards

PS: By the way I think that could be a good idea for any historically similar situations (like the Soviet-Finnish winterwar) to create an option for those wishing to have a more historical flavour of the game.

I've seen Germany attack Norway. But I have never, ever, seen CW attack Norway during '40.

Which seems a pitty to me because Germany beat the Allies by perhaps just one day in violating Norwegian neutrality as Churchill's plan "Operation Wilfred" - and a consequently "Plan R 4" - was already on its way on April 8.

with kind regards

Yes but if the conclusion of history is that the German invasion of Norway was a rubbish idea, imagine how history would view Allied incursion against neutral Norway? [X(]

The problems of Norway are, I think, numerous:

a) The game is Strategic level. The assets that Germany must commit to make this operation possible is out of all proportion in terms of the wider game (particularly the knock-on effects for the French Campaign).

b) ADG do not like making too many specific rules to allow for individual events.

c) The game mechanics (sea-boxes in particular) vs the way the plan was able to be carried out.

d) Most of all the plans, from both an Allied and German perspective were not ideal (and that is being kind) so why would a WIF player want to repeat the mistakes? God knows what the result of a British invasion (assuming the Germans react to the mining, let alone if the Germans didn't react!!) would have been - the Germans would have ended up looking like the good guys! For the Germans they just ended up giving huge amounts of merchant shipping to the British and losing much of their surface fleet in the process....

I am sure there are house-rules that can be employed to make Norway an option. However, because of the coding, house-rules are usually harder to implement in MWIF than in WIF.

It's a shame but not much to be done I don't think.

I concur that from the (M)WIF view a German campaign in Norway seems to be an obvious major blunder. From an historical point of view the odds on this are not so straight forward as I believe.
As for MWIF being a game on strategical level, I think its a shame that a major strategical operation of the war, as I consider "Weserübung" can rightfully be called", is not playable because of the inconsistency of the rules and/or game material.
So maybe, some time in the future, when Steve has got the basics of the game working, he (or his grandson) may take a closer look to this lost opportunity for so much countless heroes to earn the Narvikschild or the Victoria Cross in the region of endless nights ... [;)]

with kind regards

There are way too many issues in my eyes in invading Norway than benefits in the long run.

Germany has access already to the North Sea. They won't badly need a minor port giving to the northern sea route to threaten Commerce with Soviets.

Most of Norway would be OOS for them. (They should get like one "Norway Bound" HQ upon capturing Oslo; Dietl or whatever you want to call it).

The garrisoning requirements are way too much in terms of units Germany can spare. In comparison to a large platform for Strat-Bombers and such the Allies can get later on by counter invading with much higher reinforcing rate vs the Kriegsmarine.

The Swedish Ore goes through Narvik if Norway is neutral anyhow.

1 Resource vs the Risks of losing units, and as already mentioned the garrison requirements vs an Allied Landing are way too against Germany.

All units going to Norway, especially Luftwaffe, will be badly missed in France, which is by far much more important than Norway.


On a different note I've read in some house rules of tabletop gamers they perform a roll upon German DoW of Norway, or better CW and Geramany rolls, and if Germany rolls higher Norway aligns to Germany even if it has been DoWed (They call that House Rule "Quisling". Pratically the Pro-Nazist party surges and gets Norway to side with the Axis.) The rule covers a bit more stuff, like not all of the Norway units could appear and some could be "lost", etc.
But in MWiF we cannot have anything like that unless the player pre-agrees, then the dice roll is on manual setting, etc.

I simply leave Norway be in my games.

If one would put in "special" rules for Norway, one should look at Sweden too. Would that country join the Axis side after a CW DoW on Norway? It's possible that this would have happened, since there was a large "right wing" political party in parliament at that time and with the CW in Narvik looking at Swedish Iron?

Now, suppose that the USSR would not have started the Winterwar and Germany would have invaded Norway? Couldn't that have meant that Sweden would have stopped giving the iron ore to Germany? Swedish politics really became anti Soviet after the Winterwar and they expected Germany to go to war with Stalin. Before that, the Swedish view on the Iron was that whoever paid, got it.

And what about Spain and Portugal? Don't you think that a CW DoW on Portugal in early war wouldn't have made Franco nervous? What would Franco have done if the US and the CW would have invaded Portugal in force in 1943? Would Franco have given free passage to the Allies, simply to stay in power? That was the only thing he was interested in...

And the Dutch and Belgians also weren't good with eachother before WW II. If Germany would only have attacked the Dutch and would have promised the territory the Belgians wanted to gain in the 1920's, could Belgium not have joined the Axis side?

If one looks at the political situation at that time, things were very, very complicated. For every country in Europe, one could think of "if that happened, that could have been a possibility too". In a strategic game like WiF, that's almost impossible to do.

You need Days of Decision to add to this game, to get somewhat of a political system in place for this. However, that's a "game to far" at this moment...

There was no large Nazi movement in either Sweden nor Norway. In Sweden it was a very strong political consensus to stay out of the war. And since we did not enter the war to assist Finland against USSR we would never have joined Nazi Germany if the Allies had attacked Norway.

Most know that Sweden traded with Germany until '44. But few seem to know that Sweden traded with UK throughout the war. This despite the difficulty getting the trade through the war zone.

Sweden shared military intelligence with the British during the war and this was despite the "psilander affair" that did a lot to discredit UK (especially among the naval officers). As example I can mention that Sweden told UK that Bismarck was on the way out in the North Sea, Sweden also reported that Germany was about to attack USSR.

I'm a bit surprised that Spain cant give "non-beligerant" status to itself after the fall of France.

I don't think the Belgians would have joined the Axis, but perhaps the Dutch would have? Hitler liked to split up countries with multiple ethnic groups...perhaps offering the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium?...or get the Flemish part of Belgium to separate from Belgium as an independent nation favorable to Germany?

Days of Decision is an awesome game!

Wasn't the National Organisation on the Right a nationalist party in those days? They had quite some seats in Parliament in 1940. Sure, they weren't a Nazi party, but they were nationalists. It looked to me (after having done some reading a couple of years ago on Swedish politics during WW II), that they were slowly going towards the fascist party in Italy before it came into power. The only thing missing was a charismatic leader. And I don't confuse them with the real Nazi Party in Sweden (which was very minor indeed).

And are you sure that if the CW would have attacked and put a lot of forces in Norway, that Sweden wouldn't have become very nervous? In such a case the CW would have attacked a country which had a democratic chosen government. I believe such an action would have changed the way politics were done in Sweden. From such a time forward, Sweden could not trust any country in the war anymore. Don't forget: in november 1939 the CW guaranteed any nation which had a democratic chosen government. Chamberlain promised the the CW would never declare war on such a government. Now, Churchill wasn't interested in keeping that promise at all. What would such a thing have meant for Swedish trust in the CW? I believe that they would have reacted. When Germany attacked Norway, it was clearly not in their interest to do so. But if the CW would have done so?

Also, there are the memoires of Molotov, who wrote that Sweden didn't want the USSR to occupy all of Finland. So Sweden put a lot of diplomacy in to get a peace between Finland and the USSR which should make sure that Finland would stay independent after the winterwar. He even wrote that if Stalin would not do this, that Sweden might go to war with Stalin over this...

Now, what if there hasn't been a winter war and suddenly Churchill attacks Norway? I believe that Sweden would swing towards the German side fast in such a case. A democratic nation which attacks another democratic nation after promising that it would never do so? That's very, very difficult to ignore, I believe, even if one is a democratic nation itself...

Of course, Orm, you are from Sweden, but still?

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm a bit surprised that Spain cant give "non-beligerant" status to itself after the fall of France.

I don't think the Belgians would have joined the Axis, but perhaps the Dutch would have? Hitler liked to split up countries with multiple ethnic groups...perhaps offering the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium?...or get the Flemish part of Belgium to separate from Belgium as an independent nation favorable to Germany?

Days of Decision is an awesome game!

I don't think the Dutch would have voluntarily joined the Axis side. There were two reasons for this:

First: the Dutch managed to stay neutral in WW I. There was the believe of the majority of the politicians that neutrality could be held during WW II too. The one country who never want to talk about military activities with both warring sides were the Dutch (where the Belgians did some talking after a German plane crash in the Ardennes).

Second: the Dutch economy ran on two things. Food (out of the Netherlands) and oil! The amounts of money coming in from the Dutch East Indies was tremendous. Even if Germany would have promised the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium, going to war at the German side was seen as suicide for the Dutch economy. There is no way to prevent the British from capturing the Dutch Colonies in such a case. And especially the NEI was of utmost importance to the Dutch economy.