A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.
Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.
Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.
Hi PainState,
From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.
There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â
What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops?
-
Hello. I would like to ask for tips on how Germany should use its Scandinavia troops.
Assuming normal G2-J1/2 DOW, what should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops (7 inf)?
Especially when Japan DOW early, US might bring some fleet to Gibraltar in turn 2/3.
What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops? to go all Russia and increase the G6 Moscow assault pressure, defend against (potential fake) American invasion, or others? -
It’s hard to say. When I deal with passive Japanese forces that don’t bring any other allies into the fight, I try to reinforce Finland to help with the invasion of USSR. I can’t see any other reason beyond that. I guess you COULD pull them out and save them for homeland defense however you might help USSR get 11 dollars for Norway and Finland.
-
I usually keep two infantry in Norway if the UK has any transports in range in the first turn. This prevents me having to make an extra effort to move back to recapture my NO, as they will likely deter any weak attack for a quick 3 IPC’s. After that though, I send them east, as the UK will likely have moved that transport out of range of my air units.
-
leave some in Finland
-
I just push them all to Russia. USA can have Norway.
-
Indeed if the US is strong enough to get there those 7 inf will not stop him anyway.
Norway is unfortunately a necessary lose for Germany, not much you can do to stop anyone from landing on it.
-
I move all of the initial troops to Russia, but will keep reinforcing Scandinavia with 2 units per round as long as my transport lives. Those guys plus bombers + fighters are a good way to deter the Allies from invading up there for quite a large number of turns. I usually play for a very long-term win as Axis.
-
Problem I have with using German air units is that you’re now removing another possibility to stop Allied naval forces when you move then to Finland.
-
Thank you for your comments.
I initially think that the importance of Scandinavia in Europe is like money islands in Pacific, and US should try to take it before Germany builds enough bombers. Then US can build MICs in Norway and Finland (like UK Persia-Iraq), not relying on transports too much.
However, if Germany leaves some inf in Finland, it will be difficult for the US to take and hold it, for example:
G1: produce 2 bombers, 2inf; leave 2inf in Norway/Finland; transport 2inf to Norway
G2: produce 1 bomber, 2inf; transport 2inf to Norway
G3: transport 1inf, 1art to Norway
G4: produce bombers[Assuming J1/J2 Dow]
US1: produce 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
US2: produce 1 carrier+2fig, 2 transport, land units (Pacific: 1 carrier, 1 transport)
=> US4 there are just 8 land units landing in Norway
but Germany can retake Norway with >3 bombers, >=5inf, artI think the 15 IPC swing plus US’s MICs would justify Germany leaves some inf there. And if this is the case, is an early US focus in Europe a viable strategy for Allies (especially seeing Germany purchasing 2 bombers in G1)? What are your opinions?
-
@hcp:
Thank you for your comments.
I initially think that the importance of Scandinavia in Europe is like money islands in Pacific, and US should try to take it before Germany builds enough bombers. Then US can build MICs in Norway and Finland (like UK Persia-Iraq), not relying on transports too much.
However, if Germany leaves some inf in Finland, it will be difficult for the US to take and hold it, for example:
G1: produce 2 bombers, 2inf; leave 2inf in Norway/Finland; transport 2inf to Norway
G2: produce 1 bomber, 2inf; transport 2inf to Norway
G3: transport 1inf, 1art to Norway
G4: produce bombers[Assuming J1/J2 Dow]
US1: produce 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
US2: produce 1 carrier+2fig, 2 transport, land units (Pacific: 1 carrier, 1 transport)
=> US4 there are just 8 land units landing in Norway
but Germany can retake Norway with >3 bombers, >=5inf, artI think the 15 IPC swing plus US’s MICs would justify Germany leaves some inf there. And if this is the case, is an early US focus in Europe a viable strategy for Allies (especially seeing Germany purchasing 2 bombers in G1)? What are your opinions?
The problem with that is that you’re now not building much against the land war for USSR or the coming liberation attempts by UK/US for France. I never liked the idea of defending those two territories but if even the choice, if the Allies are going to take them, do everything in your power to NOT let USSR have them.
-
@Cow:
I just push them all to Russia. USA can have Norway.
Hmm. 8IPC for Norway, if USA extends to Leningrad then that is another 10IPC. The real trouble for Germany is in either the extension to Leningrad or massive strategic bombing on Germany’s major factories.
-
@Cow:
I just push them all to Russia. USA can have Norway.
Hmm. 8IPC for Norway, if USA extends to Leningrad then that is another 10IPC. The real trouble for Germany is in either the extension to Leningrad or massive strategic bombing on Germany’s major factories.
Nothing that really can be done about Norway unless Germany keeps it’s surface fleet alive and ferries troops across. It’s only going to take USA two turns to get there, one for UK, and even worse if USSR get Norway and Finland, that’s 11 dollars for two territories and it closes off a minor front.
-
Running a couple of tanks from Leningrad normally kills Scandinavia if USSR takes it.
-
@Caesar:
@Cow:
I just push them all to Russia. USA can have Norway.
Hmm. 8IPC for Norway, if USA extends to Leningrad then that is another 10IPC. The real trouble for Germany is in either the extension to Leningrad or massive strategic bombing on Germany’s major factories.
Nothing that really can be done about Norway unless Germany keeps it’s surface fleet alive and ferries troops across. It’s only going to take USA two turns to get there, one for UK, and even worse if USSR get Norway and Finland, that’s 11 dollars for two territories and it closes off a minor front.
You can keep a detachment in finland to counter and a decent surface fleet to stop them invading.
1 destroyer a round can keep US away pretty long. Especialy if they cannot stand your full airforce.In my experience, USA usually is smart enough to bring a combat fleet with its transports to Norway. A lot of times I try to scare them south and force US to go after Italy. I find it easier defending Italy as Germany.
-
Blocking it will just stale it from getting to Norway however as I said before, allowing US land on Norway is a lost cause for Germany to try to defend and I’d rather see USA have it than USSR.
-
Right but if it wasn’t for Spread of Communism, I would just abandon those territories.
-
All fun and stuff but if they cant get there then they cannot invade. 1 destroyer in SZ110 can block them.
Also if your combat fleet is stronger in offence with your airforce he will lose both combat fleet and transports while gaining nothing.This statement ignores the possibilities of the via Iceland route. Without a fleet large enough that USSR can’t clear it, there is no easy way of blocking that route if executed correctly.
-
All fun and stuff but if they cant get there then they cannot invade. 1 destroyer in SZ110 can block them.
Also if your combat fleet is stronger in offence with your airforce he will lose both combat fleet and transports while gaining nothing.This statement ignores the possibilities of the via Iceland route. Without a fleet large enough that USSR can’t clear it, there is no easy way of blocking that route if executed correctly.
Unless Germany goes up there and captures Iceland but in the end, you couldn’t stop the US from liberating it.
-
That is true. Early on, the USA can’t get a big enough navy to do much in the Med.
Suggested Topics
