These two areas are prime targets for the allies. Especially if germany cannot reinforce by sea or land.
Question is which ally should go after them?
Does it weaken Russia too much to justify spreading the communist love.
Is it a good spot for US factories?
Is it a better idea to get it with Uk and shuttle troops into leningrad that way?
Well the #1 ideal scenario is USA is sitting SZ91.
UK has some TRS and dudes sitting in UK ready to go.
USA can opens a undefended Denmark and then UK sails into the Baltic and lands on a undefended or lightly defended Germany. All you need to do is take Denmark to gain access with surface ships into the Baltic.
IF you plan on taking Norway you should always do it with the USA so they can build a minor factory up there and have the IPC to pump out 3 units every turn to go at Russia or annoy the living daylights out of Germany because you can now strat bomb Germany from Norway. I never take Norway with Russia or UK because that is domain of the USA because they can fully utilize that territory.
The only issue with going at Norway with the USA from SZ91 is you take your fleet so far north and that gives Italy some breathing room of not being invaded for 2-3 turns. If USA goes to Norway with lets say 5 TRS and they have not set up a shuck plan or any plan to move units forward. It will take the USA 3 turns to get those TRS back to USA and 4 turns to get back to SZ91 with new units. It is imperative for the USA to set up some kind of shuck of TRS and men from USA to SZ91. If you do not the USA becomes very disjointed and can never do follow up attacks on invasions.
Does it weaken Russia too much to justify spreading the communist love.� Â
Is it a good spot for US factories?
Is it a better idea to get it with Uk and shuttle troops into leningrad that way?
Norway and Finland are nice for Russia from an IPC stand point but Russian cannot build minor factories on them, they do not have the IPC or desire to do so.
UK is in the same boat as Russia. They cant build units on those territories and thus are pointless for them.
USA can build 2 minors up there and commit to lets say: 3 Mech in Norway and 3 INF in Finland every turn at a cost of 21 IPC. That is not a issue for the USA and not crippling their IPC bank to commit to that type of plan.
or spend 72 IPC one turn and drop 6 STRAT bombers on them and then next turn spend 36 IPC and get 3 more and totally destroy any German rear guard units as USA/UK move down out of Finland. This is the point of the game that the Axis are getting ready to concede the match.
Norway is always a prime target for the allies, but it is generally a tall order to get it unless the Germans are asleep at the wheel. The Germans often times will build a transport or two in the Baltic just to get the Russians to evacuate Leningrad for easy pick-ins. So if the Russians try to invade Finland/Norway early in the game the Germans will probably be set-up to easily retake it using a handful of ground units and the Luftwaffe (killing valuable Russians would be a gift).
The western allies can go for it, but again the Germans won’t just give it up. They typically would have some transports and air power to again counter attack any allied landings up there. By time the US/UK are ready to attempt a landing in Norway the Germans should already have Leningrad, and probably a small Baltic navy. One way to get Norway and keep it is to take out the Baltic navy first, and that would take some planning. The US should take it so they can build an IC, and the UK should plan on reinforcing the US foot hold with troops, AA guns and ftrs. Hitting Norway from Gibraltar would be nice, but the Germans can move or build a dd as a blocker to delay you for one turn (time to get their defenses up). So you would most likely be looking at sailing to London (sz110), which gives the UK a chance to build a couple transports/ftrs to help with reinforcements.
You can also wait for the Germans to make their strike on Moscow to make landings in Norway (or Europe) because then the German air force wouldn’t be able to do double duty, but it might be too late by then.
Wild Bill is correct that Germany will attempt to defend Norway/Finland by constantly shucking 2-4 units a turn up there to secure that area of the map. It is worth 10 IPC for Germany, 5 for the territory and 5 for the Iron Ore national objective. So the IPC level is high enough that Germany will attempt to defend it and counter attack with vengeance if you take one of them.
There are some crazy players out there who will build a German minor IC on Norway or Finland just so they do not have to rely on TRS to get units up there and build 3 units every turn on Norway/Finland. They build 3 INF a turn for 9 IPC but they get 10 IPC a turn in Norway/Finland, so the IPC commitment is paying for itself up there to secure/lock down that portion of the board.
If you want to build a minor IC up there I would suggest that it goes into Finland instead of Norway because the Western Allies have no access to invade Finland from the sea in less they want to go really out their way to get there and go far north that their navy is almost off the board.
In just about every game I’ve played where Russia went hard into Scandinavia, Moscow was toast. There just isn’t enough to defend the capitol and go on such adventures. Far better if USA can take and hold Norway then move on to Leningrad.
Ideally, USA should take Norway/Finland and build factories there. Norway is a good spot for an airbase which USA can better afford. It’s more likely Allies will hold Norway if USA takes it because UK/Anzac/French figs can reinforce the postion (from Moscow if necessary).
If USSR can take Scandinavia that’s huge income for Allies but rare to pull off w/o also losing Moscow.
Don’t hesitate just because you want USA to have Norway. If UK can take and hold it (or take it w/o having to sacrifice too much) by all means do so!
The high income from USSR taking Finland and/or Norway is only a few turns until Moscow falls. If Germany reinforces Norway, USA might not have enough to take it down alone. USSR taking both territories is not really optimal. It is better if possible for USA to take and hold both.
UK taking Norway if it doesn’t hold it for a turn doesn’t rob Germany of any income.
Scandinavian expeditions work best if Germany loses its transport. Not sure how this can be done if Germany doesn’t expose it.
Having said all that, I still love the idea of a US expedition to Norway; normally, the Soviets need to take Finland which corners the Germans and provides somewhere for planes to land.
UK taking Norway if it doesn’t hold it for a turn doesn’t rob Germany of any income.
If Norway is empty and the British ships are safe and have nothing better to do, I’d still take it with 1 inf. It’s worth 3 which already pays for an inf that probably wasn’t doing much in the UK anyway and now has a 1 in 3 chance of killing an enemy unit when attacked. Also, Germany will want it back so they will send at least 2 ground units which won’t be going east, and they need to protect their transports in SZ 113 from UK-based Allied bombers, or maybe even tacs/fighters if the UK has a CV.
And once Germany has retaken it, why not try again and kill those units on the next UK turn and force them to invest again to keep Norway.
