One other thing to consider with staging in Karelia versus Archangel or Norway (expansion on the above that it is adjacent to Eastern Europe)…
It forces Germany to move their forces from Eastern to Karelia rather than form Eastern to Ukraine. This MASSIVELY reduces the pressure on Caucuses (the weak point of Russia on the German front) and isntead makes Gemany go the Northern route… not gaining an IC, and facing Russia’s highest build rate, and with repeated Allied counter attack opportunities… including Allied shore bombardment.
@ncscswitch:
Actually, if you are doing a northern reinforce, Karelia is the landing zone, and the key territory is West Russia.
Yeah, I can see your point and I do agree with you.
In my previous post I wasn’t thinking broadly enough. In my game against Malus I was trying an alternate strategy, attempting to contain Japan, which left Russia going it alone against Germany longer than they normally would. In this instance the Russians were pushed back to Moscow before Allied reinforcements arrived on the mainland.
It was more beneficial for me to land the troops in Archangel so they could help defend Moscow as soon as possible.
I agree that if going north the best spot is Karelia for all the reasons mentioned.
The downside with going to the north and not to Norway is that it gives a breather to Germany- the Allied fleet can’t hit the Baltic Sea Zone. This allows Germany more discretion in what it has to defend. Personally I’d rather dump Allied troops in Norway to keep the pressure on the coast of Germany and E Europe. The same thing with Algeria. SZ 12 pressure means that Germany can’t relax in S Europe, keeping more troops from the conflict with Russia.
Just something to think about.
But Karelia landings also keep the Alloied fleet relatively safe from Germany… especially if Germany built some fleet in G1, and still has a lot of AF… In order to reach SZ4, Germany would have to base FIGs in Eastern, not Western or Germany. Also, an AA moved from London to Karelia would be a pain for Germany in a counter-attack on SZ4. And of course, ships in SZ5 can;t reach SZ4 in a single move…
Just to throw my 2 cents in there…
If the allied navy didn’t engage combat with the german navy, it’s probably because it has too much defensive value and it is best left alone. In that case, moving the allied fleet in SZ 4 could mean an isolated fleet. The German navy could easily move to SZ 3 and stay put… blocking the access to the UK reinforcement. In that case the allies are forced to attack the fleet, encuring serious casualties… slowing down their war effort… which is the purpose of a baltic fleet IMHO.
I do not believe it is a wise move to move to SZ 4 because of that… and also like 88 mm said, it gives Germany a breather.
Wood the Rook.
Germany’s fleet out and about is a target… not only Allied navy, but also all of their AF can be used to take it out.
A German fleet in SZ3 is a DEAD fleet in SZ3…
Sure, Germany can sacrifice their fleet and slow the Allies 1 turn, but at the cost of leaving Baltic landings open, and that totally changes the dynamic of the above discussion.
If Germany does a naval build in G1 then with the resources that the US and UK has early in the game they should be purchasing naval units to counter this. Â The UK doesn’t have to reinforce Karelia alone the US should be helping. Â It is difficult for Germany to purchase enough naval units to keep up with the US and UK while putting pressure on Russia. Â Also if you use the UK territory as the staging ground for UK and US fighters and Bombers you have increased the offensive punch of the Allied Navy if the Germans tried to block them in. Â Every game isn’t the same and obviously what happens during the game dictates your actions. Â IMO Allied control of Karelia is important. Â If you have control of Karelia then you have cut any German forces in Norway off with the exception of troops ferried over by transport. Â If the Germans want to keep control of Norway they would have spend resources to keep a multinational force out. Â the Allies having control of Karelia keeps the Germans attention on the north. Â This frees the Russian player to attack in the South if they have the resources if not it at least buys the Russian player some time to build a defense. Â IMO Karelia gives the Allies the best options for pressuring Germany and giving aid to the Russian player.
That was mostly my point A4L, excpet for one thing… Norway is a lost cause for Germany, period.
Even once Germany has Karelia, they are not likely (nor would they want to) to do a major counter-attack to Norway when the same units could be used to go to Archangel or West Russia and be on the doorstep of Moscow.
Norway’s income is somethign that I write off as Germany after G1. If somehow I get paid for it after that, it is a bonus, but certainly not somethign worth spending troops on recovering.
I agree Germany trying to hold on to Norway is pretty futile. The resources are better spent heading towards Russia.
In one of my games, I had staged UK in Karelia with about 15 units…
at one point of the game, I also had 5 trannies in SZ 4…
I pulled 10 units out of Karelia and put them into an amphibious assault in Western Europe!
Germany didn’t see that one coming, I can tell you!!!
USA could easily reinforce W-E massively as well, so G ended up looking at about 20 units in W-E.
I can tell you: the next round G was taken and my adversary resigned :-P
