Finland diplomacy and thoughts on the molotov-ribbontropPACT

@jan-aerts After the Molotov-Ribentrop pact is signed, Finland only aligns to Germany if the pact is TERMINATED and Germany and Russia are at war. Until that time, Russia can get 1 IPP per round from Karjala, if they invade.

Add to this, 1 IPP for the Baltic States, and 1 IPP for Eastern Poland, and I think it is a pretty good deal for Russia. That’s 6 IPP, and an additional tech roll, without much effort. I’m not sure it’s better for them than Germany, but it does seem worthwhile. The question for me is whether Russia should sign, knowing that it is helping Germany, who is likely their future enemy.

I don’t understand why you think a neutral Finland is so bad for Germany and good for Russia? Can you please explain? If Russia attacks a neutral Finland, without signing the Molotov-Ribentrop pact, Finland aligns to Germany, or becomes controlled by Germany, depending on whether Germany and Russia are at war.

@captainnapalm

If Russia attacks a neutral Finland, without signing the Molotov-Ribentrop pact, Finland aligns to Germany, or becomes controlled by Germany, depending on whether Germany and Russia are at war.

Because it easier to deal with and conquer a controlled Finland (when Germany is busy on the western front) and then a German attack, then both at the same time.

@jan-aerts I too don’t see the value in signing the pact. It doesn’t really benefit the USSR too much comparatively, sure signing it gives the USSR 6 IPP and a free tech roll (which IMO they dont really need), however it does give German 5 IPP per turn and itll give them 5 infantry in Finland (which is worth another 15 IPP) and a Coastal Def Ship; this also opens up another front. Not signing it also give the following upsides:

• It can bait Germany into taking eastern Poland and giving the Ussr 2d12 worth of income
• If he does not, the British may feel generous and start tossing militia to further block Germany in eastern Poland
• It allows the USSR to take Romania (as seen in the youtube Operation Frostbite game)
• It allows the USSR to take all of Finland.

However it may be of benefit if it looks like Germany is going in another direction, if he is trying to go for a sealion.

@insanehoshi I agree that the Soviets don’t really need the extra tech roll.

“It can bait Germany into taking eastern Poland and giving the Ussr 2d12 worth of income”
Only a fool would take that bait, unless they were ready to invade the USSR.

“If he does not, the British may feel generous and start tossing militia to further block Germany in eastern Poland”
You are proposing that the British SPENDING $2 each round, rather than the Soviets COLLECTING $1 each round, to create a few militia speed bump, is good for the Allies? I disagree.

“It allows the USSR to take Romania (as seen in the youtube Operation Frostbite game)”
If you want to invade Romania in July of 39, this is the strongest reason not to sign the pact.

“It allows the USSR to take all of Finland”
Solid option. That is $2 more, after they conquer all of it.

Interesting thoughts. I feel like everything above is why I think it’s actually a pretty good rule where both sides have benefits and detractions to signing or not signing.

To the point above about Eastern Poland. If the Pact isn’t signed, what’s to say that the German player doesn’t wait to use it’s Lightning War ability until it’s ready to swallow all of Poland in one turn? I think there are enough ways around that to make any British buildup avoidable.

Likewise, to the points on Romania, let’s not forget that Romania’s military is no so unsubstantial. Frankly, if I’m the German player, and the Pact isn’t signed, and I see the USSR preparing for and then attacking Romania, I’m seriously considering waiting for the USSR to waste their troops attacking Romania and then declaring war on my next turn. The USSR isn’t that strong earlier in a game without more IPP. This obviously depends on how a game is going, but I think there’s a lot of room again for a German player to anticipate this move and lay in waiting to exploit the loss of Soviet units in Romania before sending a counterattack.

If the goal for the USSR is to have a bit of money and avoid a front against Finland, why not just ignore Finland then? Sure, you sacrifice 1 IPP with a signed Pact. But you still have 1 IPP for East Poland and 1 IPP for the Baltic states, not to mention the 3 IPP for signing the Pact, for a total of 5 IPP (not including the free tech roll), as well as keeping Finland neutral. If you don’t sign, you get 3 IPP for taking Romania, maybe 1 IPP for the Baltic States, and 3 IPP for Finland if you take it all, for a total of 7 IPP. If you add the free tech roll, this comes out as a wash IPP-wise, but you’ve also now expended IPP on troops lost in your invasions of Finland, Romania, and the Baltics. But yes it is noted the 5 IPP that the German’s get each turn as well if it’s signed.

Even then, the USSR player may not even get the 1 IPP for the Baltic States, as if they take Lithuania, wouldn’t that trigger the Allied ability to declare war on the USSR, as Lithuania is a Neutral Power that doesn’t border the USSR? Maybe that rule has been errata’d, I seem to remember a discussion on that very thing somewhere on the boards before, but can’t remember what the decision was.

I guess I just see a lot of upside to signing the Pact, though can also see reason’s why you might not want to. I think it probably has to come down to situationally in each game. It frankly probably depends on what German troop placement looks like, and if the USSR player thinks they can correctly guess what Germany’s next moves will be.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Germany gets more benefit from the pact than Russia does. That doesn’t always mean that it’s a bad idea for Russia to sign it. It depends on Russia’s overall plan for the game and how they plan on defeating both of the other factions. If you’re the German player and you’re playing against a top level Russian player, you better beware that he has got a plan to defeat you and he’s using the pact as a means to that end even if you can’t decipher what that is. If he’s a new player and it just sounds like a good, safe thing to do then Germany will take advantage of him and beat him like a rented mule.
One thing is for sure, it sucks if you’re the Allied player. There is no upside to the pact for them.

@generalhandgrenade I think that second sentence hits the nail right on the head for this conversation. Just because Germany might have better upside with the Pact, doesn’t mean it isn’t beneficial for the USSR, or that beneficial circumstances don’t arise for them. I think I certainly agree Germany probably has better upside. I just think it’s a bit shortsighted to say there’s zero upside for the USSR player!

Curious on your thoughts about the Allies. Why do you think the Pact being signed is any different for the Allies compared to if it wasn’t signed? Just the exchange of extra resources for the Axis and ComIntern generally? The sub base the Axis can build? Or something different?

I don’t want to stray too far off topic, but I’m curious if your opinion changes if playing with the Winter War Expansion?

@chris_henry General Hand Grenade is correct that Germany and the USSR signing the pact is bad for the Allies. It’s a three player game. Imagine all three teams start with 1 “point” each. Germany and the USSR sign the pact and Germany gets 2 points while the USSR only gets 1. Now Germany has 3 and the USSR has 2. The Allies remain at 1.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast thanks. Sorry, not trying to be rude at all, but that doesn’t really answer my question for GHG. I was merely asking in his opinion what was really detrimental to the Allies. I didn’t even say I disagreed with him haha.

I don’t know if a point system like that is a good example for this scenario though either! Maybe that’s just mine opinion though. I personally wouldn’t put the signing of the Pact something that doubles “points” from the Allies. It’s a largely small part of the much larger conflict. While yeah, I suppose there really isn’t an upside for the Allies if it’s signed, I wouldn’t call it detrimental to them either.

@chris_henry It’s detrimental for a couple of reasons.
First of all there are tangible benefits for 2 of the 3 factions and you’re not 1 of them.
The other is that both of those factions are starting to cooperate which could lead to more cooperation. As long as they perceive their relationship to be beneficial they (especially Germany) can concentrate more resources on your demise.
Russia can’t win the game by themselves. It’s not in your best interests to have them turn to Germany instead of you for help. Remember, this game isn’t played solely on the board. The more players work against each other the more resentment and tension that’s created between them. At some point you cross the line and instead of winning your main goal becomes making sure that jerk doesn’t win because he screwed you. This pact does absolutely nothing for the Allies except make the hill they need to climb steeper.

@generalhandgrenade thanks GHG, as always!

Very interesting perspective. While I totally agree with your points, I was assuming you were going to talk about a lot of tangible in-game situations. Yes, of course there’s an exchange of resources that obviously doesn’t do the Allies any favors, and some movements will be made easier for the Axis and Comintern. But besides that, I was struggling to think of anything HUGE.

But you’re talking about intangibles, which is a very very good point! It’s such a large part of the game. Another thing that makes every game unique, isn’t it? I know with us, a play group that typically consists of my twin brother and dad, we most definitely hold grudges for backstabbing or alliances formed against one another. I think it most definitely comes into play!

Thanks for the input.