Finland in Global Glory

[Forwarn45]

I thought I'd suggest another event for Global Glory. As it is now, Finland will fight the winter war with Russia shifting them into the Axis camp in a manner sort of like the Russia occupies Rumania event. What if Russia defeated Finland in the Winter war? The initial Russian attack was poorly planned but by the end, the Russians were winning. The Russians could have been better prepared at the outset and/or declined to negotiate with Finland when they were winning and pushed for occupation. I'd suggest an event something along these lines.

A 5% chance - with the event being checked before the normal winter war event. The event cannot occur if the normal winter war has occurred and vice versa. The event would be - Russia defeats Finland in the Winter War. A few possibilities for the consequences: Finland becomes Russian occupied and two infantry are moved in - one from the Baltic States and one from East Poland. Perhaps a unit or two could be also be removed to account for increased Russian casualties? Sweden builds a few more troops, shifts to pro-Axism and has a special chance per turn of joining the Axis if this event is triggered, once the Germans are at war with Russia - until the US is in the war (perhaps the Swedish coup event could be modified). Norway shifts to leaning Axis and builds a few more troops. Russian war readiness decreases by 1. Anyway, these are just some rough ideas.

[WanderingHead]

SGT Rice suggested somehow allowing the Soviet player to actually PERFORM these actions (invading Finland and/or Rumania).

Some kind of rules for temporarily unfreezing Karelia and Kiev, for example.

I find it an intriguing idea, especially for the simple reason that it gives the Soviet something to do. But I don't have any concrete ideas how to get that to actually work. I.e. how to motivate the Russian to try even if failure is likely (which must be the case to make the historical course the most prevalent).

I have wondered about the Rumanian event. It is in there for variety, but if players run into it is it a dose of fresh air or an irritant?

[Lucky1]

RJH and I are playing a game where the Rumanian event has occurred. It is early-on and I can't say how much it will affect the game. For a few turns, Germany got some pretty big early production -- but only for a few turns. With the loss of Rumania, I am now stalled at 34 or 36 production, rather than my usual 39 at the same stage. (Actually, I think I get a greater gift that might not be showing....) Germany is pushed further back from Kharkov, Rostov etc.... And Russian industry went x2 in Fall 1940, so it did't slow her down as I would like. Finally, Germany lost all the Rumanian units (quite useful for garrison duty). So, it might actually be a bonus for Russia. Anyhow, the event has certainly has added some variety and I am enjoying it. We will surely provide our feedback. Perhaps RJH can provide his own perspective....

As for Forwarn's suggestion, I find it intriguing as well and would be game for it if the existing diplomatic system were maintained.

In terms of Sgt. Rice's proposal, might it be possible to have the event trigger similar to an ally joining? Instead of asking whether Russia wishes for Finland to join, she would be asked whether she wishes to launch the winter war. Then, there could be some random (but weighted) probability that the event would go the typical winter war route, or a Russia wins winter war route. The same thing could apply for Rumania (and this would facilitate playtesting the Rumania event further!).

[Forwarn45]

One idea would be to implement the Finland event as I suggested (and leave the Rumania event) - but modify the chances of what will occur based on strat movement by Russia into the adjacent areas. In other words, for each strat move into Kiev - the chance of the Rumania occupation event increases. For each strat move into Leningrad (or maybe Karelia) - the chance of the Russia wins the winter war event increases. This would give Russia some choices that might effect events (and, incidentally, an alternative choice to the strat move into Poland to increase war readiness) while not leading to difficult balance problems associated with actual movement/combat. Incidentally, this makes some sense in that it represents a greater Russian commitment to the Winter War.

Example: For each unit moved into the adjacent territory, the chance of the alternative event (Russia wins winter war v. Finland / Russia occupies Rumania) is increased by 15% in the case of Finland or 5% in the case of Rumania and the chance of the normal event (Winter war / Bessarabia) is reduced by the same amount. So in the case of Finland, instead of a 60% chance of the winter war occurring - there would be a 5% chance of Russia winning the winter war and 60% chance of normal winter war each turn. If Russia moves in an extra unit on the first turn, then there would be a 20% chance of Russia winning the winter war and 45% chance of the normal winter war occurring each turn. If neither event has triggered and Russia decided to move in a second unit on the second turn - there would be a 35% chance of Russia winning the winter war and a 30% chance of the normal winter war occurring. And so on.

[Marshall Art]

Actually an interesting idea to give the Russian player more options early on. However, units built in the border regions (Leningrad, Kiev) should be factored in as well IMO. Thus increasing troop count prior to the regular event (Russia wins but does not conquer) would pose the risk of Russia going to far and increasing Germany's alertness.

[SGT Rice]

I'll toss out the idea I had related to Brian. While reviewing all of the political events in AWD I counted several events that have "nonmodeled combat"; i.e., combat occurs but is never represented on screen with units firing, casualties inflicted, etc. These events include the Soviet invasion of Rumania, the Winter War and the Greece border war. The Greece border war happened when Mussolini got a wild hair over resurrecting the Roman Empire (something Germany had no control over) but the two Soviet invasions should be something that the Russian player controls IMO.

This could be done in a straight forward manner using Unit Presence as a trigger for the political events; if the USSR positions the prerequisite number of units in specific border regions then the invasion takes place. A nice bit of chrome would be to execute these Soviet invasions by unfreezing the regions used to launch the attack (Leningrad/Karelia, Kiev/Odessa). Then the Soviets could execute the attack normally, with the attack regions automatically "refreezing" at the start of the next turn. The outcome of the events would be subject to a good deal of uncertainty, based on the outcome of the Soviet attack.

This in turn could lead to variable political effects in the following turn. Take the Winter War as an example. Finland would begin the game as a fortress. The Finnish region would also unfreeze when the event triggers (the Soviets didn't have Iron Curtain at this point in time; there was no chance of them gaining tactical surprise). The attack should incur a US WR hit, just like any DOW on a minor country. If the Russians inflict 0-2 casualty points on Finland then Finland shifts one level towards the Axis and will automatically join Germany when Germany and the USSR are at war. If the Russians inflict 3+ hits on the Finns without conquering Finland, then Finland would lose the Mannerheim Line (the at-start Finnish fortress would be removed from the map), Finland shifts one level towards the Axis and has a % chance for joining the Axis specified by a follow on political event. If the Soviets conquer Finland they would incur another US WR hit (there was a great deal of Western sympathy for the Finns during the Winter War), Sweden & Norway would shift one level towards the Axis and Germany would go to FM=3.

IMO it would really freshen up the game if the USSR player had the opportunity for some adventurism while he's waiting for main event.

[Lucky1]

For me, the big problem is creating an incentive to attack Finland at all. I think the problem is less acute with Rumania (Rumania has resources, factories, and a guaranteed liklihood of joining Germany). I find that as Russia (faced with the looming German attack), I have little resources (manpower and other) to risk as it is. I sure am not inclined to risk these for 1 measley resource in exchange for an antagonized US, Norway and Sweden and German production x3. This is why I prefer the more non-modeled combat dimension out of the proposals I have heard thus far.....

[WanderingHead]

For days now I've been synthesizing SGT Rice's proposal and mulling it over in my head.

1. Leningrad and Kiev start the game unfrozen. The Soviets can do whatever they want there.
2. politically freeze the Gulf of Finland until the USSR is at war.
3. give the Soviets a WR bonus (either +1, +2, or +d(2)) for merely attacking Finland or Rumania (for Finland it very realistically represents the increased military preparedness that resulted from the horrid performance)
4. increase the FM=2 threshold so that the WR bonus really matters

We're almost done! The Soviets want the WR, so they need to attack early. And they'd rather do more damage, receive less damage, and maybe even capture territory, so they want to attack later (after building/shifting units). Tradeoff.

At his point, if the Soviets attack Finland or Rumania, will Germany accept them? No! Germany would leave them neutral, because if they are German, with Kiev and/or Leningrad unfrozen the Soviets can start war.

So that is good. I like it because it keeps them neutral. But how to control things as the German tide sweeps Europe, and the USSR needs to be frozen.

One possibility is
1. if Russian succeeds in capturing one territory and Moscow is frozen, immediately freeze any and all unfrozen Russian regions. Russia can only capture one, the second won't be possible.
2. the first instant that France has surrendered and Germany controls either Finland or Rumania (maybe add Norway), if Moscow is frozen, then freeze all unfrozen Soviet regions.


I think that the whole thing works in principle. The USSR wants the WR points. The Sov war with the Neutrals will not cause them to immediately join Germany.

But balancing it, balancing the game, and balancing player motivations so that the choices are interesting (especially so early in the game when things are likely to devolve to formulas), is the hard part.

Very intriguing though.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
For me, the big problem is creating an incentive to attack Finland at all. I think the problem is less acute with Rumania

The problem isn't just creating an incentive ... it is creating an incentive when the effort is almost certain to fail. For Finland the historical course, which should still be the prevalent course, should be that the USSR attacks and fails. For Rumania we can argue that the historical fighting was so small as not to be worthy of representation in the game.

A tweak from my last post is that the only motivation for attacking Rumania is to thin out Rumanian troops and the improbable possibility of successful capture. No WR awarded for attacking Rumania.

[WanderingHead]

Pictures make the forum more fun .

[Lucky1]

Hmmm. Still a bit unconvinced.... This seems to be penalizing the SU (damaged unit or units, supply expenditure, increased x2 threshold, US WR penalties, diplomatic shifts in the Baltics) just to create what basically exists with the events - especially if success is to be the exception.

[SGT Rice]

Perhaps this is something for a future patch ... it definitely requires some play throughs to balance units, WR bumps, see if exploits arise, etc.

I see this in the context of a broader set of game play options; i.e., what if the Russians are sitting on the sidelines until 42, while the Axis romp through Africa & Asia beating up on the Brits? (although I can't remember the last time one of my Axis opponents did anything other than an early Barbarossa or the German-Japanese "squeeze" play; still the Axis do have other options)

ORIGINAL: Lucky1

For me, the big problem is creating an incentive to attack Finland at all. I think the problem is less acute with Rumania (Rumania has resources, factories, and a guaranteed liklihood of joining Germany). I find that as Russia (faced with the looming German attack), I have little resources (manpower and other) to risk as it is. I sure am not inclined to risk these for 1 measley resource in exchange for an antagonized US, Norway and Sweden and German production x3. This is why I prefer the more non-modeled combat dimension out of the proposals I have heard thus far.....

I guess I was just laying out the concept ... hadn't thrashed out all the details. The central idea was to create interesting/realistic options for the Soviet player to pursue prior to war with Germany. My perception is that the game is pretty stereotyped among experienced players of equal ability; the Soviet player is sitting back waiting for the hammer to fall. The only things he controls are passive measures; his builds and one/two SR moves per turn.

Stalin's motivation for the Winter War was an obsessive fear that Finland would become a launching pad for a German attack on Leningrad; Finnish territory in the Karelian isthmus was within artillery range of the city, Finnish-controlled islands dominated the seaward approaches to Leningrad and the main Soviet naval base at Kronstadt, as well as the approaches to Murmansk in the north. The Soviets tried to negotiate for these territories for several months, offering cash & large tracts of territory in Northern Karelia, but were rebuffed by the Finnish government. ( One good source on the history is The Deadly Embrace: Hitler, Stalin, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact 1939-1941, by Read & Fisher, which devotes two chapters to the the Winter War and its runup, within the larger context of the book's title. )

For this threat to be creditable to a Russian player in AWD would require that there be a chance of Finland joining the Axis without the Winter War occurring (this is what Stalin believed). To make the threat even more real you could make Leningrad a normal territory which only becomes a fortress if the Soviets capture the Mannerheim Line (i.e., inflict significant damage on the Finns) or conquer Finland. In this situation the Soviet player is facing the same considerations that Stalin did; the need to acquire a buffer zone from Finland to create a stronger defensive zone around Leningrad.

So a more complete proposal would be:

(a) Finland begins the game Axis Leaning; the Finland region is a fortress. Leningrad is ordinary clear terrain.

(b) Finland has few if any units on the map, but will generate a strong force of insta-infantry, artillery and militia if attacked. For the sake of discussion I'll assume this force is 1 INF, 1 MIL, 1 ART at start, with 2 INF, 2 MIL mobilizing if Finland is attacked.

(c) The Soviet player can attempt to pressure Finland to give up territory in the Karelian isthmus and the Gulf of Finland by placing a minimum of 10 land/air units in Leningrad & Karelia, with at least 5 of these in Karelia (this allows the Soviets to build up as much as they want in Leningrad without triggering any political event. If the Soviets meet or exceed this deployment requirement, then there is a 20% chance that Finland will give up the territory via negotiation. If this check fails, then there is a 50% chance that the Winter War will trigger; this probability will increase 10% for each additional Soviet land/air unit in Leningrad/Karelia over the minimum 10 units required. So there is always a chance of the Finns submitting to the Soviet territorial demands, but if this fails then the Soviets can guarantee a war with Finland by putting at least 15 units in position for the attack.

(d) If the Winter War triggers then Leningrad, Karelia and Finland are unfrozen for one turn ... the Soviets can attack with any mix of units they choose. Their is a DR(2) bump to US WR.

(e1) If the Soviets fail to inflict significant damage (less than 3 hits on Finnish units) then Finland resumes neutrality, becomes Pro-Axis and remains a fortress. Finland resumes neutrality, becomes Pro-Axis, resumes its pre-conflict force levels and is subject to the Finland Continuation War political event. Leningrad remains a clear terrain region.

(e2) If the Soviet player inflicts significant damage (a minimum of 3 hits on the Finnish defenders) without capturing Finland, then the Finnish fortress is removed while Leningrad becomes a fortress. Finland resumes neutrality, becomes Pro-Axis, resumes its pre-conflict force levels and is subject to the Finland Continuation War political event.

(e3) If the Soviet player takes Finland then there is an additional DR(2) for US WR and Germany goes to FM=3. Note that these effects may be of little consequence if Germany has delayed Barbarossa and/or Japan has attacked the US. Sweden and Norway will shift one level towards the Axis. Unless one of these minors is already Pro-Axis, this is of little consequence.

(f) Allow the Soviet-Finnish war event to trigger twice; i.e., the Soviets can attack again if they fail to secure their buffer zone the first time, or even if they succeed but later decide to conquer Finland.

(g) The Finland Continuation War event is one that Brian has already devised:

Requirements: Finland is neutral, US is not at war, USSR is at war with Germany.
Probability: -10% base, +40% if Norway is German controlled, +40% if Baltic States are German controlled, -40% if Norway is WA controlled, -momentum (=1/2 of last turn's modifier)
Effect: Finland joins Germany

(h) A USSR WR bump makes sense to.

[Lucky1]

Don't get me wrong - one of the reason I like Global Glory is that it provides expanded choices and game variety. My concern with what I have seen with Sgt. Rice's proposal is that it simply provides the SU with set of activities that are effectively costs so as to obtain what in the current iteration of the game it already has - with a possible chance of obtaining a rather tough one-resource country after a lot of investment (only to have these troops frozen out of the line of fire once battle occurs).
 
I have said elsewhere that I do not think the strategic value of Northern Russia is modeled very well in this game. The way the game territories are divided and the way resources are allocated simply make it much more strategically valuable for a German player to go the Southern Route. The North offers the ability to obtain very limited victory points, contains no resources, and is a longer route to threaten anything of value. Yes, it offers the ability to interdict a convoy - but only if a convoy is running. All against the backdrop of having to attack a fortified Leningrad! (Maybe it might be worthwhile to shift some resources from North Central and North Eastern Russia to Karelia etc.)
 
So, having said this, my concern remains thus: So far, I think GG under the latest beta represents a possible strengthening of the Axis position as a result of being able to produce better units from Hungary, Rumania and Italy. At the same time, Indian units are now weakened. (admittedly, the Axis subs will have to produced from Kiel) So, while I am not adverse to a Finland or Rumania campaign along the lines of what Rice is proposing, I wonder how it does not represent a weakening of the SU position in terms of game balance. Rice (a better player than I) and others might simply not agree with the logic underscoring my concerns. But, I think it is valuable to raise them.

[WanderingHead]

My first impression is that SGT Rice's latest detailed proposal is too complicated.

I am not sure I even like my own proposal, but it was relatively simple. The special rules involved were small:

1) WR bump for Soviet attacks
2) a mechanism for freezing regions after the start of the game

The rest is largely a matter of starting configuration. It seems relatively simple.

Keep thinking. I'm not going to do anything with this for this patch, but could play with it later.

As for Lucky1's concerns, obviously this has to be balanced. If there are Sov WR bumps, they have to be big enough to motivate. And WA WR thresholds have to be adjusted for likely neutral-attack WR decrements.

My biggest concern and reason for some doubts as to whether this can work is that it has to be early in the game. It isn't really possible to give the Russians many interesting choices that early in the game, because there isn't yet any data on which the Russian can base those choices. So I would expect that the Russian behavior becomes rather formulaic unless it is really well implemented.