Denmark / Norway Gambit plan?

[jzardos]

Played many different WW2 global games. Last one was Totaler Krieg. Each one can have a non-intuitive way of taking Denmark / Norway for Germans.

For those that have played plenty of WiF, what is the standard approach and time-frame to do these conquests?

thanks for any advice

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Pretty much everyone attacks Denmark on the first turn with the Germans. If you're playing with Railroad move, you need a 3 moving unit, if not, you need someone who can move 5. Either way, you can just walk into Copenhagen, because the Danes don't have any real land units, just a mil that comes in a turn later.

This is to keep annoying British or French raiders out of the Baltic sea, you need to control 2 of Oslo, Copenhagen, and Kiel to lock the door.


Most players ignore Norway. Even if you do take it, you get a resource, a few ports up in the arctic that are hard to keep in supply and cover with fighters, a CBV if you're playing with the option, and the ability to move across Sweden once you align the Finns. It's honestly not that great.

Balance this against the 2 transports and 13 convoy points the Norweigans have that will sail off to join the CW. Even if you execute the attack more or less perfectly, there's really nothing you have in Norway that's worth letting that kind of naval hardware join the British. I would only really seriously consider it if I conquered the UK in a sealion as a kind of afterthought, because at that point the convoys aren't much of a worry anymore, and I can probably nail the transports.

[Klydon]

To invade Norway like the Germans did will require them to burn a offensive chit and do a super combined. Sort of a waste, but if done this way, they can land troops at multiple points up and down the coast with ease. Now surviving the wraith of the Royal fleet when they finally get to move? Well, that is another issue. [;)]

[jzardos]

ok thanks. Sounds like Norway is not a good idea for Germans. Although historically it was very important to secure for their flow of iron ore. So not sure I happy that taking Norway is so costly and not worth it for Germans in WiF.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ok thanks. Sounds like Norway is not a good idea for Germans. Although historically it was very important to secure for their flow of iron ore. So not sure I happy that taking Norway is so costly and not worth it for Germans in WiF.

If the Commonwealth doesn't attack Norway, then Germany continues to get the Swedish resources. If the Commonwealth does attack Norway (which Churchill and others were preparing to do) then the political repercussions are unpleasant for the Allies. And even better for the Axis, they can land units in Norway freely in the impulse following the DOW.

Look at the Norwegian force pool. Two more transports for Germany to use for its invasion of Great Britain. There are another two transports added to the force pool as well. Giving Germany all those naval units wouldn't be a good idea.

This is also why players don't Germany to DOW Norway; the additions to the Commonwealth naval force pool would be too fine a gift to bestow on that enemy major power.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ok thanks. Sounds like Norway is not a good idea for Germans. Although historically it was very important to secure for their flow of iron ore. So not sure I happy that taking Norway is so costly and not worth it for Germans in WiF.

enough players agree with you that the rules concerning Norway will probably be changing in future editions of the game

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ok thanks. Sounds like Norway is not a good idea for Germans. Although historically it was very important to secure for their flow of iron ore. So not sure I happy that taking Norway is so costly and not worth it for Germans in WiF.

enough players agree with you that the rules concerning Norway will probably be changing in future editions of the game

warspite1

But isn't this as it should be?

- Taking Norway was extremely costly for the Kriegsmarine - why shouldn't it be in the game?
- It could - with just a bit more good fortune for the Allies - have been a total disaster.. - why should that possibility not exist in WIF?
- Because of Weserubung (and indeed beforehand) Norway provided the UK with vast amounts of merchant shipping - particularly tankers - why should that benefit not be bestowed on the CW?
- Hitler became paranoid about Allied landings in Norway and had to use troops he could ill-afford to garrison the place. He also brought the Kriegsmarine back from France to defend the Norwegian coastline and had a Luftwaffe presence there too.

Summary, Hitler got very little gain and a whole lot of pain from taking Norway. I would hope that any future changes reflect that fact...

[brian brian]

No, the thinking is the opposite of that. As it stands now, it is too easy for the Germans just ignore Norway in the game. It weighed heavily on their (or at least Hitler's) strategic thinking, but it also did on Churchill's. Sure, a German decision to invade should carry those consequences you mentioned, from history. But there should be other consequences for ignoring Norway, and that is why rules about it are likely to change.

In the war, the British came within perhaps a week of actually laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters, and/or landing troops at some northern ports. This would have made for a very different war. Aside from the obvious balance-of-merchant-shipping-tonnage changes, this would have also made Norway a far more potent base for the Axis, I would think, as an ally, not a conquered territory. It would also have caused some serious divisions within the Commonwealth alliance. It's easy to forget, playing World in Flames, that the "Commonwealth" player was not a set of nations all automatically carrying out decisions made in London. The "Commonwealth" was an alliance-within-an-alliance, really. I think the South Africans, in particular, might have stayed neutral in the war if Hitler hadn't invaded Norway before Churchill did.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

No, the thinking is the opposite of that. As it stands now, it is too easy for the Germans just ignore Norway in the game. It weighed heavily on their (or at least Hitler's) strategic thinking, but it also did on Churchill's. Sure, a German decision to invade should carry those consequences you mentioned, from history. But there should be other consequences for ignoring Norway, and that is why rules about it are likely to change.

In the war, the British came within perhaps a week of actually laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters, and/or landing troops at some northern ports. This would have made for a very different war. Aside from the obvious balance-of-merchant-shipping-tonnage changes, this would have also made Norway a far more potent base for the Axis, I would think, as an ally, not a conquered territory. It would also have caused some serious divisions within the Commonwealth alliance. It's easy to forget, playing World in Flames, that the "Commonwealth" player was not a set of nations all automatically carrying out decisions made in London. The "Commonwealth" was an alliance-within-an-alliance, really. I think the South Africans, in particular, might have stayed neutral in the war if Hitler hadn't invaded Norway before Churchill did.

warspite1

Not even a week - the ships were in the Norwegian Sea when the Germans invaded!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

No, the thinking is the opposite of that. As it stands now, it is too easy for the Germans just ignore Norway in the game. It weighed heavily on their (or at least Hitler's) strategic thinking, but it also did on Churchill's. Sure, a German decision to invade should carry those consequences you mentioned, from history. But there should be other consequences for ignoring Norway, and that is why rules about it are likely to change.

In the war, the British came within perhaps a week of actually laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters, and/or landing troops at some northern ports. This would have made for a very different war. Aside from the obvious balance-of-merchant-shipping-tonnage changes, this would have also made Norway a far more potent base for the Axis, I would think, as an ally, not a conquered territory. It would also have caused some serious divisions within the Commonwealth alliance. It's easy to forget, playing World in Flames, that the "Commonwealth" player was not a set of nations all automatically carrying out decisions made in London. The "Commonwealth" was an alliance-within-an-alliance, really. I think the South Africans, in particular, might have stayed neutral in the war if Hitler hadn't invaded Norway before Churchill did.

warspite1

Now that I wouldn't mind at all. It would be good to have Norway involved in more games - simply for historic reasons.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

No, the thinking is the opposite of that. As it stands now, it is too easy for the Germans just ignore Norway in the game. It weighed heavily on their (or at least Hitler's) strategic thinking, but it also did on Churchill's. Sure, a German decision to invade should carry those consequences you mentioned, from history. But there should be other consequences for ignoring Norway, and that is why rules about it are likely to change.

In the war, the British came within perhaps a week of actually laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters, and/or landing troops at some northern ports. This would have made for a very different war. Aside from the obvious balance-of-merchant-shipping-tonnage changes, this would have also made Norway a far more potent base for the Axis, I would think, as an ally, not a conquered territory. It would also have caused some serious divisions within the Commonwealth alliance. It's easy to forget, playing World in Flames, that the "Commonwealth" player was not a set of nations all automatically carrying out decisions made in London. The "Commonwealth" was an alliance-within-an-alliance, really. I think the South Africans, in particular, might have stayed neutral in the war if Hitler hadn't invaded Norway before Churchill did.

warspite1

You mean returned to neutrality? She was already at war with Germany in April 1940.

I think modelling the CW would be too complex and there were not enough serious problems that arose to make that complexity worthwhile.

[Orm]

I think that Norway question is represented fairly good as is in MWIF. Both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler put to much importance to Narvik as a ore port. After the invasion it turned out that Swedish ports could transport the ore to Germany. So in order to make player put as much importance as historically you must increase the importance of the area to unhistorical proportions and I am not a fan of this. Players have the advantage of hindsight in other areas so why should they not have this here?

Germany also feared that the Allies would occupy the north portion of Sweden after they had occupied Narvik. But, in MWIF, a German player do not fear a Allied DOW on Sweden. Hence they fear an attack on Norway less as well.

[brian brian]

I agree, the CW player as set-up in WiF shouldn't be changed. I was just commenting on some material I vaguely recall from Churchill's history of the war, where he regularly recounts his communications with Smuts in South Africa. Now I'll have to go re-read those sections. Darn. Smuts had considerable domestic opposition to joining England's war, and a British invasion of Norway would not have helped his position.

[Orm]

The North Sea sea zone is a big deterrent for Germany when it comes to attack Norway. In MWIF CW commonly sail large forces into the North Sea that can intercept an invading force. This feels unhistorical to me but I do not want to change the game for this.

I am sure that Germany do not mind taking naval losses in a Norwegian campaign but as MWIF is at the moment there is a fairly big risk that these losses occur before the invasion of Norway instead of after. Huge difference.

I also want to you to remember that the Norwegian campaign caused The Royal Navy a lot of losses.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The North Sea sea zone is a big deterrent for Germany when it comes to attack Norway. In MWIF CW commonly sail large forces into the North Sea that can intercept an invading force. This feels unhistorical to me but I do not want to change the game for this.

I am sure that Germany do not mind taking naval losses in a Norwegian campaign but as MWIF is at the moment there is a fairly big risk that these losses occur before the invasion of Norway instead of after. Huge difference.

I also want to you to remember that the Norwegian campaign caused The Royal Navy a lot of losses.

warspite1

Ormster not so.

The Royal Navy had a number of assets in the North Sea. The problem for the British was a combination of bad weather, the RN rolling too high dice plus the Admiralty taking control of certain decisions away from commanders on the spot...

As said, at least two Kriegsmarine invasion groups were a knife-edge away from being smacked up before the landings.

The difference was the RN could afford the losses it took (which were not large relative to its size) but the Germans couldn't - and certainly if anyone thought Sealion was even a remote possibility...

[Centuur]

The problem with Norway in the game is that both sides don't have a realy incentive to take the country, because the effects for the other side are too positive. Historically speaking, the attack on Norway by the Axis was a very costly affair. Personally I think they would never have been able to retake Narvik if the Allies didn't evacuate the place themselves...

This attack was only done because the Germans expected the CW to take the country if they didn't. They were right on that account.

How to reflect this in WiF, without reducing the Norwegian force pool is important. I would suggest the following:

First, to increase the pressure on the CW, WiF should allocate the Norwegian resource from the start of the game to Germany in a trade agreement.
Second, put in a US entry action which says: CW lays mines in Norwegian territorial waters. The CW can in any DoW phase take this action, but every time it does so, a US entry (lets say a 3) is rolled for which might take a chit out of the US entry pools. If the CW takes this action, Germany doesn't get the Norwegian resource end of turn. If the weather during the last impulse is Snow or Blizzard in the Arctic, Germany doesn't get the resources out of Sweden either (Narvik blocked by mines...).
As soon as the US is in the war, the CW can still choose this option, but doing so means that the Germans will get the possibility to align Norway at the start of the next impulse (thus reflecting the Norwegian population getting more and more angry at the British intervening with the local shipping, which is very important to the Norwegian economy). However, the mines are laid, so this turn no Norwegian resource or Swedish ore if the weather is bad enough.

Now, things are getting interesting. A political game is happening around Norway, which can annoy any side in the game and may or may not force them into action, which may or may not upset the US. The gains for both sides are greater now, since apart from the Norwegian army and fleet, there is now also the resource situation for Germany to take into account...

[Orm]

I do not want to argue about what assets that CW had in the North Sea when the invasion was launched because I know that you are right.

But the point I was trying to make is that in MWIF there is often some CV's and a lot of battleships and some cruisers in The North Sea. I often blockade with 7 BB's and some cruisers. It is my belief that this is significantly more than the historical force and the risk of the entire invasion force being annihilated is therefore great.

With that said if you say that this is as it should be then I will drop this argument.

----

My main point is that both CW and Germany put to much value to Norway, Narvik and the Swedish ore. As we play with hindsight we do not do the same mistake.

[Orm]

Historically speaking, the attack on Norway by the Axis was a very costly affair. Personally I think they would never have been able to retake Narvik if the Allies didn't evacuate the place themselves...

I read a very good book that made an analysis on this. And the conclussion was that Trondheim was the key to the north of Norway. With Trondheim in German hands then Narvik would have been undefendable because of German land based air flying from Trondheim. He claims that the land based air would have forced The Royal Navy to abandon attempts to supply Narvik hence the defense of Narvik was doomed.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Historically speaking, the attack on Norway by the Axis was a very costly affair. Personally I think they would never have been able to retake Narvik if the Allies didn't evacuate the place themselves...

I read a very good book that made an analysis on this. And the conclussion was that Trondheim was the key to the north of Norway. With Trondheim in German hands then Narvik would have been undefendable because of German land based air flying from Trondheim. He claims that the land based air would have forced The Royal Navy to abandon attempts to supply Narvik hence the defense of Narvik was doomed.

warspite1

Correct. Supplying the town with the Germans in control of the air would have been extremely difficult too.

[Klydon]

There are a couple of issues involving Norway.

First, great ideas laid out by Centuur.

Next, the Germans can get the invasion off unless the RN keeps a large force at sea in the North Sea in between impulses with the inherent issue of being in the lower sea boxes. Germans need to move first obviously.

I also wonder if the Stukas are a bit under rated for air to sea combat. Even the better Stukas are 2's and with a 4 range, they won't get very high in the sea box, yet all we really hear about is how Axis airpower made the fall of Norway pretty much a done deal.

Not only South Africa, but I would guess the US would be very unhappy to see a British invasion of Norway, especially so early in the war. After a invasion of Norway, I can't even imagine what the attitude would be if they tried to invade Sweden. I know a common tactic for the CW is to invade Portugal and they should pay a heavier price for it. What sane logical reason is there to invade a country that has had good relations with the CW in the past? How does the CW sell that to neutral countries?

Good topic and I agree for the most part that right now there is little reason for the Germans to invade Norway and a lot of reasons to leave it alone.