Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27766
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


It's on both. Churchill thought "hey, if we invade Norway, we can stop those iron ore shipments. Let's invade!" Turns out he might have been wrong (although really all we can do is speculate). Germany thought "Hey, if they invade Norway, they're going to stop our iron ore shipments. We better invade first!" In WiF, the British player thinks "Hey, if I invade Norway, I might get lucky enough to stop the occasional iron ore shipment. Seems like a lot of risk for very little reward. I'll pass." and the German player thinks "Hey, if the CW invades Norway, it might cost me an occasional ore shipment, but I'll gain US entry benefits, free naval units, he'll lose some units, and I can still march into Oslo or defend Narvik. Don't let me get in your way, Churchill"
Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by joshuamnave »

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.

No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by brian brian »

I think one of the reasons Norway loses significance is the generic nature of the resource hexes in WiF. A lot of those hexes, perhaps a majority of them, are coal mines. Only a few of them are Iron Ore mines. Germany couldn't get Iron Ore in just any hex with a little pick and shovel in it. You need several things to make steel…the Swedish ore was extremely important to Germany - it could not be replaced by taking the coal mine hex in the Ukraine. And in particular it was a high quality ore, superior to many other sources Germany could access.
gravyhair
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:58 am

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by gravyhair »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think one of the reasons Norway loses significance is the generic nature of the resource hexes in WiF. A lot of those hexes, perhaps a majority of them, are coal mines. Only a few of them are Iron Ore mines. Germany couldn't get Iron Ore in just any hex with a little pick and shovel in it. You need several things to make steel…the Swedish ore was extremely important to Germany - it could not be replaced by taking the coal mine hex in the Ukraine. And in particular it was a high quality ore, superior to many other sources Germany could access.

This quite true, and spot on.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.

No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.

One of the differences is that Hitler or Churchill didn't know the rules about what would be the result if they occupied Norway or what would happen in terms of shipping the ore. Players playing a game, be it WiF, MWiF or whatever, will know when they do X in terms of something like a invasion of Norway for specific reasons, then Y will likely occur as a result. The rules in WiF/MWiF are such that the impact on Swedish ore getting to Germany will be minimal, even if Norway is occupied by the CW. This appears to be based on the fact that Narvik wasn't used hardly at all after being captured; IE, it turned out not to be as big of a deal as a port for the ore because other ways were found to get it delivered.

It would have taken the CW first invading and occupying Norway and then invading Sweden in the ore fields to effectively stop the ore shipments. What would have happen as a result of all this is very unclear because it would be speculation since it never happen. I have to believe many neutral nations would have looked at the CW in a very harsh light if they ever had tried such a thing.
IKerensky
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by IKerensky »

I will never considering DOW of Norway with Germany simply because I will handle CW far too much CPs. This nearly write out early Battle of Atlantic.

I will never DOW Norway as the allies because I'r rather had thoses CPs. I could consider it in 1942 in an attempt to join with the USSR and put Finland of game and open the Baltic for invasion but it would require the Axis to already be in a bad shape. Could be an interesting move against a sitzkrieg.
gravyhair
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:58 am

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by gravyhair »

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Orm

Churchill thought that "if we invade Norway and Sweden then we can stop those ore shipments."

It is no speculation that Narvik was not needed to ship the ore to Germany. After the invasion almost no ore was shipped through Narvik and the ore shipments increased. It all went through Swedish ports. Narvik was to damaged after the fighting to ship the ore.


Edit: I hope that no offence was taken by my posts. It was not my intention.

No offense taken - we're just arguing about different things. I'm not nearly as well versed on the ins and outs of the Norwegian campaign, or just how effective the allies would have or could have been in shutting down the ore shipments as you or Warspite or any of the others arguing here. It just isn't relevant to my argument (my assertion that it's all speculative is really a tangential comment). My argument is that the strategic thinking in Berlin and London was based on perceptions, and that removing those perceptions from our own British and German commanders takes us out of the realm of world war two and into the realm of fantasy. The difference between that and a variant where England and Germany align to divide up France before the Italian/Russian alliance takes them out is really only a matter of scale.

One of the differences is that Hitler or Churchill didn't know the rules about what would be the result if they occupied Norway or what would happen in terms of shipping the ore. Players playing a game, be it WiF, MWiF or whatever, will know when they do X in terms of something like a invasion of Norway for specific reasons, then Y will likely occur as a result. The rules in WiF/MWiF are such that the impact on Swedish ore getting to Germany will be minimal, even if Norway is occupied by the CW. This appears to be based on the fact that Narvik wasn't used hardly at all after being captured; IE, it turned out not to be as big of a deal as a port for the ore because other ways were found to get it delivered.

It would have taken the CW first invading and occupying Norway and then invading Sweden in the ore fields to effectively stop the ore shipments. What would have happen as a result of all this is very unclear because it would be speculation since it never happen. I have to believe many neutral nations would have looked at the CW in a very harsh light if they ever had tried such a thing.

You are absolutely correct. And yet - in the interest of food for thought - one would have been tempted to draw the same conclusion about the British attacks on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir after France surrendered, and the U.S. ended up seeing it as proof that Britain was serious about staying in the fight. Politics is a wiggly beast. I would advocate a table that one rolls in if UK invades Norway, with a range of possible reactions. That way you couldn't be sure one way or the other.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
User avatar
WarHunter
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:27 pm

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by WarHunter »

Without any facts other than my own game history.
Every German player tries to invade Norway one time to recreate history or just try it. No matter the outcome, they don't repeat it.

Why?
The risk is great, the reward is weak. Oh! Don't forget about extreme weather conditions. You hope that doesn't derail you.
I'll admit trying as the allies and the axis. In both cases it was not worth it.

Say you are successful. A core decision for both sides is what to do after you have Norway. Neither side wants to leave the cream of the army in Norway. So impulses are spent redeploying. Precious impulses.

This is what makes Norway hard to justify. Impulse selection and the side effect on units used in an extreme weather zone.

If i could add an option to sweeten the pot. 1 Offensive chit to the player who conquers Norway. 1 Offensive chit to the player who liberates Norway. Much easier to implement in the boardgame among friends. So this is just fools gold. Nice to look at and dream.

The history is rich, and the simulation of that history is better done with a game specially tailored to recreate it.
Try these for example.
http://www.greniergames.com/ow/description.html
https://www.gmtgames.com/p-253-invasion-norway.aspx

For those wanting to know more.
Norway during WW2
http://www.nuav.net/ndWW2.html
Image
“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell
User avatar
micheljq
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Quebec
Contact:

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by micheljq »

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

Michel.
Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815
User avatar
micheljq
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Quebec
Contact:

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by micheljq »

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

A good move is to invade Norway just after Germany began Barbarossa and is too busy in USSR. He hardly can afford naval or combined actions at this point to help Norway, that would have an impact on his invasion of USSR.

Historically the british were pressuring Norway a lot. Churchill had plans for an invasion he even had plans for an invasion of the iron ore mines in Sweden but he was not supported in those plans. Churchill sometimes had strange ideas, remember the Dardanelles?

Michel.

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by paulderynck »

The chances for snow or blizzard in the Arctic on the last impulse of a turn, based on a simulation run of 1 million games, are as follows:

S/O 03.6%
N/D 57.2%
J/F 81.8%
M/A 34.2%
M/J 08.3%
J/A 00.0%

Below is a chart of the expected weather per turn for all the zones. S/O 39 is different because it starts with a pre-determined weather roll. The last line is the expected total number of impulses (without any powers taking Passes). That number divided by two is the expected number per side.

Image
Attachments
RAW7 Weath..Impulses.jpg
RAW7 Weath..Impulses.jpg (142.97 KiB) Viewed 133 times
Paul
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by Centuur »

Norway is strategically not important. There it is.

Now, that during WW II the British and the Germans thought otherwise, is a major mistake on both sides.

Would Sweden allow for the occupation of the Iron ore mines by the British? I don't think so. I think they would go to war with the British if they tried this.
Don't forget that the Swedish army isn't that weak in 1940. The British didn't have the forces available to attack them.

Would they have terminated the deliveries to Germany? I don't know what the reaction of the Swedish population in the general elections of september 1940 would have been. Would they vote anti British or not in that case? I don't know at all.
Historically speaking, the Swedes were more pro British than Pro German after the attack on Norway (since they gave the Socialist Democratic Party an absolute majority in the Rikstag). This means the Germans weren't that popular at that moment anymore. The fact that the Germans still got Iron ore and were allowed to send supplies through Sweden was more of the fact that the government (which had all parties participating except the Communists) was trying to keep Germany friendly, so they could keep the precious neutrality...

It is possible that, if the British would have invaded Norway and Germany would than have supported the Norwegians, the outcome of the general elections might be totally different, putting a government in place which was on the German side. In 1936 a Nazi party took part in the Swedish elections. In september 1940 it didn't participate in the general elections in Sweden, due to the attack on Norway by Germany. Now, if the British would have attacked Norway, couldn't the Swedish Nazi party have won the elections (or other right wing parties in Sweden)? I think so, because there were pretty strong ties between Sweden and Norway...


Peter
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I believe it is worth attacking by the allies because if they occupy Narvik in that game, then Germany lose the swedish resources when turn ends with blizzard or snow weather. That's 3 resources lost, potentially in winter turns.

One resource easy to take and to ship to Great Britain.

Norway is a good base to place NAV airplanes and threaten the german convoys in the baltic, namely those shipping the 3 swedish resources. Also a good base for placing strategic bombers and threaten almost all of Germany.

A good move is to invade Norway just after Germany began Barbarossa and is too busy in USSR. He hardly can afford naval or combined actions at this point to help Norway, that would have an impact on his invasion of USSR.

Historically the british were pressuring Norway a lot. Churchill had plans for an invasion he even had plans for an invasion of the iron ore mines in Sweden but he was not supported in those plans. Churchill sometimes had strange ideas, remember the Dardanelles?

Michel.

warspite1

I think its generally recognised that the Dardanelles Campaign was not a strange or bad idea. Sadly it was incompetently executed, but as an idea to try and break the deadlock of the trenches, it has been described as one of the few imaginative strategic ideas of the First World War.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Make Norway more attractive to DOW?

Post by Klydon »

Dardanelles came a lot closer to success than not a couple of times. As Warspite mentioned, a lot of the issues were with the execution of the plan along with some of the events leading up to the start of it. (Turks got some warning that the Allies were thinking about some sort direct action when the Allies tried to force the straights with just ships alone a couple of months before. The Turks moved in more units, especially some artillery and also worked on strengthening the minefields, etc).
User avatar
Omnius
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

A Reason Not to Invade Norway

Post by Omnius »

gravyhair,
An interesting rule observation regarding Norway and Narvik in particular. This really does simulate history fairly well and gives a good reason for why a British player should be ready to take Narvik if Germany invades Norway.

It actually serves as a decent deterrent for the German player to not invade Norway so as to ensure the British don't take Narvik and stop Swedish resources from being transported during winter turns when Swedish ports are ices in. Taking Narvik as Germany isn't easy, especially if the British put sea power in the sea area adjacent to Narvik.

Omnius
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”