Norway
Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer
RE: Norway
Those units are considered part of the East Front box so yes, you can move forces back and forth. This shows two units from those occupation zones. See Red Lancers post on the EF Box in this forum for the effects of withdrawals.
- Attachments
-
- Norway.jpg (142.49 KiB) Viewed 181 times
Chris
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:27 pm
- Location: England
RE: Norway
I take it that since the German forces occupying Greece are included in the East Front box, that Greece is not included on the map in the larger scenarios, otherwise the Allies could land via Greece with no hope of the Germans defending it properly.
Also, has the force limit requirement for the East Front(box)been increased to take into consideration the added forces from Greece and Norway, I'm a bit disappointed that Norway was included in the East Front box as I feel the Germans should have the option to move some of the 300,000 to either the Western or Eastern fronts without it impacting the other front, instead as Hitler kept them there to ostensibly protect Iron ore supplies from Sweden, moving some of them should have had an economical/industrial impact based on the numbers moved.
Also, has the force limit requirement for the East Front(box)been increased to take into consideration the added forces from Greece and Norway, I'm a bit disappointed that Norway was included in the East Front box as I feel the Germans should have the option to move some of the 300,000 to either the Western or Eastern fronts without it impacting the other front, instead as Hitler kept them there to ostensibly protect Iron ore supplies from Sweden, moving some of them should have had an economical/industrial impact based on the numbers moved.
RE: Norway
looks like something to do with a mod then, as i agree it's nice to add what if type ones, as i also would like the withdraw from useless fronts and have those troops free for somewhere else
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: zakblood
looks like something to do with a mod then, as i agree it's nice to add what if type ones, as i also would like the withdraw from useless fronts and have those troops free for somewhere else
In a mod you can do what you want , but withdrawing all the troops from Norway, it would have meant to lose all the iron from Sweden, that was exactly the main reason why Norway had been invaded.
A little bit against the history and against a true strategy, isn't it?
Kind Regards
Roberto
RE: Norway
you use mods or i do to make hypothetical scenarios or what if type battles and campaigns, as not everyone wants to follow history, but try and alter it and make there own, it's called fun for some, research for others, and just a play thing or hobby of mine...
if you think too deep on any subject you can think of many reasons why one way may or may not be better than others, to lose the iron ore is only bad if A you can't get it from elsewhere, and B if you could use the troops to do something better with which in the end would or may get them back at a later date etc, war is like chess, you have many pieces, but unlike chess in war you don't get to see the whole board, in a game you do, so you can set up stuff differently because you have more of a over head view, might be the wrong option, but only time and a mod will tell, and as Germany got it wrong staying there, who's says i can't do it better or differently [8|][:D][;)]
if you think too deep on any subject you can think of many reasons why one way may or may not be better than others, to lose the iron ore is only bad if A you can't get it from elsewhere, and B if you could use the troops to do something better with which in the end would or may get them back at a later date etc, war is like chess, you have many pieces, but unlike chess in war you don't get to see the whole board, in a game you do, so you can set up stuff differently because you have more of a over head view, might be the wrong option, but only time and a mod will tell, and as Germany got it wrong staying there, who's says i can't do it better or differently [8|][:D][;)]
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: zakblood
you use mods or i do to make hypothetical scenarios or what if type battles and campaigns, as not everyone wants to follow history, but try and alter it and make there own, it's called fun for some, research for others, and just a play thing or hobby of mine...
if you think too deep on any subject you can think of many reasons why one way may or may not be better than others, to lose the iron ore is only bad if A you can't get it from elsewhere, and B if you could use the troops to do something better with which in the end would or may get them back at a later date etc, war is like chess, you have many pieces, but unlike chess in war you don't get to see the whole board, in a game you do, so you can set up stuff differently because you have more of a over head view, might be the wrong option, but only time and a mod will tell, and as Germany got it wrong staying there, who's says i can't do it better or differently [8|][:D][;)]
First of all everybody is free to do what he wants.
Simply No german commander would have left free of troops Norway after the WWI experience about blockade.
Instead to abandon Greece it could have had a logic, even if in this way, it would have been a last move , because it makes easy to attack Ploiesti and the only big Oil fields at disposition for the Wehrmacht.
Kind Regards
Roberto
RE: Norway
the trouble with the German war plan is there really wasn't a plan as the nutter in charge kept changing it, 2 fronts always was going to end in a defeat, but leaving troops elsewhere also weakened them far too much, in my battles with still 2 fronts you don't extend yourself so thinly so can defend better in the places you want more troops, so last a bit longer but in the end it doesn't really matter as the strength on your fronts bearing down on you in the end is far too much anyway, but with better planning, no use of silly battles like the Arden offensive etc, coupled with less troops stationed all over the place that ended up being garrisons only and a waste for the troops being used, leads to some better battles later in the war with much better results in the short term, but you would after alter the main goals at the start to fully change the outcome, which of course you never can or would want to do...
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39324
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: Norway
Keep in mind that withdrawing troops that were historically in Norway, for example, does not mean that you are leaving Norway without a garrison. It effectively weakens the entire off-map front, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a regiment or division from the Eastern Front would take the place of one withdrawn from Norway. If you for some reason want those troops in the West more than other troops, then you can move them there.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:27 pm
- Location: England
RE: Norway
The game(based on WitE) will not 100% accurate to history in the first place, e.g in WitE the Germans have generic K.S.T.N(TOE)tables rather than the actual historic ones. This means that every infantry, mountain and Panzer division etc has the same TOE, which means that e.g. the Totenkopf loses their Tiger I Abteilung the same as the Leibstandarte and Das Reich do, even though in actual fact they kept it to the end of the war, and there are no Panzer divisions with 3 regiments instead of 2, whole units get withdrawn, even though Kampfgruppen were left behind, e.g the 4th SS Polizei division.
Even more egregious in terms of historical accuracy is the fact that the Germans are tied to an 'historical' OOB, whilst the Soviets get to pick and choose what units to build. Therefore the Germans should have the option to pull, say, half the troops from Norway and send them to either the Eastern or Western fronts, especially once the Allies land in France as you can be pretty sure that they're not also going to invade Norway.
Even more egregious in terms of historical accuracy is the fact that the Germans are tied to an 'historical' OOB, whilst the Soviets get to pick and choose what units to build. Therefore the Germans should have the option to pull, say, half the troops from Norway and send them to either the Eastern or Western fronts, especially once the Allies land in France as you can be pretty sure that they're not also going to invade Norway.
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Norway
Says who? It was more than possible that Allies could have invaded Norway. Take the Med shipping and troops and deploy them anywhere would be more than possible, until at least August... Cut the iron ore, hinder German recon...ORIGINAL: Steelers708
... as you can be pretty sure that they're not also going to invade Norway.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Says who? It was more than possible that Allies could have invaded Norway. Take the Med shipping and troops and deploy them anywhere would be more than possible, until at least August... Cut the iron ore, hinder German recon...ORIGINAL: Steelers708
... as you can be pretty sure that they're not also going to invade Norway.
Churchill had a real obsession with the idea ... but the navy in particular saw only disaster in going close to land based air with no real air support ... and in the sort of terrain where the Germans could easily hide or protect their own naval vessels
But I think from 43-45 he kept on putting forward drafts for an invasion
- warshipbuilder
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:52 pm
- Location: C-eh-n-eh-d-eh
RE: Norway
It was more than possible that Allies could have invaded Norway.
Can you say Dragoon North?
Actually I am not sure they could have pulled it off. Would have needed a lot carriers and a huge ASW escort force for it. But that is what the game is for, to see what you might be able to do differently as opposed to what was done.
warshipbuilder
Any ship can be a minesweeper, once.
ED/BTR Ressurection Project
https://www.bombercommandmuseumarchives.ca/
Any ship can be a minesweeper, once.
ED/BTR Ressurection Project
https://www.bombercommandmuseumarchives.ca/
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:27 pm
- Location: England
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Says who? It was more than possible that Allies could have invaded Norway. Take the Med shipping and troops and deploy them anywhere would be more than possible, until at least August... Cut the iron ore, hinder German recon...ORIGINAL: Steelers708
... as you can be pretty sure that they're not also going to invade Norway.
Churchill had a real obsession with the idea ... but the navy in particular saw only disaster in going close to land based air with no real air support ... and in the sort of terrain where the Germans could easily hide or protect their own naval vessels
But I think from 43-45 he kept on putting forward drafts for an invasion
I know Churchill had an obsession with with Norway throughout but I was referring to allied players playing the game, and even if in the game you could invade Norway there would be no real benefit aside from the possible loss of iron ore shipments to actually defeating Germany, unless from Norway you came through Denmark into Germany.
Like I said in my original post it would've been nice if the Germans had the option to withdraw 100-200k of the 300k troops they had in Norway in 1944 at the risk of some economic/industrial impact.
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder
It was more than possible that Allies could have invaded Norway.
Can you say Dragoon North?
Actually I am not sure they could have pulled it off. Would have needed a lot carriers and a huge ASW escort force for it. But that is what the game is for, to see what you might be able to do differently as opposed to what was done.
I think it would actually need a diversion of Bombers and fighter escort from France for a short while - don't exactly need the Transport Plan in Norway; thorough shipping interdiction plus an air war, and no need for carriers. Apart from the fact that there were enough Jeep carriers to provide what was required anyway (fleet carriers are overkill for Norway). As for ASW, against what? The U boats were struggling in the Channel, you think they do better in the North? And if there was one thing the Allies did have it was huge ASW forces!
I am not saying it is sensible, but it was perfectly possible.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
- warshipbuilder
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:52 pm
- Location: C-eh-n-eh-d-eh
RE: Norway
The U boats were struggling in the Channel, you think they do better in the North?
Absolutely! The channel is shallow so there is not a lot of manoeuvre room. Off the coast of Norway, there is a lot of DEEP water to hide in. If you get below a layer, you are not going to be found. Now I do agree that they may have not done a lot better, but they would have been more of a threat.
I am not saying it is sensible, but it was perfectly possible.
And that is why we have the game, to make the insensible, plausible.[:D]
warshipbuilder
Any ship can be a minesweeper, once.
ED/BTR Ressurection Project
https://www.bombercommandmuseumarchives.ca/
Any ship can be a minesweeper, once.
ED/BTR Ressurection Project
https://www.bombercommandmuseumarchives.ca/
-
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
RE: Norway
ORIGINAL: warshipbuilder
The U boats were struggling in the Channel, you think they do better in the North?
Absolutely! The channel is shallow so there is not a lot of manoeuvre room. Off the coast of Norway, there is a lot of DEEP water to hide in. If you get below a layer, you are not going to be found. Now I do agree that they may have not done a lot better, but they would have been more of a threat.
But the Atlantic is deeper, and they had been totally defeated there by late 1943; whats different? Only place I could see them surviving would be in the Fjords and leads. But E boats would be almost as good and much cheaper (in terms of money/resource and training for crews)
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
RE: Norway
I thought that exports to Germany declined thoughout the war, ceasing entirely by Nov 44. I also thought that the most aggressive action the British intended was to mine Norwegian waters, something a quarter of a million Germans ashore could do little to prevent. But I do now wonder about the Swedish ores, more than 9 million tons in 41, as a strategic factor, in a Gary Grigsby War In Europe sort of way. I mean, will you be able to buy an icebreaker to keep the summer ports open year round? Or try to. How many other options are there? How cool would a game be to represent such a tiny yet critical thing.
Richrd