Soviet: Why care about Finland?

[WingedIncubus]

Right now, there's nothing to keep the Russians involved in Finland. Unless the Soviet players invests significant troops to eradicate the Finns the only best move is to retreat outside the borders' range and fortify around Leningrad.

Something must be done to keep the Soviets involved and fighting in Finland. Perhaps a PP penalty, representing the impact of a Soviet deliberate retreat on the Allies and Neutral opinion of the Soviet will to fight?

[Flaviusx]

As things presently stand, the Soviets are defending against Finland in Narva and Luga.

It's an odd set up.

[warspite1]

Drakken, given what is happening in your AAR, given what is happening in mine (and another game I have going as the Soviets), given what the likes of Michael T has shown is possible with the Germans, why are you suggesting the Soviets need more penalties for trying to stop their armies in the north being smacked about by the Finns?

Unless I have got something completely wrong here (entirely possible) - and I have tried to make my AAR as detailed as possible so people can see what the situation is and what choices I have made - the Soviets have no chance in this game.

From what I can see to balance the game it needs:

- More help for the Soviets at the start
- More help for the Germans later on (i.e. if the Soviets do form their Brickwall, the Germans ain't gonna get through it).

[WingedIncubus]

I was misunderstood.

The point I was making, is that there is no incentive for the Soviet player to at least try to hold the conquered ground in Finland. The logical move is to retire into the relative safety of my fortifications or lie in wait outside the red B area, entrenching, waiting for the Finnish intervention to activate. Fighting it out earns nothing for the casualties suffered there.

[produit]

It is especially true for the first turns, as the kill ratio is awful for the Soviets. But, mid game, if you have 1-2 armies to spare in the North, you can put pressure on the Finns, but most of the time, you don't have the spare troops.

However, in all case, the Soviets still has to block the Finns, because the Finns can always move in empty hexes (even if that means a high PP penalty for the player).

[Franciscus]

Fighting against the soviet AI I am having a very interesting Finnish "game"

After some initial success, the soviets counter-attacked in strength with 2 full regular armies and almost reached the "S" hexes (they reached an adjacent hex, and only by luck and horrendous casualties I was able to prevent defeat). During that struggle, the Finn intervention had activated but I could not use any Finnish unit on the attack on Leningrad. Even now (November) although I took Leningrad, I have only one Finn unit south of the Karelian isthmus (facing, together with a skeleton 18th army, a growing number of soviet forces). The surviving Finns are fighting in the deep north, mostly in a low scale attrition war but I cannot spare them for the defense of Leningrad.
My plan was to divert 1st PG south for a last ditch attempt on Moscow, but I still could not breakthrough the northern iron wall.
And in the center only now have I conquered Smolensk. After the dreadful Rasputitsa, now my units are freezing with their whermacht summer-time clothes...

All in all, I am having a great time ![:D]

[Franciscus]

Further into November, lake Ladoga froze! I had forgotten it would happen...
Now soviet units are crossing it unchallenged, and Leningrad is in danger!
This while my 4th PG is fully diverted south trying to go to central theater. I may have to backtrack them[:@]

Great AI, great game [&o]

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Drakken

I was misunderstood.

The point I was making, is that there is no incentive for the Soviet player to at least try to hold the conquered ground in Finland. The logical move is to retire into the relative safety of my fortifications or lie in wait outside the red B area, entrenching, waiting for the Finnish intervention to activate. Fighting it out earns nothing for the casualties suffered there.

Well, there really shouldn't be. I don't know when the Finns get going in the game, but historically they didn't launch mass attacks early in the campaign. While causing some damage to Russian troops, it wasn't wholesale and several times, Russians evacuated troops across the lake.

The Russians know they need troops for other more important things than to see about trying to hold firm against the Finns.

[Flaviusx]

Klydon, this game is all sorts of weird when it comes to the Finns.

They activate on turn 1, which is silly. But if they go past a certain boundary they cost a boatload of political points (so much that it might as well be a hard boundary not a soft one, poor design choice.)

If the Soviets lose Narva and Luga there is a 5% chance they activate completely each turn and can go nuts. Total of 10%. This is ridiculous. I can sort of get them jumping in if Leningrad falls, but Narva and Luga? Who cares?

The devs bent over backwards to try to work the Finns in this game because as usual there is a fairly huge cheerleading section for fighting Finns regardless of historical accuracy.

My own view? They shouldn't have been included in this game at all. They're a headache for all the usual reasons. To compensate, 7. and 23. armies on the Soviet side could've been removed as well. The whole thing is a mess, really.

[Lobster]

The Finnish situation was a political mess. It was a democracy first off. The political situation regarding Finland cannot be ignored in any East Front game. To do so would diverge so far from the realm of reality as to enter the realm of fantasy. From the wiki:

Finland and the Western Allies
Finland worked to maintain good relations with the Western powers. The Finnish government stressed that Finland was fighting as a co-belligerent with Germany against the Soviet Union only to protect itself.[81] Furthermore, Finland stressed that it was still the same democratic country as it had been in the Winter War. However, on 12 July 1941, the United Kingdom had signed an agreement of joint action with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, under German pressure, Finland had to close the British legation in Helsinki. As a result, diplomatic relations between Finland and the United Kingdom were broken on 1 August.[83] On 28 November, Britain presented Finland an ultimatum demanding that Finland cease military operations by 3 December.[84] Unofficially, Finland informed the Western powers that troops would halt their advance in the next few days. The reply did not satisfy the United Kingdom, which declared war on Finland on 6 December. The Commonwealth member states of Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand followed suit.[85][Note 7]

Relations between Finland and the United States were more complex; the American public was sympathetic to the "brave little democracy", and there were anti-communist feelings. At first, the United States empathised with the Finnish cause; however, the situation became problematic after Finnish troops crossed the 1939 border.[86] Finnish and German troops were a threat to the Murmansk Railway and northern communication supply line between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.[87] On 25 October 1941, the United States demanded that Finland cease all hostilities against the Soviet Union and withdraw behind the 1939 border. In public, President Ryti rejected the demands, but in private he wrote to Mannerheim on 5 November, asking him to halt the offensive. Mannerheim agreed and secretly instructed General Hjalmar Siilasvuo to break off the assault against the Murmansk Railway.[84]

So, this brought an end to all Finnish offensive operations north and south. In light of this the Fins should not be allowed to enter Leningrad EVER. They should be allowed to continue offensive operations east of Lake Ladoga and in the north until the end of October regardless of how far they push. They did manage to go as far south as Oshta near Lake Onega, south of the Svir River.

[Flaviusx]

Finnish offensive began in late July, just saying. Not on turn 1.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Klydon, this game is all sorts of weird when it comes to the Finns.

They activate on turn 1, which is silly. But if they go past a certain boundary they cost a boatload of political points (so much that it might as well be a hard boundary not a soft one, poor design choice.)

If the Soviets lose Narva and Luga there is a 5% chance they activate completely each turn and can go nuts. Total of 10%. This is ridiculous. I can sort of get them jumping in if Leningrad falls, but Narva and Luga? Who cares?

The devs bent over backwards to try to work the Finns in this game because as usual there is a fairly huge cheerleading section for fighting Finns regardless of historical accuracy.

My own view? They shouldn't have been included in this game at all. They're a headache for all the usual reasons. To compensate, 7. and 23. armies on the Soviet side could've been removed as well. The whole thing is a mess, really.

warspite1

I agree with you on most points Flaviusx but not on this one. I agree the Finns are not easy to model but removing them? And removing 7th and 23rd Armies? Why not get rid of Leningrad too?

Do the Finns need tweeking? Yes, absolutely. But the sector should be included imho.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If the Soviets lose Narva and Luga there is a 5% chance they activate completely each turn and can go nuts. Total of 10%. This is ridiculous. I can sort of get them jumping in if Leningrad falls, but Narva and Luga? Who cares?

I see the devs point of keeping the Finns as a threat as the Germans get close to Leningrad, but the chance of activating before Leningrad falls could be revised lower. Say 1%/turn for Narva OR Luga.

Some soviet units present on the Finnish border on turn 1 should be restricted to the same area till Leningrad is threatened. If Leningrad fall, well all bets are off, so in that case I am OK with the Finns getting a decent chance of getting activated.

[Michael T]

All I know is the Finnish situation in this game is borked.

[Klydon]

Finns in most any East Front game bring a huge set of headaches because of political considerations. Could the Finns have done a lot more? Absolutely no question, but in the Finnish mind, at what cost?

The Finnish army is very good, but it also has a glass jaw and isn't willing to do things that may result in a lot of casualties. From the Finnish perspective, they are short a lot of certain types of equipment, especially anti-tank. Other equipment they have is older. While the Finnish pilots are better than their Red Air force counter parts, the Finns are limited on machines and what they have is generally not very modern.

In many cases, the simple thing is to abstract Finland and subtract the appropriate forces from the Russian side as they basically watch each other. In most games, the Axis will almost always be far more aggressive with the Finns than historical because there are not generally enough brakes on what the Finns can and can't do.

[Gunnulf]

10% per turn for Narva & Luga is too much. That all but guarantee's the Finns intervene within 40 days, and its well within German capacity to capture them early August (or well before).
Two possible changes might be -
1) I would make it a one off test at key points, 10% chance roll when the first city falls, 20% chance when 2nd city falls, 30% chance if Leningrad falls. Overall 50% chance, but only at key escalating points.
2) Modify the current roll system by 1% for every soviet division within 1 hex of the B line. This is a strong disincentive for the soviets to strip the border with the Finns and gamble on using those Armies to stop Narva and Luga falling. It might be desirable to adjust the current 10% slightly higher by a random factor each time so that there is still a chance to intervene without the Soviet gamely placing 10 divisions on the border.
Or maybe some combination of the above. % above are just a suggestion obviously but I think the net effect is better at achieving the more historic outcome than current which is too simplistic. Finnish intervention can really collapse a northern front defense. It should be a nice/nasty surprise rather than a current near certainty.

[James Ward]

Another things some games do is reduce the offensive strength of the Finns while keeping the defense high.

[Michael T]

In many cases, the simple thing is to abstract Finland and subtract the appropriate forces from the Russian side as they basically watch each other.

This is pretty much my standard HR in East Front boardgames I play. A3R being the only exception as it has it's own sophisticated political rules set.

[lancer]

Hi,

It's 5% for each city and reaches 10% only if both are taken.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Speedysteve]

Just to add my 2p to this. Looking at the game as it stands right now one thing I don't understand is why once Leningrad is taken the chance of the Finns intervening doesn't change at all. That coupled with the fact the Sovs can march everything they want away from the border with no effect on Finnish permission to cross the border. That's from the pro-Axis perspective anyhow[8D]