Slitherine

It seems to me that the Finns are a bit to easy for the russians to destroy. The additional of the fortress has prevented a coastal assault on Helsinki but its still quite easy for the russians to move around the north to crush the finns. Finnish ground units in CEAW, because of their low efficiency, are as poor as Rumanians and Hungarians and therefore dont offer the sort of opposition that the russians historically experienced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
I think the Finns need to be given a boost either by providing them a leader (eg Mannerheim, who would have high stats for game reasons - ie he needs 5 or 6 range) or by boosting the Finnish INF attack and defence stats by 1. My preference is the leader as it will constrain the separation and therefore advance of Finnish units.

I realise that I have raised this topic a while back but it really does grate on me how ahistorical the Finnish theatre is and how easy it is to knock the Finns over.

Also, as a note, I have several references now that show the Finns as having 5 starting INF corps rather than the 3 CEAW assigns them in 1941 (they had a bunch of independent brigades which would qualify as the current GARs). I think it would be better for the Finns to start with 5 corps but receive no further (yearly January) INF units as they had mobilised just about everyone anyway and didnt have the supplies to really raise further INF units. What they captured from the russians and were supplied by the Germans justifies their tech upgrades but not the raising of further units.

I agree they get stomped pretty easily. But I'd hate to see them boosted then end up next to Moscow. The Finns really had no interest in going into Leningrad and beyond. Perhaps a possible solution would be for Mannerheim to come on as a replacement as soon as the Russians move west of a certain point?

I usually bolster Finland with German corps units and some air units sent from Germany early in Barbarossa. That's enough for me to get to Petrozavodsk and form a defensive line at the Svir river. If the Germans ignore Finland I agree that they will fall quickly.

If we should do anything then it is to increase the Finnish organization tech level from 2 to 3 to simulate Mannerheim and increase fixed defenses from 1 to 2 to include corps units in +4 ground defense. All Axis minors will have 2 techs lower than German tech so they would have got fixed defenses tech 2 when Germany gets fixed defenses tech 4. But if we want them to get bonus defense early on we can let them start with tech 2.

What do you think.

Shall I increase the Finnish techs (organization tech 3 and fixed defenses tech 2)?

I agree that defensive type bonuses are the best way forward as they reduce the potency of a Finnish assault on Leningrad.

Additional defensive tech for Finns would indeed be a good idea. Boost to effectiveness would be good as well, although I'm not sure which would be better, a leader or 3rd lvl of org tech.

Stauffenberg wrote: What do you think.

Shall I increase the Finnish techs (organization tech 3 and fixed defenses tech 2)?

It sounds good to me.

Stauffenberg wrote:Shall I increase the Finnish techs (organization tech 3 and fixed defenses tech 2)?

My vote is yes for both.

Stauffenberg wrote: What do you think.

Shall I increase the Finnish techs (organization tech 3 and fixed defenses tech 2)?

Yes that seems reasonable to me.

Yess more everything for us finns!!

Yes, this sounds like it is worth trying, to make the Finns less vulnerable.

st14z wrote:Yess more everything for us finns!!

On a more serious note, st14z, do you have any information concerning a 5 INF corps start vs a 3 INF corps start for the Finns? My references are pretty consistent for 5.

In those days were calculations about MAX 1,5 million soldiers in Finland and that was almost half of population..

Some GS games i've played Russians got 12 partisan corps in one turn ... so 5 finn corps is closer to truth?

btw in Fin-Russo 'winter war' russians had 2 guns/1 meter for the whole front ...

I'll defer to those more knowledgable but I did run across this graphic with the title, "Continuation-War-1941.png" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conti ... r-1941.png

By my count I see 16 Finnish divisions and 2 brigades and 5 German divisions. If you use the conversion of 3 divisions per corps (and 3 brigades per division) then this translates to the equivalent of 5 1/2 Finnish corps and 1 2/3 German corps deployed on the boarder with Russia. This graphic and numbers do NOT include what divisions were deployed in Helsinki and west.

By the way, I remember hearing or reading somewhere that Finland was the only axis minor ally that the US did NOT declare war on in WW-II. I need to do a bit of research to confirm (or refute) this or maybe someone more knowledgeable on than me on this knows.

rkr1958 wrote:By the way, I remember hearing or reading somewhere that Finland was the only axis minor ally that the US did NOT declare war on in WW-II. I need to do a bit of research to confirm (or refute) this or maybe someone more knowledgeable on than me on this knows.

Ronnie,
The article that I referenced includes the following quotes;

"Despite Finland's contributions to the German cause, the Western Allies had ambivalent feelings, torn between residual goodwill for Finland and the need to accommodate their vital ally, the Soviet Union. As a result, Britain declared war against Finland, but the U.S. did not. With few exceptions, there was no combat between these countries and Finland, but Finnish sailors were interned overseas. In the U.S., Finland was denounced for naval attacks made on American Lend-Lease shipments, but received approval for continuing to make payments on its World War I debt throughout the inter-war period."

The latter is quite amazing! I didnt realise that it had a WW1 debt given that it was part of Russia at the time.

"The U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull did congratulate the Finnish envoy on 3 October 1941 for the liberation of Karelia but warned Finland not to go in to Soviet territory; furthermore the U.S. did not declare war on Finland when they went to war with the Axis countries and, together with UK, approached Stalin in the Tehran Conference to acknowledge Finnish independence."

Neil,

Thanks.

Now I do know the reference for the following. It was from an interview of Lord Chamberlain's private secretary that I saw in the BBC's 1974 series World at War. In the interview he discussed the British attitude and hope towards the war in early 1940. Their hope was that the war would play out away from France and in places like Norway and Finland. In fact, Churchill's desire was to invade Norway in order to support Finland against Russia. The British were saved the label of invader by the fact that Germany beat them to the punch and invaded Norway first. Even then their plan was to intervene and provide support to Finland through northern Norway. If this had happened then Britain would have been at war with Germany and the Soviet Union in 1940. They were saved this fate when Norway surrendered.

Watching the interview with Lord Chamberlain's private secretary did give me some insight into what the thinking of the British was at the start of the war. They were desperately trying to avoid a repeat of WW-I and were hoping to fight German away from Belgium and France. It's a bit ironic that Churchill was one of the driving factors behind the UK's foray into Norway and that disaster caused Chamberlain's government to fall and resulted in Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister.

One interesting fact that I pick up for the same World at War episode was how ill conceived the whole operation was. This was illustrated by the fact that they did load snowshoes for the UK troops but didn't load any straps to attachment them to their boots.

People, you seem to forget that half of the Finnish / Russian border is off-map. So you can't look at the OOB and place all the units mentioned on-map. E. g. 1 German corps is supposed to be in the far north trying to get Murmansk and I think we can say that 2 Finnish corps units are located north of the map, e. g. in the Salla section.

If you add more Finnish units on-map you need to add more Russian units on-map too. Russia had several units trying to keep the Axis from taking Murmansk, Salla etc.

You also have to take into consideration that some garrison units are named as corps sized units. Germany has some of these units and even the Axis minors. These units were defensive units with a main goal to only hold a line, city etc.

I therefore think that if we bump the Finnish efficiency by adding organization tech 3 and defense by adding fixed defenses tech 2 we will have a chance for the Finns to hold against Russia. Finland will get more units each year so they can hold. Germany can boost the Finnish defenses by sailing in German units etc.

Stauffenberg wrote:People, you seem to forget that half of the Finnish / Russian border is off-map. So you can't look at the OOB and place all the units mentioned on-map. E. g. 1 German corps is supposed to be in the far north trying to get Murmansk and I think we can say that 2 Finnish corps units are located north of the map, e. g. in the Salla section.

If you add more Finnish units on-map you need to add more Russian units on-map too. Russia had several units trying to keep the Axis from taking Murmansk, Salla etc.

You also have to take into consideration that some garrison units are named as corps sized units. Germany has some of these units and even the Axis minors. These units were defensive units with a main goal to only hold a line, city etc.

I therefore think that if we bump the Finnish efficiency by adding organization tech 3 and defense by adding fixed defenses tech 2 we will have a chance for the Finns to hold against Russia. Finland will get more units each year so they can hold. Germany can boost the Finnish defenses by sailing in German units etc.

I know ... I tend to get carried away. I agree that your proposed solution sounds best.