Slitherine

Since also Norway can use rail movement then I think we could consider adding some Norwegian cities that were important during the war. Those cities are Stavanger and Kristiansand.



Here is a link to a map of Norway:
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/norway/index.html

Kristiansand has a population of about 80.000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristiansand

Stavanger has a population of about 120.000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavanger

Both cities had rail connection to Oslo so they could be added without any production.

Both cities were among the initial German invasion cities during Weserübüng.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weser%C3%BCbung

German paratroopes landed at the Oslo airport Fornebu, Kristiansand airport Kjevik and Stavanger airport Sola.

Map of Weserübüng.
http://historicalresources.files.wordpr ... norway.jpg

Please vote on the addition of these cities.

1. Stavanger
2. Kristiansand

These cities fell easily to paratroopers so I guess we can let them be unoccupied by Norwegian forces.

The main issue I see is that it makes Norway significantly harder to defend for the Germans who potentially have to add two more GARs to Norway - ie another 46 PPs including shipping... Leave things as is - the campaign goes ok currently.....

On Norway, I had a question:

It seems awful 'gamey' to this newbie that the Allies can, upon German declaration of war on Norway (but this also applies to France), can fly the strategic bomber in England to the closer Norwegian port city, then on to the northern city (whilst a garrison from England takes the southern city). Upon conquest, I fly the strategic bomber back to England but control the city until such time as a German unit makes its way there. I think some use a similar tactic in the French cities upon the Fall of France, with the British air units.

Is this really a justifiable tactic? I have no problem with a garrison being sent. But having an air unit fly in and then leave, doesn't seem right.

As to the new cities, I'd ask: Are they being included for a specific game effect? As mentioned above, it seems like you are making the German road in the game harder by their addition. I would bet British air will occupy them upon German invasion.

Adding additional cities could make Germany's full conquest of Norway more difficult than it is now. For play-balance reasons I don't think this would be a good change.

I don't see how it makes conquest harder? - defence yes.

Also, the bomber strategy is easy to negate, you just need some planning for the invasion - with any luck it draws the RN out which is only good for the Axis.

richardsd wrote:I don't see how it makes conquest harder? - defence yes.

Also, the bomber strategy is easy to negate, you just need some planning for the invasion - with any luck it draws the RN out which is only good for the Axis.

Might someone enlighten this dim mind as to how?

In a hotseat, the turn the Germans declared war and plopped their two corps near Oslo, I fly the Brit strategic bomber to the southern city. What can the Germans do to stop that? I fly the fighter to the north of England. The next turn, providing Oslo hasn't fallen (and it could), I fly the strategic bomber to the northern city and the fighter into the southern one. When Norway falls, I fly the fighter out, the strategic bomber to the southern city, and next turn back to England.

Maybe we could put together a collection of tricks and counter-tricks for similar newbies??

Historically,after Noway fell The Germans,subsequently required up to 350,000 troops occupy the country. Thats would be around 7 Corps in game terms to control it. I never thought much of Norway, other then a decent rail system to have. We want the same results for Norwegian surrendering, but dont want to use up more time then needed,what happen historically, unless the Allied player wants to intervene with the UK forces to delibritley make a front in Norway.

The Germans landed at the two(proposed) city's in April-9-1940- & Oslo-and reached Lillehammer by April20, where German & British forces clashed at. Not counting more battle action up North. I know the Allies sent some troops including French & Poles way up north in Narvik in late May-1940 & was able to drive a German garrison out of the city. Of course the win was only a short-lived triumph. So for game reasons i think having a few more city's is alright, but just dont have it hinder axis ambitions there unless otherwise from the Allied player intervention.

schwerpunkt wrote:The main issue I see is that it makes Norway significantly harder to defend for the Germans who potentially have to add two more GARs to Norway - ie another 46 PPs including shipping... Leave things as is - the campaign goes ok currently.....

I agree. I vote not to add either of those two cities to Norway.

Blathergut wrote:It seems awful 'gamey' ... Is this really a justifiable tactic? I have no problem with a garrison being sent. But having an air unit fly in and then leave, doesn't seem right.

I view this tactic as a way to represent the presence of smaller scale units (i.e., battalions) left behind and which must be cleaned up. Historically I think this is accurate or we at least get an accurate effect. German armor didn't stop moving west when Paris fell. Some units speed west and didn't the Brits land some units in western French ports after Paris' capture?

I don't think adding cities to Norway is necessary. I vote no.

I also vote no, as I do not see any benefit in adding more cities.

No as well.

hi,

I vote no to extra cities.

Paul

The Allies won't benefit much from having just Stavanger or Kristiansand. You don't have a port there so you can only get reinforcements in during fair weather.

You don't have to garrison every city in a country you occupy. So Germany can e. g. with 3 garrisons in Norway fend off an invasion attempt because you can rail units to the area under threat. If Britain lands in e. g. Stavanger then Germany can rail to Kristiansand and Bergen and send reinforcementsw to Oslo to be railed further. A clash with the Allies before 1943 is not bad for Germany because they get a chance to kill Allied units while having air superiority.

Later in the war the Germans had to keep quite a bit of units in Norway to prevent an invasion there. In GS I rarely see any Allied counter invasions of Norway. In the real war it was considered quite a threat and the Germans wanted to protect their naval bases. All of Bergen, Trondheim and Oslo are
quite easily defended by the Germans since. You can only invade adjacent to Bergen. With Trondheim and Oslo you have to land and then move.

Having more cities will actually help the Germans against the cheesy strategy of flying British air units to Norwegian cities to keep control after the fall of Norway. The reason is that the British can't cover all cities so you can rail units to the cities not occupied by the British and conquer the cities without having to walk from Oslo.

If you want to try and lure out the RN, transport some units adjacent to the northern cities before you invade, you can then land if you want on the turn you attack, a nice trap can be set luring the RN to intervene - where are those subs!

So an Axis player will mainly only garrison Bergen, Trondheim and Oslo and keep Stavanger and Kristiansand empty. If the Allies sail for Norway then you rail reinforcements to the cities under threat. It's only when the Allies sail for all cities you will be overwhelmed, but that is how it should be. If you decide to reinforce Norway with more units then that's your choice, but you might end up doing as the real Germans did, i. e. having a big force cut off from defending Germany itself. The Allies put effort into putting a blockade around Norway so the Germans couldn't sail the 350.000 soldiers back to Germany in 1944-1945.

PP wise I don't see a problem since the Germans received an extra corps in Finland when taking Oslo. That was 35 PP's extra for the Axis.

I just want to remind you that the game balance at the moment in GS v2.00aj is shifted slightly in favor of the Axis. So I think we should make sure we give the Allies some more opportunities to do something.

By having 5 cities in Norway that can provide supply we give the Allies a bigger reason to actually create a new front there. Air units in Norway can bombard Germany from the north. It means the Germans will have to divert forces to the north if the Allies land there. That's also good because the Allied player wants to spread the German forces so thin so the Allies can get a breakthrough somewhere.

With the current situation I see that Norway is actually not very interesting after Weserübüng. That was surely not the case in the real war. Germany prevented Norway from being a battle scene by reinforcing Norway with 350.000 troops.

We can make Norway more interesting by e. g. letting the Swedish iron ore turning to Swedish control if Trondheim is Allied controlled. That means the Germans lose the iron ore if they lose Trondheim. By losing Trondheim it means the iron ore route would be interdicted by the Allies.

We can even increase the Swedish iron ore to 4. That would give Germany 1 PP extra per turn and make it more important to stop. The extra PP per turn will certainly pay for having more garrisons in Norway if the Axis player wants to.

I think the game would benefit from having more action around Norway.

If you look at the German garrisons in Norway you see that many cities were quite heavily garrisoned like Kristiansand and Stavanger since these cities were vulnerable to Allied invasion. Especially Stavanger was vulnerable due to having very flat terrain near the coast (armor friendly).

So I certainly think that by tweaking the settings we can make Norway more interesting for both sides.

I actually think we can add a rule saying that the Swedish iron ore is interdicted if a surface Allied naval unit is adjacent to a Norwegian city while Norway is neutral. This means the Germans have an incentive to invade Norway to secure the iron ore.

The real British actually dropped mines along the Norwegian coast just prior to the German invasion. so the British were fully prepared to ignore Norwegian neutrality to prevent the iron ore from reaching Germany. Protecting the iron ore was the main reason Germany actually invaded Norway. The second reason was to get naval bases for their subs in Bergen and Trondheim.

This aspect is missing in GS v2.00 right now. There is no way you can stop the Swedish iron ore except by invading Sweden and taking the mine.

So if we can make Norway more interesting without adding more cities then that's fine, but I would then like to hear about suggestions. Right now Norway is rather boring after Germany has conquered Norway. Norway doesn't get partisans even if there was some partisan activity going on in Norway as well. The reason we did that is because there are so many non-clear hexes in Norway that Norway would be filled with partisans quickly.

Right now the Germans can easily get Norway (just take Oslo) and then they get 6 / 2 = 3 PP's per turn from Norway with no effort to maintain the occupation. The 3 PP's per turn from the Swedish iron ore is secured with no effort either. So Germany gets 6 PP's per turn plus an extra corps in Finland for just invading with 3 garrisons + a para and using some air units for a little time. This makes Norway very lucrative for Germany. In addition they get 3 more ports and airbases to interdict the Murmansk convoy.

So I think we should look into a way for the Allies to have a chance to hurt the German economy by going after Norway to close the iron ore route.