Finland - too strong?

[Mark Stevens]

Mantis was one of the players who kindly offered to test (g) for bugs, and as an experiment he's put virtually the whole (literally) Red Army against Finland, but has found himself bogged down around the choke points in the south and, although having taken Petsamo, around Oulo in the north, with some crippling losses (73K LRS?). The exclusion zone is still in place.

Question is, have we made Finland just too strong?

As he reasonably points out, if Stalin had said 'Conquer Finland whatever the cost', and he was bloody-minded enough to do it, the Red Army presumably could have, although from my reading of the books it would have been wrecked for the forthcoming Russo-German war.

My view is that the scenario allows - particularly with the bonus men and equipment discussed above - or is it below? - the Russians to push the Finns back from Leningrad, probably take Petsamo, and bottle up the choke points without too many losses. Besides the extra replacements, the Russians also get three bonus Tank Corps for 'learning the lessons' of the Winter War. Once the Russo-German war begins, whoever starts it, the exclusion zone disappears and the whole front opens up far more.

As far as I know, the Russians lost around 200,000 casualties out of over one million men committed, against some 175,000+ Finnish regulars and reserves, and even Stalin was persuaded to call it off when the Red Army broke the Mannerheim Line in the south and the Finns offered terms. Had he gone on, the Finnish resistance would presumably have become even more fanatical, and the Russians would have had to fight every inch, through difficult terrain, to Helsinki. (This is ignoring the question of whether the Swedes and Western Allies would have intervened, which is sort of covered by some bonus units if the Russians get to within three hexes of Helsinki.)

However, I'm not pretending to be that well read on the campaign, and if anyone's got any comments I'd be interested to hear them.

We could make a minor tweak by opening another hole in the exclusion zone - 134,36 where three lines meet is a possible - but I'm afraid that too many changes will let the Russians steamroller Finland while the Germans are busy in the West, which Stalin clearly didn't feel was possible/worthwhile.

If the Russians declare war just to get the bonus units and equipment, but actually do nothing, they'll have the Finns on the doorstep of Leningrad and their guerillas/light troops creeping through the forests once the Russo-German war does start and the exclusion zone disappears.

I'll let Mantis put his own view, but I think his feeling is that an outright conquest should be possible, with admittedly high casualties. Question is, how many?

I know we've a few genuine trolls playing the scenario: what's the view from the frozen north?
___________________________________

"If York be lost I shall esteem my crown little less...But if York be relieved and you beat the rebel's army of both Kingdoms which are before it, then (but otherwise not) I may possibly make a shift (upon the defensive) to spin out time until you come to assist me. Wherefore I command and conjure you, by the duty and affection which I know that you bear me, that, all new enterprises laid aside, you immediately march according to your first intention with all your force to the relief of York."

Nice clear orders from King Charles I to Prince Rupert while the latter was hesitating what to do in June 1644, English Civil War.

[Mantis]

I think a happy medium needs to be reached. If Stalin had 1M+ men up there, what would have happened had he put 4 million men up there? If the Reds are incapable of taking out Finland using the entire Red Army, what does that say for their chances against Germany? (Germany could steamroll the Finns, exclusion zones or not, in a matter of turns). And if the Russians are capable of holding off, and then defeating the Germans, what does that say for how this scenario models Finland?

Finland shouldn't be easy; it should prove to be very costly. But it should be possible, if the Russian player is willing to pay the price. I feel the balance should be somewhere where the losses are roughly going to be expensive enough that the Russian player won't automatically take the option every single game. Where the German player will look at the situation and say "Well, the Finns are dead, and that sucks, but they bled the Russians enough that I'll have an easier time of it when I take them on, so it's pretty much an even trade".

My concern with it at present is this: the 10k LRSs, extra armor et al that are 'given' to the Reds for attempting the war make a nice little bonus. The way the situation appears to me is that it would be in the Russian player's best interests to simply put a few corps here and there to keep the Finns bottled up, then declare war, and ignore them. Thanx for the bonus!

I don't see this as being horrible for the Reds. The Finns are already sitting on the border of Leningrad, and it's a matter of a turn or two to have the rest of them there when war breaks out. Why not let them redeploy now, and gain a huge reserve of LRSs for when the 'big hit' comes?

We need to find the middle ground, where the losses are excessive enough that the Russian seriously has to consider taking this option or not; instead of it being a 'no brainer' where he either steamrolls the Finns instantly, or DoWs the Finns, and does nothing at all.

Against Ming, and again in tests, I've lost more LRSs going against the Finns than the German loses HRSs counquering all of Western/Central/Eastern Europe, Norway, Africa, and the Middle East. Basically the Germans can take the whole map over, save the UK and Russia, and still have fewer losses than the Russians take in facing a nation that only has something like 5 or 6 infantry corps! This is utterly unrealistic, elite ski troops, nasty terrain etc or not.

In fact, Dan and I are playing a 1.5 game in which I've lost (as the Axis) less than I have in a test against the Finns. How far have I gone with the Axis in said game? I have all of France, Low Countries, the Balkans, Malta, Gibraltar, Crete, Norway, N. Africa, the Middle East, Persia, Baku, Grozny (or is it Maikop? Basically the entire Caucasus region; the third of these 'bonus' areas is due to fall in a couple turns), all of the Eastern front right up to the end of the Pripets, I'm on the border of Leningrad but hesitant to take it as that would activate the US, the S. end of the EF extends out to Kursk, etc... In other words, I'm damned close to winning the game. All for less losses than the the entire Red Army with air support against a handful of Finn corps!

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make the north a joke. It SHOULD hurt. Mark (rightly) points out that he doesn't want to see an EA where the Reds take this option every game, crush the Finns handily, and laugh. I don't either. But this is equally out of balance, in exactly the opposite direction. We must find the right balance, so that both sides are unsure what to make of this option. (Was it worth it?/Am I glad he went for it?)

When it gets to the point that we all have a rough idea of how it should go down, and some people will take this option sometimes, with mixed results, and others won't take it, we'll know we've struck the right balance.

:dead:

[Mantis]

Another point.

I see little reason to take any casualties at all to push the Finns back to the chokepoints where they can be easily contained, when the second that war breaks out, the exclusion zone disappears, the Axis will get to go first, and you now run the risk of all those 'contained' units being able to move right around/past you. Better to have a reserve in place back a ways, with tiny 'recon' type units out on the flank to make sure they don't try anything sneaky. This way, if the Finns DO come out, they're a long ways from their 'bolt-holes', and a true surround, completely destroying the Finn, is much more likely. The only thing that keeps the Finns alive is being able to plug a one-hex chokepoint, they'll stay there.

So, likely cost to the Russian for DoWing the Finns and then doing nothing?

Nothing!

[Dan Neely]

If you penetrate to the inner exclusion perimiter (and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to force a mech corp or 2 into it the 1st turn), the only point you could be flanked from is Oulu, in the south a complete perimiter is quite doable.

[Chuck?]

It is hard for the Finns to surrond the Russians in most locations due to the heavily forested terrain. Especially near Leningrad where the front is narrow.

[Panzerpelle]

I´m not familier with the game but heres a couple of ideas:

If the supply point (s) in Finland is placed on railroad/road place it of road to reduce the supply capability of the Finns (If you whant to see it in action take a look at Ilkkas DiTN scenario). The Finns where excellent fighters but very, very low on supply and men so set the replacment priorities very low or none...

[Ming]

I have some knowledge of the campaign in question.

My opinion is that Russia really shouldn't be able to conquer Finland outright. I have several reasons.

First of all, at the time of the armistice, the Finnish army was near collapse. It was out of amunition, and the front was entirely disorganized. Had Stalin really wanted to drive to Helsinki, he could have. The Finns probably would have come together, worked a few miracles, and made it bloody, but I doubt they could have stopped a Red army determined to win.

A problem comes in when you add the West. The Allies offered reinforcements to the Finns on several occaisions. Initial (French) plans called for a 'Corps of 100,000 men' to be sent to Finland in February of 1940. However, this number was later revised to 40,000 and began to fall even lower with the German invasion of Norway. By the time the Finns were becoming desperate enough to ask for aid, they evaluated the Allied offer as too low to make a difference and decided to seek terms. However, if they were flatly refused any quarter by Stalin and were told that they had to give up their sovereignty, I imagine that they would cry for all the help they could get. Which, once promised (and considering Churchill's stance of supporting any regime against Nazi aggression, and at this time, the USSR and Germany are seen as in cahoots) would have to be sent in some capacity. With western forces in open combat against Soviet, I can only see Russia being dragged into a wider conflict against the West. (Stalin would have been very keen on this. He latter attempted to form a formal alliance with Germany prior to Barbarossa)

Obviously, all this is FAR beyond the scope of EA. I agree that Stalin (if he really wants it) should be able to conquer Finland, but the diplomatic effects of such would be catastrophic. (Would make for a good scenario though. Democracy vs. National and Marxist Socialism)

I think the winter war should consciously be kept limited, as the proper consequences of a full scale war of conquest cannot be simulated. Although, instead of chokepoints, I would think giving the soviet player some sort of 'Farthest Advance' before the Finn's make peace would be appropiate. Perhaps a trigger as Soviet Forces approach Hex XXX. My feeling is that the Finns would call in the West if they were forced to fight to the death, and otherwise would have made peace.


Another point, although minor. Currently the Swedish Army of 1939 is FAR too strong. It's at about 1943 levels. One reason for Swedish cooperation with Germany is that the Swedish army was in terrible position to resist any action.

[Mark Stevens]

You're right, in that we're getting into politics rather than straight panzer-pushing when considering the whole period that Russia was effectively allied to Germany, i.e. September 1939 - June 1941. Very hard to simulate to any sensible degree, which is partly why we have those strange exclusion zones. A Western Allies + the USA vs a Russo-German alliance might make for an interesting, if probably brief game, but it's beyond our scope.

I know nothing about the Swedes. If we did the same as we've done with the Italians, i.e. bring on some of the units (presumably the heavier armour?) staged over 1939 - 43 would that give a better picture?

[Mantis]

I think it's a non-sequitur. Mark it as something to do before release of the next version. Show me an Allied side ready to invade the Swiss prior to '43, and I'll show you a game where the Axis is probably already half dead.

It'd be nice to have them scaled, but it doesn't make a big diff. Also, if you stagger the reinforcements, they'll come in 'active' and able to move. One more potential bone of contention between the neutral reinforcements can/can't move camps.

[Ming]

Of course, it's entirely up to you Mark, but an early Fall of Leningrad would bring in an ahistorically strong Swedish army. This can make the Axis much more able to defend Narvik/Threaten Murmansk than they were historically able to. It also would give the Soviets a reason to mount an early invasion of Sweden (If, say Germany has been tied down in the west.) Currently, there is almost no reason for an Allied player to launch an Invasion of Sweden.

[SkyVon]

I would like to see (and I have no idea where you'd find the 4 or so events needed) to see an Allied TO appear AFTER the Winter War TO is selected that would allow the Soviet player to call a truce with the Finns. Once selected, after a slight delay, all Finn units would revert to Garrison mode (hmmm, is that even possible?). These units would be released upon an AXIS DOW on Russia is selected...after a long delay.

I have tried hard...and how...to take Finland and have come close but never have been successfull. And once Barbarossa is selected, any thoughts on taking Finland fly out the door. It seems to me that the game surely has a pro-Axis tilt. Has anyone even got to the point where US troops came into play?

I like Mings idea about lowering the Finnish repl to VERY LOW or perhaps LOW.

The Russians should have a decent chance to win here if willing to sacrafice the troops and the exclusion zones and uber-Finnish units prevent this.

Wrongly or rightly, Finland is one part of the game where an attempt by the designer is made to keep things "historical".

[Chuck?]

One point about Sweden: wouldn't they of increased military spending on their army if they were going to join up with the Axis? I can't say what the army would of looked like but I think it would be been larger than the historical Swedish army of 1939-1945.

[Chuck?]

Another idea about the Winter War would be to make it X number of turns long. After the X turns is up the Winter War is over and the sides keep whatever territory they won (or lost) in battle. The Finns could be put into garrision mode at this point as well. This would represent the Soviets growing tired of war, fear of Allied intervention, ect.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Mantis
Show me an Allied side ready to invade the Swiss prior to '43, and I'll show you a game where the Axis is probably already half dead.


I don't think the Allies can invade Switzerland! Maybe it would be a good place for the GIs to get some skiing in though...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Chuck
One point about Sweden: wouldn't they of increased military spending on their army if they were going to join up with the Axis? I can't say what the army would of looked like but I think it would be been larger than the historical Swedish army of 1939-1945.

Most likely. But buildups take time. (And Sweden began building up her forces pretty much when the Soviets invaded Finland.) The Swedish army really wasn't that powerful in 1939. (Rather pathetic shape, actually.) A quick entry due to Soviet Success in Finland or a quick German capture of Leningrad will activate a Swedish army too strong for the time period. It will singlehandedly be able to secure Germany's northern flank. (A task it was worse prepared for than Italy.)

Heh, I mix up the Swiss and Swede adjectives quite often as well.


Oh, and about the problem of adding Swedish forces throughout the game, I have no problem with this. I know when a country is and is not in the war, and I've always considered each country to have the right to readjust (defensively) their forces as they see fit, as long as they don't send them to fight a war their country is not involved in. (A certain Canadian I know seems to have trouble with this. i;) )

[Chuck?]

I found this page on the Swedish Army of WW2. Mark can use it as a baseline reference if he is going to make any changes.

http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaron/sweeds.html

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Chuck


I don't think the Allies can invade Switzerland! Maybe it would be a good place for the GIs to get some skiing in though...

When the front stalled in 44, it was considered, I'm not sure how far along the planning had gotten before it was scrapped though.

[fast Heinz]

How long does it take for Russia to get the extra troops from declaring war on Finland?

[Mark Stevens]

For (g) the replacement units will be disbanded immediately, representing the calling up of reserves, etc., and the three armoured corps 25 turns (six months) later, with a 25 turn variable, although these always seem to occur earlier rather than later.

[Mark Stevens]

Took a look at the site suggested by Chuck and we do appear to have massively overstated Swedish starting strength. I'm not pretending this is 100% accurate, but a far more realistic approach is to remove the following units and have them appear as follows:

6th Infantry Corps - Jan 1940
1st and 2nd Mechanised Brigades - Jan 1941
1st Mechanised Corps - Jan 1942
2nd Mechanised Corps - Jan 1943

The Swedes appear to have had no independent mechanised/armoured units until 1941,although some of the starting corps do contain integral armour/transport.

This has led to a slight reshuffle of the starting units.

I know this means they'll appear Mobile and instantly be able to race into Stockholm, if they're not already scheduled to appear there, but this is one of the things we already recommend that you agree with your prospective opponent in advance.

The Finns? I'm still fearful of making it a walkover for the Red Army too early and too easily. I think that making a few more holes in the exclusion zone is adequate. As someone said, I admit that we're trying to offer players the 'historical' option, with some extra flexibility, rather than a completely free game. We do have to take into account that (i) the Red Army in 1939 was absolutely unsuited for the Winter War: but if we make it too weak, the Germans will have an easy victory when they move east (ii) Russia was effectively a German ally until 1941 and noone knows how the Western allies would have reacted to an all-out drive on Helsinki.