Finnish Immortals

[Palantir]

I'm currently in an 1.7g EA game (vs Mantis) as the Allies and decided to initiate the Winter War so I would have something to do until France was invaded- bad idea.
Against a competent opponent, Finnish Troops are unbeatable period!

Case is point;
I have surrounded a Finnish Guerrilla brigade (1-1 and "red") consisting of 150 total squads. I have attacked this unit multiple rounds for 3 turns with 4,500+ squads, 1000+ aircraft, and gotten my ass kicked every round with loses up to 35%. In one air round I had 1000+ planes vs 100 Finnish planes and lost nearly 700 aircraft to Finnish loses of 24.
After those 3 turns the Guerrilla unit still has 122 squads left.
Yea, right.
My losses have been through the roof everywhere, which would be tolerable if the Finnish took any losses at all.

I even made my way to OULU on the Bothnia coast but after continued casualties above 35% each round to 0-9% for the Finnish my offensive is over and I'm forced to withdraw to "safer" terrain.

This isn't a hard battle, it's an impossible battle.

The fear is that those Finnish units are just as awesome on the offensive as defensive. If they are Lenigrad is lost within the month and I have no way game wise to prevent it.

And movement:
Those exclusion hexes have to go, make them cost 100% MP’s each or something but for the Finnish to only have to worry about 5 hexes on a 33 hex front is not realistic or sensible, especially when they weren’t “impassable” to begin with.
Were the Russians really so dumb as not to drive 10 KM further north to out flank the line? At the least they should be able to stretch the Finnish troops out and strike a weaken line.

With all the "non-historical" advantages/options the Axis get the Allies should at least be able to flank an OPEN ended line.

If not the Winter War should be done away with or a warning stating this is totally worthless placed within the rules. As it stands now it's just there to bleed the Russians dry.
:crosseye:

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Kerry
I'm currently in an 1.7g EA game (vs Mantis) as the Allies and decided to initiate the Winter War so I would have something to do until France was invaded- bad idea. Against a competent opponent, Finnish Troops are unbeatable period!

Case is point;
I have surrounded a Finnish Guerrilla brigade (1-1 and "red") consisting of 150 total squads. I have attacked this unit multiple rounds for 3 turns with 4,500+ squads, 1000+ aircraft, and gotten my ass kicked every round with loses up to 35%. In one air round I had 1000+ planes vs 100 Finnish planes and lost nearly 700 aircraft to Finnish loses of 24. After those 3 turns the Guerrilla unit still has 122 squads left. Yea, right. My losses have been through the roof everywhere, which would be tolerable if the Finnish took any losses at all.


What was your supply level at? I'm asking because your failing to destroy that unit isn't normal, and red units take disproportionately heavy losses in combat. As for the air losses, soviet starting aircraft are garbage and will get cut to pieces when they enter combat. However I'd check the combat reports carefully to make sure you're not inadvertantly sucking german air units into the battle.


I even made my way to OULU on the Bothnia coast but after continued casualties above 35% each round to 0-9% for the Finnish my offensive is over and I'm forced to withdraw to "safer" terrain.

This isn't a hard battle, it's an impossible battle.

The fear is that those Finnish units are just as awesome on the offensive as defensive. If they are Lenigrad is lost within the month and I have no way game wise to prevent it.

And movement:
Those exclusion hexes have to go, make them cost 100% MP’s each or something but for the Finnish to only have to worry about 5 hexes on a 33 hex front is not realistic or sensible, especially when they weren’t “impassable” to begin with.
Were the Russians really so dumb as not to drive 10 KM further north to out flank the line? At the least they should be able to stretch the Finnish troops out and strike a weaken line.

With all the "non-historical" advantages/options the Axis get the Allies should at least be able to flank an OPEN ended line.

If not the Winter War should be done away with or a warning stating this is totally worthless placed within the rules. As it stands now it's just there to bleed the Russians dry.
:crosseye:

To calm your fears the finns aren't some sort of supermen that will overrun the entire red army in a matter of weeks. What he finns are, are strong high quality corps backed with very good defensive terrain, while the soviets are midquality troops, and soviet infantry corps flatout suck at the offensive.

Also, it appears that you're under the impression that the winterwar is supposed to be the conquest of Finnland. It's not, Stalin wanted it to be, but the Finns beat the tar out of his invading forces and he was forced to settle for border regions only. Putting the exlusionzones in was the only way that the disparity between the Russian and Finnish armys could be effectively implemented. Unless the axis players screws up, it's unlikely that the Russians will manage to defeat the Finns.

As for what the russians get out of it: the proficiency gains will help slightly when the germans come, and the russians will eventaully get several bonus tank corps. In 1.8 Mark added 10k lrs and a fw k tanks to the replacement pool. 10k lrs will cover losses from a border clash where the russians encircle and destroy the exposed single corps, capture Petsamo, and ultimately stop when the Finns dig in along the exclusion zones.

The basic gameplan for the winter war is bring almost the entire red army nort before you start. turn 1: encircle all of the lone border corps. You should be able to encircle all of them except the one on the road from kupio completely, and begin attacking. Some of them will evaporate, the rest should be fininshed off by turn 2. simultainiously to this, you should have mech units racing for the exlusion zones to rush through the outer line before the finns can recover. by the time your leg corps manage to catch up, the 2 corps north of lenningrad and the one in Helsinki should have plugged the inter exclusion zone line. At this point it's basically over. garrison the entry points to the gap between the zones to pevent being cut off from supply by partisans (they're set to deploy on the gaps between). If the finns screw up, or fail to disengage norht of lenningrad and you manage to kill those corps too, you can get past the inner exclusion zone line. What you do then is upto you. allied aid will make a quick strike at helsinki impossible. You can either dig in around the capital at 3 or 4 hexes distance and simply bottle the Finns up farther from the front, or you can slog on regardless of the losses. I managed this once in a 1.5 game, and took helsinki for an additional 12k lrs. Despite eliminating the finns and the swedes from the war, I'm honestly not sure it was worth the losses I suffered. Mantis's German onsalught is bearing down on me, and I don't know if I'll be able to stop it.

[Panzerpelle]

The terrain in finnland are more then bad for mot. Infantry. The supply was zero out side the few roads going west. So the exclusion zone is OK for me...But heres an idea: sbstitute the exclusion zone for badlandhexs + rocky. That will prevent supply from flowing outside the roads but not probhibite movement for leg infantry through the wilderness. The backdraw for the Soviets (as IRL) was no supply for the units off road.

[Palantir]

Originally posted by Dan Neely

what was your supply level at? I'm asking because your failing to destroy that unit isn't normal, and red units take disproportionately heavy losses in combat. As for the air losses, soviet starting aircraft are garbage and will get cut to pieces when they enter combat. Hwoever I'd check the combat reports carefully to make sure you're not inadvertantly sucking german air units into the battle.


After 3 continual combat turns my unit supply levels still vary from 70-30%, the hex supply "trace" varies from 32 - 5. I have added fresh units. I did check the combat report and his air consisted of only Finnish A/C.


Also, it appears that you're under the impression that the winterwar is supposed to be the conquest of Finnland. It's not, Stalin wanted it to be, but the Finns beat the tar out of his invading forces and he was forced to settle for border regions only. Putting the exlusionzones in was the only way that the disparity between the Russian and Finnish armys could be effectively implemented. Unless the axis players screws up, it's unlikely that the Russians will manage to defeat the Finns.


But why not? Is there a reason GAME WISE that a certain country can not be defeated that could have been if the effort and commitment was there? (The UK is a special case). The whole point of gaming is to see what you could do in the same circumstances and just because Stalin wasn't committed to a TOTAL "Winter War" should not hamper a player who wants to try something different or commit to it.

Even considering the UK, just because Hitler didn't try "Sealion" should there be arbitrary hinderences to it being attempted in the game? No, the German can attempt it with what they had, but the "realities" of transport, air cover, sea power etc. will prove it's own failures.

In Finland arbitrary obstacles have been put in the way to stop the Soviet player from taking a land linked country even if commited. I've put a ton of units up there and each one has been beaten down to a pulp in "created" choke points while the Finnish have hardly taken a dent.

The "Winter War" option itself IS a border war, but if the Russian COMMITS to taking Finland it should at least be possible in the game without resorting to imaginary borders/terain to make it nearly impossible.

Even with your great execution in getting near Helsinki it still couldn't be done and thats the problem. The scenario might as well say that instead of even offering the option. For Finland to be defeated only because of massive screw ups not because of brillant Soviet play or overwhelming & commited forces seems a strange way to "recreate" this front.


I managed this once in a 1.5 game, and took helsinki for an additional 12k lrs. Despite eliminating the finns and the swedes from the war, I'm honestly not sure it was worth the losses I suffered. Mantis's German onsalught is bearing down on me, and I don't know if I'll be able to stop it.

To add to that, sometimes when you play an "expert" you have to try the unusual to throw them off the NORMAL even a little- like taking Finland.

Versus Mantis I've shipped a ton of French (w/UK) into Norway (Narvik exactly- a ton of them) and even retook Bergen. Will it matter in the long run? Maybe, maybe not, they will disappper anyway with the fall of France but his timetable for taking Norway was messed up and he's had to send more Germans into the country then he probably would have liked. But the fact that I did something not normally done shouldn't mean that it can't be done or obstacles put in the way to stop the attempt.

[Mark Stevens]

We had a very similar debate earlier, on this very topic. The Red Army in the Winter War was absolute rubbish, from the senior commanders down to the individual troops. The former still paralyzed with fear from the recent purges, the latter ill-trained and poorly equipped for the terrain.

The Finns only had to sit back and kill them as they advanced, although they did carry out some offensives, particularly at Suomussalmi. They were attacked by at least ten times their number, and caused ten times the number of casualties they suffered, although this in itself was crippling given the relative sizes of the two populations.

If we don't have the exclusion zone, there's no way to simulate just how bad the Soviets were: if we make them very poor quality, like the Italians in the Horn, then they'll be crushed by the Germans and their allies when the latter invade the USSR.

If we remove the exclusion zone, the Russians will be able to steamroller the Finns in a way that they demonstrably failed to do in the War.

It is possible for the Russians to push the Finns back about as far as they did historically, or they can go for broke and accept that they'll suffer horrendous casualties. Stalin decided against it, even once the Russians finally broke through the Mannerheim Line and the Finns sued for an armistice.

We could substitute badlands, rocky terrain, swamps &etc. for the exclusion zone, but the effect would be the same.

Surely if you realise that you're suffering badly, and not getting very far, isn't the obvious thing to do to call off the attack and dig in? The Finns are nothing like as good on the offensive as dug in on the defensive.

[Palantir]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens

The Finns only had to sit back and kill them as they advanced, although they did carry out some offensives, particularly at Suomussalmi. They were attacked by at least ten times their number, and caused ten times the number of casualties they suffered, although this in itself was crippling given the relative sizes of the two populations.

Yep, that's the scenario alright, as long as its historically accurate. :eek:


Surely if you realise that you're suffering badly, and not getting very far, isn't the obvious thing to do to call off the attack and dig in?

Yep, that's what I'm doing now; but not before I kill those damned 120 surrounded guerilla squads- no matter if it costs me the entire Red Army! :cry:

[Sturlungur]

Hi there.
I have followed the debate with interest. It has been a lively one and seems to put players either completely for or aginst the exclusion zones.
But could there be another way?
Can the Winter war be handled in a similar way like the Eastern Europe is dealt with? Putting an exclusion zone without holes. The Soviets are free to invade Finland without an Declaration of War but the Finnish army will still be there to be dealt with if the axis player chooses to. He can also retreat them to some bottlenecks outside the Contested area which the Exclusion zone would make place for.
If Stalin would then have opted for crushing Finland he would have to choose an Option for that (if there is some left:) ). The Finns would immediately receive aid from Britain and France and best would of course be if its equipment would be drawn with high priority from the Allied pool.
Finland could easely be crushed but at a high cost to the Allies.
I don't know very well how the Editor works but or if this idea is workable but in a way Finland was inside the Soviet zone in the Soviet-Nazi pact so it would feel but natural that they have a go for Finland if they choose to.

I hope this idea helps
Sturlungur

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Have I misunderstood something, or are some people implying that Soviets didn´t really try to conquer Finland, and would have succeeded if they would have really tried? This kind of information has no other source but official Soviet historiography published after the WWII (known as disinformation), which tried to label the Winter War as a `border conflict´ to cover the shameful failure.

As Mark pointed out, exclution zones model the low quality of the Red Army by the time, its incapability for outflanking maneuvres and properly coordinated attacks.

Added: Although the war was a shameful failure for Soviets, Finnish lines were in a state of collapse by the time of armistice, and only the threat of British and French involvement made Soviets ready for peace.

[Palantir]

Actually the idea of adding a "Conquer Finland" Option is intriging. Although I suspect finding an event opening for it will be impossible.

With the Winter War option everything could remain as it is now, damn impossible to take Finland.

But if you chose the Conquer Finland Option the Exclusion Zone could be "opened" up to allow the weight & massed numbers of the Red Army to be used. Fact is if Finland didn't have enough troops to protect the entire border then they simply don't have them. Even bad troops can drive around an open flank.
I'm sure that various other things will have to happen due to choosing such an option as well, with advantages and disadvantages to the Soviet player.

I'm not familiar with the Finnish Front so others such as the Sheik will have to supply the proper historical background & effects.

I do understand the reasoning behind the exclusion zones but feel there must be a better way to stimulate this front (the Red Army sucks as it is) than creating non-historical & geographical choke points.

And Mark, if this was/is the "only" way to handle it then so be it! Just thought I'd add my 2 cents :)

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Kerry
Actually the idea of adding a "Conquer Finland" Option is intriging. Although I suspect finding an event opening for it will be impossible.


A TO requires a minimum of 3 events. 1 to create the TO, a second to do something, and a 3rd to remove theTO afterwards. finding 3 events is essentially impossible at this point. I've occasionally suggusted sacrificial events but haven't been taken up on any of them.


With the Winter War option everything could remain as it is now, damn impossible to take Finland.


As it was historically.


But if you chose the Conquer Finland Option the Exclusion Zone could be "opened" up to allow the weight & massed numbers of the Red Army to be used. Fact is if Finland didn't have enough troops to protect the entire border then they simply don't have them. Even bad troops can drive around an open flank.
I'm sure that various other things will have to happen due to choosing such an option as well, with advantages and disadvantages to the Soviet player.


It's not that they couldn't cover the border, but that if they did they'd be so spread out that without massive shock or proficiency penalties the soviets would be able to run right over them with an unended string of AVs until the grabed Helsinki.

Also, there's no simple way to put holes in the line with a TO like you seem to want. There're a maximum of 2 exclusion zones in any scenario, and both are already used.


I do understand the reasoning behind the exclusion zones but feel there must be a better way to stimulate this front (the Red Army sucks as it is) than creating non-historical & geographical choke points.

And Mark, if this was/is the "only" way to handle it then so be it! Just thought I'd add my 2 cents :)

The only other way I've seen it handled effectively was to have most of the soviet army yellow lined so that they couldn't attack with any more corps than the Finns had available to defend with. Unfortunately, this would require more events to implement (removing the yellow lines when barbarossa occurs) and by restricting the soviet ability to redeploy before the german attack would signifigantly alter the play balance of the game. IF you can think of a good, non event eating way to do it, more power to you. So far noone's been able to do it, so we're left with the exclusion zone, which is a free fix.

[Mark Stevens]

Also, although this is way outside the realms of us discussing game design for a TOAW scenario, the USSR at the time of the Winter War was effectively a German ally, and was regarded as such by the Western Allies. There were elaborate schemes by both the British and French High Commands to send masses - the French offered 50,000 - of troops to assist the Finns, cheerily disregarding Norwegian and Swedish neutrality if they proved obdurate. The French even suggested an ambitious plan to BOMB THE SOVIET OILFIELDS AT BAKU, which would certainly add an interesting twist to the game. Same 'political' arguement applies to whether or not the Soviets could have conquered Finland outright: it's just too far outside the game parameters to let him try, and perhaps place a large Anglo-French force - controlled by the German Player! - in Narvik with an opportunity to fight its way through the Scandinavians to reach Finland.

I know we've settled for an bit of a compromise, but I think it's the best solution, and does let the USSR blood its untrained units prior to the war with Germany, which is the central feature of the game.

[Palantir]

Well Mark it sounds like you've studied the situation and handled it accordingly and done the best that can be done with the game.

Like I mentioned I'm not up on this front which is more complex than I imagined; but I thought I'd bring up this discussion since my "guerilla incident" was/is a shocker.

Accept my congratulations on doing such a great job on an incredibly complicated and well thought out game.
Kerry:D

[Mark Stevens]

Cheers, but I fear that you've misunderstood the central point of this forum, which is for you to moan like fury at the scenario's all-too-numerous shortcomings (see previous posts various).

[Sturlungur]

Well Mark I must admit that we who are new here don't know the rules of engagement.
I thought that I should also put in some praise but maybe you didn't form this forum with that intention:D

But anyway. I liked how you handled the partition of Romania and Poland. Stalin could walk in and take the territory (without any extra options) and had to fight the Poles in doing so.
I would have liked seeing similar version in Finland since that was also within Stalins sphere of influence. No extra options. Just walk in and take over the disputed territory.

That is if the Finns and especially Sheik Yerbouti allow it;)

But you should thread carefully where the Masters have walked. You should kneel and accept humbly your Masters kind expanations!:confused:

Sturlungur

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Sturlungur
Well Mark I must admit that we who are new here don't know the rules of engagement.
I thought that I should also put in some praise but maybe you didn't form this forum with that intention:D

But anyway. I liked how you handled the partition of Romania and Poland. Stalin could walk in and take the territory (without any extra options) and had to fight the Poles in doing so.


you don't have to fight the poles if you don't want to. just wait until Hitler takes Warsaw, and they'll surrender automatically.


I would have liked seeing similar version in Finland since that was also within Stalins sphere of influence. No extra options. Just walk in and take over the disputed territory.

That is if the Finns and especially Sheik Yerbouti allow it;)


History has very clearly shown that unlike the Romainians who dod cave, or the Poles who were crushed utterly, that the Finns did fight fiercely to defend thier territory. Eventually attrition did the Finns in, but they inflicted a horriffic price on the Russians 1st, and political factors beyond the scope of the scenario precluded Stalins pressing forward to finish them off. The situation as it now stands is the best compromise we've been able to find on the situation.

And while this forum wasn't intended to flame Mark, gentler methods of persuasion generally aren't effective and changing his mind.

[Mark Stevens]

It's that whimsical British sense of humour.

[Palantir]

FYI:
I finally killed that surrounded Finnish Partisan unit of 122 superhuman squads!
It took 4 surrounded turns, involving 8 full Corps 5500++ squads & 2800+ planes.
With that easy task over the Red Army is now withdrawing to safer positions.
The troops are asking only one question, "Hey Mark, where's that vodka unit?"
:nervous:

[Palantir]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Cheers, but I fear that you've misunderstood the central point of this forum, which is for you to moan like fury at the scenario's all-too-numerous shortcomings (see previous posts various).

BTW Mark, You asked for all this abuse youself, you built such a great product (pat self on back here) that players naturally want MORE of it! You put so many bells and whistles into the game that it looks easy to do, so of course we now want a leather interior, a CD player, a two-tone paint job and a rear seat TV.

If EA was a lousy game players wouldn't play or mention it, but as you know it has a HUGE loyal following (pour yourself a beer on us) and the fact that you CARE & respond about it only endears you & it to us that much more.

We like it and just want more of it, so down that beer and get back to work, we're still waiting for the on-board navigation system! :p

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kerry


BTW Mark, You asked for all this abuse youself, you built such a great product (pat self on back here) that players naturally want MORE of it! You put so many bells and whistles into the game that it looks easy to do, so of course we now want a leather interior, a CD player, a two-tone paint job and a rear seat TV.

If EA was a lousy game players wouldn't play or mention it, but as you know it has a HUGE loyal following (pour yourself a beer on us) and the fact that you CARE & respond about it only endears you & it to us that much more.

We like it and just want more of it, so down that beer and get back to work, we're still waiting for the on-board navigation system! :p

Hear, Hear.

[Sturlungur]

Second that