@hcp:
Thank you for your comments.
I initially think that the importance of Scandinavia in Europe is like money islands in Pacific, and US should try to take it before Germany builds enough bombers. Then US can build MICs in Norway and Finland (like UK Persia-Iraq), not relying on transports too much.
However, if Germany leaves some inf in Finland, it will be difficult for the US to take and hold it, for example:
G1: produce 2 bombers, 2inf; leave 2inf in Norway/Finland; transport 2inf to Norway
G2: produce 1 bomber, 2inf; transport 2inf to Norway
G3: transport 1inf, 1art to Norway
G4: produce bombers
[Assuming J1/J2 Dow]
US1: produce 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
US2: produce 1 carrier+2fig, 2 transport, land units (Pacific: 1 carrier, 1 transport)
=> US4 there are just 8 land units landing in Norway
but Germany can retake Norway with >3 bombers, >=5inf, art
I think the 15 IPC swing plus US’s MICs would justify Germany leaves some inf there. And if this is the case, is an early US focus in Europe a viable strategy for Allies (especially seeing Germany purchasing 2 bombers in G1)? What are your opinions?
The problem with that is that you’re now not building much against the land war for USSR or the coming liberation attempts by UK/US for France. I never liked the idea of defending those two territories but if even the choice, if the Allies are going to take them, do everything in your power to NOT let USSR have them.