In a recent game when I played Russia, Germany didn’t attack G1, and didn’t do much that made even a G2 attack very likely. In response, I stacked Karelia and prepared for an advance into Finland and Norway. It worked very well in that particular game, because Russia soon owned those lands, significantly shifting the income balance to its advantage. But Germany just didn’t play very strongly, so the strategy wasn’t really tested.
But I wonder whether in general terms, Russia can afford to send most of its Northern army into Scandinavia and away from Moscow. One benefit is of course the destruction of German units in Finland that would otherwise join forces wit the others; and the other is taking 10 IPC from Germany’s income and adding 11 to Russia’s.
But all of that won’t do much for Russia when in the mean time, Moscow falls to a dedicated and fast German effort. Those units in Finland or Norway could be badly missed elsewhere, especially if Russia wants to send enough units to deter a relatively cheap German counterattack using their TT.
So I wonder about the opinions of experienced players. Go for Finland, or not? Never do it, always do it when you get the chance, or only in response to certain German (and maybe even Japanese) moves?
I tried this once in a face to face game with my normal opponent. The income was a huge boost, but I committed too many infantry to the attack and he just steamrolled his way to Moscow. I think it is a viable option if your opponent doesn’t reinforce the north beyond the starting army in Norway/Finland, because you can probably do it with 5 inf a few art, and your starting air can attack from Novgorod and fly back into Russia. The question is, does losing 5 infantry and several artillery for the income make it worthwhile?
IMO opinion with Russia it’s all about doing what damage you can when it’s available, so if your opponet leaves that as a weak area, hey why not. As a side note it gives landing spots for uk bombers if you choose to do that option. Not saying it’s a good idea but it certainly could be an interesting strategy to try.
In reality I think a strong German player would love for you to divert forces as Norway/Finland can easily be taken back with a few men on transports and their airforce.
          i happen to like the idea……if its left vulnerable…Sweden(3 ipc) Finland(2 ipc) are worth 5 to USSR plus each is a +3 ipc bonus for USSR for a total of 11ipc…and u take the Sweden bonus away from Germany
I’m confused from your game description, did Germany declare war on G1 but then not follow through with an effective attack? If not, on the European map wouldn’t Russia be restricted by the neutrality rules from attacking Finland?
Thanks for your comments, everybody.
I’m confused from your game description, did Germany declare war on G1 but then not follow through with an effective attack? If not, on the European map wouldn’t Russia be restricted by the neutrality rules from attacking Finland?
It was a face to face game, and I have no recorded data about it. But Germany never declared war at all, and I finally declared war myself on R4. Because I was just playing Russia, there had been very little to do so far for me, so I was more than happy to finally see some action.
Now in this game, the German play was rather unconvincing, as if he could never decide on where to focus his efforts. He didn’t take out the entire British fleet G1 but still kept trying and also spent quite a bit of money in the Mediterranean, so by the time the fight against Russia finally started, Russia had become quite strong. We didn’t finish it, but an Allied victory was inevitable. So my attack on Finland worked quite well indeed, but that was probably the result of hesitant German play.
But that wasn’t not a very typical game of course. My question would be, whether Russia could also afford an invasion of Finland and Norway in a “normal” game with a G2 DOW. Particularly, what I did was not just take out the Finnish troops, but take them out with everything I had available. So R1, I moved everybody from Novgorod and Vyborg to Karelia, and my planes to Novgorod. My plan was to attack Finland if he would have declared war G2, not just to do as much damage as possible and suffer fewer casualties that Germany, but also to have enough survivors to discourage a German amphibious response (he didn’t buy any transports G1). And of course, the UK could land a few planes there to further protect those units.
Also, once he took Novgorod (which he did), the force in Norway/Finland was still strong enough to be a threat, compelling him to maintain a force in Novgorod.
But the downside of all that is, that a rather large Russian force (11 inf 1 art) has been moved in the wrong direction to defend Moscow. If the Germans move fast enough, they may be able to take Moscow before the Russians benefit from the income shift (which in itself is huge, at 21 IPC).
Generally, no. If it’s a Barbarossa game Russia needs every possible unit. If it’s a Sea Lion game, Russia might want to invade Scandinavia, but would probably be better off using these troops on an invasion of Eastern Europe. Plus if Germany has fleet and transports they can strike all along the Baltic.
There are going to be individual games where a Russian invasion of Scandinavia is appropriate. But I wouldn’t plan on it from the start.
Overall you’re not in good position to invade Finland in the early game because to do so you have to station troops on the border. Germany can attack you before you can attack it, and it should have around 7 inf plus their Luftwaffe to attack with. If you station large garrisons in Karelia or Vyborg you risk encirclement later on.
What ever Russian resources needed to take Scandinavia may be better served in Iraq. Norway should be the responsibility of America and Britian who are better equipped to make a second counter landing.
In my experience, Germany is attacking Russia Round 1, so no it doesnt make sense to send any forces to Scandinavia.
In my experience, when Germany decides to attack Russia, Finland to Karelia is usually one of the attack fronts. So, Russia going after Finland/Norway becomes a non-issue really.
However, if Germany doesn’t attack in the north, and any attacks further south kind of get stalled, like Germany can’t make any headway toward Moscow, then as Russia I would concentrate most of my units to repell/counter the German attacks in the south and slowly build up my force on Karelia, maybe 1 or 2 men per turn, then when you outnumber whatever Germany has on Finland (1 1/2:1 is okay, 2:1 better) then go for it.
If you are managing to keep the German attacks more or less in check on the European front (in other words he is not rushing to Moscow) then those forces in Karelia shouldn’t be missed and that will be one more place you can put the hurt on Germany. If the Western Allies are wreaking havoc with German navy, odds are you can simply garrison Norway with a couple of guys and send the rest marching back to Russia. If you use any tanks in that assault, they can be back to Eastern Europe in just a couple of moves.
Now, if Germany IS breaking through your lines and rushing toward Moscow, then I wouldn’t send any new units up to Karelia. You will need them all in the capital. Also, if Germany has managed to keep hold of some transports, like after a successful Sealion, then you could end up taking Norway just to give it right back and lose whatever units you used to take it.
Thank you, gentlemen, for the insightful responses. Reading them, I concur that against good German play, it’s probably something that Russia can’t afford to do under most circumstances. However, if it can be done, perhaps a G2 Barbarossa might just be the scenario where it fits in, strange as that may seem. It all strongly depends on the situation after G1, of course.
Imagine this: Germany prepares for a G2 attack on Russia, and for that purpose, buys land units only on G1. Germany also takes France and kills the British fleet, losing a few planes in the process. In addition, a few German planes are sent to Southern Italy to guard against a British Taranto attack. The Norway infantry steps into Finland, and as many units as possible are generally sent east.
Now Russia puts absolutely everything that can reach it, in Karelia. That’s 11 inf 1 art 2 AA 2 ftr 1 tac – and of course this shouldn’t be done if the entire Luftwaffe can hit it, but it’s quite enough to deter an attack from Finland supported by only a few planes.
If Germany ignores this on G3 and continues the invasion and the drive to Moscow as planned, then Russia can take Finland with relatively small losses. A few British planes can be sent to support the surviving Russian units, if necessary. Next round, the Russians will take Norway. There’s a big German force moving towards Moscow, but the extra income will allow Russia to build more while Germany builds less. Germany may counter by building transports G3, in order to recapture Finland if Russia takes it - but it would probably need at least three transports, and that would be money not spent on ground troops. Depending on the situation, Russia may then either still go for it, or take Finland with a smaller force and send some units back to Novgorod.
Alright…. it’s probably a dubious plan, anyway.
Sometimes this is a good idea… Usually it is not.
If it looks open and the German player isn’t doing a heavy push to Leningrad - do it. You get some extra bones and you cut into his bonus.
i agree with what most others have said so far…
sometimes its a good idea, most times its not. it depends on the baord situation. in the situation you describe i think it was the right choice, in a differnt situation…maybe not such a good idea. so my final answer…it maybe, maybe not…it depends.
@Herr:
Thank you, gentlemen, for the insightful responses. Reading them, I concur that against good German play, it’s probably something that Russia can’t afford to do under most circumstances. However, if it can be done, perhaps a G2 Barbarossa might just be the scenario where it fits in, strange as that may seem. It all strongly depends on the situation after G1, of course.
Imagine this: Germany prepares for a G2 attack on Russia, and for that purpose, buys land units only on G1. Germany also takes France and kills the British fleet, losing a few planes in the process. In addition, a few German planes are sent to Southern Italy to guard against a British Taranto attack. The Norway infantry steps into Finland, and as many units as possible are generally sent east.
Now Russia puts absolutely everything that can reach it, in Karelia. That’s 11 inf 1 art 2 AA 2 ftr 1 tac � and of course this shouldn’t be done if the entire Luftwaffe can hit it, but it’s quite enough to deter an attack from Finland supported by only a few planes.
If Germany ignores this on G3 and continues the invasion and the drive to Moscow as planned, then Russia can take Finland with relatively small losses. A few British planes can be sent to support the surviving Russian units, if necessary. Next round, the Russians will take Norway. There’s a big German force moving towards Moscow, but the extra income will allow Russia to build more while Germany builds less. Germany may counter by building transports G3, in order to recapture Finland if Russia takes it - but it would probably need at least three transports, and that would be money not spent on ground troops. Depending on the situation, Russia may then either still go for it, or take Finland with a smaller force and send some units back to Novgorod.Alright…. it’s probably a dubious plan, anyway.
As a response I would probably push up to Leningrad to trap your units and the SBR Moscow to reduce the income advantage you gained from the attack up north.
As a response I would probably push up to Leningrad to trap your units and the SBR Moscow to reduce the income advantage you gained from the attack up north.
Playing Russia, I would actually like Germany to do that. If they divert a significant force from Novgorod to recapture Norway, then those units won’t be going to Moscow any time soon. Suppose I have six surviving Russian land units in Norway, and the UK and US can land fighters there, then Germany needs to divert a lot of resources to take it.
I’m much more worried about a direct assault on Moscow, when the extra income gained by Russia and lost by Germany will probably arrive too late to make difference.
Maybe buy a transport R1 and place in sz 127. That would give u direct access to Finland and threaten Norway at the same time making Germany have to account for it.
Maybe buy a transport R1 and place in sz 127. That would give u direct access to Finland and threaten Norway at the same time making Germany have to account for it.
The problem is you only have to leave maybe 2 Infantry behind in Norway, and that TT is just going to get picked off by a German bomber for free.
Then u have a better chance at taking Finland if guys are left behind. I’ve never done it but I missed a perfect chance at doing it once. Germany had no transports and the whole air force was out of range. They were busy taking out the uk navy and the us navy.
I was just adding ideas to the thread. It’s only 7 ipcs and it makes Germany have to think of different scenarios to defend as opposed to pure offensive.
