Who do you prefer to take Finland/Norway with?

  • Another thread made me think of this question. I’ve had this discussion with friends and was curious to see what others think.

    The actual opportunity can differ from game to game according to builds, but in general - which Allied country would you prefer to take Finland/Norway with and why?

  • always Russia, they need the IPC’s more than any other allied country

  • 2007 AAR League

    I agree with Mr. G, however Finland/Norway can be a very useful spot for an American IC. Never actually tried it considering America is two spaces from France anyway, but it might be interesting to try.

  • Moderator

    I like taking it on Russia 2.

  • Most of the time I will attack Fin w/US on round 2. I can send 6 inf, 1 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmb for a good overkill (1-2 defending hits) + Russia can keep maximum pressure on EEu. Those US units can then trade Ukr (arm) and help Mos pretty quick.

    I dont like putting a US ic on Fin. In case of a tech war it will be very advantegous for the Japs who can also SBR the US now.

  • I’m also a Russia-2 person. I never liked the US IPC in Finland either - an extra 2 transports costs the same and have more versatility.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Russia, definately. It’s the most secured allied zone for the controller of any zone on the map except the America’s and maybe Madagascar. Meanwhile, Russia needs the assistance from the extra IPCs to make up for Japan’s taking of their eastern boarders.

  • In my games it is usualy R but consiering by level of expertise that shuold count as a negitve vote, use me as a reverse beromator. Probably because of sheer ignorance both myself and the main person I play stauchly defend Finland to prevent a quick alllied preseance to help R. For better ( I am learing for worse) we land lots of Fs after round one. Neither B or U can then take it and if R does on round 2 it takes a very high cost and it seams that little is left to defend Karellia or Moscow

  • Moderator

    Now, if Germany lands lots of ftrs in fin on Rd 1 (to hold Fin for rd 2), you must attack to take those ftrs out, IMO.

    Now based on your other posts about your games, I’m assuming Ger is attacking Kar on rd 1.

    But assuming you hold Kar, and have a few inf in Kar left over with 3 arm and 2 ftrs, you can attack Fin with everything you got in Kar (to kill the ftrs), then place only 1 inf in Kar, and the rest in Moscow. Now you’ve set a little trap for the Germans. If they attack Kar you can hit them with your combined forces from Mos and Fin and easily reclaim it. However, if things go bad, you can “leap frog retreat” and retreat everything back to Moscow after you do a round or two of strafing to weaken the Germans.

    Again though, I think you’ll stop seeing Germany load up in Fin if you stack 19 inf, 3 arm, 2 ftrs in Kar at the end of Russia 1. Again, there is no way Germany can hit this on G1 without bringing in all their airforce (or a bid), getting extremely lucky and even then they only hold with an arm while losing all their air. Which means UK can counter with 2 inf, 1 arm, planes and BB shot, then Russia can still place 8 inf on Kar in rd 2.

  • It depends on Germany and how much UK navy is left, but most of the time I do it on R2, if there is a fighter stack there I have to wait until R4 or UK4 depending on the navy again.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No, if Russia puts 19 inf in Karelia, I’ll stack Caucasus and pull back into E. Europe. They can take Ukraine and Cauc again, but so what? It’s a minor set back that forces the Russians to move where you want them to move, and they’ll have to move at least 2 infnatry, probably 3 into cauc to kill the 1 or 2 German’s there (assuming transported with BB assistance on G1) which is 3 less infantry in Karelia.

  • Moderator

    That doesn’t really help the Germans though, they just sacrificed 3 inf (2 cauc, 1 ukr for nothing as well)

    Say, G takes Cauc with 2 inf (rus left 1), G leaves 1 inf in Ukr.

    Rus can hit Fin, Ukr and Cauc all on rd 2.

    Fin - 3 inf, 1 arm vs. 3 inf, 3 arm
    Cauc - 2 inf vs. 3 inf, 1 arm
    Ukr - 1 inf vs. 2 inf, 2 ftrs

    That leaves 11 inf in Kar, so you place 8 inf there again gives you 19 plus 4 ftrs (2 R, 2 UK), and after US 2, you’ll have 5-6 ftrs there.

    No way in heck will G attack Kar on G2. Even if they take it, you can counter with 7-8 inf, 4 arm with Russia.

  • I am fairly new to Axis and Allies, but in most of my experience thus far, Finland/Norway seems to matter little to any country. It’s a nice little 2 IPC’s for whoever controls it, but it doesn’t seem to factor into the big picture in many of the games I’ve played. Generally, if Russia is defending Karelia well, Germany really can’t really use the land units there offensively, especially if they have no transport in the area (which they shouldn’t unless the Allies have really goofed or have the worst dice rolling luck ever). However, unless Russia is having a really good day, they probably can’t spare the infantry to take over Finland/Norway until Germany’s goose is so cooked it doesn’t matter who takes Finland/Norway. Unless Germany is kind enough to allow the UK to have a navy, the UK can’t land any troops there, and any air units they would use to soften it up for an assault by the US or Russia could probably be better used elsewhere. Finally, the US has the troops to spare and the ability to get them to Finland/Norway, but why land troops there instead of somewhere in Africa, Western Europe, or even Spain if you have 3 IPC’s to spare. There are more IPC’s to gain elsewhere that are also more strategic.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The two biggest reasons for taking Finland/Norway is 1. The British can freely bridge troops over allowing for the support of Karelia and 2. It could turn into an important staging ground for US troops. However, I wouldn’t call Finland/Norway a vital part of the game. As someone mentioned earlier, the Germans could even turn this into a trap if Karelia is successfully taken.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    And three, it allows Russia to recoup the loss of land in SFE bringing them back to a net of 24 IPCs or 8 infantry instead of 22 IPCs and 7 infantry.

    Yea, it’s only 2 IPCs, but they can make a difference.

  • I think that u should take Norway/Finland with America so that u can purchase a factory there if the Germans arent in range or do not have control of of Kerelia.so that u can build forces and help Russia.

  • I think it might depend on the ruleset you play. If playing w/o bids, it may be as good to take it w/Rus or UK.

    Anyway, an article has been written by a former GOA in Spring at that time, involving an ic in Fin. I might not agree w/the ic idea, but reading this can be interesting/fun:


  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator


    I think that u should take Norway/Finland with America so that u can purchase a factory there if the Germans arent in range or do not have control of of Kerelia.so that u can build forces and help Russia.

    I think you are financially better off shuffling troops via transport then building an IC in Europe with America. 2 inf + 1 trans = 14 IPCs, 1 IC + 2 Inf = 21 IPCs. Also, if Fin/Nor falls, your transport can move troops elsewhere instead of just fin/nor.

  • yeah, what she said. i use the russians or the brits. they both need the cash.

  • there are times when it is more appropriate to take finland with one of the allies than it is with any of the others.

    when to take with russia:

    1. on R1 when the axis have bid a PE (7 or 8 units in eeu/ukr) and the allies decide they want to try a “backstep”, that is abandon karelia and stack in rus, f/n and/or cau to create a nightmare counterattack for any germans wishing to take and hold karelia.
    2. on R2 when dice have gone “average” and russia can afford to not stack every unit in karelia.

    when to take with britain:

    1. on B1 when the germans have had a weak or mixed start. maybe one uk battleship and transport have survived and/or africa has gone badly. on B1 the priority should be to deal with the german navy, and then with germans in africa. if the germans have lost their entire navy and africa has gone poorly (or even if africa has gone too well to deal with on B1) then sending 2-4inf, 2ftr, 1bmb, 1bb against 3inf, 1arm in f/n really frees up russia to have a BIG R2.
    2. rarely on B2 if the russians have their backs against the wall in karelia and need to stack everything in karelia on R2. even in such a case, it is usually a better idea to try to take lightly with russia on R2.
    3. if an R2 attack of Xinf, 3arm leaves only 1 german armour in f/n with no losses for the russians, i will sometimes, retreat and let the british mop up the mess. that way the germans have no threat on karelia, even if the russians build mostly in moscow to meet the sprawling japanese monster on turn 2.

    when to take with usa:

    1. on U1 when britain has cleared but not taken f/n.
    2. on U1 when germany as somehow managed to take karelia on G1. this allows britain to concentrate on weu on B1 and weu/eeu/kar on B2.
    3. in any game that looks desperate for the allies from the get go you need to concentrate as much wealth as possible in the hands of usa. if the axis get off to a great start tech is the only thing that will help the allies. when fighting a tech war consolidate as much money as possible in the hands of one nation (usually usa or japan) and hope for the best.

    when to take with usa or uk, but not russia:

    1. in any game where russia is in jeopardy of falling to the axis. if russia holds f/n, but the axis have moscow, the allies will often miss out on collecting 2-4 ipcs while they struggle to get back or at least trade f/n.

    disclaimer: i never plan to take with one particular ally. i always attack when i sense i can do the most damage for the least cost or for the least opportunity lost. most often, i find that i take on R2. but i like it best when i get the opportunity to take on B1/U1!

    hope this analysis helps!

  • for the allies:

    1. take it quickly! every ipc in this game is critical (even madagascar)!
    2. don’t build an industrial complex there! transporting troops is much, much, much cheaper and faster in the long run.
    3. don’t build an industrial complex there! i know i already said this, but there is another major problem. many, if not most, games come down to teching in the end. what often saves the allies behind is that the usa is generally very difficult for the axis to sbr with their heavies. building an IC in f/n negates this advantage.
    4. try to think of the situation in tactical terms. attack when it is most convenient - in most games it doesn’t matter too much which ally is collecting the extra 2ipc as long as they didn’t give up much to get it.

    for the axis:

    1. consider every turn you manage to hold onto f/n as a gift. germany’s reign in scandinavia is doomed to failure!
    2. elaborate plans to hold f/n for an extra turn or two (like landing the entire luftwafe there, retreating into sweden or reinforcing with any remaining transports) usually involve giving up more than you get. (although, there is a time and place for just about every strategy).
    3. we just have to accept that usually the most effective use of those 3inf, 1arm in f/n is to keep russia from heading east one turn earlier. when russia takes f/n on R2 adjust your japanese plan to take advantage of the lack of russian troops on the eastern front. for that reason alone (and usually for many others) the german strafe and retreat to eeu is often a bad idea. don’t regard your units in f/n as just a bunch of guys who are going to get picked off! make the allies work for it!
    4. if germany takes karelia but the allies insist on stacking in f/n use it to your advantage! usually germany can pull off an extremely efficient strafe in that situation, allowing them to keep maximum pressure on russia.

    happy hunting!!

  • '19 Moderator

    Either Russia or Britain whom ever gets there first. I prefer Russia, but quickly is more important.

  • Quite a detailed analysis by Hamar, I can agree pretty much.
    It also depends on the ruleset, as has been stated before. I often play with Soviet Sovereignty (also known as Stalinist Xenophobia or Paranoia) where UK/US troops or forces may not enter Soviet held territory as long as the SU is alive. In that case Finnland/Norway is not important for funneling Western troops to the Soviets, while the West can support the Soviets less in other ways than letting them have F/N.
    Even without this rule, in most cases Russia can get as well as use it best. So my vote would be for Russia.

  • I play with high bids and allowing Russia to attack on the first round, so I usually attack Finland-Norway on the first round if I’m Russia. It’s good income for the Soviets.

  • With a 8 inf PE bid spread over Ukr/EEU those units might be trapped in Fin.

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 5
  • 11
  • 4
  • 24
  • 3
  • 21
  • 44
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures