Taking Scandinavia is beneficial for campaign in Russia too, I believe, just to deny it to the Soviets and keep them busy in the north.
Any reason to invade Norway?
- Thread starter Gefallener_Held
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In theory, isn't protecting a coast easier than defending the would-be Swedish-Norwegian border?
As said earlier in this thread, you did not have any real reason to invade Denmark/Norway as Germany in HOI3 either, however, it would be nice if you HAD to, there was a need to. For instance block of Skagerack or similar. If you didn't take out Denmark/Norway, you could risk invasions in northern Germany, perhaps a strategic effect as they where in HOI3 by controlling these two countries.
But it would also be very nice if invading and occupying actually had some real costs and risks to it. That you needed garrisons. In my opinion, you don't really need it in HOI4, except to kick out potential silly invasions. There are no uprisings and no "real" need to use garrison troops. In HOI3 I placed a lot of garrison troops in occupied territories, you needed them to put down uprisings, I also roleplay a bit, and use Ortskommandanturen/Oberfeldkommandturen etc. I also try, not always possible though, to mirror the real OOB, regarding actual garrison troops, down to the regiments placed where (I rename everything too).
In HOI3 you had a reason to garrison areas because of uprisings, but this is an area I deeply miss in HOI3 - and I know many hated the uprisings in HOI3 - I was just not one of them. I loved the uprisings to be honest.
But it would also be very nice if invading and occupying actually had some real costs and risks to it. That you needed garrisons. In my opinion, you don't really need it in HOI4, except to kick out potential silly invasions. There are no uprisings and no "real" need to use garrison troops. In HOI3 I placed a lot of garrison troops in occupied territories, you needed them to put down uprisings, I also roleplay a bit, and use Ortskommandanturen/Oberfeldkommandturen etc. I also try, not always possible though, to mirror the real OOB, regarding actual garrison troops, down to the regiments placed where (I rename everything too).
In HOI3 you had a reason to garrison areas because of uprisings, but this is an area I deeply miss in HOI3 - and I know many hated the uprisings in HOI3 - I was just not one of them. I loved the uprisings to be honest.
Actually there is a reason to invade Denmark, which is why I do it simultaneously with Fall Weiss.
These are far from free, especially if you have real opposition. Even if Norway capitulates which is far from certain, you then have to put troops there to garrison the country. It is a very easy target for Allied naval invasion so a small token garrison will not suffice.
In MP I have seen games where all of Scandinavia remains neutral. I have also seen games where the entire region is a hotspot with the potential to have any of the three main factions projecting power into the area.
The irony of weather patterns and water depths is why. Swedish ports in the Baltic freeze over for several months of the year while the Norwegian port of Narvik remains open.
Last edited:
What is the reason? Well. Denmark may declare war on you of course (silly enough, not sure if it still can happen after the patches).
Invade Denmark to close the strait, blocking off the Baltic to enemies. Substantially eliminates concerns about AI naval invasions on the Baltic coast (still a hassle on the North Sea/Atlantic coasts).
Tbh i've never seen that much fighting over Scandinavia in mp, the soviets normally have other priorities and if I remember right the allied air cannot reach and landing in bad terrain without air cover is rarely going to go well but i'll have to look later see if I am missing something
If the Allies choose they can pretty easily hold northern Norway. It is not hard. There is no reason for them to have to invade later.
In MP it makes sense for various reasons. In SP it really doesn't. What WOULD make sense in-game is if you got some automatic minor addition to naval superiority in the sea-zones adjacent to territory that you control and that it would be further affected by naval forts. Add to that a new mechanic that doesn't like to route convoys or navies through hostile sea-zones (ie the English Channel etc) and Norway would actually be something you'd want.
The current navy routing is a bit silly since navies based out of Norway will still mostly crawl through the channel to and from operating areas in the Atlantic instead of the GIUK-gap, and don't get me started on convoys.
The current navy routing is a bit silly since navies based out of Norway will still mostly crawl through the channel to and from operating areas in the Atlantic instead of the GIUK-gap, and don't get me started on convoys.