Please consider making sure Norway is woth capturing in HOI4

[tommylotto]

My point was that one can't make the whole game around an unspecified amount of people whose desires one can only guess about.

The people at Paradox are not stupid. I am sure they did some market surveys as Hoi3 became more and more historical through each DLC. I have no numbers to quote you either, but the direction Hoi3 developed would indicate to me that the numbers of players that wanted an historical WWII experience predominate, and not in an insignificant amount. The sandbox v. historical argument is as old as the hills. The slider suggestion by Beage is actually a compromise solution to make both camps happy. It's a win - win. I don't see how his suggestion could be controversial. Whether it could be feasibly adopted and adopted well is another question.

 

[Holy.Death]

Running on unconfirmed guesses isn't going to help us (it's still a guess). There are a lot of controversal changes in HoI4 as compared to HoI3 and going away from historical railroading is just one example (more focus on battle planning instead of micromanaging forces by mouse, big question mark hovering around divisional commanders, possible merging political and terrain map modes, to name only a few). What Beaga proposes can be regarded as a compromise, but of kind that satisfies neither side. I don't see a point in undermining the in-game logic - an thus putting the AI at a disadvantage - for the sake of making something historical, but that's just me.

 

[Tormodius]

Also it should be important for the Allies. For bombing and port facilities. Its strategic position, Norway as well as Sweden, flanking the northern part of Germany. Danish islands also. Very hard for Germany if such fell to Allies. This was one of Churchills main arguments for trying to take it back with the landings in 1940.

 

[Dalwin]

The people at Paradox are not stupid. I am sure they did some market surveys as Hoi3 became more and more historical through each DLC. I have no numbers to quote you either, but the direction Hoi3 developed would indicate to me that the numbers of players that wanted an historical WWII experience predominate, and not in an insignificant amount. The sandbox v. historical argument is as old as the hills. The slider suggestion by Beage is actually a compromise solution to make both camps happy. It's a win - win. I don't see how his suggestion could be controversial. Whether it could be feasibly adopted and adopted well is another question.

Actually I do see the slider idea as controversial. It might sound like a decent compromise on general principal, but it is a much different story when it comes down to practical application. Much of the historicity in HOI is created by a chain of linked events. I do not believe it is as simple as bringing a slider down a notch and having the game engine say "these events now go off with only 4/5 as much likelihood."

Having the developers devote lots of time to cobbling together some middle ground system with such settings would be, in my opinion, a waste of resouces that could be better spent elsewhere. One easy compromise would be a simple checkbox at game start for historical events. Uncheck the box and you have total sandbox, no events at all except for random ones giving a small boost or penalty to industrial efficency and such. There could be a similar checkbox for taking away the restrictions the game system generally places on things like democracies declaring war.

 

[shivan]

Well just put some iron rich provinces in Norway? If the german player can get the iron some other way then thats ok too.

 

[scroggin]

What if you turn it around. If the UK manages to take Norway first either by diplomacy (joining allies) or by force Germany would have steel problems that would not be easy to fix with british troops already in Scandinavia. As german player you would prefer status quo, but you never know for sure what the UK is planning. Taking Norway or not, and when to do it would be a tradeoff with resources/risk management etc. Having Norway would not give you much benefit in itself, it would rather be the safe option to avoid a potentially very bad situation.

Just having the possibility of UK actually invading first would make the strategic choices much more interesting for both sides. Because invading first should also come with some penalties for UK, for example diplomatically.

Should be easily doable withing existing game mechanics (HoI2/3), it just needs to be balanced out so no decision is a complete no-brainer.

That would be perfect. I would say that if the UK became the aggressor and Invaded Norway there should be a strong penalty to their NU and significant diplomatic effects. The USA certainly wouldn't have given much support to Britain prior to pearl harbour.

 

[Darkath]

Well just put some iron rich provinces in Norway? If the german player can get the iron some other way then thats ok too.

I'm pretty sure that's what they intend to do with the resource system based heavily on iron and rare metals.

 

[Beagá]

Well just put some iron rich provinces in Norway? If the german player can get the iron some other way then thats ok too.

No, it has to be something else. Through Norway should indeed give resources of its own, but that should be aluminum not steel/iron.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Sadly....with hind sight, Norway was not worth it for either side to take in WW2. Best way to deal with it is make sure the people playing the game forget that...so they can make the same mistakes that were made historically.

 

[Secret Master]

Sadly....with hind sight, Norway was not worth it for either side to take in WW2. Best way to deal with it is make sure the people playing the game forget that...so they can make the same mistakes that were made historically.

Oh, I don't know. Some folks in this thread with more historical knowledge than me have made some good points about Norway's usefulness.

There's a big difference between the following scenarios:

1) Conquer Norway and garrison with 300,000 men that could be used on the Eastern Front.

2) Conquer Norway and garrison it with 50,000 men to secure iron ore from Sweden and prevent the Allies from using it as a base to bomb Germany.

3) Basing 25,000 British troops there as a hedge against invasion, and keeping Norway from being used as a base to attack British shipping.

Scenario 1 is clearly a waste of resources. Scenarios 2 and 3 are not so clear cut thanks to geography.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Personally I see the best option as this:

Britain gets events to plan for Norway invasion. AI has 75% chance of doing so.
Germany gets events to plan for Norway invasion, initially 50% chance, but increases to 100% if british events goes.

If British capture Norway, Whatever Iron ore is being produced in the northern mines get 100% reduction in production, and every month 5% comes back, for a total of 20 months until full production resumes (or maybe 3% for 34 months). This simulates the British plan to land on Norway and destroy the mines. However this should also push Norway into axis with Germany, or become a puppet of Germany if Germany attacks back, and Sweden should never be able to become an Allied member and should be able to drift into the Axis easier.

If Germany captures Norway first, the mines do not get destroyed and everything that normally happens happens.

This gives Germany a very good reason to invade, or else they won't be able to trade for Iron for a significant part of the game, and since Iron is used for producing equipment now this is a pretty big deal.

 

[Darkshadows]

You could just puppet Norway and not bother putting any troops or thought to them after that

 

[scroggin]

Oh, I don't know. Some folks in this thread with more historical knowledge than me have made some good points about Norway's usefulness.

There's a big difference between the following scenarios:

1) Conquer Norway and garrison with 300,000 men that could be used on the Eastern Front.

2) Conquer Norway and garrison it with 50,000 men to secure iron ore from Sweden and prevent the Allies from using it as a base to bomb Germany.

3) Basing 25,000 British troops there as a hedge against invasion, and keeping Norway from being used as a base to attack British shipping.

Scenario 1 is clearly a waste of resources. Scenarios 2 and 3 are not so clear cut thanks to geography.

Britain carried out several commando raids on Norway and there was a strong resistance movement in Norway. Between them these convinced the germans that if they didn't have a significant force in Norway sooner or later they would be driven out. A D-day type invasion of Norway was always possible, and if Germany only had 50,000 troops there, it would be probable. The ability for Britain to severely cut Germanys steel production was just too tempting, and once the Germans had Invaded Norway there wasn't the political problems of Invading a neutral nation.

Edit; I just don't think it would have been viable for the Germans to Keep security over their Supply lines and Critical infrastructure with a small force. They would have been to vulnerable to attacks by resistance and commando forces.

 

[Beagá]

You could just puppet Norway and not bother putting any troops or thought to them after that

Don´t think you would get many willing norwegians to defend itself if a fascist government was put there. And those you get would have questionable loyalty.

 

[Secret Master]

Britain carried out several commando raids on Norway and there was a strong resistance movement in Norway. Between them these convinced the germans that if they didn't have a significant force in Norway sooner or later they would be driven out. A D-day type invasion of Norway was always possible, and if Germany only had 50,000 troops there, it would be probable. The ability for Britain to severely cut Germanys steel production was just too tempting, and once the Germans had Invaded Norway there wasn't the political problems of Invading a neutral nation.

Edit; I just don't think it would have been viable for the Germans to Keep security over their Supply lines and Critical infrastructure with a small force. They would have been to vulnerable to attacks by resistance and commando forces.

Then we're still back to "How much is Norway worth versus the garrison requirements?"

If 50,000 is too small, then 100,000 would be better and still not as costly as 300,000.

Keep in mind that I don't think Norway makes that great of an invasion target AND I don't think garrisoning the whole country is necessary to secure the iron.

Of course, any Operation Overlord style invasion could probably succeed. But, now we're playing the "How much did the Allies spend cutting Germany's supply of iron through Navik, and how much time did it take?" game (with some lovely prizes for the winner, I might add). If 100,000 troops tie down the Allies in Norway for 3 months, that's 3 months + who knows how many more not spent invading the industrial heartland of the Reich while the Soviets are either advancing towards Berlin (Operation Bagration) or fighting for their lives at Stalingrad (or even worse if its earlier).

The opportunity costs might be significant for both sides. At a certain point, Germany pays more to garrison it than it's worth, and at a certain point, the Allies spend more than the opportunity cost in time and manpower than it's worth to cut the resources.

 

[Praetori]

Sadly....with hind sight, Norway was not worth it for either side to take in WW2. Best way to deal with it is make sure the people playing the game forget that...so they can make the same mistakes that were made historically.

Had Germany not invaded Norway then the Allies probably would've (despite what happened in France), the operation was almost underway in any case on 9/April/1940 as shown by the first Allied landings only a few days later. Once there the threshold for moving onto the Swedish ore to "protect it" from the Germans was not far away (The Brits did thinking on those lines during the Winter War).
How Norway and Sweden would've reacted to the Allied "protection" is anyone's guess but the fact is that it might have served Germany better had it gone that way instead (possibly forcing Sweden into the Axis)

 

[Der Phonix]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet that Britain had plans of atttacking Norway. Germany knew of this so it's attack on Norway could also be considered a preemptive strike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4

Also, the Altmark incident, which essentially told the Germans that the Norwegians had sided with the British

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmark_Incident

 

[Liquid Sky]

Lets look at this from the allied perspective.

Do you: Invade a neutral Norway to occupy Narvik to prevent winter shipping of Iron Ore? And park a couple infantry divisions in garrison instead of in Egypt? Or in Britain to guard against a Sea Lion?

By the way, the Iron ore is still coming out of the ground in Sweden. And is getting stockpiled. When the weather clears, it will ship to Germany, so the Germans are not 'losing' the ore so much as just having it delayed.

Do the allies occupy the iron mines in Sweden? Now you will have all three of the Scandinavian countries fighting for the axis. Can the british handle the extra garrisons? Can they even fight a Norway/Sweden that is getting military help from Germany? Do you really want the 8th army in a POW camp in Norway instead of fighting in Egypt?


Even if the allies occupy the mines, how long are they really going to be able to hang on to them? With the Swedish/German army helped by Norwegian partisans.

The british are not going to get a lot of bombing done from Norway before the Germans take it back from them. And they will no longer have to use 300k troops to garrison a now axis friendly country.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Lets look at this from the allied perspective.

Do you: Invade a neutral Norway to occupy Narvik to prevent winter shipping of Iron Ore? And park a couple infantry divisions in garrison instead of in Egypt? Or in Britain to guard against a Sea Lion?

By the way, the Iron ore is still coming out of the ground in Sweden. And is getting stockpiled. When the weather clears, it will ship to Germany, so the Germans are not 'losing' the ore so much as just having it delayed.

Do the allies occupy the iron mines in Sweden? Now you will have all three of the Scandinavian countries fighting for the axis. Can the british handle the extra garrisons? Can they even fight a Norway/Sweden that is getting military help from Germany? Do you really want the 8th army in a POW camp in Norway instead of fighting in Egypt?


Even if the allies occupy the mines, how long are they really going to be able to hang on to them? With the Swedish/German army helped by Norwegian partisans.

The british are not going to get a lot of bombing done from Norway before the Germans take it back from them. And they will no longer have to use 300k troops to garrison a now axis friendly country.

Well except the allied plans were never to occupy Sweden, they were to land, capture and occupy Norway, and bomb and destroy Swedish ore mines... and they actually did plan to and DID land troops in Norway. Both German and British plans to attack Norway executed within 1 day of each other, it's just that German troops made it first.

 

[Beagá]

Do the allies occupy the iron mines in Sweden? Now you will have all three of the Scandinavian countries fighting for the axis. Can the british handle the extra garrisons? Can they even fight a Norway/Sweden that is getting military help from Germany? Do you really want the 8th army in a POW camp in Norway instead of fighting in Egypt?


Even if the allies occupy the mines, how long are they really going to be able to hang on to them? With the Swedish/German army helped by Norwegian partisans.

The british are not going to get a lot of bombing done from Norway before the Germans take it back from them. And they will no longer have to use 300k troops to garrison a now axis friendly country.

False.

Germany invading Norway isn´t the same as UK invading Norway and to expect drastic diplomatic incident with Sweden for example, specially if they don´t go all the way with the plan, is nonsense. Germany was widely recognized as much more agressive. Besides, the plan was only occupying Narvik and not all of Norway. The brits were more than aware that complete occupation was pointless.