[WarInEur] RE: finnish front motivations and penalties.

[Wardall Clark]

The scenario set up instructions indicate that the Finnish front continued to tie up 20 x 1-4s for the Soviets through July of 1944. 
Hence any abandonment of the front is a kludge. BWIE contains the proper motivation for a Finnish front defense,  Lend lease is coming in through Murmansk 
and Arkhangelsk and since it is harder to push the Finns back and rebuild the rail line than simply to defend 
these hexes in the first place, it is in the Soviets interest to try to make a defense. 
 
It seems to me that any campaign scenario must include the lend Lease rules, while any standard scenario other than the 1944 
scenarios should simply exclude the map sections and units to the north of Lake Lagoda . 
 
Clearly, Finnish participation in WWII has to be coded as an option
Historical Option A: Finland fights the Winter War and then offers limited help to Germany in 1941-19i44.  Finnish movements and 
attacks are limited  by FIAT to a certain part of the board. 
Historical Option B: Use winter War 1941 boundaries but simply omit large chunks of the Soviet, Axis and Finnish OOB as the 
front north of Lake Lagoda is presumed to stagnate in Nov 1941 when the Finns reach the limit of their territorial Ambitions. 
Full  Participation Option C:  The Finns act as full Axis allies with the only restriction being that once 4? Finnish divisions 
have been flipped then the Finns may only attack within Finnish Territory. Nonparticipation Option D: The Winter War is not fought, so the border is different and Finland is a Pro-Allied Neutral. 
In setting up the code for option A, Hanson's suggestion is on the mark. The Finns simply cannot enter Soviet Zones of 
control over parts of the map outside the territorial ambitions of the FInnish government.  Given the length of the front
this should tie up about 20 soviet divisions. 
 
-Bob_
> > 1. In re Finland (Hansen)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:33:39 -0500> From: "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] In re Finland > Kent brings up a good point in regards to Finland. > > I would suggest an alternative to how to handle the Finish front.> > 1) I would make the penalty for not maintaining the rail line (not just a> LOC) from Murmansk to Siberia (the great motherland of Russian supply) to be> a production penalty (say 5% or 10% reduction in Arms point production).> This would generally be worth more to both sides (in keeping or removing)> than political points and it better reflects the importance of Murmansk,> which was not political but for Western supply.> > 2) I would change the Finnish restriction to not being able to enter a> Soviet ZOC outside of Finland (or maybe X hexes outside of Finland) until> Leningrad has fallen. So the Finns can move if the Russians don't shield> them, but not much of a shield is needed. The beginning screen of 1-4 are> sufficient to protect the Murmansk railroad and thus the western supply.> After Leningrad falls, the normal restrictions can apply.> > Game wise this hurts the soviets as they lose the gamey use of the Finnish> front troops, don't have the magical force field that pens the Finns up> north and currently have no reason to protect Murmansk or the railhead. I> honestly don't know enough about the real world Finnish front to know if the> Soviets stripped it or not. 
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071016/a2249e63/attachment-0001.html