Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E HOI - Sweden, Dennmark, Finnland, Norway, Iceland

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
What about the obvious tech gap that the scandinavian nations suffer? Historically, at least Norway would buy equipment from abroad, but now they have to research and and then build it, leaving them with very primitive tech, even if they join the allies.

Maybe there are some tweaks/events we could do to speed up the this?

IMO, the Norwegian Army was/is masters of fighting at home in difficult cold terrain, as seen in areas where they were NOT surprised, (and had actually organized themselvs) by the Wehrmacht. But, gamewise, even if you are expecting an attack, and can see the forces closing in, you can't really do anything against the germans.
 
Originally posted by Galleblære
What about the obvious tech gap that the scandinavian nations suffer? Historically, at least Norway would buy equipment from abroad, but now they have to research and and then build it, leaving them with very primitive tech, even if they join the allies.

Maybe there are some tweaks/events we could do to speed up the this?

IMO, the Norwegian Army was/is masters of fighting at home in difficult cold terrain, as seen in areas where they were NOT surprised, (and had actually organized themselvs) by the Wehrmacht. But, gamewise, even if you are expecting an attack, and can see the forces closing in, you can't really do anything against the germans.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes you can. ;)

But face it, the Norwegian army the 9th of April was crap, but could've beaten the Germans back, had they been mobilised when the general staff urged it to be. The foreign equipment was basically a boat or two and some airplanes (Gloster Gladiators). What they requested from the UK once the war was on (artillery support and more heavy machine guns, as the Madsen was crap at winter, being water cooled), they never got.
 
Maybe I wasn't that clear, but I mean on Norwegian ground, a fully ready national division would have a greater chance of winning against a german division invading, but in HoI, a one on one battle always goes to the germans most of the time due to their much higher organization and higher techs. But Norway is a special case, as the terrain didn't exacly suit the germans, and they on top of that have to deal with the british navy to even get there.

But I haven't really played HoI since 1.02, so maybe things have changed a bit.

But what is your oppinion on the tech issue? If I as Norway join the allies before Germany invades or does invade, don't you think I should get some allied equipment and support? Specially later when the US comes into the picture.
 
Originally posted by Galleblære
But what is your oppinion on the tech issue? If I as Norway join the allies before Germany invades or does invade, don't you think I should get some allied equipment and support? Specially later when the US comes into the picture.
Click to expand...

This would then set a precedent for every nation and I don't think it's appropriate that you get instant free tech transfer just by joining an alliance. The tech share system is already there (via diplo) and once you've joined you may or may not receive tech from your allies. Add events for Norway and IMHO you'll soon have to add events for every nation that joins an alliance.


Funny footnote: As Germany I once ended up receiving tech from Vichy France :D
 
Originally posted by Steel
This would then set a precedent for every nation and I don't think it's appropriate that you get instant free tech transfer just by joining an alliance. The tech share system is already there (via diplo) and once you've joined you may or may not receive tech from your allies. Add events for Norway and IMHO you'll soon have to add events for every nation that joins an alliance.


Funny footnote: As Germany I once ended up receiving tech from Vichy France :D
Click to expand...
I agree with Steel :D
 
@Juba:
your events will obligate the AI almost all the time to form that alliance...
So, you took a "historical situation" to trigger that event BUT you raise a lot of "ahistorical events" .... and they will almost always take place (i think ALWAYS)... so i think you must rework them to be included.
So, from 10 games you will end in 9 games with Sweden, Norway and Finland at war with the soviets... that's not good.

:D
 
Originally posted by Generalisimo
@Juba:
your events will obligate the AI almost all the time to form that alliance...
So, you took a "historical situation" to trigger that event BUT you raise a lot of "ahistorical events" .... and they will almost always take place (i think ALWAYS)... so i think you must rework them to be included.
So, from 10 games you will end in 9 games with Sweden, Norway and Finland at war with the soviets... that's not good.

:D
Click to expand...

I've already reworked them quite a bit and they are nearly finished but for some reason the events crash when I try to trigger one event while for others they work fine.

Currently the chain goes like this:

1. Finland a) Attempt to form the alliance b) Forget about it
2. SU a) Oppose the alliance (makes it more unlikely) b) stop it completely c) do nothing - I still might switch a) and b) around and maybe add a d) that is a copy of c)
3. (if not blocked by SU) Sweden a) Join the alliance b) Forget about it (this way if unblocked inverted with c) and d) as copy's of b) if the SU opposes however I haven't finished that yet)
4. Norway a) Forget about it b) Join
5. Denmark a) Forget about it b) Join - both 4 and 5 could be the other way around depending on the SU's response
 
The idea of a Nordic alliance is very far-fetched. In fact the Scandinavian kings and the Finnish president had a meeting in Malmö in october 1939 where the neutrality of their countries was stated.

I have never heard of any ideas concerning Swedish partcipation in such an alliance and it would have gone against the time and again stated foreign policies of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. The only exception is the so called Stockholm-plan. According to this plan all defenses of the Åland group of islands could be taken care of jointly or in coordination by Sweden and Finland. International agreements banned (and actually still ban) permanent defense installations and stationing of troops in the Islands in time of peace. Sweden and Finland had worked out how to station troops there if there was a direct threat to the island and to the two countries. There was no agreement to do so however. Also the plan included a study of possible locations for laying lines of naval mines. Sweden planned two lines of naval mines. Laying them would prevent hostile naval forces from going north of the Åland islands. Both lines unfortunately happened to lie partly on international waters. The Russians didn´t object, but the Germans, oddly, did. Sweden decided to lay just one of the lines all the same. The true military effectiveness of this line was questionable since it was not "tight" enough and since the other line was not laid. However the Germans and Russians seem to have respected the mine line anough to have suspended all operations north of Åland.

The only other discussions on Sweden abandoning its neutrality were made when the war was already in progress. This is sometihing completely different though. Some higher officers (notably Generals Rappe, Douglas and Ehrensvärd IIRC) wanted Sweden to join Finland against the Russians in the winter war. They received hardly any political support. Also later in the war Sweden was prepared, as has been said earlier in this thread, to attack not only the German troops in Norway to liberate our western brethren but also the Jerries in Denmark to liberate our southern brethren. This would have meant that we would have joined the allies.


Mef
 
Originally posted by Mefistofeles
The idea of a Nordic alliance is very far-fetched. In fact the Scandinavian kings and the Finnish president had a meeting in Malmö in october 1939 where the neutrality of their countries was stated.

I have never heard of any ideas concerning Swedish partcipation in such an alliance and it would have gone against the time and again stated foreign policies of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. The only exception is the so called Stockholm-plan. According to this plan all defenses of the Åland group of islands could be taken care of jointly or in coordination by Sweden and Finland. International agreements banned (and actually still ban) permanent defense installations and stationing of troops in the Islands in time of peace. Sweden and Finland had worked out how to station troops there if there was a direct threat to the island and to the two countries. There was no agreement to do so however. Also the plan included a study of possible locations for laying lines of naval mines. Sweden planned two lines of naval mines. Laying them would prevent hostile naval forces from going north of the Åland islands. Both lines unfortunately happened to lie partly on international waters. The Russians didn´t object, but the Germans, oddly, did. Sweden decided to lay just one of the lines all the same. The true military effectiveness of this line was questionable since it was not "tight" enough and since the other line was not laid. However the Germans and Russians seem to have respected the mine line anough to have suspended all operations north of Åland.

The only other discussions on Sweden abandoning its neutrality were made when the war was already in progress. This is sometihing completely different though. Some higher officers (notably Generals Rappe, Douglas and Ehrensvärd IIRC) wanted Sweden to join Finland against the Russians in the winter war. They received hardly any political support. Also later in the war Sweden was prepared, as has been said earlier in this thread, to attack not only the German troops in Norway to liberate our western brethren but also the Jerries in Denmark to liberate our southern brethren. This would have meant that we would have joined the allies.


Mef
Click to expand...
he got a point Juba... :rolleyes:
what are you goind to do? :confused:
 
I think the only time a scandinavian defense treaty was almost a reality was after WW2, but i fell apart because some members were not prepared to join the war (Sweden I think) if the other contries were attacked. Instead, Norway and Denmark joined Nato, and Sweden and Finland stayed netural.
 
Originally posted by Juba
Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

My pleasure.

I´m fiddling about looking for some further info on the Stockholm plan. I think a pretty good and realistic event could be made out of that. First the Paradox winter war would fire. If Sweden decides not to go to war the Stockholm plan event could fire with various interesting choices. I´ll keep fiddling a bit and get back when I have some more stuff. I´m also looking at some other Nordic events. The "Three-king meeting", various "the Germans demand transitory rights" (permittenttrafik etc.), “trade of iron ore to Germany”, and a few more are ideas. The problem is I can´t event script but I´m trying to learn (using the eminent Havard bible), and I´ll come back with the stuff once its done.



Mef
 
Originally posted by Mefistofeles
My pleasure.

I´m fiddling about looking for some further info on the Stockholm plan. I think a pretty good and realistic event could be made out of that. First the Paradox winter war would fire. If Sweden decides not to go to war the Stockholm plan event could fire with various interesting choices. I´ll keep fiddling a bit and get back when I have some more stuff. I´m also looking at some other Nordic events. The "Three-king meeting", various "the Germans demand transitory rights" (permittenttrafik etc.), “trade of iron ore to Germany”, and a few more are ideas. The problem is I can´t event script but I´m trying to learn (using the eminent Havard bible), and I´ll come back with the stuff once its done.



Mef
Click to expand...
ok, we will be waiting... :D
currently there is not much events for the scandinavian countries so it is a bit boring when you are not at war... ;) :D
any event is welcomed.

:D
 
Originally posted by Galleblære
I think the only time a scandinavian defense treaty was almost a reality was after WW2, but i fell apart because some members were not prepared to join the war (Sweden I think) if the other contries were attacked. Instead, Norway and Denmark joined Nato, and Sweden and Finland stayed netural.
Click to expand...


Yep, but the Scandinavian defense union was actually suggested and primarily promoted by Sweden in 1948 (after Finland left its neutrality and signed the friendship and cooperation treaty with the USSR). Norway was reluctant and joined NATO instead. Denmark was positive but decided to also join NATO when it was clear Norway would. Thus the idea was killed by Norway. IIRC there were some hurt feelings among Swedish top level politicians and military brass because of how Norway made its decison. I believe they felt the Norwegians had not disclosed information about negotiating with the US.

Btw Finland was not invited. The Russkies wouldn´t have liked that much. The friendship and cooperation treaty also pretty much precluded Finland from being considered as neutral. It was definitely under the Soviet jack-boot in the late forties and fifties.


Mef
 
There may be different "versions" of what happened out there, but like I said earlier, what I was taught in school long ago, was that before Norway joined Nato, the scandinavian defense pact was shot down becuase IE, Norway was invaded by the USSR, wich was quite probable at one point, Sweden would not join the war on Norway side totally, but but offer everything they could, whilst still staying neutral. Naturally, this was not good enough for Norway, so they joined Nato.

Found a quote from the internet that sums it up pretty nice:

"A chief concern of the Scandinavian countries during the postwar period was with military security. Negotiations among Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in 1948–49 on a joint defense pact broke down when Denmark and Norway (together with Iceland) decided to join the North Atlantic Treaty, while Sweden was determined to do nothing that might impair its traditional neutrality. Finland likewise tried to maintain a middle course, constrained by Soviet overtures for more cordial relations."
 
There's some problems with the Winter War events that lead to peace for Sweden and Finland. It caused some serious issues for one player (see here).


I think a quick fix would be modified peace events for Finland and Sweden that check that they are NOT part of the allies or the axis.
 
I'm not going to quote so much so I just get right to the point.
This is what my school book say:
"It was particulary Norway and Sweden who was opposing each other. Norway wanted to tie the alliance to the west (USA and UK etc.) Sweden didn't. Then Sweden made it clear that they couldn't help to defend Northern Norway, Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Also, Norway could aquire cheap weapons easier through NATO."

I think we have made it clear...
 
Also, in the theoretic Scandinavian Defense treaty, the Swedish Weapons Industry would have gotten the main contracts, so Sweden and it's industry would be the "winner". Nationalism aside, this just wasn't good enough for specially Norway, and to a degree Denmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back