Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
IMHO, looks pretty good, Admiral. Aligning v4's strategic Sweden situation w/ v1-2.2 timelines is a neat trick and I think you've pulled it off admirably.
|
Thanks!
Quote:
Since you asked for thoughts and suggestions, I think moving formations of corps/army size into an ostensibly neutral country requires a more compelling reason than "distraction". Invading Sweden certainly would "distract" the opposition, but it would also create more enemies.
Has Sweden abandoned its neutrality or otherwise provoked the Soviets? Perhaps one of the belligerents invades Sweden in an attempt to outflank strong defensive positions in N. Norway? But that would entail bringing a neutral nation into the war as an opponent, which seems very counterproductive. Sweden is no pushover.
-
|
Invading Sweden (or any neutral) does seem counterproductive, so I suppose some kind of provocation (by someone!) seems like a need.
SIDEBAR: I am a huge fan of GDW's Third World War series, and Arctic Front is my favorite title of the 4. I have invaded Sweden & Finland numerous times, I don't recall it really ever panning out for the Soviets, unless the campaign in Norway is also going swimmingly.
Trying to flank into Norway is a more likely possibility, but that still doesn't get me to use the shiny new map. A provocation by Sweden seems just as counterproductive; I'm at a loss to come up with something plausible.
It may be more useful to move the introduction of both sides to '97, but that upsets the really good semi-canon that's already out there.
I'll probably keep thinking about this, but for now, I just want to get a quick game in (3 sessions?) before the Thanksgiving-to-New Year's period that seems to prevent scheduling games.
Maybe I should just roll a die to see who "did something stupid this time"
1-2 NATO (read: the Americans)
3-4 the Swedes
5-6 the Pact (read: the Soviets)