Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13
I agree but until I have full knowledge about what the contents of all the Finnish books are, I would probably not use all caps. There appears to be a serious disconnect within books published by the same author(s), so who knows what might be in print somewhere.
|
The exact expression in the 2.2 main rulebook is "the two least damaged armies in Europe" from the timeline, from the spring of 1997. After that, Finland and Sweden aren't mentioned anymore in the timeline.
It of course helps that this campaign was fought in Lapland, which has low population and little infrastructure to be damaged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
We had a discussion recently about Australia and whether or not it would have been nuked. As a country not involved in the multiple wars in the northern hemisphere (although possibly in Korea as part of the UN), and the fact it's on the other side of the planet, the concensus was the country WAS nuked. A country in the direct line of fire such as Finland (and possibly Sweden) wouldn't have had a chance.
|
I actually read the Australia thread and didn't reach the same conclusions
What I consider the most important criteria for justifying military activity in the context of the game is "What is the strategic gain?". Denying the enemy strategic resources is of course a net gain, but it has to be weighted with other strategical considerations. Extending the all-out war isn't always good, especially if the nuclear strikes are done as a part of limited nuclear war.