💥 TRENDING: App/ - High Quality

Greetings, Commanders!

Following our first look at Scandinavia through Sweden, we now turn our attention southwest and northwest along NATO’s Northern Flank, to Denmark and to Norway. Both countries were historically neutral until the German occupation during World War II demonstrated the fallacy of this policy. They therefore became founding members of NATO in 1949, and as front-line members of the Atlantic Alliance their defence strategies and force structures grew increasingly similar. Both developed small yet balanced, conscription-based mobilisation forces designed to contain a territorial invasion until allied reinforcements could arrive. These were armies shaped by geography, demography, and a sober understanding of their place in a much larger conflict.

Unlike many Cold War armies, Denmark and Norway never planned to fight alone. Their defence concepts were inseparable from alliance warfare, and their national strategies were written with the expectation that the opening phase of any conflict would be fought under severe pressure, with limited margins for error.

Denmark’s strategic problem during the Cold War was brutally clear. It controlled the gateways between the Baltic and the North Sea, making it operationally vital far beyond its size. At the same time, this geography offered little depth and few natural obstacles. Danish defence planning therefore could not be limited to national territory alone. In the event of war, key parts of the Danish Army, most notably the Jutland Division, were expected to move south and integrate with German and allied formations to form LANDJUT, defending Schleswig-Holstein as part of a multinational corps. This meant that Danish units were not only preparing for a national last stand, but also for rapid mobilisation, movement under threat, and combat as part of a larger coalition on unfamiliar terrain.

Denmark even operated the F-35 (Draken) decades before it was fashionable, although this version solved its problems without stealth. Unlike the original Swedish interceptor, which had only limited air-to-ground capability, Denmark opted for a dedicated strike platform with excellent close air support performance.

Norway faced the opposite challenge. Vast distances, a long and broken coastline, and some of the most restrictive terrain in Europe defined Norwegian defence planning. The aim was not a decisive defensive battle at a single line, but a sustained national effort, delaying and disrupting an attacker across mountains, fjords, and narrow approaches, and surviving long enough for allied reinforcements to arrive. Light and medium forces, closely tied to their local areas, were expected to impose continuous friction rather than seek immediate resolution. Both approaches reflected the same underlying logic, but expressed through very different landscapes and operational assumptions.

Both countries shared one unavoidable constraint: small populations. Neither Denmark nor Norway could field large standing armies without exhausting their societies. Conscription and reserve systems were therefore not ideological choices, but necessities. This reliance on conscripts and reservists was both a strength and a vulnerability. On paper, it allowed the mobilisation of substantial forces. In practice, it meant that the early phase of a conflict would be fought by units still coming together, with varying levels of readiness and cohesion.

Material procurement was limited by the same small country constraints. The result was a force where older platforms were not anomalies, but integrated tools, used creatively to compensate for limited mass. In gameplay terms, Scandinavian units reward players who think in terms of roles and combined-arms cooperation, rather than brute force or technological superiority.

One notable contrast with Sweden lies in the use of air power. While Swedish air doctrine emphasized air defence and naval strikes, its western neighbours, operating as part of NATO’s integrated air structure, placed greater weight on direct battlefield support. Air assets were expected to shape the ground fight through strikes and interdiction. This has clear tactical implications. Air support is a tangible asset that must be timed, coordinated, and protected. Used well, it can compensate for limited ground mass. Used poorly, it is simply unavailable when most needed.

Yes, you are seeing that correctly. The presence of the F-16A reflects a broader reality of smaller European air arms during the late Cold War: standardisation. This left us little alternative but to include it, even if our design philosophy assumes that most air power would have been absorbed by deeper battles. As noted by contemporary air officers, tactical CAS would have been quite constrained, typically relying on dedicated platforms or helicopters rather than fast jets. It is likely that the F-16 will eventually trickle down to the US Air Force as well, though hopefully with a surprise or two along the way.

Taken together, Denmark and Norway complete the picture of Scandinavia as a region defined by defensive realism. These are armies built to operate outnumbered, accept limitations, and extract maximum effect from limited means. They are not about dominance, but about control of time, terrain, and escalation. And for commanders willing to think ahead, adapt quickly, and fight with restraint as well as resolve, Denmark and Norway offer some of the most rewarding challenges Armored Brigade II has to offer.

Alongside this DevDiary, we are opening a new beta build for the base game. This marks the beginning of a longer testing phase, and your feedback and suggestions will be essential. The update introduces a new camera mode, reworked anti-aircraft missile behaviour, and an initial implementation of AI stances that influence how formations interpret orders, whether defensive, neutral, or aggressive. We are starting with the Defend order first, but these are early steps toward a broader set of tactical AI behaviours intended to better express commander intent and reduce unnecessary micromanagement over time. This is currently STEAM ONLY, and can be accessed by: In Steam Library List

• Right Click Armored Brigade II (in list)

• Select Properties

• Select Betas

• In Beta Participation list (top right) select "beta - beta branch"

Until next time, and best wishes for the holidays and the New Year,

The Armored Brigade II Team