Terif - Turkish Question

[Jollyguy]

Terif, I’m thinking Turkey may not be totally fixed and welcome your comments. Not that Turkey needs to be an unassailable position for the Axis, but in my game with Blashy he was able to take the far eastern Turkish city in one turn and fairly easily using motorization II tanks and corps. If the Axis can do that, the Russians will have a hard time carrying on, and if not fixed, a ban on Axis Turkish invasions may be in order.

In my Turkish campaign I was able to amphip over a Russian corp to the center Turkish city, and then another, which Blashy initially had tried to isolate with two tanks. What he did then was have his two tanks turn west toward Ankara to join up with two corps moving east, and eventually took out my Turkish corp, and moved another corp across the isthmus to fully concentrate on Ankara. I advanced on the Eastern city, where he went on the defensive. I haven’t looked at my latest turn, but IMO it is likely that Ankara will fall and the Turks surrender, as he has three airfleets around Istanbul in addition to the three corps and two tanks, so I just don’t see the Turks surviving another turn. Once they surrender he can start operating/moving east with a substantial force.

IMO I put up an effective Turkish defense, with the only thing I could have done differently was to have motorization. But I don’t think that would have made a strategic difference, just allowed me to possibly take the eastern city and destroy

another unit or two. But then he could have garrisoned that city a bit better too, as currently he has a no-tech Italian Army in there. Put a German Army in there, and it is doubtful that I could take the city.

One possible solution might be that if Iraq actually joins the Axis and/or Syria is activated, is to have Turkey post some garrison corps southward, to reflect additional concern about military developments on that border. I also think the center city that is currently un-garrisoned needs a corp, as currently it can be taken by a paratroop.

If Turkey falls IMO Blashy will have a much better chance than not of prevailing in the game, as my Russians are already stretched fairly thin,. Having an exposed Caucusses will make it that much more difficult.

Terif, if your reading, your thoughts. We are still in the learning stages here, so if I’ve misread the situation I welcome being corrected, but if I’m correct or mostly correct, it would be good to hear your thoughts for future patches.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

Something just occured to me. In SC 1 it was usually the Allies that got to DOW Turkey first, giving them the strategic initiative. In SC 2 it will likely be the other way around. Although, as I write, I guess the Russians could do a pre-emptive Turkish invasion when Syria is invaded and Iraq joins the Axis? Perhaps that is the answer? Done correctly this would gain the Russians the far eastern and center city, and allow them to garrison fairly well, and also threaten Iraq. Anyway, I welcome the discussion.

Bob

[jon_j_rambo]

"I've been waiting for this moment my little green friend" --- The C-Man from Revenge of the Sith.

[Terif]

@Jollyguy:

To take Turkey is still no problem for Axis - here nothing changed to V1.0. Only the US readiness increase is the deterrent and as soon as USA is in the war, Axis can easily take Turkey without Russia beeing able to do something against it. With some luck and airsupport it will fall within 2 turns, usually it falls after 3-4 turns and then Axis gets a huge economical boost and can also catch Caucasus with the broad front and good supply.

This is because Axis can cut Turkey off from Russia by taking the eastern city so no russian reinforcements can be operated into Turkey for defence.

So to improve it I would propose to at least put an additional corps into the middle turkish city (usually be taken by paratroopers) and to place 3 of the turkish corps (2 from the border, one near the capital) south of the eastern turkish city, so Axis can´t take it so easily in the first turn of DoW.

[Lars]

You can get Turkey for next to nothing with diplo. Why bother invading?

[Jollyguy]

Thanks, Terif. All right, I am going to unilaterally tell my opponents where I’m Axis that I won’t invade Turkey, and insist (are you listening, Sombra?) that in the games where I’m Allied that Turkey can’t be invaded.

I will likely just record Blashy’s game as an Allied loss, as I’ve never liked playing games past the point where it’s totally obvious that one side will prevail.

Thanks for verifying my feelings, Terif, and I hope this gets patched, as no Axis Turkish invasion is a house rule for me here on out.

Bob

[Sombra]

Jollyguy I am listening... Grrr Blashy gave me such nice ideas

[Rolend]

Jollyguy there has to be a better way to handle it then just say no invasion period. That takes away an option from the Axies and I like more options not less.

I would think that had Germany taken Syria, Iraq and Iran and had strong forces facing them on both their western and southern borders that they may have joined the Axies or at least given them free passge. This is where Diplo is weak, you should be able to get treaties that include things like free passage not just joining one side or the other.

[Lars]

Granting free passage is usually viewed dimly by the other side and is no guarentee a strong message won't shortly follow. So I wouldn't say it's broke, just the results of taking the bribe are fixed.

Eh, they're playing ladder games.

[Rolend]

Well what if you agreed Operate was limited in Turkey to say one unit a turn, that way the bulk of your forces would still have to come form Iraq/Iran. Just thinking that is all, has to be some other options besides ruling it out altogether.

By the way I do think Operate needs work, it is just way to easy to use. Tell me that in WWII that the Germans had the ability to move an entire army, from say Paris to any Russian city in just one weak. Or that they could freely Operate into or out of an area with enemy close by without risking casualties.

[Lars]

Why? Trains work the same pretty much everywhere.

btw, there is a cost to operational movement in readiness, morale and of course, the mpp. Consider the abstraction casualties and no more problem.

[Jollyguy]

I can tell you that a big part of the imbalance with Turkey DOW’ing is that it stretches the already stretched Russians to the breaking point. In SC 1 there was a ban on 1st turn DOW of majors because the Germans could DOW and land in northern Russia before the Russians could react. The situation is analogous here. The Axis gets first shot at placement, and of course they’re going to take that eastern city, to stop the Russians from operating units in by cordoning off the battlefield. And even if the Russians could operate in the Axis could go on the defensive in Russia while concentrating on Turkey. Once Turkey was consolidated the Axis could operate units (which the Russians can’t do with a cordoned off battlefield), and could then continue into the Caucusses, AND keep open the threat of amphib landings in the Black Sea, which would basically be a third front. That’s a lot of territory for the Russians to cover that early in the game.

I think Turkey should be a viable option for the Axis, but it needs to be patched and brought into balance, as like Terif said, as it is now it’s over in two to four turns, which is exactly what’s going to happen to me I’m sure. The Turks should also probably have a 5 strength, entrenched HQ, I’ll take that over that useless 5 strength airfleet they start with.

IMO what should happen if Turkey is invaded is the Russians should have a localized reserve mobilized, like the US gets now if they’re invaded. That, and a different placement of Turkish units, would mean the Germans would have a fight on their hands, rather than pushover that is actually easier than France. Can you imagine that, the fearsome Turks with all those sharp knives, and endless mountains to fight from, succumbing faster than the French? That in itself is an imbalance.

As it is, the Russians barely have enough units in 1942 to cover one front much less three. I.e., while I was down there trying to defend the Caucusses, Blashy was pouring through my lines in Russia proper. But keep in mind, the ban isn’t on invading the Caucusses, if the Axis want’s to do that they can, but the Russians have a better chance of defending the Caucusses than a Turkey DOW.

Bob

[R.J.]

Originally posted by Lars:

Why? Trains work the same pretty much everywhere.

Railroads in Russia were a different gage than in western Europe – that's the main thing that caused such supply problems in the east. And countries tended to have a limited number of trains available, and the further the distance, the longer they were out of use for other purposes- supply mainly. And I don't think there were many (any?) east/west rr's in N. Africa, and not particularly good ones in turkey (quality affecting speed, thus volume etc).

[hellraiser]

So the turkish stuff is still there ... didn't bother to check it post patch.

Lvl 8 turkish city will provide enough supply to capture Caucasus, indeed. And the US readiness increase -> well, I could care less about it. Once Caucasus is Axis, it's game over in the east.

At least put units in every turkish city and have them heavily entrenched. Axis has to be forced to spend more than 3-4 turns capturing Turkey.

[hellraiser]

Originally posted by Lars:

You can get Turkey for next to nothing with diplo. Why bother invading?

Because it is very unlikely that the other part won't react to your diplomatic efforts. Ok, I'm talking about H2H, OFC.

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to spend cash on Turkey when she can be taken out so quickly.

Axis have better places to spend the cash, methinks.

[Lars]

It does when you consider you get five or six Corps and a AF. Plus, your German stuff is off doing something more worthwhile, like whacking Russians.

Perhaps, if it's a real problem, Istanbul should be upgraded to a Fortress like Sevastopol. Because, one, it was, and a much better one to boot, and two, crossing the Straits would be a biatch even today.

[Sombra]

How about more movement restrictions for tanks in mountains? It seems wrong to me that tanks are the fastest units to move in mountains.

+ with a more sensible placement of the turkish troops and more entrenchemnt I think Turkey will be quite hard to take.

[Rolend]

Yep you put at least one unit in each city and start them well entrenched and you make Germany bring a lot to take it. That sounds better to me then saying you can't invade at all. Heck even give them a couple more partisan units if invaded that you won't get if you diplo them.

Make it much harder to take Turkey and then if the Axies really want it they have to decide to put a lot more resources into it or diplo it.

Refresh my memory please, that is one aspect of the war I don't recall at all. Didn't Turkey stay out of the war altogether? If that is the case what were the politics behind it.

[Guest Mike]

Turkey actually started the war with a treaty of alliance with France and the UK, then secured a treaty from the USSR promising no invasion, then finally one from Germany about the time of Barbarossa.

It supplied considerable raw materials to the Axis dutring the war while remaining neutral until declaring war on Germany and Japan on 1 March 1945, but didn't actively partake in hostilities.

A summary of the various Mid-east states' politics and military can be found Here .

It points out some stuff of interest - for example the Iranians DID have an armed force, but it declined to fight the allies - it should possibly be treated like Greece in WW1 - it will fight the axis, but evaporates if invaded by the allies.

In 1939 the Turkish army had 9 Corps, 20 Infantry divisions, 5 cavalry divisions and some brigades. They expanded it in 1941 to 17 Corps HQ's, 43 infantry divisions, 2 cavalry divisions and 2 mechanised divisions plus some brigades.

[Rolend]

Thanks Stalin for the info and the link. Historicly I think the bigest issue for either side to invade Turkey would of been the geography and the fierce resistance they would of recieved.

[Guest Mike]

Yep - I think supply is far to easy in SC too - it would have been a hell of a problem in Turkey, with it's terrain and somewhat under-developed rail system!

There should probably be Turkish partisans if there aren't already.

[Guest Mike]

Found another interesting link - Persia (Iran) during WW2

[Rolend]

The more I think about it the more I like Stalins suggestion of Turkish Partisans, not only would they be a pain for supply but if they are around they should disrupt Operate in Turkey. I think this solves the problem nicely, risk an invasion in Turkey and risk losing the very thing you invaded for, the ability to Operate lots of units to the Caucuses. Seems like a nice way to do it, risk vs reward.