Dan Fenton Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Terif recently posted that Iran was a must have for Russia. That seems like a very reasonable idea. However, Tehran is located far enough away from the nearest city in Russia to make a one turn conquest seem impossible. That long distance along with the mountains also makes supplying a two or more turn conquest difficult without HQ support. So what is the best way for Russia to conquer Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bromley Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 I haven't tried it from Russia, but as Iran is undefended couldn't a corps take it in its own time if Iraq is neutral? Otherwise paras, I'd guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Invest in Motors Higher supply moves better in mountains usually, so place an HQ and Corps near the border. You cannot usually take Iran if the Axis do not want you to have it easy... That depends on the force ratio between Axis And Allies in the Theatre If they have the Forces and you do not, leave it for the Axis Though if you believe him weak attack... Fact is Iran is secondary to Iraq... Once you cut off Iran, why bother with it? Only if it's easy and cheap to take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 For taking it in one turn from Russia, motorization level 2 won't help. The only solution is to use paratroops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Iran should be DoWed by Russia to avoid the moral boost for Axis - to conquer it is in deed only possible if Axis have only light forces there, or later when Siberians arrived and killed the invaders at Caucasus so the way is free. A different possibility would be a paratrooper (if Russia could afford it...) - but for what purpose ? You can force Iran´s surrender as Russia, but this costs you 300 mpps for the para since it will never come back alive from behind the enemy lines . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Fenton Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 I usually play against the AI. I can therefore eventually clear out Africa and make the Med an Allied lake. If Russia could then afford a paratrooper, once Iran falls, the paratrooper could be safely operated back to Russia. A paratrooper seems more cost effective than an HQ and a Corps. Therefore, with an Allied secured Africa, is the paratrooper then the best way to conquer Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Dan Fenton, you asked how to easily take Iran because you heard Terif say it is a must for Russia. Since Terif's comment refers to competitive Human vs Human games as a preemptive strike to prevent the Axis huge morale boost and you say you are playing the AI, you don't necessarily need to DOW Iran. Since you also say that, playing the AI as Allies, you own all the med, why do you bother asking yourself how to take it? Tehran is empty and out of reach from axis then, you just need to walk there with a corps or whatever you feel like. An English corps in Irak can walk on it in one turn while a Russian corps can also do the job but with more time. p.s. I am confused as to what you are asking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Fenton Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 My original understanding was that a Russian DoW on Iran was a must do. I thought, in error, that a DoW would be automatically followed by a conquest. Russia can get full MPP's from Iran because Iran can trace a line back to Moscow. The UK would only get partial MPP's because it is impossible to ever trace a land line back to the UK. Therefore, it seemed that there are interesting MPP possibilities for Russia to take Iran. I was not sure from a supply point of view if an unsupported Russian Corps could actually make it all of the way over the mountains to Tehran. HQ's are just too valueable to remove from the battle for this type of mission. Even if a Corps could make it, it seemed counterproductive to give MPP's to the Axis for the duration of that long Corps walk. I was also unsure if a Russian Paratroop unit actually had the range to drop into Tehran. Before trying one or the other, I thought that I would ask what worked best for most people. Much to my great surprise, it appears that the DoW is simply to prevent the Axis morale boost issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Many minors falling to Allies are associated to specific majors in version 1.04. As an example, if an English corps conquers Iran, this minor will turn Russian. So, in many cases for Allies units conquering minors, the nationality of the conquering units does not influence which Major the minor country will belong to. That's why I told you to get it with your corps as the loot and the future income will go to Russia in any case. Since it has direct contact to Moscow, its revenu will be 80% of if it had joined willingly. One should also remember that Western and Eastern Allies have non-cooperative supply. So, your English will have to go back to Irak to have any kind of supply. Might I also suggest you read the beginning of my thread "Once Britain falls..." as I describe the hard way i found that Syria conquered by Russia, even if England is no more, turns British and leaves Russians units to die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Biowizard, this has been changed for v1.05. Essentially any major that liberates a minor will become the new parent regardless of previous parent-minor relationship. [ October 16, 2006, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Fenton Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 I wish to thank everyone for their comments and ideas. Should the situation be appropriate for the Allies to take Iran, I now have a much better range of strategies to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Hubert, Great! It was indeed needed I think. Am I right to think that this applies to minor countries being liberated only? Like if England kills the iraqi corps in Irak and a lone corps from Russia takes the capital, Iraq will turn out to be English since this was an invasion and not a liberation? p.s. This would be a major change since Axis would need to strongly garrison Irak if they now bet to take all the med and don't want it to loose it back to Russians at supply 10!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Correct on both accounts, it will only apply to Liberation and will indeed make the Med that much more interesting... well that is the idea anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Actually I think the Med is where the game is won or lost. I know, I know...I've said that the USSR used to occupy that status, but I was just misleading everyone. The better to unleash my diabolical strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts