Iraq coup oddity

[Helsingor]

First, let me just sing the praises of this great game! I had to stop playing for a few years, but on return., I'm finding it to be an evergreen classic. Thanks, Hubert and Bill, and everyone else who works on this game!
Now, a minor bone to pick about the pro-Axis coup in Iraq. As I understand it, the coup is triggered if an Axis unit occupies one of the Egyptian hexes in the Libyan border. Once that happens, the British get the Operation Sabine DE, UNLESS Egypt has surrendered. Makes sense--if they have already lost the linchpin of their Middle Eastern holdings, intervening in Iraq should probably be impossible.
BUT it seems that this condition about the status of Egypt can also prevent the coup from happening at all. I am in the midst of a match where I was able to take Egypt "from behind" i.e. the east in Fall '41. I did not get any Italians across the Libyan-Egyptian frontier until after Cairo and Egypt had been captured. The Sabine DE never fired because Egypt had fallen and so Iraq remained Allied-leaning. I had to DOW and attack it, incurring a US mobilization boost.

From the perspective of historical plausibility, this seems odd to me. If the British are being routed in the Middle East, then Iraqi nationalists (with bitter memories of the 1920 Revolt) would have all the more reason to rise up.
Is this intended as a game-balancing effect? Am I misunderstanding something?

[BillRunacre]

We can change the trigger, having it fire if Axis units are in certain locations, e.g. Cairo, Jerusalem... and I am open to suggestions.

[Helsingor]

My suggestion would be that Cairo becomes a trigger hex for the coup script (sans Sabine, b/c with Cairo in Axis hands, Sabine rightly becomes impossible). Jerusalem can be too easy for the Axis to grab with an Amphib against an unwary Allied player and having it as a trigger hex probably would lead to a cascade effect. But if the Axis has taken Cairo and Egypt, the coup should definitely happen, IMO.

Thanks, Bill

[BillRunacre]

Actually, on digging into the scripts more, could it not simply be that your opponent decided not to launch Operation Sabine?

It's not really possible for them to capture Cairo without them getting 1-2 units within 7 hexes of the Suez Canal (which is one of the conditions for DE 107 to fire).

And even if that they decide not to impose sanctions, Iraq will swing towards the Axis thus ending the income the UK receives from a neutral Iraq.

[Umeu]

Actually, on digging into the scripts more, could it not simply be that your opponent decided not to launch Operation Sabine?

It's not really possible for them to capture Cairo without them getting 1-2 units within 7 hexes of the Suez Canal (which is one of the conditions for DE 107 to fire).

And even if that they decide not to impose sanctions, Iraq will swing towards the Axis thus ending the income the UK receives from a neutral Iraq.

the manual says Iraq will join the Axis if the UK doesn't launch Sabine. Has that been changed (to only swing towards Axis)?

[Helsingor]

Bill,
I have to admit that I am not absolutely certain, BUT I am fairly sure my Allied opponent still had an active convoy route from Iraq when I attacked it AFTER conquering Egypt. Wouldn't that mean Iraq had not swung toward the Axis? Would I have received a notification about Iraq swinging toward the Axis if it had? If so, I can check the notifications log and see if it came up on an earlier turn.
And Umeu, to your point, I too thought Iraq used to join the Axis, not just lean toward it, if the Allies refuse the Sabine DE.

[Helsingor]

OK, Bill you win! While playing a turn in another match, which has a similar situation in the Middle East, I checked the Strategy Guide and figured out what happened. The SG states that for DE 107 to fire, Alexandria must be in Allied hands. In both matches, my backdoor attack on Egypt involved seizing Alexandria via amphib FIRST. So the UK was precluded from trying Sabine, the Iraqi rebels remained unprovoked and the UK continued to get the MPPs from the Iraqi oil convoy.

But, but, but, this is historically weird. If the Axis is winning in the Middle East (as evidenced by the capture of the key British base of Alexandria, then it seems like revolts against British rule elsewhere in the region (such as in Iraq) would be MORE likely, not ruled out.
I don't know if this can be fixed, but I'd ask you to at least consider it.

[BillRunacre]

I think there would have to be a reason for a coup in Iraq, as the government of the time were pro-British. Moving away from the British is one thing, entering the war is another.

The idea of Iraq swinging towards the Axis in response to Axis advances is to represent a change in mood there, potentially leading to the cutting of the convoy - though it could be that Allied diplomacy could ensure Iraq doesn't quite swing far enough to cut the convoy completely.