Persian oil rail lines

[stjeand]

I've notice a few oddities in the event file.
Perhaps just a typo.

Not sure why the Axis would convert the rail lines when they go into Russia.
There is a copy of this for the Allies.

Should this one exist?


//Persian rail added at Tabriz
//this is done to neutral Persian Allied oil ships south
$ChangeLogistics
if_Date=5/1/1941
if_Country=40
if_Alliance=Axis
lifespan=tillTrigger
actionCountry=40
//change road to rail
xyArea=216,29,31
xyArea=217,28,32
addReportTo=All
text=Allies extends rail line in Persia from Tabriz to Yerevan
$End

[AlvaroSousa]

That is for Persian lend lease.

[stjeand]

For the Axis though?

There is an Allied one...just did not know it would change if the Axis owned it also.

[stjeand]

Okay I think I have it...

IF these rail lines don't exist Lend Lease does not happen.
Then again there should not be any lend lease through Persia if it is under Axis control.

Could be something built later if the Allies capture the territory.
Honestly I would rather have NO lend lease if the Axis own it as this gives them a full rail line into Russia...But not a big deal. Just putting all the pieces back together.

YES the Allies should not lose the Middle East...but some players have gotten good enough that it is almost impossible to stop. Still working on that.


//Persian rail added at Tabriz
//this is done to neutral Persian Allied oil ships south
$ChangeLogistics
if_Date=5/1/1941
if_Country=40
if_Alliance=Allies
lifespan=tillTrigger
actionCountry=40
//change road to rail
xyArea=216,29,31
xyArea=217,28,32
addReportTo=All
text=Allies open the Persian Corridor for lend lease. Road converted to rail at Tabriz

$End

//Persian rail added at Tabriz
//this is done to neutral Persian Allied oil ships south
$ChangeLogistics
if_Date=5/1/1941
if_Country=40
if_Alliance=Axis
lifespan=tillTrigger
actionCountry=40
//change road to rail
xyArea=216,29,31
xyArea=217,28,32
addReportTo=All
text=Allies extends rail line in Persia from Tabriz to Yerevan
$End

[Bretwalda76]

So there is no lend lease if Axis occupies or allies Persia.

But Axis would extend the rail lines as well, because that is the only way to attack USSR from the South. So I think the script is good as is - rail extending if either side gets Persia but not if Persia is neutral.

[stjeand]

The main issue I have with that is the Axis did not have the shipping to even supply an attack on Persia let alone afford to send repair crews to upgrade rail lines there.

Supply is already to easy in Africa for the Axis...they could barely supply the Afrika Corps...imagine that times 5 at least.

They can still attack Russia, it is just more difficult as it should be.

I don't even believe the ports in the Middle East should be able to be used for the Axis. Captured, sure but not full supply. That would require the entire Italian navy, and likely the UK navy would be intercepting them.

[Bretwalda76]

The only way for the Axis to attack via the Caucasus is to capture Egypt. In which case the UK fleet either beaten or lost its bases. If Egypt is taken by Axis then both Iraq and Persia become Axis minor allies and the supply route runs through Turkey.

[stjeand]

So you believe Iraq and Persia could supply thousands of German forces?
They could barely feed their population.

To add the shipping would have to go far to close to India where the other UK warships are stationed that would surely cause some issues.

There is another issue with supply through Turkey. There is a road, not a rail in hex to the left of Istanbul which prevents supply as it should. That never converts to a rail. There was a reason for that but I forget what it was.

All I am saying is it should not be super easy for the Germans coming from the south.
If they have full supply the game is over so why have it be built that way.

[Bretwalda76]

So you believe Iraq and Persia could supply thousands of German forces?
They could barely feed their population.

WW2 armies were not foraging off the land, food was transported e.g. to Libia as well.

To add the shipping would have to go far to close to India where the other UK warships are stationed that would surely cause some issues.

There is another issue with supply through Turkey. There is a road, not a rail in hex to the left of Istanbul which prevents supply as it should. That never converts to a rail. There was a reason for that but I forget what it was.

In game that is solved by the supply depo near Istanbul.

All I am saying is it should not be super easy for the Germans coming from the south.
If they have full supply the game is over so why have it be built that way.

If they manage to capture Egypt, Suez, Middle East oil, etc the game is pretty much in the bag.

[stjeand]

I believe that supply is used for the Axis to move oil. It does not supply the Germans until Turkey joins the Axis.
At that time they are all in rail supply.

But until that they only get port supply which requires shipping, that the Axis does not possess.


I agree armies were not foraging, other than the Japanese, it was transported. BUT they could never transport enough food, water and arms in Libya. That is one of the main reasons they lost. That being the case HOW could they have supplied 10x that? They could not, which was my only point. The Italians only had so much shipping and it was not enough.

NOW if Turkey joins then yes supplies would be good to go.
Until then supply is only by sea, and only from the southern ports since the Med ports are to far away.


Honestly my only point was...supplies should be a bit harder when done by sea that is all...and especially when it is further away and you don't have the shipping. You should have to build it and it should be sinkable just like the convoy routes.