Is turkey ever attacked?

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


No this is not entirely true... I always used small "disclaimer" when talking about Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey (lets call them SSST for short [:D]) I came close to attacking some of those countries in my games but never really felt it was worth it, except for Spain.

I wanted to keep my answers short, but now that you insist - I actually did attack Spain any number of times, playing as WA (US) and invading the Fortress Europe through the soft underbelly: Portugal-Spain-South France. There are some tweaks I proposed based on my experiences and we discuss them on the beta boards.

Believe it or not I am glad to hear that.

You know... what do you mean by "diplomacy" anyway? [:D]

I mean options that players under certain circumstances can influenced these neutral countries to join on their side – simple diplomacy. At least that, nothing complicated.

Let's analyze - country by country:

Ok lets do that:

Sweden: They were very close to join Finland in Winter war against Russia. They send many volunteers to Finland to fight against Russian. Before Barbarossa they allowed transport of German units thru Sweden territory into Finland and after successful blitzkrieg in first days of Barbarossa they have been thinking to join German side. On the other side Western Allies (Britain to be precise) wanted to influence Sweden to join his side because of Iron mineral there. They also wanted to occupied Sweden because of the same reason.

Turkey: You said yourself for German side. I’ll just add one true fact. Stalin demanded from Turkey to accept Russian bases near Bospor to gain gate to Mediterranean sea. He has planed to attack Turkey if they refuse. It was a very serious threat but then Barbarossa started.

Spain: You said historical facts about Hitler-Franco hard negotiations. Your statement that players would have gained nothing if Spain joined is ridiculous. What about Gibraltar – the most important strategic point?
In this case and all above I would like to see “what if” options. What will happen if Hitler and Franco made any agreement? What will happen if Sweden joined Germany or WA? What will happen if Russia did have bases near Bospor? What will happen if Vichy France joined Germany or WA? Etc.

It is not hard to make all this in some simple diplomacy concept and add to a game more fun parts in play. I assume that you have played long time ago expansion for Axis and Allies called World at War? It had most simplified diplomacy concept but still this concept added so much tactical and strategic options to gameplay.

[EdwinP]

So far, I like what I hear. You can attack Turkey and Spain and Sweden if you want, its not impossible but you have to balance that against the benefits recieved the the costs, possibly the loss of shared resources that result from this action, and resources diverted from other front.

[color]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

Ok lets do that:

Sweden: They were very close to join Finland in Winter war against Russia. They send many volunteers to Finland to fight against Russian. Before Barbarossa they allowed transport of German units thru Sweden territory into Finland and after successful blitzkrieg in first days of Barbarossa they have been thinking to join German side. On the other side Western Allies (Britain to be precise) wanted to influence Sweden to join his side because of Iron mineral there. They also wanted to occupied Sweden because of the same reason.

Turkey: You said yourself for German side. I’ll just add one true fact. Stalin demanded from Turkey to accept Russian bases near Bospor to gain gate to Mediterranean sea. He has planed to attack Turkey if they refuse. It was a very serious threat but then Barbarossa started.

Spain: You said historical facts about Hitler-Franco hard negotiations. Your statement that players would have gained nothing if Spain joined is ridiculous. What about Gibraltar – the most important strategic point?
In this case and all above I would like to see “what if” options. What will happen if Hitler and Franco made any agreement? What will happen if Sweden joined Germany or WA? What will happen if Russia did have bases near Bospor? What will happen if Vichy France joined Germany or WA? Etc.

It is not hard to make all this in some simple diplomacy concept and add to a game more fun parts in play. I assume that you have played long time ago expansion for Axis and Allies called World at War? It had most simplified diplomacy concept but still this concept added so much tactical and strategic options to gameplay.

Given this game is driven by text files for data, you can setup your own what if scenarios where for instance:
- sweden joins the axis once the Germans attack the Russians.
- spain joins the Germans in 1942.
- Turkey starts out as a russian occupied territory.

etc . . .

[Oleg Mastruko]

Indeed, moddability is one aspect we rarely discuss, but this game is beautifully moddable, and I expect whole swarm of new and modified situations to appear after the game is published.

You don't like the sub torpedo attack factor for German U Boots? You want to lower the number of units for Yugoslavia? You think SU has too low or too high production capabilities? You edit the appropriate TXT file and distribute it to your friends and play the modded game with them [:D]

This is maybe topic 2by3 would not like us to talk about, so lets not be too ecstatic about it [:D], but it's there, and is additional (great) quality of the game IMO. Of course, since we expect this game to be popular among non-hardcore gamers, it IS important to get the "feel" right for the original unmodded game right from the start.

O.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Indeed, moddability is one aspect we rarely discuss, but this game is beautifully moddable, and I expect whole swarm of new and modified situations to appear after the game is published.

You don't like the sub torpedo attack factor for German U Boots? You want to lower the number of units for Yugoslavia? You think SU has too low or too high production capabilities? You edit the appropriate TXT file and distribute it to your friends and play the modded game with them [:D]

This is maybe topic 2by3 would not like us to talk about, so lets not be too ecstatic about it [:D], but it's there, and is additional (great) quality of the game IMO. Of course, since we expect this game to be popular among non-hardcore gamers, it IS important to get the "feel" right for the original unmodded game right from the start.

O.

I agree with Oleg in that the game must feel right at the start. However, we are fully supportive of modders and hope they enjoy that aspect of the game.

[Döbeln]

Agree with your points. Liked the way COS dealt with it though - swaying, say, Turkey was not impossible - nearly impossible, but not entirely. Ditto for Spain. Sweden was far too easy to woo though. Still, keeping it outside of the scope of the game is entirely acceptable imho.

As for Spain, the most interesting thing they could have done historically was to allow an attack on Gibraltar. No troops on the Russian front needed - just allow some German guns and mountain troops to lay siege to the Rock. Could have made the Med an Axis pond if Egypt had fallen as well.

[Oleg Mastruko]

(Note: discussion below unrelated to the game.)

This Gibraltar thing is, IMO, way overrated by historians (British historians to be more precise). If you control Malta and Alexandria (and Krete, and Sicily, and Cyprus...) who cares if Brits still control The Rock? What they can do with it? Send ships into Med with Axis having complete control of the air?

Giving too much importance to Gib, is just another way of saying "our Italian allies are frighteningly weak, so we must think of various bizarre arrangements to help them". Like, transferring X Fliegerkorps to Med, or sneaking some of the best U-Boots thru Gib, or thinking about bizarre actions like operation Felix (planned airborne attack at Gib).

Well, fine, but having a weak ally (Italy) is a problem in itself, that no attack on some peripheral outpost can solve. If Italians can't solve the Med situation by themselves (and they couldn't) THEN you have a problem. You devise cunning (and costly) plan to put a cork on Gib? Fine, but you still have above problem, and Brits can reinforce Med thru Suez (if they really need to) and Middle East. Taking Gib without taking Suez means nothing. In ANY case you should take Malta first.

The only useful purpose Gib had for the Brits was directly connected to Malta situation. Gib was staging point for supply conwoys to Malta, right? But if you take Malta - which should have been pre-requisite for ANY serious Mediterranean strategy anyway - then Gib loses 80% of its importance. After taking Malta you proceed to take Suez and then... read all about it in some WAW AAR [:D]

Just my personal opinion, of course [:D]

O.

[Sergei]

Sweden: They were very close to join Finland in Winter war against Russia.

No they weren't. There were discussions of alliance before the war, during the war, and after the war, but Sweden did not want to irritate USSR. Some right wing circles might not have minded joining the war, but that does not apply to the majority of the people or the government. Neither did Sweden help Norway when she was invaded. The chance of Sweden joining the war by her own will was minimal, even non-existant.

[aspqrz02]

Ok lets do that:

Sweden: They were very close to join Finland in Winter war against Russia. They send many volunteers to Finland to fight against Russian. Before Barbarossa they allowed transport of German units thru Sweden territory into Finland and after successful blitzkrieg in first days of Barbarossa they have been thinking to join German side. On the other side Western Allies (Britain to be precise) wanted to influence Sweden to join his side because of Iron mineral there. They also wanted to occupied Sweden because of the same reason.

*Volunteers* from Sweden went to Finland. The Swedish *government*, however, sent no troops. There were *volunteers* from Italy fighting for the Spanish Republic in the Civil War but the Italian *government* supported the Nationalists.

And, yes, I know that the Swedes allowed some supplies to be sent to the Finns.

However, do you have any evidence that the Swedish *government* was preparing to militarily intervene in the Russo-Finnish war? And, no, I do *not* mean the sort of "contingency" planning that *all* militaries do, I mean *active* planning for an *active* intervention!

As for the Western Allies and Sweden, well, consider why the Brits invaded Norway - and why the Germans did. It wasn't for Norway per se ... it was because Swedish Iron ore had to transit Norway to get to Germany. So why didn't they then try and invade *Sweden* ... too difficult, especially if the Swedes are selling you the Iron ore (if you're Germany) or for simple geography (if you're the western allies).

Turkey: You said yourself for German side. I?ll just add one true fact. Stalin demanded from Turkey to accept Russian bases near Bospor to gain gate to Mediterranean sea. He has planed to attack Turkey if they refuse. It was a very serious threat but then Barbarossa started.

Turkey is interesting. Yes, she was allied with Germany (or, more correctly, the *Ottoman Empire* was) in WW1. But Kemal Ataturk left strict instructions to his successors to NOT ally with Germany. And to say that the Turks *still* Hero worship Ataturk would be an understatement. Note also that the Brits basically *bought* the Turks, to a degree, by guaranteeing sales of all strategic materials produced by Turkey for the duration of the war. Germany ... well, economically Germany was a basket case in 1939 as far as international trade was concerned, and, well, Ataturk *had* said "don't ally with Germany!"

As for Uncle Joe ... he could threaten all he wanted, but he really had no capability of invading Turkey. Logistics, logistics, logistics make the Caucasus unsuitable for any chance of an invasion succeeding. And a maritime effort? Forget it.

Spain: You said historical facts about Hitler-Franco hard negotiations. Your statement that players would have gained nothing if Spain joined is ridiculous. What about Gibraltar ? the most important strategic point?

Spain is an interesting case. The German military did some planning for the possibility of an invasion and came up with the interesting conclusion that, because of the nature of the Spanish rail and transport net, even if they could get Spanish co-operation, they would only be able to supply a reinforced Corps or two at the pointy end (Gibraltar) with one Luftflotte in support. And even that would result *mass famine* in Spain.

The Spanish relied on imported - by sea - food during the war. Guess what happens if they go Axis? It's called "blocakde" ... no food. And their railnet was, as the Germans found, structured so that it was most efficient at moving things from ports to the hinterland, or from the hinterland to ports, *not* across country from the Pyrenees to Gib. So even if Germany had been willing and able to supply Spain's needs, she would have been, so the planners found, incapable of actually moving it into and around Spain.

Why is this important?

Guerillas. Think peninsula war. Think "Western Allies start supplying Republican remnants in a *serious* manner" ... think "bleeding ulcer" ... think hundreds of thousands of Axis troops tied down unproductively

As for Gibraltar ... well, the Germans figured they could supply a reinforced Corps. Say 4-5 divisions. And they all have to attack across a narrow neck of land around 800 yards across (or less), then up cliffs full of fortifications. Think piles of dead bodies clogging the approaches.

To make a serious attempt they will need to do more than that ... they will need serious naval support, which means the Italian Fleet must be committed and, seriously, in any RN vs. RM fight the RN wins. And the Italians get trashed.

Which means that, even if the Germans *do* manage to take Gibraltar, it will be, at best, the most awful of Pyrrhic victories. I mean, apart from the brigade or so of troops the Brits had there and some ships they lose because they destroy the Italian navy, what do the Allies lose?

Access to the Western Med? Not really, by 1941 (the earliest Operation Felix can happen, realistically) they were sending their convoys around the Cape anyway. Malta? They can push convoys through from Alexandria just as they did from the other direction just as successfully.

What do the Germans gain? A bleeding ulcer they can't defend and which the Allies can easily invade from around 1943 on.

Access for the RM to the Atlantic?

Nice, but the RM gets destroyed in the attempt to take Gib ... and even if it doesnt, well, the RM had short legs, and was not all that useful outside the Med as a result.

Worse, the Axis loses the Azores and Canaries to the Allies who use them as fleet and air bases to blockade the straits anyway ... even worse, they provide facilities for aircraft to close the mid-atlantic gap a couple of years earlier than historically, emasculating the German U-Boat fleet sooner.

Worse, with the RM, at the very least, more than decimated, it makes supplying the DAK even more problematic than it was, meaning the allies win in North Africa sooner, and which, in turn, means that they stage Torch against Spain/Portugal or against Sicily/Italy.

So, on the whole, Spain was a whole can of worms, historically speaking. In a *game*? Well, if it is seriously trying to emulate historical constraints, it should be the same. If its a complete hunk of crap, in realism terms, like HoI forex, then that's fine. But I, for one find HoI offensively stupid for that sort of reason.

It is not hard to make all this in some simple diplomacy concept and add to a game more fun parts in play. I assume that you have played long time ago expansion for Axis and Allies called World at War? It had most simplified diplomacy concept but still this concept added so much tactical and strategic options to gameplay.

Most diplomacy modules I have seen, especially for World in Flames (Days of Decision?) are crap. They do not in any way model what the real world constraints on actions taken by the participants were, and allow the most ridiculously ahistorical course of events to take place.

YMMV of course [:'(]

[max_h]

the turkish army was rather poorly equipped and trained... few "semi-modern" planes were bought (first from the british, later on from germany), only in 44 some shermas were added. why would turkey be "too strong"? it´s the reaction of the great powers that would count.

[EdwinP]

Historical Obstacles to Conquering Turkey:

1. Large Army
2. Reputation - they defeated a Greek Invasion after WWI, the Greeks received assistance and training from the Brits and inflicted heavy casualties on the Brits during WWI.
3. Terrain - Mountainous, best suited for Infantry Fighting
4. Large Population
5. Large Country = Long Supply Lines

[Hanal]

In a recent solo test where I was the Western Allies, the German AI, smelling defeat in the air, invaded Turkey on the last turn...they were defeated and with my new found Turkish Army, I occupied Bulgaria...even the AI can act like a doomed meglomaniac!.....[:)]

[max_h]

quote:
In 1938 the Turkish standing army had 20 000 officers and 174 000 men. Military service lasted for three years. In 1939 the Turkish army was administrationally divided into three army inspectorates, nine corps, and one military governorship; the country's armed forces were composed of 20 infantry divisions, three brigades of mountain troops, one fortress brigade, and five cavalry divisions (including two reserve cavalry divisions) - altogether 132 regiments (60 infantry, six mountain troops, 21 cavalry, eight reserve cavalry, 20 field artillery, 10 heavy artillery, and seven fortress artillery). In early 1941 Turkey established 17 corps headquarters, 43 divisions and three independent infantry brigades, two divisions and one independent cavalry brigade, as well as two mechanized divisions. The armed forces were poorly equipped; weapons shipments from Germany, Great Britain, and U.S. did little to improve that condition. Just before the onset of hostilities the Turkish navy underwent a program of expansion and modernization; two submarines were ordered for construction in Germany, two submarines and four destroyers were ordered for construction in U.K. Lesser vessels were also constructed in home shipyards. After Germany delivered one submarine in 1939, the Turkish navy contained 19 naval vessels and they included one armoured ship, one line cruiser, two light cruisers, two torpedo-boats, four destroyers, five submarines, and four other lesser ships (most vessels were obsolete); with a total displacement of 55 775 tonnes (the number of naval personnel stood at 9 200). The real combat value of the navy was insignificant.


nothing to fear from this army, at least early on.. they just expanded it all the time since the outbreak of the war.

[Hanal]

But what needs to be considered is that there are no Minor Neutral force pools in this game, so if Germany attacks Turkey, after the initial attack, the Turkish troops assume the characteristics and attributes of the Western Allies....they will not be pushovers due to this aspect of the game, which I like, as it gives one pause when considering such ventures...not impossible mind you, but a challenge none the less...

[Chairman]

No they weren't. There were discussions of alliance before the war, during the war, and after the war, but Sweden did not want to irritate USSR. Some right wing circles might not have minded joining the war, but that does not apply to the majority of the people or the government. Neither did Sweden help Norway when she was invaded. The chance of Sweden joining the war by her own will was minimal, even non-existant.

Well Sweden was for the taking in 1940, our army was a joke.
When Germany invaded Denmark & Norway , someone sent the ready troops down to Onsala bay were an easy landing could be done.
What we had on the West coast on this day, 10 infantery and a cannon from late 1800:s, that Germans could send ships into the harbour and disembark in Gothenburg wasnt mentioned.
Oh well there were some coast artillery, also from the late 1800, as well as some ships from late 1800 to early 1900.

In 1940 our goverment sent out an order to modernize and increase our army to a point were it would cost to much to attack us.
It was finished in 1955 or 56.[:)]

But as always I presume that Sweden got a small to medium army.

By the way, some of the clothing on swedish regulars were from beginning 18 century, great northern wars, ended in 1721.

[max_h]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

But what needs to be considered is that there are no Minor Neutral force pools in this game, so if Germany attacks Turkey, after the initial attack, the Turkish troops assume the characteristics and attributes of the Western Allies....they will not be pushovers due to this aspect of the game, which I like, as it gives one pause when considering such ventures...not impossible mind you, but a challenge none the less...

isn´t abstraction going a bit too far here?

[Hanal]

It all depends on what you want....from a gaming standpoint, it works.....

[meyerg]

I agree there was a strong bias for Spain or Turkey to stay neutral. I would be in favor of a SIMPLE diplomatic attempt to get Spain or Turkey. A country pays many production points and if the world is balanced, there is small chance the country joins him (1/6) a small chance the country joins the other side (1/6) and a large chance of nothing. There could be modifiers to this (London captured, many German troops on Spanish border, many Russian troops on turkish border, etc). Think of the Vichy France activation attempt or the coup rules in early DoD.
I just think the cost should be high enough to make this (given historical progress in the war) equivalent to tech role in Axis and Allies. High risk and high reward. I also insist on it being SIMPLE because I do not want to go CLOSE to the Diplomatic system that KILLED Advance Third Reich.
Greg

[Steppenwolf]

Interesting discution. I was thinking in making a Diplomacy mod along these lines, with a simple action-reaction system. Ex:

If GER attack SOV then 20% change of Spain joining GER
IF GER occupy France then 50% Rumania joining GER
and go on with something like that to add flavor.

Could Joel or any beta answer if is possible to mod the game this way?

Thanks in advance,
Steppenwolf

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Steppenwolf

Interesting discution. I was thinking in making a Diplomacy mod along these lines, with a simple action-reaction system. Ex:

If GER attack SOV then 20% change of Spain joining GER
IF GER occupy France then 50% Rumania joining GER
and go on with something like that to add flavor.

Could Joel or any beta answer if is possible to mod the game this way?

Thanks in advance,
Steppenwolf

I'm not sure, but I don't think we have anything that would allow you to set up percentages as you're suggesting.