Occupation of Ankara (Turkey)

[gamer78]

After capturing Egypt my opponent declare war to Turkey and capture capital Ankara with Afrika Korps in a few turns. Should it be that easily done. If it was that easy then Germans should have done it in WW2. Turkey was very careful to be neutral in the war and Ismet Pasha did everything for it. Quick occupation of Anatolia seems unrealistic to me.

[Markiss]

The alternate capital being in Istanbul is problematic, as that is the direction the attack is likely coming from. Why would you move your capital closer to the axis of attack? Not real wise.
Maybe Turkey could have multiple alternative capitals depending upon the direction of attack? It needs to be more dynamic than it is, right now Turkey is far too easy of a conquest. It should be a logistical nightmare, instead it is all too easy.
Let's see the Axis have to fight their way across the whole country, then you would see some hesitation to attack it. Partisans should be a bear too. Right now, they just lay down and give up.
Have you ever met a Turk?!!! If you had, they would not be so easy to conquer in this game.

[BillRunacre]

I'll have a think about this and look at their Partisan settings too. [:)]

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

After capturing Egypt my opponent declare war to Turkey and capture capital Ankara with Afrika Korps in a few turns. Should it be that easily done. If it was that easy then Germans should have done it in WW2. Turkey was very careful to be neutral in the war and Ismet Pasha did everything for it. Quick occupation of Anatolia seems unrealistic to me.

I guess with Rommel having captured Egypt and Palestine, Turkey would have been very tempted to side with the Axis.
At the very least it would have been trying to please the Axis to be able to stay out of the WW2 mess.

[Markiss]

Hi BIll,
I played a game recently where the Axis declared war on Turkey, used aircraft to destroy the unit in Ankara, and landed paras to take the capital. The capital then moved to Istanbul, right into the waiting arms of his offensive, and fell the next turn, with the Axis barely having to move its units. It does seem a little too easy.
Although it makes sense historically and culturally to have the alternate capital be Istanbul, being right on the border, it is too vulnerable to attack from the European side.
If the Russians attack, it is a wonderful choice, but not so against the Axis. Is it possible to have different alternate capitals depending on who declares war?

[Numdydar]

If the Germans get past Suez and are close to the southern Turkey border, then that should have a major impact on Turkey's swinging to the Axis. This should be even more pronounced if the Germans are past Rostov. Maybe even bring them into the war automatically.

The leadership of Turkey at the time was not stupid by any means. The Germans getting into the Middle East would have dramatically increased their need for a rail line back to Europe. Turkey would have known this and would be far more likely to join the Germans versus trying to stay neutral. As they could see how well that turned out for other neutral countries by this point in the war.

So I would say that if Palestine, Syria, and Rostov are captured/controlled by the Germans, then Turkey enters the war automatically. Or maybe better, no Allied troops in Palestine/Syria and Rostov captured.

But there is no way Turkey would have tried to remain neutral when surrounded by German territory and no Allied presence anywhere close by. At that point it would have been pretty obvious that Turkey had to join or die.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Markiss

Is it possible to have different alternate capitals depending on who declares war?

Alas not, and Smyrna is the place that springs to mind as a third alternative but that is also in the west, albeit not quite as accessible as Istanbul. But it would still give them some greater potential to resist for longer.

[ewr]

As a Turkish citizen who is interested in both ww1 and ww2 history of our young republic, i can clearly advice Erzurum as the third alternative capital to Turkey. In Turkish Independence war (between 1919-1923) when Greek offensives advance through Ankara, parliment discussed moving capital to Kayseri, Sivas or Erzurum. So it will be also historically correct.

[gamer78]

Pressure in 1943 was at top level. Even those locations- Egypt and Syria- not captured by Axis. It is often said İsmet Pasha experience in Greek&Turkish War resulted in neutral diplomacy. How bad war is.

For not quick occupation of Turkey I think anti-air tech and fully mobilized army at least in capital(s) is necessary.In my pbem game it was in late summer 1942 occupation occurred. Otherwise it will be a gamey move to Baku for already weak Russians.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

@gamer78 --- Hey, this sounds like our game? Cannot remember, got like 7 going on at once.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: ewr

As a Turkish citizen who is interested in both ww1 and ww2 history of our young republic, i can clearly advice Erzurum as the third alternative capital to Turkey. In Turkish Independence war (between 1919-1923) when Greek offensives advance through Ankara, parliment discussed moving capital to Kayseri, Sivas or Erzurum. So it will be also historically correct.

Excellent! Thanks ewr, I did think of Erzurum but didn't know if it could be a potential capital, so it's good to know it could be, and I'll add it to their list. [:)]

[gamer78]

I think Erzurum does not have so much distance from Ankara. What Markiss mention -and I agree with- it should be logistical problem for Axis if they plan a route to Baku from conquest of Turkey. If map is smaller then Turkey needs a bit technology and already mobilized army in capitals as surprised war declaration didn't happen historically and there was already pressure...

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

@gamer78 --- Hey, this sounds like our game? Cannot remember, got like 7 going on at once.

Yes it is [:)]