UK conquering Iraq/Iran = exploit?

[squatter]

Seems like UK can send the desert armour off to easily conquer Iraq and Iran in 39 without much political blowback and get the armour back to Egypt well before Italian DOW. Nothing the axis can do about it.

If I'm right this seems a little off

[MorningDew]

I agree - I think historically they UK didn't want to do anything that would impact US opinion. The line of what would have that impact changed with the fall of France and Italian entry into the war.

[malkarma]

In next release invading Irak will trigger Italy as a full Axis member.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: malkarma

In next release invading Irak will trigger Italy as a full Axis member.

Ah, good

[malkarma]

This is the link to the post with the new features that will be implemented in the new oficial patch:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4918157

[MorningDew]

Missed that - awesome

[Omnius]

Sad but changing it so the UK invading Iraq triggers Italian entry is just another cheap trick that will be abused. Once again it sets up the France '39 exploit getting it to be able to declare war on Italy and abuse it's navy to trash the Italian navy or merchant shipping. Just shouldn't allow the UK to invade Iraq early on period! It's truly sad how players always look for cheap tricks to win games.

[AlvaroSousa]

I was considering increasing partisans also which would force the UK to garrison the oil or have a hard time extracting it.

I try and make changes organic that give actual choice to the player without a concrete A or B.

Games often give an A/B choice that is pretty obvious which one you should take.
And if you aren't sure you can work it out with game theory or simply math to see the best choice.

[Windfire]

Would an option be to have penalties to US entry if the allies attack Iraq or Iran before set events occur. In the case of Iraq, it could be tied to the coup (~May 41) that deposed the young king who was friendly to the UK. In the case of Iran it could be tied to Russian entry into the war as the goal was to ensure supply lines to Russia.

[AlvaroSousa]

Unless the US entry is severe it has no real effect. So what USA comes in 2 weeks later... yawn.

in WiF the main thing that influenced how strong the USA was was their 1st gear up. After that it was a crap shoot.

Also incredibly hard to balance the US entry. It would take a long time.

And if I was the UK I would not care if the USA comes in 1 turn later. They are only doing things in the summer at best anyways.

[squatter]

I think some kind of garrison requirement is the way to go.

Currently as Allied player I control Iraq and Iran without a single unit in either country. You should at least have to station a division in Tehran and Baghdad to maintain control of the country. I would be tempted to say that without a unit also sitting on each oil production hex, that hex does not produce.

Also, regarding earlier UK invasion of Iran: prior to Barbarossa, the UK and the USSR were in essence enemies. Churchill considered declaring war on the USSR during the Winter War in 1940, and had plans drawn up for UK air assaults on USSR oil facilities in the Caucuses. Churchill had described the Allied powers' intervention in the Russian Revolution in 1919 on the side of the Whites as a chance 'to kill communism in the cradle'. Stalin knew full-well Churchill's feelings towards socialism.

So any UK invasion of Iran in 1939/40 would have been incredibly provocative to the USSR. In fact it could easily have led to conflict, as the USSR - currently more on the side of the Nazis than the Allies thanks to Molotov-Ribentrop - could easily have decided to intervene to protect the Caucuses.

So either it should be simply politically impossible to invade Iran as UK, or perhaps it should have a significant impact on Soviet entry - perhaps push back Soviet auto-entry to late 1942, giving Axis player an option to delay war with USSR if UK player takes Iran? That's a back-of-an-envelope thought, but you get the idea.

[Omnius]

Linking Iraq or Persia to USA entry is rather worthless. The USA will come on historically, that's the way the game is set up.

Perhaps the best solution is to not link invasion of Iraq or Persia to Italian entry. I just don't see the connection as historically Italy didn't have much interest in either. Once again it becomes a ploy to get Italy into the war too early thus allowing the Allies to do the French naval blitzkrieg on Italy, the France '39 exploit.

The idea of forcing the UK to have to maintain a garrison is a much better solution. Make it a big one like a full large infantry corps per country, remember the Arabs weren't keen on continued British occupation and control and did have some links to Germany. Since early on Britain doesn't have a lot of spare manpower this may be the best solution of all.

Anything that allows the Allies to snooker Italy into war prematurely should be avoided. If players want to play early Italian entry then they can play the alternate 1939 Italian special scenario where Italy is set to go to war from the beginning. The fallacy of it being advantageous to Italy to start early is just that, a fallacy!

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Omnius

Linking Iraq or Persia to USA entry is rather worthless. The USA will come on historically, that's the way the game is set up.

Perhaps the best solution is to not link invasion of Iraq or Persia to Italian entry. I just don't see the connection as historically Italy didn't have much interest in either. Once again it becomes a ploy to get Italy into the war too early thus allowing the Allies to do the French naval blitzkrieg on Italy, the France '39 exploit.

The idea of forcing the UK to have to maintain a garrison is a much better solution. Make it a big one like a full large infantry corps per country, remember the Arabs weren't keen on continued British occupation and control and did have some links to Germany. Since early on Britain doesn't have a lot of spare manpower this may be the best solution of all.

Anything that allows the Allies to snooker Italy into war prematurely should be avoided. If players want to play early Italian entry then they can play the alternate 1939 Italian special scenario where Italy is set to go to war from the beginning. The fallacy of it being advantageous to Italy to start early is just that, a fallacy!

Someone correct me if I wrong, but I don't think the Allies need any "ploy" to get Italy into the War early. There is no restriction on the Allies DOWing Italy, if they want, at any time. The only restriction is on the Axis, namely that Italy cannot DOW the Allies until certain conditions have been met.

[malkarma]

Correct. Making Italy a full axis, allows Germany to send lend lease to italy from the very beginning and the placement of german units in Italy, something that will allow the axis to reinforce Africa with german units in 1939.
I invite any of my opponents to do that, lets see if UK holds Egypt by summer '40.

[Omnius]

@Harrybanana - Actually there is a no way the Allies can DoW Italy early except in the special 1939 Italian scenario open where Italy is set to be an Axis ally from the beginning. What's wrong is that too many things like France moving African garrison units or now the UK invading Iraq or Persia early can now trigger Italy to become an Axis ally allowing either side to get Italy started early.

Allowing Germany to place units in Africa in '39 is just another cheap trick that's abused by some players. It's sad that games now too often no longer recreate history but Fake it.

Alvaro should pump up the existing garrisons for Iraq and Persia to make them a little tougher to exploit in '39. Putting in a garrison requirement for both sides in both countries would be a good idea to force either side to garrison these countries or lose those oil resources occasionally. Not a perfect solution but a workable one within the current game programming.

[MagicMissile]

Sorry you are wrong. Allies can always DoW Italy. At least I can in the normal 1939 scenario.

/MM

[michaelCLARADY]

Correct, same here.

[Omnius]

Yep I just checked and sure enough the Allies can begin on turn 1 DoW'ing Italy. I thought that was the difference between the two '39 scenarios. It really should be that the Allies have to wait for Italy to DoW them otherwise this leads to the cheap trick '39 France exploit.

[malkarma]

And also would lead to the loss of Egypt in 1939...if in exchange of some italian ships I get the middle east handled in a silver plate, I will always gladly accept the exchange.

[MagicMissile]

Move the Italian fleet to Venice place som air units there. Let German troops into Egypt, I am really not sure if the UK can hold it and German troops on the French Italian border. I dont think it is such a good idea for the allies but might be worth a try.

/MM