Is turkey ever attacked?

[EdwinP]

Have any of the players - Axis or Allies - ever attacked Turkey? and if so why or why not?

[Becket]

No comment. [:D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

Have any of the players - Axis or Allies - ever attacked Turkey? and if so why or why not?

I never did, and AFAIK no one did in any "serious game". Turks are too strong, and there is too little to gain by attacking them.

I thought about attacking Tukey in one of my games as USSR in 43-44 but decided against it. Germans are quite enough as enemy to make your life painful as USSR [:D]

O.

[EdwinP]

Likewise it appears as if, at least during the posted AARs, that Spain and Sweden are largely free from attack due to the same reason: a strong military while no one attacks Switzerland as it has no rail link and perhaps no resources?

[Oleg Mastruko]

Yes that is correct (more or less).

But this is also connected to the other recent thread about neutral nations "sharing" their resources. All those nations "trade" their resources with belligerents, so that benefit, coupled with the fact they have substantial military, discourages the player from attacking them. (Which is OK by me, though a tweak here and there would be welcome IMO, but lets not forget this is still alpha.)

O.

[Rocko911]

The AI looks to be one of the most dynamic i have ever seen , from the posts you guys have been putting up!

[Hanal]

And it is only getting better!

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

Likewise it appears as if, at least during the posted AARs, that Spain and Sweden are largely free from attack due to the same reason: a strong military while no one attacks Switzerland as it has no rail link and perhaps no resources?

This Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc. neutrality thru all World War II times is historically correct but also a little bit boring. Maybe game makers should reconsider to add some simple diplomacy options in which we can activate them as minor Axis or Allied ally?

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

Likewise it appears as if, at least during the posted AARs, that Spain and Sweden are largely free from attack due to the same reason: a strong military while no one attacks Switzerland as it has no rail link and perhaps no resources?

This Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc. neutrality thru all World War II times is historically correct but also a little bit boring. Maybe game makers should reconsider to add some simple diplomacy options in which we can activate them as minor Axis or Allied ally?

I believe that Spain would have entered as an Axis if Britain had been invaded? Or Hurt so bad it were very vulnerable, if not for I think also the Civil war they had at the time didn't they?

So a SPain entering on Axis side if England were invaded might be
something that could be a possiable hummm?

[Hanal]

I, and other testers, have played a game as Germany where Spain was invaded...it's not an easy task and the units and supplies invested have to be weighed against where they might be needed elsewhere (Russia?).... I have never attempted Turkey, mainly because it "unfreezes" the SU....

[TrueTexan]

A game called "War in Europe" used a political point system to bring nuetrals
like Turkey and Spain into the conflict, if I remember correctly. It generally
took the capture of London to aquire enough Political points to push Spain
into the war on the axis side. If the axis lost to many political points
countries like Hungry and Bulgaria would leave the Axis alliance (Surrender).
How does GGWaW handle beligerent nuetrals like Hungry and Romania?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: TrueTexan

A game called "War in Europe" used a political point system to bring nuetrals
like Turkey and Spain into the conflict, if I remember correctly. It generally
took the capture of London to aquire enough Political points to push Spain
into the war on the axis side. If the axis lost to many political points
countries like Hungry and Bulgaria would leave the Axis alliance (Surrender).
How does GGWaW handle beligerent nuetrals like Hungry and Romania?

There is NO politics, and NO diplomacy in this game. And I personally like it that way. This game is 75% about managing resources/production/research (so, in short, about war economy), and 25% about fighting. But do not for a moment think that game is "shallow" because of that! This game has so much depth, and so many nuances, and is very realistic and challenging - and I think that combination of factors is what got us beta testers so "hooked".

As for the "diplomacy" - it is usually overrated in games of this type. Why? Because good diplomatic model is almost impossible to achieve. What you usually get is some flawed model verymuch suited to player abuse. HOI is good example of that (you know, Venezuela leading Great Communist Alliance conquering half of the Pacific etc.) - so instead of additional "depth" you get childish abuse.

Bulgaria and Romania are Axis countries right from the start in this game (remember, game starts in spring 1940.), but they are "frozen" until the Yugoslavia is captured (so, as Axis you have to conduct Yugoslav operation if you want to do anything in the East.

Oleg

[keyser soze]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

There is NO politics, and NO diplomacy in this game. And I personally like it that way. This game is 75% about managing resources/production/research (so, in short, about war economy), and 25% about fighting. But do not for a moment think that game is "shallow" because of that! This game has so much depth, and so many nuances, and is very realistic and challenging - and I think that combination of factors is what got us beta testers so "hooked".

As for the "diplomacy" - it is usually overrated in games of this type. Why? Because good diplomatic model is almost impossible to achieve. What you usually get is some flawed model verymuch suited to player abuse. HOI is good example of that (you know, Venezuela leading Great Communist Alliance conquering half of the Pacific etc.) - so instead of additional "depth" you get childish abuse.

Bulgaria and Romania are Axis countries right from the start in this game (remember, game starts in spring 1940.), but they are "frozen" until the Yugoslavia is captured (so, as Axis you have to conduct Yugoslav operation if you want to do anything in the East.

Oleg

Anyone who has seen GGWAW alpha reports can’t think that this will be shallow game but some kind of politics-diplomacy options will be great to have from tactical aspect. To my opinion it is a great waste to have Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc. completely static and useless and without any possibility to include them in active play. Nobody will attack these countries because there is nothing to gain, plus it is hard to conquer them (as I have seen from alpha reports) so only way to activate them is with diplomacy. To have, for example, Spain or Turkey as active minor ally can add lots of new tactical options and can even change global situation completely. For me, possibility to have lots of this tactical moves make strategy game much more interesting then " [font="Times New Roman"]75% about managing resources/production/research (so, in short, about war economy), and 25% about fighting.[/font]"

And I don't agree that is diplomatic model almost impossible to achieve. It is hard but not impossible. The best diplomatic model I have ever seen is in Advanced Third Reich game. It has a very realistic (historically correct) results but still you can achieve “What if” results. Actually, this game is example for fantastic global strategy game in generally. It is a very old game but players even today still can invent some new tactical moves. And when I said tactical moves I mean tactical moves on global scale. Only a few games have that quality. I hope that GGWAW will have it too.

[MButtazoni]

And I don't agree that is diplomatic model almost impossible to achieve. It is hard but not impossible. The best diplomatic model I have ever seen is in Advanced Third Reich game. It has a very realistic (historically correct) results but still you can achieve “What if” results

When do you want this game to ship though?

[Largus_Means]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

When do you want this game to ship though?

When it has all the elements that make it a true Grand Strategy, with many different options that give it a non-linear quality. With the addition of a few political choices or variants, things could be VERY different game after game. Having read all the AARs posted so far, things in the last two games have become a touch more predictable since the same silly mistakes made earlier are not being repeated. [;)]

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Largus_Means

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

When do you want this game to ship though?

When it has all the elements that make it a true Grand Strategy, with many different options that give it a non-linear quality. With the addition of a few political choices or variants, things could be VERY different game after game. Having read all the AARs posted so far, things in the last two games have become a touch more predictable since the same silly mistakes made earlier are not being repeated. [;)]

??More predictable?? In Jupiter, China has nearly been wiped out, Italy was invaded in 1941, and Barbarrossa was a dud. In Akula, nothing like that has happened -- completely different game. How much variation do you want? Plus, there are variations that you guys aren't even noticing, like whether a player should focus on researching land v. air v. sea -- you can't research everything and what you choose to research will impact the type of game you play.

One of the top rated wargames on Boardgamegeek.com, Europe Engulfed, has absolutely no variation in the political alliances. Instead, it's an elegant, simple to play but deceptively deep grand strategy game. In my opinion so far, Gary and his team have acheived the same thing with W@W: elegant, simply to play, but very very deep.

I guess you guys will just have to play it to see. [:D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: keyser soze

Anyone who has seen GGWAW alpha reports can’t think that this will be shallow game but some kind of politics-diplomacy options will be great to have from tactical aspect. To my opinion it is a great waste to have Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc. completely static and useless and without any possibility to include them in active play. Nobody will attack these countries because there is nothing to gain,

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.

plus it is hard to conquer them (as I have seen from alpha reports) so only way to activate them is with diplomacy. To have, for example, Spain or Turkey as active minor ally can add lots of new tactical options and can even change global situation completely. For me, possibility to have lots of this tactical moves make strategy game much more interesting then " [font="Times New Roman"]75% about managing resources/production/research (so, in short, about war economy), and 25% about fighting.[/font]"

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

Let's analyze - country by country:

- Sweden - NO way, NO WAY they would have entered the war on any side. NO way. So, if you talk about making Sweden your (German? UK? Soviet - god forbid?) ally or co-belligerent, using the famed "diplomacy", you're talkin science fiction. Then you might as well include Darth Vader's Death Star in tech tree [:D]

- Switzerland - no resources, and diplomatically and historically same thing as Sweden. Someone crazy as Adolf may have conquered Switz. but hey, that's exactly what you can do in this game as well. What do you consider realistic? Using HOI-like "diplomacy engine" to make Swiss send their 5 INF divisions to the Ostfront? [:D] So lets just forget about Switzerland.

- Turkey, well, *maybe* they would have entered the war if Germans conquered Moscow AND Caucasus, but by then who cares anyway? [:D]

- Spain - too tired and exhausted after a long and bloody civil war. Whichever side they may have entered the war on, would not have much help from them. Actually I think 9 INF units they have in the game is over-estimating their strangth, but we discuss that on the beta board (opinions welcome). I read detailed accounts about Hitlers talks with Franco on the France-Spain border AFTER the France was beaten, and Adolf himself said he never wanted to go through that again, and that talking to Franco was (his famous quote) "like having your own teeth pulled out".

If you want this game to simulate "your teeth being pulled out", you don't need GG WAW, just pick worst dentist you can find in your city and make him do his job without anestehic [:D]

I mean it's not that I'm brown-nosing 2by3 or Matrix games by staunchly defending some of their decisions, but this thing about leaving diplomacy and politics aside for this game has my full support.

The diplomatic cards have been dealt for this game. You have two Grand Alliances, who will fight for the global supremacy, and thats it.

O.

[Becket]

Now that Oleg is confessing to strategy, I will too: as Soviets in 1944, I frequently attack Turkey in games against the AI.

[Largus_Means]

ORIGINAL: Becket

??More predictable?? In Jupiter, China has nearly been wiped out, Italy was invaded in 1941, and Barbarrossa was a dud. In Akula, nothing like that has happened -- completely different game. How much variation do you want? Plus, there are variations that you guys aren't even noticing, like whether a player should focus on researching land v. air v. sea -- you can't research everything and what you choose to research will impact the type of game you play.

One of the top rated wargames on Boardgamegeek.com, Europe Engulfed, has absolutely no variation in the political alliances. Instead, it's an elegant, simple to play but deceptively deep grand strategy game. In my opinion so far, Gary and his team have acheived the same thing with W@W: elegant, simply to play, but very very deep.

I guess you guys will just have to play it to see. [:D]

Fair enough, there are many things that cannot be seen through the AARs, especially the tech choices. Good points that you have made. I guess when you can only see a part of the surface, its difficult to make assessments of what else is going on.

[j campbell]

i only attacked Turkey 1 time as it caught my opponent by surprise and i could then make a move towards baku in soviet territory. it takes alot of units and supply and is out of the way in my opinion.

the Spanish Portugal Gmabit is better bang for your buck in my opinion.

john