• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hold on a second, you are doing everything wrong.

Did you ever wonder why Turkey didn't accomplish much in WW1? It's because we spent all our assets on a cunning attack on one of the worst places to fight on the planet (right after the Himalayas and Antarctica).

Your grand plan is the exact same. Attacking the Caucasus with all your military might is not a sane idea. Terrain there favors the Russians immensely, their side of the border is mountainous, your side is merely hilly. THEY are in a position to attack, not you (in WWI, they did counter-attack and take big chunks of Anatolia just before the bolshevik revolution). Also, you are complaining about the losses in battle, while you should really pay attention to the attrition. I'm guessing you have about 15 MTN divisions there, which should be about 150.000 men. You said you lost 2000 men in a battle of frontal charges against mountains; but with the ~2% attrition from the mountains and low infrastructure and whatnot, you will lose 3000 men every day to the Caucasus. Mountaineers and mountain warfare equipment should lower this amount somewhat, but it's still horrible for a low MP nation.

Turkey should remain on the defensive in the Caucasus front, a handful of divisions holding on without losing too much ground. As for the offensive, I usually research and build my own medium tanks, and go blazing through the ukrainian plains. In WWI, Germany wanted Ottoman empire to make a landing in Ukraine, flanking the main Russian lines with a sizable force.. Anyway, tanks are a viable option for Turkey, and they are immensely useful for the middle eastern and ukrainian fronts. I remember forming the right pincer of the Kiev encirclement with my 4 tank divisions and supporting infantry divisions.. So many russians were captured that day, I actually didn't encounter any russian divisions before crossing the dnieper. And they could only stop me at rostov na don, at which point they pulled back most of the divisions facing eastern turkey to defend the road to Stalingrad. 3 months later, the soviets surrendered.

I must admit that you won't have your tanks or infantry fully up to date, but they are good enough to handle the bolshevik scum.
 
Hold on a second, you are doing everything wrong.

Did you ever wonder why Turkey didn't accomplish much in WW1? It's because we spent all our assets on a cunning attack on one of the worst places to fight on the planet (right after the Himalayas and Antarctica).

Your grand plan is the exact same. Attacking the Caucasus with all your military might is not a sane idea. Terrain there favors the Russians immensely, their side of the border is mountainous, your side is merely hilly. THEY are in a position to attack, not you (in WWI, they did counter-attack and take big chunks of Anatolia just before the bolshevik revolution). Also, you are complaining about the losses in battle, while you should really pay attention to the attrition. I'm guessing you have about 15 MTN divisions there, which should be about 150.000 men. You said you lost 2000 men in a battle of frontal charges against mountains; but with the ~2% attrition from the mountains and low infrastructure and whatnot, you will lose 3000 men every day to the Caucasus. Mountaineers and mountain warfare equipment should lower this amount somewhat, but it's still horrible for a low MP nation.

Turkey should remain on the defensive in the Caucasus front, a handful of divisions holding on without losing too much ground. As for the offensive, I usually research and build my own medium tanks, and go blazing through the ukrainian plains. In WWI, Germany wanted Ottoman empire to make a landing in Ukraine, flanking the main Russian lines with a sizable force.. Anyway, tanks are a viable option for Turkey, and they are immensely useful for the middle eastern and ukrainian fronts. I remember forming the right pincer of the Kiev encirclement with my 4 tank divisions and supporting infantry divisions.. So many russians were captured that day, I actually didn't encounter any russian divisions before crossing the dnieper. And they could only stop me at rostov na don, at which point they pulled back most of the divisions facing eastern turkey to defend the road to Stalingrad. 3 months later, the soviets surrendered.

I must admit that you won't have your tanks or infantry fully up to date, but they are good enough to handle the bolshevik scum.

In my practice games Italy did not lose it's entire army, and Germany made good progress because I tied up so many divisions. You see on my broad-view maps, I'd actually advanced far into the Caucasus, and could have made excellent progress if Germany's AI wasn't so shit. The idea was to keep the pressure on.
 
In my practice games Italy did not lose it's entire army, and Germany made good progress because I tied up so many divisions. You see on my broad-view maps, I'd actually advanced far into the Caucasus, and could have made excellent progress if Germany's AI wasn't so shit. The idea was to keep the pressure on.
I'm just saying, landing near Rostov or Sevastopol would have saved you a bunch of manpower, and the USSR would still have to keep all those troops against your divisions.

By the way, I'm sure you were greatly annoyed by the lack of leaders. Could you try this and see if it's any good? It's a historical leaders patch I've made for Turkey, but it needs some balancing before it's complete. Just extract it to your HOI3 folder, but be aware that it'll change your checksum.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51923258/Leader pack for Turkey (WORK IN PROGRESS).rar
 
Last edited: