Talking Turkey: Alternate History from 1936

[Bullfilter]

I can't recall what class our original forces are nautically speaking (and I'd imagine that they, much like the Hawk IIIs and Blenheims, are out of date and increasingly expensive to maintain)

All basic level I scrap iron, unimproved beyond WW1 standard. So older than the Hawks and Blenheims!

 

[diskoerekto]

the War Ministry has a research proposal for Cabinet consideration: the resumption of agricultural reform to free up more able-bodied men for the armed forces.

In more than a decade of me playing HoI2 and 3, I always assumed more agriculture brought more food thus more men, but I always thought it would increase the population not immediately but a generation later and found it a bit unrealistic. Never have I realized it actually means freeing up peasants to draft

Air Force researchers have calculated that a first improvement - for example, perhaps in new aero engines - would only take about three and a half months to complete if effort was assigned. This way, if continued, old wings could be gradually improved and retained, rather than being either completely outclassed in combat or disbanded, losing valuable experience and training of the air crews.

I didn't propose this before because I didn't know if I was biased about air force since we're really short on leadership. It would be a great idea if we can spare some! In time we'll have an aerospace industry. İstikbal göklerdedir!

Since we are unfortunate in that we cannot (through game mechanics) turn our leg infantry into high-quality and -experience mechanized forces unless we upgrade them, we should definitely look into ensuring a continued stream of production of medium and heavy armor. If I recall, we do have access to home-grown motorized infantry, and should look into turning a higher percentage of the ground pounders into a motorized force. Once the walls of the Axis armies collapse, we are going to need to cover significant amounts of territory rapidly.

In fact we can also produce homegrown mechanized divisions as well, they're just one tech away. We'll not receive the speed upgrades (coming from light armor engines tech) but the rest comes from the infantry techs which we already develop as soon as they're available and the base division is fast enough anyway.

here I'd agree with Dr. Slurpee in at least four state-of-the-art interceptor groups being necessary to blunt the enemy air forces, and a pair of tactical bomber groups.

I'd say at least 6 and preferably 8 interceptor wings before for example naval purchases

 

[roverS3]

First off, I'd like to thank all the advisers that have responded before me, as well as the Turkish government for the information provided.

Strategic Aims:
As much as these 'victory conditions' are important, the bigger question on my mind is how we get out of this war in the strongest possible position. This position has to be viewed in three levels.
1. How much territory, industry, population, and resources end up under the influence of the current Comintern. (USSR, USA, Turkey)

The only acceptable issue to the war here is for the vast majority of current Axis real estate to end up under the influence of Comintern members. Most importantly, the current Comintern must be in control of Japan, Germany, and Italy. The quickest way to get there is probably by having the USSR focus on Berlin, the UGNR on Rome, and the USA on Japan.​

2. How much of this ends up under our influence if the USA bails, which seems likely as they lack both geographic proximity and ideological similarity to the other Comintern members.

Within the aforementioned framework and considering the current state of the war, the UGNR and the USSR must be the ones to liberate all, or the vast majority, of Axis-occupied Europe, as well as all Soviet Territory currently under Japanese control. If the USA continues it's current policy and the Red Army reaches the Pacific before the US armed forces have made significant strides against the Japanese Empire, the USSR and the UGNR must work together to take on the Empire of the Rising Sun, throw them out of the Asian mainland, and force them to surrender at home, before any of us even think of taking on a currently un-involved power. In this respect, I respectfully disagree with @nuclearslurpee 's Eurocentric proposals to charge into Spain and Finland as soon as Germany and Italy are knocked out. Yes, placing Finland in the USSR's sphere of influence, and Spain in the UGNR's will improve our bargaining position, but first we must win the war on all fronts. No point in getting prematurely distracted.​

3a. How much ends up under the direct influence of the USSR, regardless of the other Comintern members.
3b. How much ends up under the direct influence of the UGNR, regardless of the other Comintern members.

For the sake of Turko-Soviet cooperation, I won't delve too much into 3a and 3b. I will only add to it by including the possibility of Japanese forces reaching the UGNR's Eastern Border in Pakistan. That would allow Turkey to expand Eastwards, south of the Himalaya, by expelling the Japs, creating a clear split between Soviet and Turkish areas of operation on the Eastern front.​

​

Within this framework enough of these arbitrary 'victory conditions' will have been reached to satisfy any critic.

How the desired outcome is achieved is still a question, of course. The proposal of an amphibious landing is definitely an interesting prospect. I think that, if Mayhem goes well, and Hungary is knocked out, Turkey should be able to free up forces for a landing in Sicily, distracting the Italians, taking hold of some prime Mediterranean real estate, and removing naval bases that could threaten Turkish seaborne supply lines at the same time. I would suggest for Turkey to use Marines for the first wave, then add some mobile forces to quickly grab the island. For the fight on the Italian mainland, a third wave, partially (or fully) replacing mobile forces, should be mountaineers, able to fight and move effectively in the Apennine Mountains. Rapidly shifting forces between two fronts, one on either side of the Adriatic would give Turkey a significant advantage in keeping the Italians off balance. A strategy of moving up Adriatic port by Adriatic port, pretty much alternating between both sides, could be highly effective, even against relatively stiff resistance.

Procurement Priorities:
On the subject of adding new Divisions to the Army, I don't share other adviser's enthusiasm for pushing all our manpower reserves into new formations, for several reasons:
1. Manpower. Turkey is currently loosing more men than it can replace. These losses are concentrated in the Divisions that are actually fighting these bold offensives. That means that, if there are no manpower reserves, these losses cannot be fully replaced without disbanding other formations. Alternatively, Turkey can also slow down it's operations to minimise losses, or enact longer pauses between offensives, thereby lengthening the war. Neither of these outcomes is desirable. Turkey's ability to be very agressive and get results is directly linked to it's ability to replace losses quickly.
2. Leadership. Turkey already has a shortage of General's, adding more Divisions will only make this problem worse, especially when you add the need for more HQ's to control these Divisions. Diluting available officers amongst too many Divisions also goes against the current style of Turkish warfare.

This doesn't mean you can't add new Divisions, only that strengthening and/or upgrading current Divisions should take precedence. I would advocate for a conservative estimate to be made on how much Turkish manpower will be needed to win this war in Europe. Paired with an optimistic timeline, you can then calculate how much manpower Turkey can really spare. To close the gap between the losses and the replacements, both Agriculture research and a more potent Air Force will have a significant impact. The Divisions we do add must provide as much firepower & mobility as possible, for their allocated manpower. Or they should have specific capabilities. (eg. Marines, Paratroopers, Mountaineers). I would suggest trying to keep at least 40 MP on hand by the end of the year to allow enough flexibility to engage in high risk high reward strategies that inevitably end in high casualties, but have the potential to take a lot of ground and take many prisoners.

The Air Force: Interceptors are the number one priority here, even over additional ground forces. Until Turkey is in a position to chase enemy bombers away consistently you need the manpower reserves to replace the losses from enemy ground attack so interceptors take priority over new Divisions on the ground. Tactical bombers are next in line. They will soften up enemy troops, reduce the number of casualties your forces take in ground combat, and speed up offensives, but if you can't protect them against enemy fighters they're just a bunch of targets for enemy fighters, and they are quite expensive to replace, another reason to concentrate on Interceptors first. The proposal to start improving old Turkish Airframes is another way to improve the Air Force that would be beneficial. Maybe allocate one research slot to Aeroplane research and see where that gets you, starting, of course, with Aero engines. I would push for a narrow focus on single Engine Aeroplanes, though, at least until Turkish homegrown fighters become somewhat competitive. This is also an insurance policy, just in case licenses become too expensive or simply unavailable. Turkey could then consider building home-grown CAS to complement it's INT, and it's stock of Tac, with little additional research needed.

The Navy: Here I will reiterate the need for a modern Light Cruisers. In the short term development, let alone construction, of capital ships should still take a backseat. These CL's aren't just investments for the long term, they could function in tandem with the modern Destroyers to protect convoys and scout potential naval invasion locations. Yes, as the front moves further and further from the Turkish homeland, supply on land will become more costly and more limited. Seaborne supply convoys are cheaper to run, and they provide additional throughput. (which can be increased by researching 'Basing' and expanding naval bases.). To mitigate the associated risks, we need to have a clear understanding of the enemy naval forces present along the routes these convoys take. The radar sets on board these license-built ships will help. A fleet of CL's and DD's is also fast enough to escape when it encounters larger surface combattants which can do real damage. Of course, this has to be avoided at all costs, as significant losses will be sustained during the evasion. The Air Force's bombers could also be used to soften up enemy fleets in port. Dive bombers are particularly effective in this regard, and they have the range to reach the other side of the Adriatic. The obsolete main Turkish fleet should only be used to escort slow troop transports and provide shore bombardment during amphibious invasions, ideally with the smaller, faster, and more modern fleet scouting for potential naval threats.
In case Turkey has to fight the Japs on it's own Eastern front, naval convoys into Persia will be vital to supply a large force. An increase in the size of the Turkish Merchant Navy should also be on the table as the UGNR expands, and once the European victory is a done deal, attention should go to the development of Turkish capital ships, whether you go with CA's or CV's.
Of course, sufficient troop transports / Landing Craft should be available to allow for amphibious operations and quick reinforcement.

The manpower situation isn't desperate, and once losses and replacements can be equalised without slowing down operations, significantly reducing reserve manpower by adding entire corps of new units becomes viable again. I suggest monitoring the manpower situation over time and evaluating every month how much Turkey's net loss is in this respect. (not counting the MP for new units). I will repeat it again, manpower should not dictate the operational tempo. If your nation finds itself in a situation where units have to be disbanded to keep going, things have gone horribly wrong somewhere. Additionally, supplies have to be delivered as efficiently as possible, even if that means taking a calculated risk on the fact that ships could get sunk in the process.

Diplomacy: I believe it is unlikely we will be able to convince Nationalist Spain or Finland to join the Comintern, especially when they have the possibility to deal with the US or the UK instead. Nationalist China could only be swayed if the Comintern already has a clear upper hand in the Far East. Even then, we should watch out for a potential Chinese civil war, and potentially alienating the winners of such a war. Finally, Turkey should probably save it's limited Leadership for research and officers.

In short. In my opinion the production priorities right now should be:

Interceptors first. Upgrades and reinforcement of existing units second. Tac's third. Naval transports fourth. Light Cruisers fifth. New Divisions sixth.

This is, of course subject to change as discussed above.

I'm looking forward to the coming strategic meeting, I'm sure it will be worthwhile and enlightening,

SkitalecS3

 

[nuclearslurpee]

Manpower situation seems slightly better than I projected, which is good news - should make it a bit easier to mobilize that manpower in the form of actual troop deployments. Remember, even if MP goes to zero we do not lose the ability to reinforce our troops entirely, and given historical MP usage I do not expect that we will struggle to reinforce the majority, if not all, of our forces in such a scenario.

I can't say I'm hugely in favor of air force research at this time. Anything we produce domestically will be vastly inferior to what we can purchase licenses for, and this will be the case at least through the end of the war. Even if we need to replace our oldest aircraft with newer models, license building remains a superior alternative in the context of the present war. For the long term, of course we would like to develop domestic capabilities, but one war at a time here!

2. How much of this ends up under our influence if the USA bails, which seems likely as they lack both geographic proximity and ideological similarity to the other Comintern members.
Within the aforementioned framework and considering the current state of the war, the UGNR and the USSR must be the ones to liberate all, or the vast majority, of Axis-occupied Europe, as well as all Soviet Territory currently under Japanese control. If the USA continues it's current policy and the Red Army reaches the Pacific before the US armed forces have made significant strides against the Japanese Empire, the USSR and the UGNR must work together to take on the Empire of the Rising Sun, throw them out of the Asian mainland, and force them to surrender at home, before any of us even think of taking on a currently un-involved power. In this respect, I respectfully disagree with @nuclearslurpee 's Eurocentric proposals to charge into Spain and Finland as soon as Germany and Italy are knocked out. Yes, placing Finland in the USSR's sphere of influence, and Spain in the UGNR's will improve our bargaining position, but first we must win the war on all fronts. No point in getting prematurely distracted.

While it would be ideal to wait on Spain and Finland until Japan is taken down, there is frankly no guarantee that Japan can be defeated anytime soon - the naval logistics required to mount an invasion of the home islands seem well beyond the physical and...creative capabilities of our allies, sadly. Meanwhile, time is of the essence, as with European Axis influence destroyed there would be little stopping Spain or Finland from seeking alliance with the United Kingdom due to shared anti-Comintern sentiment. We must strike while the iron is hot, and the troops are in-theater.

1. Manpower. Turkey is currently loosing more men than it can replace. These losses are concentrated in the Divisions that are actually fighting these bold offensives. That means that, if there are no manpower reserves, these losses cannot be fully replaced without disbanding other formations. Alternatively, Turkey can also slow down it's operations to minimise losses, or enact longer pauses between offensives, thereby lengthening the war. Neither of these outcomes is desirable. Turkey's ability to be very agressive and get results is directly linked to it's ability to replace losses quickly.
2. Leadership. Turkey already has a shortage of General's, adding more Divisions will only make this problem worse, especially when you add the need for more HQ's to control these Divisions. Diluting available officers amongst too many Divisions also goes against the current style of Turkish warfare.

For manpower, it is worth noting that Turkey only loses more men than she can replace while on the offensive. In less-active times of even fierce defense, she is able to generate a modest surplus of brave soldiers who need only be trained and equipped to serve the Glorious Union. A well-maintained balance between offensive and defensive actions will ensure that no division is neglected, even if some secondary divisions must deal with being a lower priority for some periods of time.

For leadership, we can expect to continue graduating new leaders in 1944 and 1945 to help lead our expanding forces, and meanwhile more offensive divisions means we can place more of our best generals on the front lines even if this means a few more divisions on secondary lines must live with temporary leaders for a while yet. The question is not one of placing leaders in every division, but rather placing as many leaders as possible in the most impactful positions - on the front lines in active theaters and in command of our offensive formations.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

subject to a three-way diplomatic tug-of-war between the three world faction leaders. In net terms, they are drifting slightly towards the Allies, but remain firmly in the Axis corner. Rather quaintly, they consider us rather than the Soviets as their highest threat

Well, we are, technically. May be possible to influence them into the comintern though, which would be better for all of us. The Allies plus America are far more likely to object to an invasion of Finland than, say, fascist Spain.

Nationalist Spain, run by that fascist fellow-traveller Franco, also - very wisely in their case - consider us to be their highest threat. Unlike Finland, none of the factions are trying to woo them, nor are they aligning to any of the Three Blocs. Like Finland, they are also drifting very slightly to the Allies and are in the Axis corner, but not as far as the Finns. It is a great pity we can't persuade the Soviets to begin influencing them: given time, it might even have been possible to bring them to the Comintern by diplomatic means. [Unlikely though that would be in RL - a little more unlikely even than Turkey joining it! ]

We really do need to invade these guys. Change the government, bring them into the comintern and if we can, under Turkey's sphere of influence.

And a reminder is provided regarding the war goals for Italy: to conquer and bring them into the UGNR, in a series of sub-states. These were decided some years ago, when the war started. [And which due to the quaint game mechanics can't be changed once set. ]

As I said at the time, this might actually work out better than trying to keep the whole country together. Split Italy into a few republics plus Rome as a city state perhaps, which would be more stable than one country where most of the people in it don't like each other. Plus it makes it easier for us to control them, as a bonus, and they'd fit better into the UGNR that way.

 

[GangsterSynod]

I agree with @roverS3 's Sicily plan and @nuclearslurpee 's short-term through mid-future goals (with a suitable force stationed in the East to make sure Japan doesn't start some sort of western offensive before we're ready). License-building seems like a better use of the resources we have. Really, I think we need to focus on a better air force. A navy seems useful long-term, both in terms of prestige and operational effectiveness, but the losses we've been taking through Axis air superiority have to be mitigated at all costs.

 

[roverS3]

While it would be ideal to wait on Spain and Finland until Japan is taken down, there is frankly no guarantee that Japan can be defeated anytime soon - the naval logistics required to mount an invasion of the home islands seem well beyond the physical and...creative capabilities of our allies, sadly. Meanwhile, time is of the essence, as with European Axis influence destroyed there would be little stopping Spain or Finland from seeking alliance with the United Kingdom due to shared anti-Comintern sentiment. We must strike while the iron is hot, and the troops are in-theater.

So maybe we have a plan to hold off Spanish and Finnish forces just in case we have to declare war on them as they're getting too close to the Allies. OOC: the Soviet AI is also likely to have some trouble fighting in Finland and the Far East, with unnecessary troop movements all over the place.

For manpower, it is worth noting that Turkey only loses more men than she can replace while on the offensive. In less-active times of even fierce defense, she is able to generate a modest surplus of brave soldiers who need only be trained and equipped to serve the Glorious Union. A well-maintained balance between offensive and defensive actions will ensure that no division is neglected, even if some secondary divisions must deal with being a lower priority for some periods of time.

This is correct, but it doesn't entirely negate my point. We want the Turkish Army on the offensive as much as possible, and if we have to start factoring in the time it takes to top up manpower reserves to compensate for losses into this 'well-maintained' balance between offensive and defensive actions the down-time will be extended. If you get it wrong, you can get to a point where you have to halt an offensive prematurely, or take more losses, because there is no more reserve manpower. A healthy reserve takes manpower out of these calculations, allowing the Turkish Army to take full advantage of the situation. I want to see the time between offensives shortened as much as possible.
I also did mention that, once the manpower situation get's less dire (not just a pause between offensive, but a manpower gain on average, while offensives are proceeding at the maximum possible rate), more new units should be trained, if only to help hold the ground we gain. A more positive manpower situation will likely be achieved through the reduction in bombing casualties, the improvement of supply lines & agriculture, the collapse of Axis Armed Forces, and the addition of Turkey-sympathisers from newly conquered territories into our armed forces, be it on the front line or second line divisions. That could be as soon as the end of the current year.

For leadership, we can expect to continue graduating new leaders in 1944 and 1945 to help lead our expanding forces, and meanwhile more offensive divisions means we can place more of our best generals on the front lines even if this means a few more divisions on secondary lines must live with temporary leaders for a while yet. The question is not one of placing leaders in every division, but rather placing as many leaders as possible in the most impactful positions - on the front lines in active theaters and in command of our offensive formations.

Currently, there are plenty of leaderless Divisions on the active Balkans front so one might argue that your assertion on 'impactful positions' is already the case, and if it isn't, a simple leadership reshuffle will place all Turkish leaders in such positions. Even on the defensive, you need at least 1 leader per province (but if there are multiple, they all gain experience). Those German attacks are well-lead, and they hit hard, you don't want defensive operations commanded by some jumped up Colonel. Sure, put the best Turkish Generals in the most powerful Divisions, and in key HQ's, but the less skilled ones need to hold the line. I recognise that this doesn't preclude adding leaderless Divisions to the line in places where a leader is already present. Realistically, additional Divisions would likely be used to lengthen the front line, even temporarily, or open a second front. There is still some time to go before the class of 1944 graduates, I fear the number of new leaders will be low. Looking at the current roster, it looks like only 3 potential Generals will graduate in 1944. (Checking the Wiki, Turkey gets 3 army leaders in '44, and 3 in '45. Of course @Bullfilter could always add more commanders, possibly from conquered nations.)

 

[diskoerekto]

I'm happy Comrade @roverS3 agrees with me on the necessity to take down the entirety of the Axis beast first, and acknowledges we need to be get ready to face off Japanese troops on Iran/Raj border in the mid term. This also gives us the southern half of the Asian continent in our sphere.

After some more thinking, my (probably) final idea about the Spain and Finland (and Vichy France) problems is as follows: If Japan already finished the British Raj and facing us off there, redeploy and start fighting that war that would take us all the way until Southeast Asia. If the Japs are still on their way, bide our time in Europe by declaring war on and beating any number of European non-Axis member fascists.

However, I disagree about a Sicily landing. From my perspective, a landing on Italy should have a clear way forward to Rome. For this reason I suggest Pescara, or if there's too hot, the plains harbor province just next to Taranto. And any such landing should only be after Hungary is out of the war and some of our divisions are already at the gates of Venezia.

And to repeat myself, probably the most manpower saving/surplus for our bang would be more interceptor wings to keep those Axis bombers away from our troops.

 

[nuclearslurpee]

So maybe we have a plan to hold off Spanish and Finnish forces just in case we have to declare war on them as they're getting too close to the Allies. OOC: the Soviet AI is also likely to have some trouble fighting in Finland and the Far East, with unnecessary troop movements all over the place.

I see very little reason not to launch an offensive more or less immediately once the European Axis is felled. Certainly by then, our ability to fight a two-front war will not be in question (and if the Stavka commanders struggle a bit to reassign troops to fronts, that will be their problem to solve). On the flip side, we can really only support a fairly minimal amount of troops concentrated along the Indian border or in the Siberian wastelands anyways, logistically, so we may as well have our core mobile and leg forces doing something more useful than staring menacingly into France. In any case, deploying enough forces "just in case" essentially means deploying enough forces to actually take out these potential threats anyways, so we may as well get it over with and not give our enemies time to prepare, or worse to pull off a diplomatic coup.

This is correct, but it doesn't entirely negate my point. We want the Turkish Army on the offensive as much as possible, and if we have to start factoring in the time it takes to top up manpower reserves to compensate for losses into this 'well-maintained' balance between offensive and defensive actions the down-time will be extended. If you get it wrong, you can get to a point where you have to halt an offensive prematurely, or take more losses, because there is no more reserve manpower. A healthy reserve takes manpower out of these calculations, allowing the Turkish Army to take full advantage of the situation. I want to see the time between offensives shortened as much as possible.

I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding about my proposed "well-maintained balance". The balance in question is not one of manpower concerns, as we have the capability to prioritize our offensive divisions. Rather, it is a balance which recognizes that the end of an offensive action is necessarily the beginning of a defensive action - that of consolidation and re-drawing the defensive lines on which the Axis may freely break themselves. During this time, divisions which have been neglected in the reinforcement calculus (which, again, we can control fairly tightly) will be accounted for if they have been required to go without fresh recruits for a brief time. This is not an intent of the "balance" I speak of, but merely a following consequence.

Of course, key to this idea is the fact that Turkey has been able to maintain a surplus of reinforcements in most cases of recent history, with the exception of the present offensive and even this hit to our MP reserves has been less than anticipated. I do not advocate careless exhausting of the reserve; rather, I advocate that now and in the near future is the time to deploy that reserve for maximal and final effect. And even so, note that my proposal does not advocate immediate spending of the entire MP reserve, in fact of the recommended ~100 MP I advocate to train and deploy not even 40% of these are to be queued immediately, and I certainly anticipate that continued accruals will be adequate to support my proposal with a modest buffer to boot - particularly as we retake the remainder of UGNR lands and begin recruiting collaboration-minded souls from Hungarian and Austrian lands as well.

[OOC: It is worth noting as well that divisions in-game perform equally well in combat regardless of strength, so even if our divisions do drop to 90% or 80% for non-prioritized divisions the combat efficiency will not be significantly affected, particularly since the combat balance in TFH favors ORG loss over shattering of divisions. Not entirely historical, but it is what it is.]

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

It will be much easier to plan whatever to do when the Axis fall in Europe when we know for certain whether or not we are going to be in charge of Italy. If in a years time we are in charge of the invasion or partway through it, then yes we can plan for Spain next. As is, we are still seriously still just hoping and planning for Italy itself, nevermind more stuff in the western med.

I think attacking Finland might be a mistake. Better if we can do it diplomatically, because the west will object to it (how strongly will probably be down to the RNG) whereas with Spain i don't think they will. That being said, if we launch an invasion of Spain after the end of the war in Europe, we can hardly expect Stalin to not launch a similar attack on Finland at the same time. It's just doing so will make us look worse than going purely after facist regimes. Or rather, doing so might be the break that ends with the Americans leaving the Comintern, at least I think would in universe, which is not something we want them to do until after Japan is defeated.

 

[Bullfilter]

[OOC: It is worth noting as well that divisions in-game perform equally well in combat regardless of strength, so even if our divisions do drop to 90% or 80% for non-prioritized divisions the combat efficiency will not be significantly affected, particularly since the combat balance in TFH favors ORG loss over shattering of divisions. Not entirely historical, but it is what it is.]

Really? Didn’t know that (as I’ve said before I’m not a big one for mechanics or calculation in div orgs, combat ratios, production ... or anything much ). It would explain why the Germans have been so resilient, as their org recovery is very quick, I’ve noticed.

Does strength have much impact at all? What, for example, very roughly would the effect of a standard Inf brigade being at half strength have? Top of my head, I would have assumed it would halve its combat power, while org I’d have assumed should have no real effect on combat power, but was more of a morale thing, so it would have relatively little effect, but when lost causes the unit to break. Sounds like it might be quite different to that (to be fair, they do call it org rather than morale, and I can see how a loss of ‘org‘ could affect combat power).

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I'm never going to be a good HOI player. I keep glazing over these details. The only things I can really get into are airplanes and artillery, and thats just personal bias.

 

[roverS3]

However, I disagree about a Sicily landing. From my perspective, a landing on Italy should have a clear way forward to Rome. For this reason I suggest Pescara, or if there's too hot, the plains harbor province just next to Taranto. And any such landing should only be after Hungary is out of the war and some of our divisions are already at the gates of Venezia.

Taking out Rome also won't knock Italy out of the war on it's own. A landing in Pescara or near Taranto would still make sense from a tactical point of view. If I had to choose between those two, I'd prefer Taranto, as you can more easily cover your Southern flak while going North. Not going for Sicily first will make it easy for the UK to swoop in once they finish up in North Africa. The Island is nice and central, and potentially more important for control of the med than the area around Rome. With both Malta & Sicily in British hands, the UK can much more easily disrupt/control East-West shipping in the Med, even with Coastal Artillery alone.

Of course, key to this idea is the fact that Turkey has been able to maintain a surplus of reinforcements in most cases of recent history, with the exception of the present offensive and even this hit to our MP reserves has been less than anticipated. I do not advocate careless exhausting of the reserve; rather, I advocate that now and in the near future is the time to deploy that reserve for maximal and final effect. And even so, note that my proposal does not advocate immediate spending of the entire MP reserve, in fact of the recommended ~100 MP I advocate to train and deploy not even 40% of these are to be queued immediately, and I certainly anticipate that continued accruals will be adequate to support my proposal with a modest buffer to boot - particularly as we retake the remainder of UGNR lands and begin recruiting collaboration-minded souls from Hungarian and Austrian lands as well.

I guess my position pertaining to the deployment of manpower is simply more cautious than yours. I don't think your proposal would ruin the UGNR, simply that it seems a bit risky to spend half of the remaining manpower right-away with less than 40 manpower in reserve, and that in a time of declining manpower. I also argued from the start that more units could & should be ordered once the MP balance was clearly in the green.

[OOC: It is worth noting as well that divisions in-game perform equally well in combat regardless of strength, so even if our divisions do drop to 90% or 80% for non-prioritized divisions the combat efficiency will not be significantly affected, particularly since the combat balance in TFH favors ORG loss over shattering of divisions. Not entirely historical, but it is what it is.]

I've suspected the effect of strength to be lower than that of org for a while, but not the degree to which it is the case. I looked it up, and it seems like strength only applies to 1/3 the damage done. In that light, a more cavalier attitude to retaining MP seems more viable. This seems to be another area where paradox strays from reality. I'm sure there is some middle ground that could be landed on. If you're going to be running down Division's strength, it would make sense to me to deploy the most durable ones to avoid shattering and further reduce the effect of casualties on the strength percentage. Infx2, AT seems needlessly risky.

It will be much easier to plan whatever to do when the Axis fall in Europe when we know for certain whether or not we are going to be in charge of Italy. If in a years time we are in charge of the invasion or partway through it, then yes we can plan for Spain next. As is, we are still seriously still just hoping and planning for Italy itself, nevermind more stuff in the western med.

I think attacking Finland might be a mistake. Better if we can do it diplomatically, because the west will object to it (how strongly will probably be down to the RNG) whereas with Spain i don't think they will. That being said, if we launch an invasion of Spain after the end of the war in Europe, we can hardly expect Stalin to not launch a similar attack on Finland at the same time. It's just doing so will make us look worse than going purely after facist regimes. Or rather, doing so might be the break that ends with the Americans leaving the Comintern, at least I think would in universe, which is not something we want them to do until after Japan is defeated.

Yet more reasons to wait things out, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[racebear75]

Romania as a puppet doesn't has any rights to be part of the above mentioned discussions. But there is one question always around in the FMs staff: Why doesn't Turkey prefer leaderless units but take a use of those many generals the other members of the Union had im charge before they became members of the Union. Or at least the most communist-leaning ones of them.

 

[roverS3]

Romania as a puppet doesn't has any rights to be part of the above mentioned discussions. But there is one question always around in the FMs staff: Why doesn't Turkey prefer leaderless units but take a use of those many generals the other members of the Union had im charge before they became members of the Union. Or at least the most communist-leaning ones of them.

Once you factor in the fact that the Turkish Army is liberating these lands from the Fascists, quite a few qualified people who preferred Turkey's reign over the Axis's is likely to be rather motivated to serve in the Turkish Army. The non-Axis-sympathising Yugolsavs should be ripe for the picking. Bulgarians, and especially Greeks may be more reluctant, though. If such a move would be made, I'd suggest getting some of the Yugoslavs (depending on political leanings and what they did during the Axis occupation), for the Greeks and the Bulgarians, I see only the staunchest Communists and most enthousiastic Turkophiles joining and not attempting some kind of coup or power-grab sometime in the future. Only those who supported Turkey's original invasion and those who have lived under hostile Axis occupation (without collaborating) will really appreciate the advantages of being part of the UGNR to the fullest and be loyal to the cause.
The question of where to deploy these hypothetical additional generals is also risky:
You could argue for placing them in charge of Garrisons in their own GNR. This could go very well if they are loyal and help keep the relations between the local populations and the big overarching Turkish empire. Easier if you're a native. If several of these generals prove to be disloyal, and they get together, they could cause trouble by declaring independence form the UGNR. That's easier if you're already in charge of the Garrisons.
Placing them on the front also carries risks, especially if they end up becoming war heroes, as that could imply that maybe the GNR's don't need protection from Turkey as they have plenty of their young men already serving, and even war hero generals. Unless the Generals in questions display unwavering loyalty and humbly defer to their training in Turkey and their great Turkish colleagues/personal heroes, that could lead to some serious unrest.
It's a decision that isn't made lightly, and the bar has to be significantly higher for UGNR applicants from outside Turkey to be accepted into the Army as Generals. Then again, with an expanding army that is still significantly smaller than that of the Major powers of this world, can Turkey really afford not to tap the UGNR's army leadership potential?

 

[diskoerekto]

Only those who supported Turkey's original invasion liberation

ahem

Placing them on the front also carries risks, especially if they end up becoming war heroes, as that could imply that maybe the GNR's don't need protection from Turkey as they have plenty of their young men already serving, and even war hero generals. Unless the Generals in questions display unwavering loyalty and humbly defer to their training in Turkey and their great Turkish colleagues/personal heroes, that could lead to some serious unrest.

I know @Bullfilter doesn't do this to handicap himself against the AI which sometimes does stupid stuff, but in roleplaying terms there's no need for being wary of those generals. The generals we already have are from a wide variety of ethnicities which include several Balkan ethnicities, so they're already represented in the UGNR army top brass. They're all brothers and sisters, it doesn't matter where they were born, they eat the same food and use the same curse words (for instance, have you seen the siktir map?) and share the same hatred against the fascist scum.

 

[Bullfilter]

Romania as a puppet doesn't has any rights to be part of the above mentioned discussions. But there is one question always around in the FMs staff: Why doesn't Turkey prefer leaderless units but take a use of those many generals the other members of the Union had im charge before they became members of the Union. Or at least the most communist-leaning ones of them.

The Romanian General Staff is more than welcome to put its own views for the conduct of the war as an integral and valued part of the Turkish strategic picture. If they have a submission it would be presented directly to Cabinet.

As to using ‘spare’ generals from conquered countries, a few people have suggested that over time and while it is reasonable and indeed tempting, it would go against one of the ‘House Rules’ for this game and AAR: I want to play it as close to the base game as possible, so commander shortages for an expanded Turkish Army is part of that and (like low LS etc) is one of those self-imposed handicaps I’ve placed on myself. I feel if (as with Romania) the option is taken to release a country as a puppet rather than conquer it, then retaining their army-in being, commanders etc is the advantage you get. If you conquer, they’ll be too disgusted to want to fight for you as generals

The only exception I’ve made on the commander front so far was the one-off graduation of MAJGEN Diskoerekto to 3 Mtn Div, I won’t make a habit of it, just to stay true to the vibe.

 

[Bullfilter]

Once you factor in the fact that the Turkish Army is liberating these lands from the Fascists, quite a few qualified people who preferred Turkey's reign over the Axis's is likely to be rather motivated to serve in the Turkish Army. The non-Axis-sympathising Yugolsavs should be ripe for the picking. Bulgarians, and especially Greeks may be more reluctant, though. If such a move would be made, I'd suggest getting some of the Yugoslavs (depending on political leanings and what they did during the Axis occupation), for the Greeks and the Bulgarians, I see only the staunchest Communists and most enthousiastic Turkophiles joining and not attempting some kind of coup or power-grab sometime in the future. Only those who supported Turkey's original invasion and those who have lived under hostile Axis occupation (without collaborating) will really appreciate the advantages of being part of the UGNR to the fullest and be loyal to the cause.
The question of where to deploy these hypothetical additional generals is also risky:
You could argue for placing them in charge of Garrisons in their own GNR. This could go very well if they are loyal and help keep the relations between the local populations and the big overarching Turkish empire. Easier if you're a native. If several of these generals prove to be disloyal, and they get together, they could cause trouble by declaring independence form the UGNR. That's easier if you're already in charge of the Garrisons.
Placing them on the front also carries risks, especially if they end up becoming war heroes, as that could imply that maybe the GNR's don't need protection from Turkey as they have plenty of their young men already serving, and even war hero generals. Unless the Generals in questions display unwavering loyalty and humbly defer to their training in Turkey and their great Turkish colleagues/personal heroes, that could lead to some serious unrest.
It's a decision that isn't made lightly, and the bar has to be significantly higher for UGNR applicants from outside Turkey to be accepted into the Army as Generals. Then again, with an expanding army that is still significantly smaller than that of the Major powers of this world, can Turkey really afford not to tap the UGNR's army leadership potential?

Per above, elegantly argued, but I’ll valiantly stick to my handicap factor - ‘leaderless’ divisions I’ll just treat as being commanded by mediocre generals who will never be promoted. Not an unrealistic hypothesis, either! If this was to morph into a non-existent modern Paradox setting, then some kind of absorption of command talent into the Turkish military would be very reasonable.

 

[Bullfilter]

ahem


I know @Bullfilter doesn't do this to handicap himself against the AI which sometimes does stupid stuff, but in roleplaying terms there's no need for being wary of those generals. The generals we already have are from a wide variety of ethnicities which include several Balkan ethnicities, so they're already represented in the UGNR army top brass. They're all brothers and sisters, it doesn't matter where they were born, they eat the same food and use the same curse words (for instance, have you seen the siktir map?) and share the same hatred against the fascist scum.

And again, very reasonable arguments, but I’ll stick with my voluntary punishment for now. If it comes to it, second string, backwater or quiet area divisions will just have their generals stripped away and sent to the spearhead formations. The AI has enough problems against a human player, so I’ll just suck it up and keep going.

 

[diskoerekto]

And again, very reasonable arguments, but I’ll stick with my voluntary punishment for now. If it comes to it, second string, backwater or quiet area divisions will just have their generals stripped away and sent to the spearhead formations. The AI has enough problems against a human player, so I’ll just suck it up and keep going.

In fact I was trying to remind our comrades about the self imposed handicap, but got carried away about the reason why he thought in rp terms we aren’t using the generals