Historical or Ahistorical give us both !!!

[Leon_Aditzu]

an alternative event that could a game changer would be the assassination of Stalin in 1936-1937 and return of Trotsky in Soviet Union. Also giving the Soviet Union, events of that will change entire country from perspective communism in one state to communism in all the world. Also World Revolution decision should give the Soviet Union a claim against the entire world: Proletariat Unification casus belli, if Trotsky is in power. After that Soviets attack most of their neighbors, communist Chinese join in soviet unions, the same with communists from Spain resulting in a Global Communist revolution which will lead in Declaration of War of Allies against Soviet. Axis Nation see this opportunity and attack most the neutral neighbors resulting in a Global war Allies vs Axis Vs Comintern
Also what if world war 2 ignites because of Spanish Civil War.

 

[21oliver]

Now your getting deeper into the whole game. My point is a simple one. Turkey and the Soviet Union dont like each other. Stalin was a bit of a madman bent on Empire. Turkey should not be so confident that they leave their borders with the Soviet Union unguarded. IN cases like this where there is historical precedence it should be present.

I mean the game forces us to keep german troops in place to enforce the NAP, why does that make sense and yet Turkey doesnt need to keep a single unit? Why would Stalin be considered insane to attack a weak and unprotected, unfactioned Turkey, when neither the Allies nor the Axis is in a position to do anything about it, but he wouldnt be considered insane in attacking a front manned by Germans albeit a lesser amount of units then he may have? He is not insane to attack the Germans who presently would be fighting the allies giving him more time to re-arm and redeploy but to attack a weak and defenseless nation that now gives him mediterranean ports and another jump off point into the middle east should he decide to eventually go up against the allies. I just dont see it. Not only is it plausible, under the right circumstances its down right likely. And its inclusion would simply add some interest to a game every so often, its not going to destroy the game. We already have plausible elements that didnt occur added to the game and no one screams blasphemy lol

 

[Pansloven]

I believe that the discussion has moved from Turkey to debating about the divergences of communism thanks to us proud eastern Europeans . Yeah Lenin and Trotsky were wild idealists that just were not able to come to grips with the reality. There was never a realistic chance that all of the world would become communist, but there was a chance in rebuilding the Russian empire on different political and economical ground and that's what Stalin did.

On a side note, best regards to our Romanian long-time friends .

 

[Tormodius]

I totally agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately it breaks down at some levels. You cannot possibly setup realistic conditions for 1936, not at all. You can mimic realisitc force levels and production etc. but that is all. It breaks down because we are replacing historical leaders, some of whom made incredible blunders, with ourselves.

This will always fail as a WWII simulation without very complicated command and control rules which allow certain historical events to be possible. I don't really see this as a good direction to take the game.

I don't really care about wide open sandbox. I can take it or leave it. What I do want is good game play above all else. An excellent game with only WWII flavor is preferable to a mediocre game that attempts and fails to be a real simulation of the war.

While you could argue with that, its also the case that players can do incredible blunders. If you have an ahistorical situation, for example you are Soviet and Germany attack you one year before historical date, and you did not expect this, you will not be ready. Then you need to respond with some sort of strategy which you will have to come up with fast. It happened to me in HOI3 and i realized i made some blunders, because I did prepare for a historical outcome, which didnt happen. Of course, if such things happens it should also have downsides for the other part. Like early German invasion of Soviet, there would be lack of help for Italy, with Balkan and Greece and Africa more likely to be occupied by Allied forces for example. Or Germany focusing on too many fronts too early, also bad for Germany. So game balancing is needed either way.

 

[21oliver]

But we as players, knowing that this new element is added to the game now have to prepare for that eventuality or we suffer the consequences. My repeated example of Turkey and the Soviet Union....if i play Turkey and know now that there is a chance the Soviets will attack if i dont garrison my border, of course i now will garrison my border. I prefer the terms plausible and sandbox and do not like to use ahistorical, because even if we play vanilla straight up there still will be ahistorical things happening.

I want a game with the feel of the time period of WW2, one that allows me to go off the rails if i want, and yet the AI will adapt to my maneuverings, at least to some degree. And i want some randomization (plausible) by the AI so it doesnt do the exact same moves, in the same place, at the same dates game after game.

 

[Ikarases]

While you could argue with that, its also the case that players can do incredible blunders. If you have an ahistorical situation, for example you are Soviet and Germany attack you one year before historical date, and you did not expect this, you will not be ready. Then you need to respond with some sort of strategy which you will have to come up with fast. It happened to me in HOI3 and i realized i made some blunders, because I did prepare for a historical outcome, which didnt happen. Of course, if such things happens it should also have downsides for the other part. Like early German invasion of Soviet, there would be lack of help for Italy, with Balkan and Greece and Africa more likely to be occupied by Allied forces for example. Or Germany focusing on too many fronts too early, also bad for Germany. So game balancing is needed either way.

That's the whole point of plausibility.

Yes, I can make myself food at home as I always do, but I can as well go to the nearby fast-food. Usual? No. Plausible? Yes!

Yes, Germany can invade France first, but it also might continue through Poland (without M-R Pact) directly to Moscow. Usual/historical? No. Plausible? But of course!

 

[21oliver]

I believe if an educated argument can be made for it, include it. We already have elements that didnt happen included...

 

[jju_57]

By plan it was meant an actual battle plan which every army needed before doing something. The simple fact that no, nada, none, zero battle plans were drawn up means Stalin never thought seriously about attacking Turkey.

But here are some interesting things I read last night. In 1940 Hitler and Stalin (through Ribbentrop and Molotov) discussed Russia joining the Axis and further spheres of influence. Hitler tried to convince Stalin to attack Iran and India and gain access to the Indian Ocean.

Hitler also insisted that Turkey would remain in his sphere and Russia would stay out.

So now let's go back to your initial premise. You claim Stalin would have attacked Turkey if Turkey either moved its troops away from the border province or went to war with another country. My point is the first premise is flat out illogical and would not happen and the second premise depends on who Turkey attacks.

I've been looking at some of the logistical, terrain and other features of the border between Turkey and the SU. The SU would be hard pressed to support even 5 divisions on the attack over these mountains. There was just one rail line servicing the border near the Black Sea. And SU had no amphib capability. I know HOI3 does a poor job of terrain and its a big gripe for me. We move armies through jungles and over the highest mountains but that is fantasyland.

I think the ONLY potentially plausible situation for Stalin to attack Turkey is if Turkey DOW's the allies in Syria Iran or say Greece before 1941. This gives the pretext of helping the allies and UK would have to support it.

Bottom line is the trigger for SU to DOW Turkey is NOT lack of troops on the border as you claimed but instead what action did Turkey do if any. So based on your last post I don't think an educated argument can be made to support SU attacking Turkey simply because there are a lack of troops in the mountains.

 

[Dalwin]

I've been doing some research and your 4 points are some of the reasons why Stalin didn't do it. Basically the costs outweighed any real benefit and it would be logistical hell going over those mountains.

So that brings us back to the assumption that if Turkey moved its troops off the border and say attacked some country that Stalin would then DOW Turkey. First off I think we can 100% rule out Stalin attacking Turkey if Turkey went to war against the Axis (say attacking Bulgaria in 1941). So I think the only situation that politically supports a DOW against Turkey is if Turkey DOW'd the Allies or maybe neutral Iraq. So this itself logically limits what Turkey can do to even allow Stalin to attack Turkey.

But as you pointed out there are real reasons that have nothing to do with having no troops on the border as to why Stalin would not DOW Turkey. Bottom line is it wasn't worth it to them. So to claim that this should be a higher probability simply because Turkey moved its troops around is illogical.

But looking at point #4 (Hitler hit the SU before their own expansion plans really got rolling)

Here is a hypothetical chain of events that I don't think should be assigned 0% liklihood:

Germany gets bogged down in France and/or they delay Barbarossa to launch Seelowe. This gives the SU the time they need to finish the reorganization/modernization of their army. They strike first driving into Romania and Bulgaria before they have joined the Axis. It is likely that the Germans would intervene at this point, but not certain. If they don't then I think Soviet aggression against Turkey is only a matter of time.

 

[21oliver]

Hes missing the pts...

1) Just because Stalin didnt have a battle plan doesnt mean one day he wouldnt wake up and decide to invade. He like Hitler and Mussolini operated very spontaneously.
2) I never claimed Stalin would attack, I said there should be a small % chance, ive said that repeatedly.
3) Ive mentioned the discussions between Germany and the Soviets and they couldnt come to an agreement, Stalin wasnt interested in Hitlers plans...
4) your not following the example anyway. As Dalwin is stating its IF certain conditions are met, there should be a small % chance...

Nations need to be required to guard their borders. Turkey has enemies on every single border, would it be realistic if i loaded every troop i had and shipped them to another continent leaving my nation totally empty? Would they operate that way? You think they felt safe and secure, they HATED every nation on their border and were involved in disputes with everyone. The Soviets wanted the middle east, Turkey is simply an extension of that and would give them valuable ports in the Med...

Your confusing because something didnt happen with it could have happened. In the game Nat Spain and Turkey are allowed to join the Axis, i could present a better argument that those could not happen then thinking the Soviets wouldnt attack Turkey under certain conditions.

Bottom line is the trigger for SU to DOW Turkey is NOT lack of troops on the border as you claimed but instead what action did Turkey do if any.

Youve decided thats the "trigger" not me. For me an empty nation unable to defend itself is ripe for the picking...

 

[jju_57]

But looking at point #4 (Hitler hit the SU before their own expansion plans really got rolling)

Here is a hypothetical chain of events that I don't think should be assigned 0% liklihood:

Germany gets bogged down in France and/or they delay Barbarossa to launch Seelowe. This gives the SU the time they need to finish the reorganization/modernization of their army. They strike first driving into Romania and Bulgaria before they have joined the Axis. It is likely that the Germans would intervene at this point, but not certain. If they don't then I think Soviet aggression against Turkey is only a matter of time.

Bogged down in France would probably not fly with PI. But let's table that point for now.

So Germany decides Seelowe. I like that. And depending on Plan Z it's a real possibility. I'm hooked so far.

Russia decides to break the NA pact. OK this also works as many feel that by 1942 or 1944 at the latest Stalin would do it. Again things work. They move toward the Balkans via Romania. I like that because there is a strategic reason for this and history supports it. Romania wouldn't be in Axis yet so it really works well. From there Bulgaria also make sense.

But now let's talk turkey )). The one and ONLY strategic reason to attack Turkey is to gain access to the Med. In your scenario it gets more plausible after Bulgaria and Romania falls. But without those two dominoes it gets much less likely since Turkey is also allied influenced and an invasion over the mountains is not sound military strategy.

But also remember that in real life Stalin did this and still didn't attack Turkey. And remember the whole argument was that just because Turkey removed its troops from the mountains this should cause the SU to attack.

Finally, it's been mentioned many times that Stalin wanted Turkey but no proof to support this statement has even been given. In fact looking at the 1940 discussion shows Stalin ceding Turkey to the German sphere.

 

[jju_57]

Hes missing the pts...

1) Just because Stalin didnt have a battle plan doesnt mean one day he wouldnt wake up and decide to invade. He like Hitler and Mussolini operated very spontaneously.

Please get serious. They might wake up one day and have a desire or want to do it. But before they did anything a plan would have been created. To argue otherwise is foolish at best. Name me ONE invasion, DOW by Hitler or Stalin where there wasn't a plan involved. You can't. So please drop this contention as its not real.

Youve decided thats the "trigger" not me. For me an empty nation unable to defend itself is ripe for the picking...

Now it's "empty"? Since when is it empty? Did they disband all troops? This is surreal now.

 

[21oliver]

Rewind a bit....

There is more benefits in taking Turkey then just the Med ports. Its a perfect launching pad for the underbelly of Europe, it also makes for an easier invasion of the Middle East should he decide to go that route. Its a straight run to the Suez and will provide a nice buffer if he takes Persia and Iraq.

Things dont have to be plausible or make sense, WW2 and the rest of history showed us that. Forget the attacking through the mountains, who cares? They invaded Finland twice in the dead of winter... Common sense doesnt matter when you dont care how many men you lose. You cannot keep thinking rationally about individuals whom werent rational.

Stalin didnt attack Turkey, that doesnt mean if the circumstances were right he wouldnt have. The czechs didnt fight and yet we have that, Rep Spain lost the Civil war and yet they could win in HOI, Nat Spain and Turkey can join the Axis which both were extremely improbable, so talking the Soviets invading Turkey is like what like talking about aliens? lol

And the whole argument wasnt simply the lack of Turkish troops....what if the Germans were embroiled in the west, and the UK was weak and there would be no repercussions. What if Germany and the Soviets had a ceasefire?

I didnt say Stalin wanted Turkey, im saying who knows? He was a dictator who wanted an empire. Turkey was a historic enemy that under certain conditions might be ripe for the taking, to say its 0% chance it ever could have happened is unreasonable.

Forget the discussion, that was HItler dictating what he wanted from Stalin. He wanted Stalin to stay away from Romania and the Middle East and head towards India, Stalin was having no part of it.

Plausible is the key...

 

[Dalwin]

The whole argument is not about Turkey not manning its borders that is a side argument. That side argument illustrates a symptom which is that the lack of plausible variation within the game allows a human player as Turkey (or any other country, Turkey was an example) to do things like strip its borders because he knows there is zero chance that anything bad is going to happen as a result.

PI doesn't let the AI do anything this ridiculous because the Com has been programmed to defend its borders (sometimes too much so).

Part of it is immersion. The real nations would not have left borders unmanned especially those with nations with whom they have had recent conflicts. If I the player am free to do so, all resemblance to being an historical WWII simulation goes right out the window just from that. How can I argue that certain plausible events should not be allowed but at the same time feel I should be free to do things as ahistorical as stripping borders. No wonder the poor AI can't compete. We are a bunch of cheating bastards when you really examine it closely.

 

[21oliver]

Each invasion Hitler made he woke up one day told his generals and demanded a plan, one which they produced in due time (not months either)... And if you bothered to read my posts i talked about how as Turkey we can take all of our units and go fight in Greece or Bulgaria and leave the entire nation empty and undefended with Soviet troops on the border. Thats about a thousand miles undefended. Its unrealistic do so, they wouldnt have done it but we can exploit the game, which is part of the reason im calling for this.

Why should it be realistic for Germany to have to keep units on the Soviet border after the MR Pact or face a possible Soviet invasion (one while the Soviets arent properly ready for war) and yet several years later a its unrealistic to apply the same principal to a now geared up Soviet Union on the border of a traditional enemy?

 

[Kovax]

Stalin showed by repeated support for various Balkan internal factions that he was VERY interested in the Balkans. Turkey wasn't a key to that, but having taken most of the Balkans, it then sits directly between two large and greedy Soviet pincers.....

I don't see much likelihood of an unprovoked (*) invasion of Turkey from the east, but from the west and east, it makes a lot of sense. Whether it's worth putting into the game or not, I'm not sure.

(*) "unprovoked" is a somewhat nebulous term when dealing with dictators who dictate policy on a whim, often while extremely drunk.

There are probably a dozen better cases for plausible "what if" situations, but it would qualify, at least with a few conditions.

 

[jju_57]

First off we do have history. Stalin in 1944 decided that the Balkans and not a direct attack into Germany would be his focus. Yet after doing this he still did NOT attack Turkey. So we have historical precedence on this point.

Number 2. Stalin ceded Turkey to the German sphere of influence in their 1940 meetings. That says a lot. You keep arguing that Stalin wanted Turkey but provide no proof to support this. Please provide some proof. This requires more then your speculation.

Number 3. The map in HOI3 was bad terrain wise. The majority of the mountains between Turkey and SU should be level 1 infrastructure or even impassible. SU didn't have amphib capabilities so their ONLY invasion avenue was over the mountains. Now there were only two rail lines that even went from Turkey to SU. One near the coast from Batum to Artvin and the other from Tbilisi toward Kars. These were single line rails and different gauge (remember the German problem of locomotives and rolling stock). So it is almost logistically impossible to do this even if I had almost no troops there.

Number 4. The only thing Stalin wanted from Turkey was access to the Med. I have not come across anything written anywhere to say otherwise. If there is then cite it please.

Number 5. Turkey was also in the allied sphere of influence so an attack there would provoke the allies. This was one reason why SU didn't attack Greece..

So to me the ONLY plausible way for SU to DOW Turkey is if Turkey actually attacked the allies. This gives Stalin cover as they are supporting their allies. And I think the SU would have to do it from the west. If we had real life logistics there is no way to support a full invasion over the mountains. Roads were terrible and as I said only two rail lines even existed.

Now the SU COULD do this and eventually win. But the cost in troops would be horrendous.

Finally there is some history about warfare in this area. Battle of Sarikamish from WW1 was fought there. The roads were so bad artillery couldn't even be moved around. This was a Turkish attack against the Russians but going the other way would have been just as hard.

 

[John_D]

Stalin wanted the Allies fight with the Axis, so they bleed out eachother for some years, and then overtake Europe.
Thats all he wanted, but got involved too soon.

 

[Dalwin]

First off we do have history. Stalin in 1944 decided that the Balkans and not a direct attack into Germany would be his focus. Yet after doing this he still did NOT attack Turkey. So we have historical precedence on this point.

Number 2. Stalin ceded Turkey to the German sphere of influence in their 1940 meetings. That says a lot. You keep arguing that Stalin wanted Turkey but provide no proof to support this. Please provide some proof. This requires more then your speculation.

Number 3. The map in HOI3 was bad terrain wise. The majority of the mountains between Turkey and SU should be level 1 infrastructure or even impassible. SU didn't have amphib capabilities so their ONLY invasion avenue was over the mountains. Now there were only two rail lines that even went from Turkey to SU. One near the coast from Batum to Artvin and the other from Tbilisi toward Kars. These were single line rails and different gauge (remember the German problem of locomotives and rolling stock). So it is almost logistically impossible to do this even if I had almost no troops there.

Number 4. The only thing Stalin wanted from Turkey was access to the Med. I have not come across anything written anywhere to say otherwise. If there is then cite it please.

Number 5. Turkey was also in the allied sphere of influence so an attack there would provoke the allies. This was one reason why SU didn't attack Greece..

So to me the ONLY plausible way for SU to DOW Turkey is if Turkey actually attacked the allies. This gives Stalin cover as they are supporting their allies. And I think the SU would have to do it from the west. If we had real life logistics there is no way to support a full invasion over the mountains. Roads were terrible and as I said only two rail lines even existed.

Now the SU COULD do this and eventually win. But the cost in troops would be horrendous.

Finally there is some history about warfare in this area. Battle of Sarikamish from WW1 was fought there. The roads were so bad artillery couldn't even be moved around. This was a Turkish attack against the Russians but going the other way would have been just as hard.

There is a big piece of irony here that I think many are missing. You give a solid argument for why a Soviet attack into Turkey from the east would not be logistically feasible and I agree. The sad and ironic part is that if I was playing the Soviets and decided to do it, it would be a walk in the park. I'd push in and take Turkey from the East just like that, The British would not intervene to stop me either.

People don't want to be restricted and have the game not allow them to do things, even if those things are unreasonable, but those same people (not necessarily meaning you Jju) scream bloody murder if the AI has the same scope of freedom.

 

[21oliver]

He's still not addressing the scenario i presented and is conveniently ignoring it.

Would it make sense for you to attack Turkey if you thought there would be practically no resistance at all and you wouldnt suffer any repercussions with the allies? Because thats the scenario i presented, repeatedly.

I can make a better argument that there is no way Franco would join the Axis (which is allowed in the game) nor would Turkey (which also is allowed in the game) then i could saying the Soviets would never invade Turkey...