Historical or Ahistorical give us both !!!

[jju_57]

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.

+1. I've argued that as SU I should not be able to do this. I've also argued that 5 panzers in the jungles of Africa or Indonesia should be impossible. And I'm in the minority that likes the fact that as I get farther east in Russia I lack supplies.

Yes as SU I've taken Turkey and the whole Mideast. And I've done it with like 5 mountain divisions. But then I did a WC with just militia. These are faults of HOI3.

That's why I'm pushing for rail roads and supply depots in HOI4. I don't want more complexity (I love it but realize others don't) or micromanagement. But I want things to be more realistic. I hate that you can para into a port then transport 20 divisions without fear of interception and easily offload them. But I digress.

 

[jju_57]

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

I have and will once again.

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.

You make two assumptions in this sentence without any supportive data. The first is no resistance. How do you know this? Without high level radar you can't see beyond the first province. So your first assumption is false. I don't know if there is resistance or not. Even if Turkey is fighting Greece I have no PROOF that there are no troop in the second province. So please tell me how you know there is no resistance?

The second assumption in this sentence says the allies would do nothing. Again how do you KNOW this? Where is the proof? I've said that the only politically sound reason to support the attack is if Turkey attacked the Allies as then SU is helping out. But if Turkey DOW'd an Axis Bulgaria would SU fight a country that is fighting on it's side? And if Turkey didn't DOW anyone why wouldn't the Allies do something. They almost came tot he aid of Finland.

You have never provided anything beyond "Stalin is a nut" to support your argument. So I challenge you to provide proof of these two assumptions you just laid out.

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...

I gave a very limited scenario where SU attacks Turkey after taking the Balkans while Germany is preoccupied in Sea Lion. I laid out the real world logistical problems of attacking from the east over the mountains. Stalin may be a nut but he was not stupid.

EDIT: I think Franco joins the Axis only after UK falls. And why not? And Turkey joins the Axis after SU falls. And I would have no problem with Turkey JOINING the SU faction after the Axis is destroyed. Joining a faction is also a different argument then your initial one of DOW'ing. It is apple to orange. More of an apple to apple is UK DOW'ing Spain when Spain is still neutral.

 

[Dalwin]

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...

Just my opinion, but I think the main reason that Nat Spain and Turkey are given a chance to join the Axis is that Jim Dunnigan gave them the chance of doing so in SPI's War in Europe. Yes that is a boardgame from the 70's, but it still left its mark on the psyche of WWII gamers and I am not going to assume that the PDS guys are completely unfamiliar with WIE.

 

[21oliver]

First of all nations arent totally blind. The Soviets knew they had a bigger, better and more advanced army then Turkey. They would also know that if the news came back that Turkey was embroiled in a full blown war elsewhere they wouldnt also have the resources to defend their nation. And Soviet recon missions would show an empty Turkey for a range of a few hundred miles at least. None of this is a stretch.

I said what if as your game is playing out, the UK is getting whomped, Italy is running through Egypt, and the UK appears to be on their last legs? We have all seen this in some games. The Allies wouldnt be in a position to assist Turkey, and maybe they wouldnt even bother if they still needed Soviet help vs the Germans...

Your telling me (in the other post) your ok with Germany winning the war, but you think the Soviets attacking an undefended Turkey is unrealistic? What ever you on give me some!

 

[21oliver]

Just my opinion, but I think the main reason that Nat Spain and Turkey are given a chance to join the Axis is that Jim Dunnigan gave them the chance of doing so in SPI's War in Europe. Yes that is a boardgame from the 70's, but it still left its mark on the psyche of WWII gamers and I am not going to assume that the PDS guys are completely unfamiliar with WIE.

Earlier versions of HOI3 it was hardcoded so that essentially Germany needed to grab territory that sort of made it moot now to invite Turkey or Spain. Why would Germany need Nat Spain IF they already controlled Gibralter for example....the whole point of inviting them is to assist with that!

 

[Dalwin]

First of all nations arent totally blind. The Soviets knew they had a bigger, better and more advanced army then Turkey. They would also know that if the news came back that Turkey was embroiled in a full blown war elsewhere they wouldnt also have the resources to defend their nation. And Soviet recon missions would show an empty Turkey for a range of a few hundred miles at least. None of this is a stretch.

I said what if as your game is playing out, the UK is getting whomped, Italy is running through Egypt, and the UK appears to be on their last legs? We have all seen this in some games. The Allies wouldnt be in a position to assist Turkey, and maybe they wouldnt even bother if they still needed Soviet help vs the Germans...

Your telling me (in the other post) your ok with Germany winning the war, but you think the Soviets attacking an undefended Turkey is unrealistic? What ever you on give me some!

As I have said before, fog of war is nothing more than a simplified game mechanic to restrict the player's knowledge of enemy deployments without having an overly complex and micromanaged system for recon and intel. In the real world, things were not that simple and nations were not blind in the sense of only seeing deployments along the border provinces. Let's not argue for realism based on a simplified game mechanic, please.

Earlier versions of HOI3 it was hardcoded so that essentially Germany needed to grab territory that sort of made it moot now to invite Turkey or Spain. Why would Germany need Nat Spain IF they already controlled Gibralter for example....the whole point of inviting them is to assist with that!

In WIE the Germans did not have to conquer Britain but they usually had to take London to get Spain and Turkey to join (unless the Brits had been aggressive and ivnaded some neutrals).

 

[21oliver]

There was news and information that traveled and was exchanged etc... Spies, recon flights, newspapers etc..