Persia and Allied Cooperation

[ncali]

I have two comments on Persia.

(1) Historically, the Allies did not take Persia until August-September of 1941. So I think the current game system where Persia joins the Allies and the Southern convoy of 15pp is gained should not occur until a few turns after the Germans are at war with Russia. Also, I don't think the Allies should get Persian garrisons since Persia was actually attacked by the Allies and "joined" only by its occupation. Perhaps Persia should even occasionally produce a partisan for the Axis.

(2) Second, I wonder what the thinking was about allowing Allied troops in Russia or Russian troops in the Middle East? I know there was some talk about this a while back but I thought I'd mention it again. Russian troops in the Middle East makes a little more historical sense to me than having British troops in Russia since it usually means the Axis has pressed into Egypt and the Russians can spare the troops. But neither makes a huge amount of sense. Supply and cooperation issues would have been dificult, but political considerations made it pretty much impossible. I haven't actually seen British or US troops in Russia in the games I've played so far, but am considering a house rule for future games not to allow it just to be sure. The only situation where I could see it making some sense is if the Germans have taken most of the Caucuses.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

How do you know that Russia would not send troops to Iraq to deny Germany the Iraqi oil if the British had been defeated in Egypt?
One could say that it's ahistorical that Germany can move into Iraq because they were stopped at El Alamein.

The point is that a game is a GAME. You're allowed to do things that are ahistorical. The Allied player in GS would never send Russian units to Iraq unless Egypt has fallen and they might not even send troops if the Germans are pressing hard in southern Russia.

We see quite often that the Germans move wipe out the British in Egypt and move into Iraq. They take Spain and Gibraltar as well. So I certainly don't think it's wrong that the Russians can intervene and deny the Germans the valuable Iraqi oil. If something is not right then we need to change the warfare in Egypt and not in Iraq. But if we make it too hard for the Axis to take Port Said then no Axis player would waste precious oil trying to get there. So I think the current situation is quite right. It's possible to get Egypt and even Iraq, but the consequence is that Barbarossa will be much weaker. It's the choice of the Axis player. Knowing that the Russians can help liberating Iraq means that the Axis player must send even more units to Iraq to ensure victory. I don't see anything wrong with that. If we create a situation where it's foolproof to take Egypt and Iraq then this will happen in most games.

We can only speculate about what if situations. I believe that Stalin would certainly cease the moment to take Iraq if the British were unable to defend it. Most importantly they would deny Germany the oil and secondly they could keep Iraq after the war. I think it's part of the fun with GS that you can do ahistorical things.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The code to trigger events are linked to DoW's or certain preprogrammed dates. Since we don't know when the Axis will attack Russia it's hard to set a preprogrammed date to when the Allies would cease Persia. In all other situations we've linked events to the DoW moment and it seems to work well even though the actual event took place maybe a turn or two after the DoW.

Persia's main function in the game is to open up a southern link between Russia and the Allies. That was the reason they intervened there. Some Persian units can be railed to defend Iraq, but they will quickly be annihilated if the Germans move into Iraq in force.

I think that it would be really tough for the Axis to get to the Iraqi oilfields in the real war. The logistics would be horrible, tracing supply through the desert from the ports in Egypt. I don't think we should make it easier for the Axis player to take Iraq. I think that taking Iraq should only happen in games where the Axis player is much more skilled than the Allied player. I think the game balance right now makes it hard enough for most Axis players to not succeed with it. Only the best can do it.

Remember that if the Axis player can take the Iraqi oilfields and get to Basra then they have virtually won. So if most Axis players can do this then the game is seriously flawed.

[ncali]

Thanks for the responses. As to point (1) I can see there may be a coding difficulty of delaying Persia's entry. I still think it would be best to remove their garrisons. As to point (2) I did initially concede that Russian troops in the Middle East made somewhat more sense (although the way things work now, the Russians can be used to defend Egypt, not just Iraq and Persia). I did see this happen in one game. After reading your response, I can see why you'd probably prefer to leave this as it is. But what I see is the bigger problem is that the Western Allies can send units to Russia (like fighters, for example). It is this problem that I considered to be completely unrealistic and could really affect the game. Again, it's not something that has happened in the games I have played, and can be prevented by a houserule, but I wanted to bring it up again. I know you have striven to make the game a little more realistic, and this is one thing that I think could be improved.

[rkr1958]

But what I see is the bigger problem is that the Western Allies can send units to Russia (like fighters, for example). It is this problem that I considered to be completely unrealistic and could really affect the game. Again, it's not something that has happened in the games I have played, and can be prevented by a houserule, but I wanted to bring it up again. I know you have striven to make the game a little more realistic, and this is one thing that I think could be improved.

There is historical precedent to support the UK sending fighters and other units to Russia. In early 1940 during the Russian-Finnish war, and under the Chamberlain government, there were British plans to invade Norway and intervene in Finland against the Russians. Fortunately this did not happen because the Germans beat Britain to Norway first and the Russian-Finnish war ended. If this happened then the UK would have been at war with German AND Russia at the same time and the outcome of WW-II would have been much different and darker. So given this precedent I find it believable that the UK could have sent an expeditionary force to Russia to help against the axis. Personally, the British defenses seem so stretched I don't see how they could afford to send fighters to Russia without facing consequences themselves.

[ncali]

[quote="rkr1958

"There is historical precedent to support the UK sending fighters and other units to Russia. In early 1940 during the Russian-Finnish war, and under the Chamberlain government, there were British plans to invade Norway and intervene in Finland against the Russians. Fortunately this did not happen because the UK would have been at war with German AND Russia. So given this precedent I find it believable that the UK could have sent an expeditionary force to Russia to help against the axis. Personally, the British defenses seem so stretched I don't see how they could afford to send fighters to Russia without facing consequences themselves.

The biggest distinction here is that the Soviet Union was closed to the West and occassionally overtly hostile to the British and US. The Soviets actually interned Allied pilots that crash landed in Russia after the Doolittle raid on Japan and seized their plane. The Soviets later occupied and dominated Eastern Europe - allowing the Polish (pro-West) resistance to be crushed. Given the Communist government of Russia (and the Allied attempts to topple it after WWI), there was no way Stalin would allow a substantial Allied military force on Soviet soil even if the Western Allies wanted to send one.

And on the latter point, I think there were political considerations about actually sending troops to defend the Soviet Union. Finland was a democracy. The Western Allies aimed to liberate Western Europe and wanted Russia to win as a way to defeat Germany. They did not want to assist in advancing Soviet territorial aims or political ideas.

And I disagree with you about it being unlikely the Allies will do this in a game. If the Axis does not press hard in Africa, it is fairly easy to commit multiple air units and a great way to support the Russians. In one of my games, it's mid-42 and the British own North Africa. Rather than open a second front, I could just send US and British troops to Russia directly.

There is also the problems with supply and cooperation between what would have had to remain separate command structures. If nothing else, I'd suggest that there be a nominal supply level of 1 or 2 for US/British/Free French troops in Russia.

I'm not aware of any other WWII game that allows this.

[rkr1958]

And I disagree with you about it being unlikely the Allies will do this in a game. If the Axis does not press hard in Africa, it is fairly easy to commit multiple air units and a great way to support the Russians. In one of my games, it's mid-42 and the British own North Africa. Rather than open a second front, I could just send US and British troops to Russia directly.

Maybe I'm missing something; but if UK and USA forces show up in Russia in mid to late 1942 then this means that the threat of Torch or an early invasion of France has gone down significantly. In that case why wouldn't the axis player move the fighters he'd station of those defense to the Russian front? I would much rather fight the UK/USA second front in Russia than in North Africa or France.

In the UK intervenes in Russia in 1941 then why wouldn't the axis player move the fighters he had station in Egypt and / or France to Russia and punish the UK forces there? Or make some noise in Egypt and if the allied player doesn't pull those forces back make a grab for the canal?

And, how is the western allies intervening in Russia that much different than Supermax's Turkey gambit?

[ncali]

In the UK intervenes in Russia in 1941 then why wouldn't the axis player move the fighters he had station in Egypt and / or France to Russia and punish the UK forces there? Or make some noise in Egypt and if the allied player doesn't pull those forces back make a grab for the canal?

One of the things that the Axis can (realistically) count on is that they will outclass the Russian airforce and make it difficult for the Russians to regularly and effectively use tacair in counterattacks. A bit of Allied airpower, and I think you'll see a very different war in Russia with the Russians' capabilities being significantly enhanced. From what I've seen of GS so far, the Allies can spare the air units and still have plenty to threaten invasions in the West. This is not true if the Axis has gone for a heavy anti-British strategy - but then, it will be the West that needs Russia to come in and save the day.

But I think the political and command/control/supply problems I mentioned above are the main reason not to allow this. The Soviets and Western Allies weren't really Allies, in a conventional sense. It was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

[timhicks]

I'm pretty sure that Russia did go into Iraq , I saw a photo somewhere on Wiki, where British Troops shared the Frame with Russian Armoured cars, I think it was somewhere in Northern Iraq.

[trulster]

I'm pretty sure that Russia did go into Iraq , I saw a photo somewhere on Wiki, where British Troops shared the Frame with Russian Armoured cars, I think it was somewhere in Northern Iraq.

Iraq was very much under British influence, while nominally independent the Brits had several airbases in the country. Russian troops did invade Persia together with Britain, but not Iraq, probably would have been considered intervening in their Allies' sphere. Germany did in fact send small groups of spies and commandos to both Iraq, Persia and even Afghanistan to try to stir up disparate tribes to rebel against British rule. Only limited supply drops from the Luftwaffe though doomed the operation as the German luck in Russia turned.

History aside, some freedom of forces disposition should be allowed in the game I think. Yes, Russia can send troops to the Middle East and the Brits fighters to Russia (like in my ongoing AAR), but they will suffer from supply level 3 IIRC. This is penalty enough I think, they will be pretty low effectiveness anyway, unless the Brtis send a leader there as well, and then they really have made a significant commitment which affect their other fronts. Still, it may be a good strategy since without air superiority the Germans will have a hard time.

[Clark]

I'm pretty sure that Russia did go into Iraq , I saw a photo somewhere on Wiki, where British Troops shared the Frame with Russian Armoured cars, I think it was somewhere in Northern Iraq.

Iraq was very much under British influence, while nominally independent the Brits had several airbases in the country. Russian troops did invade Persia together with Britain, but not Iraq, probably would have been considered intervening in their Allies' sphere. Germany did in fact send small groups of spies and commandos to both Iraq, Persia and even Afghanistan to try to stir up disparate tribes to rebel against British rule. Only limited supply drops from the Luftwaffe though doomed the operation as the German luck in Russia turned.

History aside, some freedom of forces disposition should be allowed in the game I think. Yes, Russia can send troops to the Middle East and the Brits fighters to Russia (like in my ongoing AAR), but they will suffer from supply level 3 IIRC. This is penalty enough I think, they will be pretty low effectiveness anyway, unless the Brtis send a leader there as well, and then they really have made a significant commitment which affect their other fronts. Still, it may be a good strategy since without air superiority the Germans will have a hard time.

FWIW, I played in a recent vanilla game where I knocked out the Brits in 1941 but burned a lot of oil in the process. My opponent probably could have broken my back by coming through Persia and seizing the Iraqi oilfields. In the sense that it helped me win, I'm grateful for that glitch in the game, but I don't think it's proper and it's certainly not historical that the USSR couldn't even DOW Persia.

[gerones]

I think that ncali´s suggestions are fairly accurate. Certainly, no other strategic good wargame allows soviets troops be deployed in western allies scenarios and viceversa allied troops deployed in the frozen russian steppes. I have recently played HOI 3, and there´s no option for doing things like this. Even, HOI 3 is an enormous wargame, I prefer CEAW for its playability. As Borger has posted above this is only a game but I have to complete this affirmation saying that it is a SIMULATION wargame. This means is a game WWII based both in military and political aspects. For a person that doesn´t have knowledges in deep about WWII to see british corp units fighting in Russia is not strange but for a person who knows about WWII to see things like this could be a little disappointing. Ncali is certain again about the supply limitations for such deployments. Simply, there was not possible from a logistical point of view this kind of deployments. The same thing about the "persian regular army" fighting along with the 8th british army or joining the soviets. If we don´t introduce some limitations on this, the game could be more funny for a newbie but it could be considered dissapointing and even joking for someone who has technical, historical and military knowledges about WWII.

[trulster]

Yep, maybe someting like a -1 modifier to supply level when Russian in W-Allied hexes and vice versa would be a good modification to new GS versions.

[rkr1958]

I think that ncali´s suggestions are fairly accurate. Certainly, no other strategic good wargame allows soviets troops be deployed in western allies scenarios and viceversa allied troops deployed in the frozen russian steppes. I have recently played HOI 3, and there´s no option for doing things like this. Even, HOI 3 is an enormous wargame, I prefer CEAW for its playability. As Borger has posted above this is only a game but I have to complete this affirmation saying that it is a SIMULATION wargame. This means is a game WWII based both in military and political aspects. For a person that doesn´t have knowledges in deep about WWII to see british corp units fighting in Russia is not strange but for a person who knows about WWII to see things like this could be a little disappointing. Ncali is certain again about the supply limitations for such deployments. Simply, there was not possible from a logistical point of view this kind of deployments. The same thing about the "persian regular army" fighting along with the 8th british army or joining the soviets. If we don´t introduce some limitations on this, the game could be more funny for a newbie but it could be considered dissapointing and even joking for someone who has technical, historical and military knowledges about WWII.

Reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

In 1942-1944 the Soviet Union chartered about 120 American ships and 50 U.S. tankers, and to protect these vessels from attack by Japan in the wake of its December 1941 strafing of Pearl Harbor, American crews sailed under the Soviet hammer and sickle flag. When lend-lease shipments arrived at Vladivostok they were stored both in port terminals and in warehouses on Portovaya and Verkhne-Portovaya streets, then they were conveyed by train along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to points west. During the war the port of Vladivostok handled four times more cargo than Murmansk and Far Eastern railroad traffic was four times greater than the rest of nation.

If, "American crews sailed under the Soviet hammer and sickle flag", is it that far of a stretch to believe that the western allies could have sent an expeditionary force to the Soviet Union and fought beside the Russians. Debatable I know, but a joke or outside the realm of historical possibility?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Again I ask, how do you know that Stalin would NOT send any units into Iraq if the situation was desperate enough and he could spare any?

Why wouldn't British units be able to fight in Russia if the situation was critical on the east front? E. g. British units could be transported from
Persia via the Caspian Sea to the Baku area to try to hold the Germans there.

The reason it didn't happen in the real war was because the Allied situation was never critical enough for them to consider it. I have NOT seen British units in Russia or Russian units in Iraq in any of the many games I've played. So aren't we talking about something happening very rarely.

If we should change something then we could consider having no Persian garrisons, but then they're wide open to e. g. an early Axis attack (e. g. via Syria in 1940). We can downgrade Persia so they mostly get garrisons and not corps units as yearly reinforcements.

We also have to think about how much work it is to send units from Russia to Iraq or vice versa. You can't rail the unit to the other theater. You need to march them through the mountains to the other side before they can be railed.

When we had the BJR mod people complained about having house rules imposed upon them. People like the freedom to do what they want with their forces and DoW those countries they like. This means that some games will move along a non-historical path, but so what? We should NOT force players to only follow the historical path. E. g. the normal way to take out Greece in GS is by amphibious landing, but the real conquest of Greece happened by moving from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania.

So far I haven't heard any good arguments that Russian units could NOT perform well in Iraq. What would hamper them there? The Russians can liberate Britain if Britain is Axis occupied without being imposed with any penalties. Why would they get a supply penalty for moving into hexes of their Allies. Then we should impose penalties upon British units in France and vice versa. Some games impose penalties upon attacks if the unit attacked was attacked by severeal units of different nationality. But those games are mainly operational games and we're playing strategic games.

It seems to me that people wanting to change the current rules are people who like the Axis to more easily crush Britain in Egypt and then take and hold Iraq. That is even more ahistorical.

If we want to change the supply rules for Russian units in Allied territory and vice versa then we also need to change the supply rule for the Axis in Libya. We once considered having convoys sailing from Italy to each African port. Then the supply level of the port would be determined upon the size of the convoy arriving. Each unit get supply form the nearest port. This means the Germans can drop to supply level 2 or 1 if some key convoys are depleted. That would certainly limit their chances of getting all the way to Iraq.

[jjdenver]

I have NOT seen British units in Russia or Russian units in Iraq in any of the many games I've played. So aren't we talking about something happening very rarely.

I follow your logic and I'm not sure which side I come down on, but just to report on this observation - I think it's pretty common for Soviet units to intervene in Iraq if the Germans push through Suez. And I think it's somewhat common for British/Iraq/Persian units to end up defending the southern USSR.

I think that the former changes the game quite a bit because it deters the Axis from pushing for Egyptian conquest - something that Mussolini wanted to do but couldn't accomplish due to many factors including Italian bungling. In the GS mod as it exists today any Axis player with dreams of Egyptian conquest has to guess that they won't get Iraqi oil against a competent player due to Soviet troop intervention.

[gerones]

I think that ncali´s suggestions are fairly accurate. Certainly, no other strategic good wargame allows soviets troops be deployed in western allies scenarios and viceversa allied troops deployed in the frozen russian steppes. I have recently played HOI 3, and there´s no option for doing things like this. Even, HOI 3 is an enormous wargame, I prefer CEAW for its playability. As Borger has posted above this is only a game but I have to complete this affirmation saying that it is a SIMULATION wargame. This means is a game WWII based both in military and political aspects. For a person that doesn´t have knowledges in deep about WWII to see british corp units fighting in Russia is not strange but for a person who knows about WWII to see things like this could be a little disappointing. Ncali is certain again about the supply limitations for such deployments. Simply, there was not possible from a logistical point of view this kind of deployments. The same thing about the "persian regular army" fighting along with the 8th british army or joining the soviets. If we don´t introduce some limitations on this, the game could be more funny for a newbie but it could be considered dissapointing and even joking for someone who has technical, historical and military knowledges about WWII.

Reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

In 1942-1944 the Soviet Union chartered about 120 American ships and 50 U.S. tankers, and to protect these vessels from attack by Japan in the wake of its December 1941 strafing of Pearl Harbor, American crews sailed under the Soviet hammer and sickle flag. When lend-lease shipments arrived at Vladivostok they were stored both in port terminals and in warehouses on Portovaya and Verkhne-Portovaya streets, then they were conveyed by train along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to points west. During the war the port of Vladivostok handled four times more cargo than Murmansk and Far Eastern railroad traffic was four times greater than the rest of nation.

If, "American crews sailed under the Soviet hammer and sickle flag", is it that far of a stretch to believe that the western allies could have sent an expeditionary force to the Soviet Union and fought beside the Russians. Debatable I know, but a joke or outside the realm of historical possibility?

Indeed interesting article about the USA aid to the USSR but I think we have to distinguish between the aid that can be tanks, airplanes, etc that were INCORPORATED TO the Red Army and Red Air force units and the aid SENDING american units to theater itself that never happened in the war. E.g. the P-39´s Cobra certainly were sent in a huge number but they were incorporated to soviet air units without an american command.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

What's the problem with allowing Allied units to fight in Russia to help them survive? We don't have any rules against e. g. German troops attacking Switzerland, Canada or Spain. If Italian, Romania and other troops managed to fight in Russia then certainly British troops could fight there as well. Supplies could come via Murmansk if they fight in the north or Persia if they fight in the south.

I don't think most Allied players would use British units in southern Russia if they instead could try to capture Libya and knock Italy out of the war. They would only consider helping the Russians if the Germans were on the verge of taking Baku. This didn't happen in the real war, but how do we know what the real British would do if German troops had penetrated the Russian defenses and moved across the Caucasus. Don't you think both Stalin and Churchill would do anything to prevent Germany from getting enough oil to maybe win the war? Then political differences could be set aside.

[joerock22]

I agree with what Stauffenberg is saying. You can argue history until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that in the right situation, anything could happen. Stalin could have slipped on some ice and cracked his head open, paving the way for a Soviet leader more friendly to the British and Americans. You just never know. And if the circumstances were desperate enough, I believe all political differences can be set aside.

Even the Russians and Germans could have settled their differences peacefully. You know, if aliens invaded and the survival of humanity was at stake.

[jjdenver]

Even the Russians and Germans could have settled their differences peacefully. You know, if aliens invaded and the survival of humanity was at stake.

That made me lol. Isn't that a book? Now I think I should read it.