Slitherine

People have also discussed that there is too little incentive for the Axis to engage in the Middle East. What if we let Iraq revolt on May 1941 and the following would take place:
One Axis garrison would spawn in or adjacent to every resource and city in Iraq. All Iraqi units would change to Axis garrisons. The units can be flagged as partisans so they won't become out of supply. They can be German owned and named Iraqi Partisan.

The size of the rebel partisans will be dependent upon the number of Axis controlled cities in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iraq who are Axis at the time of the rebellion. The size is: 1 + (number of Axis controlled cities in these territories) * 2. So if the Allies hold all cities then the spawned rebel units will have 1 strength only. The rebellion should then be easy to crush.

If the Axis manage to destroy the UK units in Egypt then Britain can't easily send reinforcements to Iraq to squash the rebellion. The British garrisons there can be destroyed by the Axis moving units from Egypt to Iraq.

In normal circumstances the rebellion will be just a nuisance, but if the British are heavily engaged in battles in Egypt then they might actually lose control. At least the Germans could get control of oilfields and get extra precious oil. So this means the British would need to keep a healthy garrison in Iraq until the rebellion is squashed.

What do you think? This would mean that the Allied player can't remove most of his units from Iraq and Egypt until after the rebellion is squashed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

No

It's ok to say no, but it's better to say why.

I really like this idea, but I'm not sure how it will play out. Nevertheless, I would vote to try it out.

Sounds good - try it I say.

Not so sure on this one, perhaps a Partisan in each adjacent square, but leave the current units as allied. My thoughts are that this may tilt the oil restriction efforts towards the Axis, with little or no Axis effort, especially if the Italians have been evacuated out of NA.

The Iraqi garrisons will be turned into partisan garrisons and usually have a very low strength unless the Axis have pushed into Egypt. I was not thinking of adding a unit in all adjacent hexes. I was only thinking of adding one unit per city or resource hex. The partisan will appear in the city if empty or in one of the adjacent hexes if necessary. So you will get 1 rebel unit per city.

Normally this rebellion should be very easy to crush. What it does it to make the British keep some units in Iraq to finish off the rebel units when they appear. British garrison units can be used to hold the key hexes like the oilfields and capitals.

So this change won't give Germany free oil unless the Allied player is reckless. If the Axis push towards Egypt and have some success then the Iraqi rebellion can be stronger and that means the rebels can hold the British for long enough for the Axis to maybe come to their relief.

I read on the wiki that the fighting was actually rather heavy so maybe the formula should bump the basic rebel strength by 1 to 2
1. Iraqi partisan strength.
a. 0 = no rebellion possible (as now)
b. 1 + (number of Axis controlled cities in these territories) * 2
c. 2 + (number of Axis controlled cities in these territories) * 2
d. Strength is random from 1 to a max value similar to regular partisans. Max value = 4 + (number of Axis controlled cities in these territories) * 2

i vote D - prefer random

a

I vote d.

I also vote d.

And thank you for the information about the Iraqi Rebellion. I always thought that this was a small scale rebellion fought by irregulars, but actually it seems not so small at all and the Iraqi fielded quite a large force (four divisions). Without the British air superiority and the initial surprise, the British Army could have been in trouble.

Cheers Zechi

Healthy garrison would be couple UK/Egyptian GAR unless Axis gets past Gattara depression?

Anyway, since this is a historical event, I don't see a problem adding this, so 1. D for me.



However, (from some General/AAR forum threads) it seems to me that most of the players who feel Mid East isn't worth the effort see the amount of conquered oil too small to justify the cost. And/or, they also feel the effect of losing Suez/Iraq too miniscule to UK. I doubt Iraq Rebellion will sway that feeling much.

Mind you, I don't really agree with either of the above (closing Med at least is very useful IMO), but IF there's similar feeling in the betagroup, we could also look into screwing reality vs gameplay a bit by adding some oil production to Iraq/Persia and/or a small (morale?) penalty for UK when Suez is in Axis control.

I vote D

Yes, please. Anything to spice up the mideast a bit. It's such a bore.

Worth a try -- d.

I vote D

And we can also get the why Moriss is voting against...

LOL

D but make the revolt date a little uncertain, e.g. +/- 1 turn.

Should I let 1 unit spawn in or adjacent to each city / resource or do as we do with real partisans, i. e. roll for each hex and have a certain percentage chance for the partisan to spawn. The chance should be so high so we can expect about 5-6 partisans spawning on average. Yhere are 194 possible hexes the partisans can spawn in. They will only spawn in empty hexes. We could set the percentage chance for units spawning to 3 and empty cities / resourced could have spawn chance of 3 * 5 = 15.

What should we do about the British controlled Iraqi garrisons?
Should they change side to Axis control with same strength as before?
Should they be converted into partisans and get strength as other partisans?
Should they remain under British control?

With the latter solution it means the location and number of rebels will be random and not so predictable. It also means the Allied player can't protect against this by garrisoning the Iraqi cities. The partisans can spawn in the middle of the desert and move towards hexes with supply.

I vote for D.