Lucky1
Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006 Status: offline
|
Actually, we are playing Global Glory. In my opinion, I think those measures really do not go far enough. For example, I am playing a game wherein I am subject to the German-Japanese 'squeeze' wherein both focus incredibly quickly on attacking Russia. Effectively, Istanbul was taken with force in fall 1940. Turkey fell in winter and, the Caucasus fell in Spring 41, along with a concerted 20+ units Japanese attack on Russia in the East. While the early attack exposes the axis to some possible long-term liabilities, this is contingent on Russia actually being able to survive - rather unlikely the way things stand (my opponent was quite skillful in his execution). The frustrating thing for me is that I could see this strategy unfold, but do little to position any meaningful troops in the caucasus once Turkey was attacked. In reality, there is no way that Russia would NOT have mobilized her troops significantly in such an eventuality. As mentioned in my first post, I am not against the possibility of attacking Turkey. However, the strategic importance of Turkey as a bridge to the Med, Caucasus and Crimea is simply not recognized sufficiently. The significant economic damage that can be done by this strategy means that Germany would rarely attack the USSR through Turkey without some force - the few militia really do not do enough. This is why I think the USSR, faced with a significant breach in her sphere of influence and strategic position from Germany, would not keep her armies locked in a holding pattern in Eastern Europe. Allowing strategic redeployment, in my mind, is probably the most balanced way of reacting to a German violation of Turkey. Any thoughts on the issue from anyone else?
|