RE: Why is Beyma wrong?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Why is Beyma wrong?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Why is Beyma wrong?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why is Beyma wrong? - 9/6/2007 3:11:29 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

On the whole, I think as the Axis I would rather have the option of aligning Turkey. At least that way, when I open up all those hexes for the Allies to invade in 42-43 I can use Turkish units instead of bringing in someone else's (reducing my available corps elsewhere in Europe/USSR) to plug it up.

But that is just preference. There are indeed some pros for invading Turkey - mainly allowing Italain naval access to the Black Sea and overland access to the Middle East (especially Iraq & Persia) without using a gazillion HQs to trace through the desert, so it's definitely worth considering. Probably more worth the Axis considering doing it than the USSR.

On the other hand, think of the Western Allies: If they can muster up the sealift & the units, a Turkish campaign can be a great idea. But they should think of coordinating it with the USSR (if the Russians can spare the units) to present the double/triple threat (invasions by sea; overland from Caucasus; overland from Syria).

It would probably be part of a wider campaign in the Balkans to stretch the Germans, by making them divert forces from elsewhere to prevent the beachheads from expanding into a full-fledged invasion, making things easier for the Allies in Italy, the USSR, and France.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 31

RE: Why is Beyma wrong? - 9/6/2007 6:54:59 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

or just another cheesy way to get a red objective hex on the periphery of the real Axis powers and get an approach route to the rest of the red hexes in Central Europe before the Reds get there in all their Ford trucks.

I'd rather have the Turks aligned as Germany than conquered by a long way. There is a way to beat a strong southern Dnepr defense ... threaten it enough with tanks to hold it in place while the heavy effort (good INF, ART, Stukas, HQs) goes for Smolensk and then the beautiful river line is outflanked.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 32

RE: Why is Beyma wrong? - 9/6/2007 8:03:37 PM

Gendarme

Posts: 50
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Status: offline

Invading Turkey as the Axis is not a stunt I would try unless the Med has been closed, that's for sure. The point about Allied invasions and guarding hexes with other units than your own is a valid one, and that is the reason that as the Axis I would rather align Spain than invade. Then there are Spanish units doing garrison duty, helping out in the effort.

If the Med is closed, than the Western Allies can only interfere in Turkey by marching overland from the Persia-Iraq, if those places have been secured already. And that route only has a limited lifespan once the IJN is in the war. Otherwise, they can land in Murmansk with HQ's and units, rail down to Turkey, but that supply line is also tenuous for the Western Allies, so I think with a closed Med and only Russia helping out, Turkey would be toasted. (Or roasted?)

Another thing to consider -- if the Axis spends 1940 and 1941 beating up on the CW, attacking convoys, closing the Med, than a Mar/Apr 42 invasion of Turkey (in the nice Med weather) may be a good way to open up a war with the USSR. German units in Turkey allow USSR to break the pact, which is something the USSR might not otherwise be able to do if the Germans have been amassing a land army in the pact area all game. To avoid being surprised, the USSR could DOW Germany, but that would mean lost USE, so both sides get something out of that.

OK, I'm spinning around in circles here.

Anthony DeChristopher

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 33

RE: Why is Beyma wrong? - 9/6/2007 10:05:18 PM

Jimm

Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

I believe enough said so far to suggest it is a possible option especially for the Axis side, if not one that would be a first choice?

I'd like to think there was always the possibility that the AI "might" do something outre even if its only on a 1-2% chance rather than always being utterly traditional.

(in reply to Gendarme)

Post #: 34

RE: Why is Beyma wrong? - 9/6/2007 11:43:19 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

Agreed. We have imagined circumstances where the Axis might contemplate an attack on Turkey:

the one-two-three punch of overland access, paradrop/invasions and shore bombardment/ground support means it can be done with relative ease if the RN and British Army has been booted from the Med
if you can do it in enough time to get troops set up at the eastern frontier before starting a 42 Barb then it's a beautiful starting line for going after Baku and even Astrakhan and beyond (strategic encirclement of the Ukraine/factory line, perhaps?)

So it seems reasonable as part of a Close-the-Med package.

On the whole, I think the Allies (with or without the USSR) should have a 5-8% chance of gunning for Turkey if it meets their strategic requirements; the Axis should have a 3-6% chance if it meets theirs, and the USSR should have a 1-3% chance of attacking Turkey on its own if it's not going for a border stuff and can spare the PARA/invasion forces.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 35