straits of Turkey

[Skydevil]

Why is it that the Axis can attack through the straits of Turkey. It was a neutral country and therefore IMO is complete BS that the Germans can do an amphibious assault through there

[Juggernaut]

I believe this was an optional rule. They didn't include those in the regular matches I think. Personally I think it opens much-needed strategic depth to the med and africa which axis badly need in Gencon 3.0

[Skydevil]

but it makes it almost impossible to defend the Caucasus'

[Father of WAR]

not impossible, they can build 4 ships, germany can only build 3 off italy

[simon_hibbs]

You just need to take the German BB into account. 4 infantry, an AA and a fighter is plenty to defend Caucasus as long as you take Ukraine. If you don't take Ukraine then your best bet is to stack W Russia, withdraw from Caucasus and expect to trade it with Germany.

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by Jay H:

but it makes it almost impossible to defend the Caucasus'

German BB usually dies round 1. If it doesn't, allies were compensated elsewhere or had terrible dice. I fail to see how it is a balance issue, though. 1 BB 1 Trans makes Caucasus impossible to defend? What is it about 2 units moving through the straits that suddenly makes that territory not defendable? Can they not just walk at you through Europe too?

[Duke of Zork]

It's a legitimate point. While Turkey was neutral, the Dardanelles were closed to ships of all beliggerent nations. Turkey did declare war on Germany in 1945, so presumably the Russians could have gotten out after that. The Germans would have had no navy left to get in.

[simon_hibbs]

I agree it's ahistorical, but from a game play perspective it makes for a much more interesting game.

[Iceman44]

I would say that about 95% of the time, after round 1, the strait becomes irrelevant anyway because the German navy gets destroyed. I understand the historical point, but would rather the developers would focus on other things like fixing the sub-par transport move/cancel move process, which is aggravating to say the least.

[Clionerd]

You have to accept a LOT of unrealistic and ahistorical things to play this game. You just do. The list of absurdly unrealistic aspects is endless.

Better to think of it as a dice game with strategic elements "inspired by World War II" than a WWII strategy game.

[$N4K3 <O> <O>]

Originally posted by Jay H:

but it makes it almost impossible to defend the Caucasus'

It doesn't require Russian ships to defend. It's not impossible either. Try getting a colorful mix of fighters assisting India and Caucasus. Having some from all 3 allied nations allows you to bounce them around with versatility. They can fly from Karelia, to India covering Moscow and Caucasus in between. This is usually a key element to an allied win in a tough game.

[$N4K3 <O> <O>]

This is a game -roughly- based on military positioning and G.D.P. in 1942 optimized for balance. I.E. Allied G.D.P. was 2.1x more than the total of the Axis in 1942, though it were the Allied nations moreso suffering it's economies being devastated by invasions. If you want a historically accurate game with a pre-determined outcome (considering the historically accurate outcome was that the allies won); that would require it not to be a game at all. In games, either opponent can win. Midway goes largely ignored, nothing happens in Okinawa, some countries have 0 G.D.P. contribution to their alignment to name a few. If you want a reenactment, then don't play a game.