AI for MWiF - USSR

[composer99]

So the Soviets have three options, essentially, in Karelia:
 
1- Do not worry about railing factories to Murmansk, only hold it & rail factories to Archangel. This requires the smallest commitment of units, but means that Allied lend-lease via this route is restricted anywhere from 2-4 turns in a year (hardly optimal).
 
2- Deploy static defences to prevent Finnish forces from reaching the rails for 1-2 impulses (long enough to get the factories to Murmansk & maybe also Archangel). This ensures that the factory railings occur early, but requires an immense commitment of units, possibly too great to be feasible given the demands of the main front against the German onslaught - except, as brian points out, if you are using unlimited breakdown and have a plentitude of divisions you wouldn't want to use on the main front anyway.
 
3- Deploy to defend Murmansk and otherwise use a counter-strike force to destroy any minor Finnish incursion to keep the rail lines open. This requires the use of an HQ, but the lesser numbers of units, easier movement with the new scale, and good weather during the summer means that the USSR can get the requisite 2 factories railed to Murmansk, meaning a guaranteed 2 resources & 3 bp every turn without regard for weather (as long as the Allies commit to delivering said quantity) without being dangerously (or semi-permanently) over-committed to the defence of the theatre.

[micheljq]

Railing factories!? I thought we spoke about using Mourmansk to get ressources/build points from the western allies.

ORIGINAL: composer99

So the Soviets have three options, essentially, in Karelia:

1- Do not worry about railing factories to Murmansk, only hold it & rail factories to Archangel. This requires the smallest commitment of units, but means that Allied lend-lease via this route is restricted anywhere from 2-4 turns in a year (hardly optimal).

2- Deploy static defences to prevent Finnish forces from reaching the rails for 1-2 impulses (long enough to get the factories to Murmansk & maybe also Archangel). This ensures that the factory railings occur early, but requires an immense commitment of units, possibly too great to be feasible given the demands of the main front against the German onslaught - except, as brian points out, if you are using unlimited breakdown and have a plentitude of divisions you wouldn't want to use on the main front anyway.

3- Deploy to defend Murmansk and otherwise use a counter-strike force to destroy any minor Finnish incursion to keep the rail lines open. This requires the use of an HQ, but the lesser numbers of units, easier movement with the new scale, and good weather during the summer means that the USSR can get the requisite 2 factories railed to Murmansk, meaning a guaranteed 2 resources & 3 bp every turn without regard for weather (as long as the Allies commit to delivering said quantity) without being dangerously (or semi-permanently) over-committed to the defence of the theatre.

[micheljq]

I have another crazy idea, don't know if it is feasible. Send resources to USSR via Mediterranean to a neutral Turkish port, and use neutral Turkey railways to rail the resources/build points, they connect to USSR. But with Italy in the war, it's risky. Can be an option if Archangel is closed or falls in enemy hands.

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Railing factories!? I thought we spoke about using Mourmansk to get ressources/build points from the western allies.

ORIGINAL: composer99

So the Soviets have three options, essentially, in Karelia:

1- Do not worry about railing factories to Murmansk, only hold it & rail factories to Archangel. This requires the smallest commitment of units, but means that Allied lend-lease via this route is restricted anywhere from 2-4 turns in a year (hardly optimal).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Railing factories!? I thought we spoke about using Mourmansk to get ressources/build points from the western allies.

ORIGINAL: composer99

So the Soviets have three options, essentially, in Karelia:

1- Do not worry about railing factories to Murmansk, only hold it & rail factories to Archangel. This requires the smallest commitment of units, but means that Allied lend-lease via this route is restricted anywhere from 2-4 turns in a year (hardly optimal).

2- Deploy static defences to prevent Finnish forces from reaching the rails for 1-2 impulses (long enough to get the factories to Murmansk & maybe also Archangel). This ensures that the factory railings occur early, but requires an immense commitment of units, possibly too great to be feasible given the demands of the main front against the German onslaught - except, as brian points out, if you are using unlimited breakdown and have a plentitude of divisions you wouldn't want to use on the main front anyway.

3- Deploy to defend Murmansk and otherwise use a counter-strike force to destroy any minor Finnish incursion to keep the rail lines open. This requires the use of an HQ, but the lesser numbers of units, easier movement with the new scale, and good weather during the summer means that the USSR can get the requisite 2 factories railed to Murmansk, meaning a guaranteed 2 resources & 3 bp every turn without regard for weather (as long as the Allies commit to delivering said quantity) without being dangerously (or semi-permanently) over-committed to the defence of the theatre.

Non-oil resources are only good for one thing: to convert them into production points. That is done by railing a resource point to a factory. During the production phase (at the end of each turn) for each facotry that receives a resource, one production point is created (1 resource + 1 factory = 1 production point). For a hex to use two resources, it must have 2 factories, etc..

So, the idea is to rail endangered factories out of the path of the German Barbarossa campaign. Historically this was done past the Urals. In WIF FE sending the factories to Murmansk and Archangel has the benefit of being able to use the resources shipped into those ports by the Allies. I like the idea that this ploy is less viable in MWIF, since it always seemed rather 'gamey' to me.

To continue, each production point a major power creates during the production phase is multipied by its production multiplier (e.g., 0.75, 1.5) to create Build Points (BPs) which can be used to build units.

[composer99]

Speaking of sending resources via the Med: if Turkey is neutral & the Italian fleet is neutralized, great idea. The problem is Italian naval air, which could very well go to town on the convoys if they are not adequately protected. Once Italy is conquered it's not as much of a concern.
 
One advantage of the northern route is that the task of cutting the lend-lease usually falls on the Germans, who are often unwilling to spend the action limits to deploy their subs & whatnot to do the job.

[brian brian]

With the Scandinavian map it is difficult, but still worthwhile; I haven't played with the off-map boxes since that map came out. If the Russians can get it done it is quite gamey as Steve points out, but that's the way the game works. I think it is worthwhile for the Russians. Take the Borderlands, and commit what is needed...Timoshenko is nice up there. He can't move fast enough anywhere close to the Panzers, and if positioned properly (at the southern end of the White Sea with the rail to Archangel secure behind him, and an oil stored there) he is at little risk from the Finns. The ground unit requirements are hard, but again the units up there are fairly safe, whereas on the main front they are not, and in that light it is a good front for the 2 and 3 factor CAV units that have a ZoC but can't stand up to two German corps (they are also good to hide in the center of Pripets though). Once two factories reach Murmansk the commitment can be lessened. Add some long-range air (hopefully at least one TB-3 with re-org capabilities) assets and it becomes an interesting battle-within-the-battle.

Using Turkey is also gamey, I hope that automatic capability goes away someday with an integrated political system that is dynamic during the war. It is even better to take Syria from the Vichy French and land Indian (soooo realistic again, not) BPs at Suez. Also, the through-put of the Persian route was very limited until the USA invested a whole lot of 'railway troops' to make the thing work. For quite a while more tonnage delivered to Persia was used within Persia than could reach the Russians. The northern route was the key. I do like the new rule to allow a BP to come in via the air route from Alaska to Siberia, but hope that gets tweaked in the future so the Japanese have a chance to cut that.

And Italian SUBs can be sent to the Arctic seas (I'm sure that would have been an utter failure if tried in the real war) by basing them in Germany.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Using Turkey is also gamey, I hope that automatic capability goes away someday with an integrated political system that is dynamic during the war. It is even better to take Syria from the Vichy French and land Indian (soooo realistic again, not) BPs at Suez. Also, the through-put of the Persian route was very limited until the USA invested a whole lot of 'railway troops' to make the thing work. For quite a while more tonnage delivered to Persia was used within Persia than could reach the Russians. The northern route was the key. I do like the new rule to allow a BP to come in via the air route from Alaska to Siberia, but hope that gets tweaked in the future so the Japanese have a chance to cut that.

I don't see what's gamey about Turkey, if sending resources/BPs through Persia is not. When you play Fascist Tide, Persia is not part of the campaign and cannot be used. About a rule to send BPs via an air route from Alaska to Siberia, that sounds even more ridiculous.

Maybe a rule could be done that when sending resources/BPs via a neutral power, some of them are lost.

[brian brian]

the Turks would never have transshipped war material to Russia, that option wasn't even on the table; if anything in WWII they would have been in the 'Axis Influenced' camp or more strictly Neutral.

And the Americans really did send war material to Russia via an air route from Alaska to Siberia. That is historical (newest rules allow 1 BP per turn, but the Axis have no way whatsoever to influence that). Using Turkish railroads for that is not. The Persian route is very historical, but a little over-rated in WiF, with no through-put limits at all, in the worthwhile interests of quick and simple playability.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the Turks would never have transshipped war material to Russia, that option wasn't even on the table; if anything in WWII they would have been in the 'Axis Influenced' camp or more strictly Neutral.

And the Americans really did send war material to Russia via an air route from Alaska to Siberia. That is historical (newest rules allow 1 BP per turn, but the Axis have no way whatsoever to influence that). Using Turkish railroads for that is not. The Persian route is very historical, but a little over-rated in WiF, with no through-put limits at all, in the worthwhile interests of quick and simple playability.

Concur. The Turks hated and feared the Russians throughout the 18th-20th Century. They fought numerous wars during this time period. It would be a similar concept to the US transshipping goods to Europe through the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

And the Americans really did send war material to Russia via an air route from Alaska to Siberia. That is historical (newest rules allow 1 BP per turn, but the Axis have no way whatsoever to influence that). Using Turkish railroads for that is not. The Persian route is very historical, but a little over-rated in WiF, with no through-put limits at all, in the worthwhile interests of quick and simple playability.

It may be historical, but to send the equivalent of 1 BP worth of supplies, that would take a very huge fleet of airplanes. I am not sure the americans sent so much from Alaska to Siberia.

[composer99]

I think a lot of what they sent by the air route was airplanes.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think a lot of what they sent by the air route was airplanes.

If you are right then this is not the same thing as sending BPs, looks more like lend lease airplanes to me.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the Turks would never have transshipped war material to Russia, that option wasn't even on the table; if anything in WWII they would have been in the 'Axis Influenced' camp or more strictly Neutral.

Concur. The Turks hated and feared the Russians throughout the 18th-20th Century. They fought numerous wars during this time period. It would be a similar concept to the US transshipping goods to Europe through the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war.

Turkey was neutral during the course of the war and declared war on Axis as a ceremonial gesture in february 23th, 1945. Their leader did his best to keep them out of this war despite Nazz Germany and Western Allies pressure. They were not "so opposed" to the americans. In fact, even now there are U.S. bases in Turkey no? even if it's more a result of the cold war. With proper pressure from U.S., they could as well let them use their railways during the WW2.

[iamspamus]

It was done by ship.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOkiEu ... &ct=result

The arsenal of democracy pg.25 ("Lend-Lease Underway" section) A lot of stuff went through Vlad to Russia. From this book 8.2 million tons went through Vlad, compared to 4.2 Persian Gulf, 4 Murmansk and almost 1 combined from some others. So...

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: brian brian

And the Americans really did send war material to Russia via an air route from Alaska to Siberia. That is historical (newest rules allow 1 BP per turn, but the Axis have no way whatsoever to influence that). Using Turkish railroads for that is not. The Persian route is very historical, but a little over-rated in WiF, with no through-put limits at all, in the worthwhile interests of quick and simple playability.

It may be historical, but to send the equivalent of 1 BP worth of supplies, that would take a very huge fleet of airplanes. I am not sure the americans sent so much from Alaska to Siberia.

[iamspamus]

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your results. The reason that there were American bases in Turkey post WWII was when they joined NATO as protection against Russia. I would guess that the Americans DID ask the Turks for passage.

The Turks felt that they got royally screwed in WWI. They were going to play the fence for a long time. In fact they did, which is why they "dowed" the Axis at the end of the war.

This is very similar to the Bulgarians who sided with the Germans against everyone but the Russians. As Slavic "brothers" they would not fight the Russians, but were more than willing to fight the German/Italian enemies and partisans in the Balkans.

So, nope. Don't see it AT ALL.

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the Turks would never have transshipped war material to Russia, that option wasn't even on the table; if anything in WWII they would have been in the 'Axis Influenced' camp or more strictly Neutral.

Concur. The Turks hated and feared the Russians throughout the 18th-20th Century. They fought numerous wars during this time period. It would be a similar concept to the US transshipping goods to Europe through the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war.

Turkey was neutral during the course of the war and declared war on Axis as a ceremonial gesture in february 23th, 1945. Their leader did his best to keep them out of this war despite Nazz Germany and Western Allies pressure. They were not "so opposed" to the americans. In fact, even now there are U.S. bases in Turkey no? even if it's more a result of the cold war. With proper pressure from U.S., they could as well let them use their railways during the WW2.

[composer99]

If I recall correctly, a lot of neutral powers, once the war was firmly going the Allies' way, did bandwagon a little bit towards the Allies. Usually not enough that they could be claimed to be not neutral, but certainly that kind of thing went on. I believe near the end of the war Sweden cut Germany off, for example, from its iron shipments (someone with more time to research may want to confirm this)?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: composer99

If I recall correctly, a lot of neutral powers, once the war was firmly going the Allies' way, did bandwagon a little bit towards the Allies. Usually not enough that they could be claimed to be not neutral, but certainly that kind of thing went on. I believe near the end of the war Sweden cut Germany off, for example, from its iron shipments (someone with more time to research may want to confirm this)?

Sweden stopped the iron ore shipments to Germany 1944.

[Mike Parker]

To Sweden's benefit however I would suggest the following.
 
Rather than them stopping shipments as a 'bandwagon jumping' with the Allies I think it is more fair to say that once it was clear the implied German threat of invasion was neutered, Sweden instituted policies it would have prefered to have in place during the balance of the War.
 
Although I defer to the Swedes amongst us to confirm or deny my thoughts on this? 

[micheljq]

Look at the thread, AI for MWiF - Sweden, some interesting information there.

[praem]

The reality was by 1943 the final outcome was given (and at that time the resistance movements in the ocupied nations startet gaining lots of recruits). By that time Sweden was in no threat of being invaded. In other words - it was not likely to be fear of invasion, that fueled the Swedes desire to sell Iron - more likely it was money - and by the time they stopped selling to Germany, I'm betting the alies pressured Sweden to do so.