@Caesar:
I don’t think USSR ever had a military campaign against Iraq.
They did against iran though. That’s how they got the caucasus. Being the equal opportunity nation they are, I could see it as a legit what if for the game.
Except that was a joint invasion of neutral Iran for oil which is not only conviently ignored in history because everyone knows the Allies never invaded neutral nations but also a complete insult in G40 that makes Iran pro allies which is the farthest from the truth. However Iraq was a member of Axis and was defeated by UK.
I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.
I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves
I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.
I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves
We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.
In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.
ty I gotcha. I believe BM changes this ? Maybe not.
ty I gotcha. I believe BM changes this ? Maybe not.
That is correct. Only mainland Europe (including Scandinavia) qualify for the NO IIRC. I believe Sicily and Corsica are excluded too, perhaps they shouldn’t be.
@Caesar:
I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.
I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves
We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.
In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.
The NO should really be restricted to europe only, not middle east of afrika, the allies would have never helped russia get those countries ( except for the invasion of neutral Iran )
In historical context, Iran was the only Neutral country. It traded with both germany and the allies. In contrast to the US which was waging an illegal war against germany at that time.
The allies wanted iran to join them, and hand over german nationals that where living peacefully in Iran, when iran wanted to stay neutral they invaded the country to force them to join them.Irak was anti-UK because they where oppressed by the british since WW1.
The problem with Spread of Communism is that it technically make sense for Africa and the Middle East. Stalin wanted Europe to see USSR as a European nation. However he wanted to take an advantage any where he gets, he knew that Japan was going to be a thorn in his side which is why he invested interest in Japan true enemy, China. However as history has shown, he willingly joined UK in an invasion of Iran. So it makes sense he can get Communist bonus out of Iraq and Africa. However the African bonus is the bigger issue. I try very much in the early games to get Italy to leave its colonies and destroy there military just to get USSR to take all four of them in Africa for a total of 12 dollars plus 2 for the territory value.
I’m playing as Germany tomorrow, I am hoping that the Russian player does not do this - I am going to try and slam through the southern part of Russia and squeeze him from down there.
If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.
Well, that is true from a historical context BUT we are playing a game. The meta of the game overrides real world scenarios of WWII.
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.
I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves
We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.
In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.
The NO should really be restricted to europe only, not middle east of afrika, the allies would have never helped russia get those countries ( except for the invasion of neutral Iran )
In historical context, Iran was the only Neutral country. It traded with both germany and the allies. In contrast to the US which was waging an illegal war against germany at that time.
The allies wanted iran to join them, and hand over german nationals that where living peacefully in Iran, when iran wanted to stay neutral they invaded the country to force them to join them.Irak was anti-UK because they where oppressed by the british since WW1.
The problem with Spread of Communism is that it technically make sense for Africa and the Middle East. Stalin wanted Europe to see USSR as a European nation. However he wanted to take an advantage any where he gets, he knew that Japan was going to be a thorn in his side which is why he invested interest in Japan true enemy, China. However as history has shown, he willingly joined UK in an invasion of Iran. So it makes sense he can get Communist bonus out of Iraq and Africa. However the African bonus is the bigger issue. I try very much in the early games to get Italy to leave its colonies and destroy there military just to get USSR to take all four of them in Africa for a total of 12 dollars plus 2 for the territory value.
The allies would have never allowed russia to invade or occupy any neutral country ( except iran but they promised to leave once Iran surendered and lend-lease materials could go through )
For the NO bonus in Irak ( which was a british colony at that time ) or afrika the allies have to make way for the russians to invade areas that they wanted themself and not invade them.
For sicily its even more silly as russia needs to get on a US or UK transport do invade those spaces. Russia should never be allowed to go on any persons transports.If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.
And besides we all know what really happened. And that was UK who wanted to do that and that is ALSO what Germany assumed the allies were going to do. This is actually why Turkey wanted to join the allies sooner than it did but US wanted them to stay neutral as it didn’t give Axis forces in Greece an excuse to invade another nation. US wanted to go right into Southern France from Africa but the agreement was knocking out Italy right then and there.
And as for the USSR being on transport, that is something I never thought of however if I am going to do that, I’d just have the Red Army land on Rome.
