The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq


  • 2018 2017

    Well its a great idea, since we are normally talking about a whole $1 swing.    Problem would be that if the 4 Italians never leave Italian lands, you MUST capture in order to kill.  And if they DO leave for UK squares, then UK integrity is persistently lost until you can get the Russians down there (6-7 turns?)

    It is much more obvious and convenient to kill those guys, its easy.  That’s why this wouldn’t be obvious in most games.



  • Yeah exactly. It would be foolish for UK to ignore Italian territories and just go for it however Italian Somalia is usually abandoned by Italy as it is worthless because its value is 0 but not for USSR.



  • I just want everyone to know that I have changed my mind on Iraq. I am currently playing a game where Germany declared war on turn 4 however I placed enough units to attack Iraq and preventing the other two Axis from converting it. This lead to me eventually getting USSR to take the two northern Italian colonies for a combine bonus of 12 dollars for Communism to which lead me to just taking Berlin as USSR.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    @Caesar:

    I just want everyone to know that I have changed my mind on Iraq. I am currently playing a game where Germany declared war on turn 4 however I placed enough units to attack Iraq and preventing the other two Axis from converting it. This lead to me eventually getting USSR to take the two northern Italian colonies for a combine bonus of 12 dollars for Communism to which lead me to just taking Berlin as USSR.

    G4 DOW is a very radical Axis move. Perhaps with more conventional axis play, you’d have a better case.



  • @simon33:

    @Caesar:

    I just want everyone to know that I have changed my mind on Iraq. I am currently playing a game where Germany declared war on turn 4 however I placed enough units to attack Iraq and preventing the other two Axis from converting it. This lead to me eventually getting USSR to take the two northern Italian colonies for a combine bonus of 12 dollars for Communism to which lead me to just taking Berlin as USSR.

    G4 DOW is a very radical Axis move. Perhaps with more conventional axis play, you’d have a better case.

    Oh no doubt, he doesn’t like to do any early DOW with any of the Axis. I have explained to him why Japan is better off doing a turn 1 DOW on US but he doesn’t agree. Personally myself, I am not exactly sure if DOW G1 is worth it. I am thinking about G2 just in case France survives on turn 1.

    Back to the point, I am surprised I was able to get Iraq after a G4, I was nervous about doing it because I had to pull my air force to do it but fortunately he messed up and split his invasion into two way too early so he was able to take USSR in the north but I was able to take Germany in the south.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    That is the best part in triple a.

    -Set up a strategy
    -play and learn from it
    -adjust it to certain opponents and situations
    -refine it and develop new strategies

    The REF works fine under certain circumstances.

    So does a late G&J Dow.

    Some may have better benefits but that is something we have to find out.
    The only real thing you have to learn is a good Timing.

    AetV



  • @aequitas:

    That is the best part in triple a.

    -Set up a strategy
    -play and learn from it
    -adjust it to certain opponents and situations
    -refine it and develop new strategies

    The REF works fine under certain circumstances.

    So does a late G&J Dow.

    Some may have better benefits but that is something we have to find out.
    The only real thing you have to learn is a good Timing.

    AetV

    It’s all trial by fire anyways. I once tried to take Iraq as USSR without an airforce and all three Iraqi divisions destroyed USSR.



  • @Caesar:

    It’s all trial by fire anyways. I once tried to take Iraq as USSR without an airforce and all three Iraqi divisions destroyed USSR.

    That’s basically canon, if 40 years too early 😛



  • I don’t think USSR ever had a military campaign against Iraq.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    @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.



  • @barney:

    @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.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    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



  • @barney:

    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.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    ty I gotcha. I believe BM changes this ? Maybe not.



  • @Caesar:

    @barney:

    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.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    @barney:

    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.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @Caesar:

    @barney:

    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.



  • @Caesar:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Caesar:

    @barney:

    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.



  • 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.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    @Caesar:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Caesar:

    @barney:

    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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 4
  • 54
  • 4
  • 6
  • 27
  • 7
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

62
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts