rak
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by rak on Aug 31, 2019 3:56:55 GMT -6
Russia should get access to the Med through the Black sea, just like in history.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 1, 2019 4:36:07 GMT -6
Except that the Ottoman empire/Turkey has controlled the Bosphorus and Dardanelles since 1453. For the entire period covered by the game, there was some kind of treaty restricting movement through the Turkish Straits, for a large part of that period Russia was flat out forbidden by treaty to move ships, and for a significant part of that period there was hostility between Russia and Turkey. Even when there wasn't, Turkey was motivated to close the straits to all belligerents in wartime to avoid being seen as favoring one side or the other, and/or *having a naval battle erupt quite literally in the middle of their capital*. They bent on this slightly during WWII with respect to Axis auxiliaries and AMCs, which were a grey area (before they joined on the Allied side), and it turned out to be a very bad idea; after the war the Soviets retaliated by demanding that the current treaty governing the Turkish Straits be rewritten, and when Turkey refused, the Soviets moved troops to the Balkans and started performing naval maneuvers off the Turkish coast. Turkey was then forced to beg the US for help and get dragged into the US sphere of influence lest they fall under Soviet domination.
So no, historically, in the period covered by the game, Russia did *not* have Mediterranean access through the Black Sea, at the very least not in wartime, and for a good chunk of the period not in peacetime either. Giving them Mediterranean access would greatly diminish the realism of the game.
|
|
|
Post by potrero on Nov 21, 2019 16:06:11 GMT -6
This could work if they add the ability to select where each ship is built beyond foreign/domestic. It's not such a big deal for the UK, Japan, Germany, or Italy, but Russia, France, and the USA have bases on multiple coastlines, and historically had shipyards on each of those coasts. For instance, a US player could choose to have a ship built at Newport News or Brooklyn (East Coast), Pascagoula (Gulf Coast), or Mare Island (West Coast).
This would open up additional strategic challenges and opportunities. Russia, for example, could build a substantial Black Sea Fleet, with the potential complication that it could be bottled up or make a fighting breakout into the Med, depending on who they end up fighting.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 21, 2019 16:18:51 GMT -6
The seazone would really become relevant if Turkey/Ottoman Empire are included in game. Also given the AI's relatively limited ability to coordinate operation in none-home areas, I don't see a black sea seazone ever being relevant ingame to anyone besides a Russia/Turkey war.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Nov 24, 2019 10:16:01 GMT -6
Well, I'd like to propose the following: Include the Black Sea as a region (possibly with adjacent possessions like Crimea, Bulgaria, Romania or Georgia) and define the Dardanelles/Bosporus as a "canal" similar to Suez/Panama. Then, also include Turkey as a neutral possession, and ruling Turkey lets the respective nation dominate Dardanelles/Bosporus. Therefore, Turkey might play a part as a target of the already present "internal upheaval/expeditionary force" or "Blitzkrieg" events, complete with rising tensions and the corresponding possibilities of war. The question regarding this is however how to treat the role of Dardanelles/Bosporus in peace time. I have no idea for that - leave all movements in and out the Black Sea allowed, or have the whole thing locked up until Turkey falls into the hands of any of the major powers?
:EDIT: Oh, and besides that I'd really like to see the North Cape and surroundings (Greenland, Iceland, Northern Norway, Kola Peninsula, Arkhangelsk) included as a separate region from Northern Europe.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 25, 2019 13:28:59 GMT -6
Well, I'd like to propose the following: Include the Black Sea as a region (possibly with adjacent possessions like Crimea, Bulgaria, Romania or Georgia) and define the Dardanelles/Bosporus as a "canal" similar to Suez/Panama. Then, also include Turkey as a neutral possession, and ruling Turkey lets the respective nation dominate Dardanelles/Bosporus. Therefore, Turkey might play a part as a target of the already present "internal upheaval/expeditionary force" or "Blitzkrieg" events, complete with rising tensions and the corresponding possibilities of war. The question regarding this is however how to treat the role of Dardanelles/Bosporus in peace time. I have no idea for that - leave all movements in and out the Black Sea allowed, or have the whole thing locked up until Turkey falls into the hands of any of the major powers?
:EDIT: Oh, and besides that I'd really like to see the North Cape and surroundings (Greenland, Iceland, Northern Norway, Kola Peninsula, Arkhangelsk) included as a separate region from Northern Europe.
This makes sense. Dardanelles should be a separate region in the game. It should be invadeable (it actually was during this time period).
Also, why are we limited to only 6 computer-played countries? There were about 10-15 significant naval powers, if you include all that had BB/BC in this time period.
|
|