as far as i’m concerned, a dedicated strategic bombing campaign by either side is a waste of money insofar as building bombers and then replacing any that happen to get hit. the only time i generally use bombers is when i can’t use them to support any other attacks i might be using. it is worthwhile if you can get in some free shots, e.g if an IC has no AA to protect it, but I don’t generally like to use my bombers like that.
Most Important Neautral in Axis and Allies
-
I think mongolia is the most significant neutral country because as you said, its a shourtcut to Moscow
-
I think mongolia is the most significant neutral country because as you said, its a shourtcut to Moscow
If the Japanese tried to use Mongolia as a shortcut to Russia, they would get killed by the Americans/Russians on their next turn. But, if the Japanese somehow did not get killed by the American/Russians, and on Japan’s next turn they passed through Mongolia and into the boarding unoccupied Russian terrioty(if it still is unoccupied), they would be surronded by the Americans in China and the Russians in Moscow. A better move would be to move all the Japanese units in Asia(except one infantry in Manchuria) into Sinkiang on the first turn. Then land 2 fighter into French Indo-China Burma and 2 more in Manchuria. Transport two infantry from Japan to Manchuria and two from the Philippine Islands. This will work a lot better than trying to go trough Mongolia because once both parts of China and India are taken over, Japan and Germany will be surronding Russia(unless Germany already took over Russia)instead of Russia and Americans surronding Japanese troops in Mongolia.
-
I’m goin’ w/ Spain on this one. It’s a fantastic place to land and forces the Germans to be more versatile and “aggressive”. They can not afford to leave a token defending force in WEU with a landing on Spain by a determined Allied force.
-
@cystic:
I’m goin’ w/ Spain on this one. It’s a fantastic place to land and forces the Germans to be more versatile and “aggressive”. They can not afford to leave a token defending force in WEU with a landing on Spain by a determined Allied force.
True, but is defending Western Europe even worth it? I mean, regardless of whether the Allies land in Spain or attack directly from the North Sea/Eastern Atlantic, if Germany has NO units in Western Europe and instead builds all INF/ARM every turn in Germany/Southern Europe and has the majority of their ARM and all their FTRs in Eastern Europe, then the Allies are gonna hafta take a good long time to build a force large enough to take Western Europe and HOLD it no matter what. In this case, it’d be better for the Allies to land 1 dude on WE, and just trade it with Germany, than land any force in Spain where it’s doing nothing. If Germany plans to trade Western Europe, then landing on Spain makes no sense at all.
After reading a book about Napoleon’s plot to sieze Ireland, I tried to develop a plan for Germany to take over Ireland and use IT as a base for attacks against England. What I eventually figured out was that ALL of the neutrals basically are dead-ends–you can’t do anything from a neutral that you couldn’t do faster, easier or cheaper from a normal territory.
Therefore, my vote for best neutral is Switzerland. Sure it’s pointless, but it’s fun to land a Japanese INF there, take it over, then build a complex and start pumping out ARM and FTRs into Europe to help the Germans. Of course, you could drive/fly them in a lot faster and cheaper, but seeing the look on the Allies faces when you do this is just priceless! :)
Neutrals–they’re worthless. I’m glad they did away with them in the new game.
Ozone27
-
@cystic:
I’m goin’ w/ Spain on this one. It’s a fantastic place to land and forces the Germans to be more versatile and “aggressive”. They can not afford to leave a token defending force in WEU with a landing on Spain by a determined Allied force.
True, but is defending Western Europe even worth it? I mean, regardless of whether the Allies land in Spain or attack directly from the North Sea/Eastern Atlantic, if Germany has NO units in Western Europe and instead builds all INF/ARM every turn in Germany/Southern Europe and has the majority of their ARM and all their FTRs in Eastern Europe, then the Allies are gonna hafta take a good long time to build a force large enough to take Western Europe and HOLD it no matter what. In this case, it’d be better for the Allies to land 1 dude on WE, and just trade it with Germany, than land any force in Spain where it’s doing nothing. If Germany plans to trade Western Europe, then landing on Spain makes no sense at all.
After reading a book about Napoleon’s plot to sieze Ireland, I tried to develop a plan for Germany to take over Ireland and use IT as a base for attacks against England. What I eventually figured out was that ALL of the neutrals basically are dead-ends–you can’t do anything from a neutral that you couldn’t do faster, easier or cheaper from a normal territory.
Therefore, my vote for best neutral is Switzerland. Sure it’s pointless, but it’s fun to land a Japanese INF there, take it over, then build a complex and start pumping out ARM and FTRs into Europe to help the Germans. Of course, you could drive/fly them in a lot faster and cheaper, but seeing the look on the Allies faces when you do this is just priceless! :)
Neutrals–they’re worthless. I’m glad they did away with them in the new game.
Ozone27
I have to disagree. If you use Spain as a landing zone with a sizable force. You can attack WE on two fronts (an amphibious assault and from Spain). This will double your attack with half the transports.
Here’s a quick example:
Lets say you have 3 transports, 6 inf, and 3 tanks. First turn, land the six inf in Spain. Next turn, attack WE from Spain and land the 3 tanks from England for an amphibious assault.
That was demonstrated in the simplest way. Throw in some airpower and you probably could be successful. Of course you may have to gauge the attacking forces by what Germany has in there but the point is to keep your transport buying to a minimum for they can get costly buying so many.
-
I have to disagree. If you use Spain as a landing zone with a sizable force. You can attack WE on two fronts (an amphibious assault and from Spain). This will double your attack with half the transports.
Here’s a quick example:
Lets say you have 3 transports, 6 inf, and 3 tanks. First turn, land the six inf in Spain. Next turn, attack WE from Spain and land the 3 tanks from England for an amphibious assault.
That was demonstrated in the simplest way. Throw in some airpower and you probably could be successful. Of course you may have to gauge the attacking forces by what Germany has in there but the point is to keep your transport buying to a minimum for they can get costly buying so many.
Oh, yes stuka, you are absolutely right on–IF you’re talking about a situation where Germany chooses to dig in and defend WE. I was talking about a situation where Germany chooses to abandon WE in favor of a “trade” scenario. In that case it becomes a struggle of raw numbers–and since you have to land troops on either Spain or UK as the Allies, it makes much more sense for the Allies to land in UK, 'cuz it’s more accessible. Otherwise it makes no difference whether the Allies land in Spain or deploy all their forces directly from the sea–the REAL battle will take place on Germany’s turn when the counterattack begins, and so whether the Allies came from UK, or Spain AND UK, makes no difference.
Ozone27
-
If the Japanese tried to use Mongolia as a shortcut to Russia, they would get killed by the Americans/Russians on their next turn.
Mongolia is great as a means for Japan to drive a big stack of men out either Novo or Sink. Spain for the reasons mentioned above. However, neither is better as they both have a place, but Spain is all about timing. Too late and you leave Russia to the Germans.
Two neutrals nobody has yet mentioned are Sweden and Turkey. Sweden is a great place to store the FinNor army so that it is not worth attacking for the Allies, but impossible to ignore. It can lead to the Germans getting to trade FinNor for a few extra turns which is always nice to have.
Turkey is nice when Ukr isn’t attacked by Russia. This is done by attacking Cauc with 2inf ftr f/Ukr, Turkey w/bmb from Germany to either AES or Syria. In noncombat the Germans can blitz 2arm f/Ukr to Turkey, and if the Brits counter attack Syria or AES it will cost them India, but at the same time still lead to a German Africa.
-
(great discussion Stuka and Ozone, by the way. Of course you are proving my point nicely :D)
-
Neutrals–they’re worthless. I’m glad they did away with them in the new game.
From an economic standpoint this is true, but not from a tactical standpoint. Additionally, taking a neutral at the right time might enable you to take territories you might not normally be able to get. A great example of this is a Germany take of Turkey reinforced by German armor from the Ukr. The armor enable the Germans to take and hold most of Africa and possibly even Persia and India.
Therefore, my vote for best neutral is Switzerland. Sure it’s pointless, but it’s fun to land a Japanese INF there, take it over, then build a complex and start pumping out ARM and FTRs into Europe to help the Germans. Of course, you could drive/fly them in a lot faster and cheaper, but seeing the look on the Allies faces when you do this is just priceless!
Actually I think Switz is the only truely worthless neutral. I’ve heard people use it as a place to hide a German AA gun when the fall of France or Warsaw nears, but really if you’re at that point why bother with Switz. That is I’m not sure it’s going to make that much of a difference by that point.
True, but is defending Western Europe even worth it? I mean, regardless of whether the Allies land in Spain or attack directly from the North Sea/Eastern Atlantic, if Germany has NO units in Western Europe and instead builds all INF/ARM every turn in Germany/Southern Europe and has the majority of their ARM and all their FTRs in Eastern Europe, then the Allies are gonna hafta take a good long time to build a force large enough to take Western Europe and HOLD it no matter what. In this case, it’d be better for the Allies to land 1 dude on WE, and just trade it with Germany, than land any force in Spain where it’s doing nothing. If Germany plans to trade Western Europe, then landing on Spain makes no sense at all.
The traditional way Spain is used is as a springboard to take and hold WEuro for the Allies. Consider what happens if I land 10US inf in Spain. On the next turn I can land another 10 inf, and with Brit reinforcements of 6-8 this is 27inf. Throw in the American and Russian fighters for possible defence and this becomes a very tough nut to retake, and in fact a counterattack may not be a very good idea. Either way Spain landings should force the Germans to reduce their forces in EEurope either to attempt to hold on to WEuro in which case the Brits/Russians would move into EEuro, or force them to abandon both EEurope and WEurope in the hope the Allies won’t be strong enough to take either. As long as Russia continues to build up in Karelia a Spain landing should be feared by the Germans.
-
Oops forgot about when its a good time to use African neutrals… when the Americans have a force which includes a tank in BCongo, if the British violate Angola with air units the Americans can blitz the tank on to SAfr to retake it, and at the same time slide their infantry to Kenya to protect the tank. As you can see almost every neutral has an appropriate use. The neutrals that I’ve never seen violated are Rio de Oro, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, Columbia, Switzerland, and Ireland.
-
I always “invade” Ireland when I am setting up the board for GB. You just cant fit everything on that little island.
-
One thing that no one has yet mentioned is the invasion of Peru by Japan. This enables a Jap inf to take Brazil one turn earlier and brings the transport back to Japan quicker.
I’ve never tried this as I think there are better things to do with the Japanese transports and infantry than to pick up Brazil for 1 turn just to have it retaken by the USA the next. I’d much rather have the troops in Asia.
-
Peru and Argentina are about the same though, but you made a good point. Like I said I think just about any neutral has a reason for being invaded, and it seems like it is usually the Axis who can benefit whether its Peru, Turkey, Mongolia, or Sweden. The few neutrals that benefit the Allies are Spain, Angola and Afghan, but the benefits of the last two are minimal at best.
-
[and on Japan’s next turn they passed through Mongolia and into the boarding unoccupied Russian terrioty(if it still is unoccupied), they would be surronded by the Americans in China and the Russians in Moscow]
Yes, but i was not taking about a first turn japan attack on mongolia, more like a second or even third
-
I think a lot of you people are forgetting one thing: that for atleast the two first, but also upp to the fourth roung germany will use all of its air forces to destroy any british or american forces inside their range.
This means that there will be many rounds before the allies can invade spain, and because it is the third or even fourth round, the allies must go directly for western to weeken germany.
-
It will also be a couple turns before Germany will have very many troops built up with which to pressure Karelia or walk to Cauc to take Karelia. If done at the right time Spain can prevent such a move as it could lead to the fall of Berlin. Landing directly in WEuro is risky because if Germany is so strong that this ‘must’ be done then you have to ask yourself can you afford to take a beating in WEuro in a counterattack? Usually this is not a good idea. Actually, the Allies can get into Spain very quickly, and I will often do it on the third turn. When you have Germany out of Africa by turn 3 there is nowhere else for American troops to go but either Karelia or Spain. I prefer Spain especially if Germany isn’t really threatening Karelia.
I think a lot of you people are forgetting one thing: that for atleast the two first, but also upp to the fourth roung germany will use all of its air forces to destroy any british or american forces inside their range.
See this is totally a mistake. Assume after G1 the Germans have only 4ftrs bmb to threaten the UkSz with Britain I can build Cv and then support it with 2-3 fodder ships like the Russian navy/American transport while landing 2American fighters on it for defense. If Germany attacks and gets 3 hits, the Allies should return fire of 2 hits. This leaves Germany with 2ftrs bmb v Cv 2ftrs. Now the Germans are likely to get 1-2 hits, but the Allies should get 2 more hits, and given this likelyhood the carrier is no longer needed so the net loss for the Allies is a carrier, which is no longer needed as Germany has only 1 plane left, 1-2 Russian fodder ships which aren’t needed anyway, and 1 American fighter which can be rebuilt if necessary. In the end the Germans trade 4 ftrs for 1 ftr, obviously this is not a good idea.
-
I think Spain is the most important. Most of the others aren’t worth the IPC’s. I have used Spain many times sometimes landing as soon as US1.
I did however invade Ireland once with Germany. I was a realy fun game. I built an AC with my bid in The sea zone on the coast of Spain. I used the Trn in the Baltic to invade Ireland. Then I attacked the brit fleet with the AC, 4 Ftrs, 1 Bmb and 2 Subs. The purpose for invading Ireland was so that if I was forced to take a hit on my carrier in the next round my fighters could land. At the end of the first round the brits largest ship was a tranny. :lol:
I was a fun game and I actualy won. I think mostly due to suprise and lucky dice.
-
A german naval strategy won’t work against anybody good though. :lol:
Anyway how do you conclude the other neutrals aren’t worth their ipc value? Is this based on experience? I think Baker made a very good case for SAmerican neutrals, and I think I showed how Mongolia, and Sweden are both potentially valuable as well.
-
@AgentSmith:
Peru and Argentina are about the same though, but you made a good point. Like I said I think just about any neutral has a reason for being invaded, and it seems like it is usually the Axis who can benefit whether its Peru, Turkey, Mongolia, or Sweden. The few neutrals that benefit the Allies are Spain, Angola and Afghan, but the benefits of the last two are minimal at best.
How does Turkey and Sweden benefit the Axis and Angola and Afghan benefit the Allies?
-
Well the only times I’ve ever seen Afghan violated was by the US in order to stash the 2inf in Sinkiang there so they can attempt to retake India/Persia on US2. Also, I’ve only seen Angola violated by Britain in order to allow American tanks in BCongo to blitz through to SAfr. Considering these are the only instances when violating Angola or Afghan will be seen there certainly seems to be an Allied advantage to taking these two countries. As for Sweden and Turkey I said above that Turkey is great to store 2arm f/Ukr if Germany takes Cauc on G1. If the German bomber overflies Turkey on its way to Syria the Germans can on G2 control most of Africa and India if the Brits counter attack Egypt. As for Sweden it is used to store the German forces in FinNor in order to keep long term pressure on Finland which should force the Allies to divert forces away from Karelia to kill these troops or to ignore them in which case Germany may be able to trade Finland for 2-3 turns longer than usual.
Suggested Topics
