I would consider an IC in Romania with a airfield. this would allow you to crank out troops toward Caucuses and not worry about building more than transports in the black sea. with the airfield you can scrambler fighters stationed there in defense and they can be used to attack with ground against Russia.
Pro-Allied Greece and Crete
-
Why would you want to land in Crete to activate the 4 inf anyway? wouldn’t it make more sense to land in Greece and support those 4 free infantry you’re receiving. :-D
-
I don’t see how it really makes a difference seeing as how Greece is a pro-Allies neutral anyway… If you land an Allied infantry on Crete and activate Greece, then I suppose you get the 2 IPCs for control and the extra infantry, but that goes against all the other game mechanics of not getting control of a territory without actually entering the territory (except liberating a capital I suppose and returning control, but that’s not the same thing). Regardless, if Germany tries to invade, that same number of infantry would defend against Germany. I don’t see how it makes a difference whether the infantry are “activated” and put on the board early rather than when the territory is actually attacked… It’s different when we’re talking about Strict Neutrals since the other Strict neutral territories go over to the opposing side when attacked, but with Greece and Crete already being pro-Allied, what’s the difference?
-
@Mysterious:
Why would you want to land in Crete to activate the 4 inf anyway? wouldn’t it make more sense to land in Greece and support those 4 free infantry you’re receiving. :-D
if you were UK you might want to land your limited forces in Crete… and use the four “FREE” infantry to create havoc in South/East Europe, without risking any of your own troops or exposing them to loss.
-
@Mysterious:
Why would you want to land in Crete to activate the 4 inf anyway? wouldn’t it make more sense to land in Greece and support those 4 free infantry you’re receiving. :-D
if you were UK you might want to land your limited forces in Crete… and use the four “FREE” infantry to create havoc in South/East Europe, without risking any of your own troops or exposing them to loss.
lol what havoc? 4 inf @ 1 you’re better off combining your forces to defend. Germany is likely to take Bulgaria activating 4 inf there + whatever else goes into the mix. Although if landing in Crete for some reason did actually activate the 4 infantry i would use them to defend Crete and construct an AB there.
-
Or, put the INF in Crete, safe from a large Axis attack that would otherwise over-whelm them in Greece proper. For use later, and/or defend an island with a possible airbase if the Med is not yet secured, etc…
-
Upon initially reading the first opening question I would have agreed word for word with SAS’s first response, but after a little consideration I’m not so sure anymore. If you remember in AAP1940 Mongolia is a strict neutral and it has 6 differently named territories. I would assume that if I attack Mongolia, then all of Mongolia would be activated against me, so by that logic if Crete is attacked or occupied it would activate Greece too. That’s my opinion. As for colonial empires like Portugal and Mozambique I’m not sure, but probably not.
This is a quote from Krieghund from Larry’s site on Jan 26, 2009. So w/Mongolian example I would say Greece and Crete are separate tt, what happens to one won’t effect the other.
“Japan can indeed attack neutral territories without bringing the US, UK or ANZAC into the war. One thing I should point out is that “Mongolia” is not a power in this game. Each Mongolian territory is treated separately, so attacking one territory does not activate the others or cause them to join the Allies”.
Edit:
Of coarse now if you attack a true neutral (which Mongolia is) all the other true neutrals would become pro your enemy, according to djensens preview so who knows?Strict Neutrals
These territories can only be controlled by either the Axis or Allied powers attacking them. When attacked, the number of units defending the neutral is listed on the territory. This is important: initiating an attack on a strict neutral by any side will result in all other strict neutrals to become Pro-Axis (if attacked by an Allied power) or Pro-Allies (if attacked by an Axis power). -
@Mysterious:
@Mysterious:
Why would you want to land in Crete to activate the 4 inf anyway? wouldn’t it make more sense to land in Greece and support those 4 free infantry you’re receiving. :-D
if you were UK you might want to land your limited forces in Crete… and use the four “FREE” infantry to create havoc in South/East Europe, without risking any of your own troops or exposing them to loss.
lol what havoc? 4 inf @ 1 you’re better off combining your forces to defend. Germany is likely to take Bulgaria activating 4 inf there + whatever else goes into the mix. Although if landing in Crete for some reason did actually activate the 4 infantry i would use them to defend Crete and construct an AB there.
I think any diversion of Italy’s Resources from Africa would be a worthwhile undertaking. That was the opinion of WS Churchill also.
What if the Greek forces struck out into Albania with British Air Support from Crete?
In addition, Britain has limited resources in Africa during the “Alone” phase of the game, so risking forces in Greece which could be needed back in Egypt is not a great idea.
-
Thank you Wild Bill…I think that answers it!
-
@Mysterious:
@Mysterious:
Why would you want to land in Crete to activate the 4 inf anyway? wouldn’t it make more sense to land in Greece and support those 4 free infantry you’re receiving. :-D
if you were UK you might want to land your limited forces in Crete… and use the four “FREE” infantry to create havoc in South/East Europe, without risking any of your own troops or exposing them to loss.
lol what havoc? 4 inf @ 1 you’re better off combining your forces to defend. Germany is likely to take Bulgaria activating 4 inf there + whatever else goes into the mix. Although if landing in Crete for some reason did actually activate the 4 infantry i would use them to defend Crete and construct an AB there.
I think any diversion of Italy’s Resources from Africa would be a worthwhile undertaking. That was the opinion of WS Churchill also.
What if the Greek forces struck out into Albania with British Air Support from Crete?
In addition, Britain has limited resources in Africa during the “Alone” phase of the game, so risking forces in Greece which could be needed back in Egypt is not a great idea.
if the Greek forces would manage to take Albania, Germany or Italy would crush it, and take control of Greece. I agree, Egypt is far more important than wasting units in Greece so why not just leave the territory alone since its already pro allied its pretty much another wall for Germany or Italy.
-
I think it would be the Axis that would decide to take out Greece before the Allies ever get to it…probably Italy for the extra 2 ICP’s.
-
I agree it would be unwise to use what little forces you have to activate Greece considering Italy will be throwing everything it can to knock you out of the Med., so sending troops off to die in the Balkans would be a waste.
-
it wold make sence to leve it sience you may waste units that you may need in other fronts.
-
It´s true that interfering in Greece was one of UKs worst mistakes of the war. Because they had to split up their forces. But that´s why Germany survived the war for three and a half years being on the defence. Allied supreme command were morons, when the German generals were tactically geniuses. No Allied general (including Patton, Zhukov and Alexander) were even close to the Germans in using their forces to their best. That´s why German infantry should attack and defend one 2.
-
Addition: Germany only lost ww2 because they were Nazis. Read the Fuhrers directives - he was a gambler who controlled the Wermacht and as all gamblers deep inside wanted to lose. Still, ww2 it´s the most amazing chess play to play…
-
The Germans had soooo many chances, but like Canaris says, they were NAZI’s. Once you get above the Fieldmarshall level, they were idiots and criminals with a few exceptions. Thats why its a lot of fun to play WWII games…you dont have to make the same dumb mistakes…instead you get to make new ones;-) As for Greece, they never should have been attacked by the Axis. Even though the Brits lost Crete, they made the Germans pay a high price for it, and later, Hitler was too shy to use his Fallschrimjager again. They should have been used on Malta instead.
-
We do all agree. But if you play AAE40 the way Germany should - neutralizing UK first - and then take on the Russian bear you will win the war in 1943, thats why I think “Fuhrer directives” is a crucial part of being the C-in-C in this game. You must obey to the nazi idea of lebensraum and concentrate on occupying Ukraine and Caucasus before you take Moscow, otherwise it´s to easy.
-
I must say I find it a wee bit strange that an entire country does not activate when you attack it. Would not Spain or Portugal go to war if one of their colonies were attacked? Would not Greece go to war I Crete was attacked? I’m not familiar with the political situation in Mongolia at the time so I can’t say much about them (except they have a way to big army, no one would ever enter it anyway as it would mobilise all the other true neutrals for the opposing side).
Entering a friendly ally to get it to join is not the same thing necessarily; maybe Persia can accept Russians and Britons walking around in their country with out immediately wanting to join forces with them.
I feel this might be an area where there are a few different house rules to try out.
Another question on the same topic where someone might have some information is what is meant by ”move into” a friendly neutral? Does it have to be a land unit or can it be a plane? Can the UK activate Persia by landing with a plane from India there? Can the US just take a little detour with a bomber to activate Brazil? I think a land unit should be needed to activate them but that planes should be allowed to land in Friendly neutrals (maybe as long as it’s a non combat move (and maybe they should not be allowed to combat moves from that country).
The above question arose from the quote below in the rules preview
”Friendly Neutrals. These territories are listed as either Pro-Axis or Pro-Allies. A Pro-Axis neutral is friendly to Axis powers and a Pro-Allies neutral is friendly to Allied powers. You may not attack, move through, or fly over a friendly neutral. During the non-combat movement phase, a power may move into a friendly neutral. This action places control with the friendly power that moved in, production moves up the amount of the territory, and the army is activated by placing the number of units specified on the territory in the territory using the friendly powers pieces.”
-
Ok here is a better way to look at it. Lets say the german’s occupy crete. So the greeks are still a pro allied neutral, and if germany moves into there they will defend themselves. However, they will not try to retake crete, which on one hand seems odd, but on the other hand, they do not have the capacity to retake crete and defend greece so they choose to defend greece. In addition, they will not help the allies by attacking bulgaria, which also makes sense as they need to defend there land, not invade germany’s land. On the other hand, if the allies move units into greece, they join-up and will help them to attack bulgaria with the assumption there new allies will help them defend there homes in greece.
Also, mongolia does not count with the neutral rules, they are an exception.
And lastly, as far as the neutrals switching sides if you invade a true neutral, its not like they all declare war on you, it just means if your enemy makes an effort to help them defend against your insane aggression, that they will support your enemy in the war against you.
This is an abstract game, if you want a truely detailed WW2 game play hearts of iron.
-
Ok here is a better way to look at it. Lets say the german’s occupy crete. So the greeks are still a pro allied neutral, and if germany moves into there they will defend themselves. However, they will not try to retake crete, which on one hand seems odd, but on the other hand, they do not have the capacity to retake crete and defend greece so they choose to defend greece. In addition, they will not help the allies by attacking bulgaria, which also makes sense as they need to defend there land, not invade germany’s land. On the other hand, if the allies move units into greece, they join-up and will help them to attack bulgaria with the assumption there new allies will help them defend there homes in greece.
This is an abstract game, if you want a truely detailed WW2 game play hearts of iron.
It is a plasible explination even tho I do not think it is a perfect one. If the greeks are ready to join the allies in their fight against the axis as a full ally as soon as a allied unit arrives in Athens they should also join them if there territory is being attacked. What is more important tho is that altering the rule will not change the mechanics of the game that much, it means that the germans cant take crete w/o having to fight the greeks and that the axis cant walk around in persia and mongolia but that is about it.
And I do play hearts of iron, world in flames and quite a few other very detailed ww2 games. What im after in a game is not a simulation. I want it to be a fun game, a balanced game and a game i can believe in. I just do not play Axis and Allies just because its well balanced and have good game mechanics, in that case i would play chess. I also play it because i am interesed in the history of the war and the politics behind it. If a small modification can give me more of one thing with out me having to give up something else i think that is a good modification.
Also, mongolia does not count with the neutral rules, they are an exception.
Why dont they count? I must have missed this. In what way are they an exception?
And lastly, as far as the neutrals switching sides if you invade a true neutral, its not like they all declare war on you, it just means if your enemy makes an effort to help them defend against your insane aggression, that they will support your enemy in the war against you.
I should not have used the word mobilise. What i meant is that, if it is indeed true that all the true neutral become friendly towards your enemys if you attack a true neutral, a attack on mongolia would not be very likely even if it had no army.
-
That’s the thing though, them “going to war” is already accounted for in the game! I don’t understand why everyone is getting bent out of shape about this when it doesn’t affect much in the actual game…
Yes, Spain or Portugal “go to war” when one of their colonies are attacked since all strict neutrals become pro-the-other-side when attacked. So if Italy attacks Rio Del Oro, Spain “goes to war” and becomes pro-Allies. The issue with Greece and Crete are they are already “at war” (in essence) by being pro-Allies, so whether they are invaded by Italy or occupied by the UK, the effect is still the same gameplay-wise. The only way to make it more “active” than it already is would be to have Greece and Spain and Portugal be separate powers and have all kinds of extra pieces and complicating stuff just in case someone decides to attack them and bring them into the war… Larry is trying to Keep It Stupidly Simple (or Simple, Stupid; whatever you prefer) in the way he has set it up.
The only effect “activating” (i.e. taking control of) Greece when Crete is occupied would be for the UK to get the IPCs and extra infantry on their side without actually landing one of their own units in the territory mentioned (Greece), which is completely against every other mechanic in this game! If you have it the other way (invading Greece with UK gives UK control of Crete), then you let UK build an airbase on Crete before actually taking control of it. Even taking over a capital in this game doesn’t give you control of all the territories of that power!
Suggested Topics
