@AndrewAAGamer thx for the help! 😃
Pro-Allied Greece and Crete
-
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.
-
There will probably be an errata or rules clarification out at some point, and this site would be perfect for that.
My thought on this is that Crete is part of Greece, and the 4 Allied INF can go on Greece or Crete, or a combo of both…which would be very historical since Crete was defended seperately from Greece by the Allies.
-
@Dylan:
Well look at Greenland it was Denmark colony, but it’s not with the UK, it’s American, shouldn’t it join the allies, the US wasn’t and ally!
Well actually Greenland being assigned as a US territory is fairly accurate. When Denmark was overrun by the Germans Greenland effectively established self-rule and relied on trade with the US (and Canada) to remain supplied. The US actually acted against a UK and Canadian plan to occupy the territory, which was supported by the Danish authorities still in Greenland at the time.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland_during_World_War_II
-
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.
The Mongolia example is actually an excellent point - and one I had overlooked. That would seem to cut in favor of Greece entering the war by virtue of Crete being occupied/attacked. Because, as you stated, I dont think people would argue moving into just one Mongolian territory would mean the others remain neutral while one part of the country is occupied.
Using the same analogy, it would seem the Greek infantry activation would have to take place in Greece (and not Crete - or a split between the two), as that is the space where there infantry graphic appears.
Afterall, I dont think if you move into Central Mongolia the 2 infantry from Buyant-Uhaa (or any other Mongolian territory) would be allowed to activate in Central Mongolia to oppose the move. Or would they? All best guesses on my part.
-
Seems strange that Greece is neutral. It was allied with the UK 1940, and the brits used Crete as an airbase for bombing the oil fields in Ploeisti (Romania). That´s why Hitler ordered Student to drop some crack paratroopers on the island to force the brits out of there.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
