I can’t read that.
You should have gone to specsavers
Neutral crush–allies---in alpha 2
-
Has anyone tried a neutral crush with the Allies with Alpha 2 Rules? I am new to Alpha 2 (played as Allies for the first time yesterday. It had some interesting effects but I only was 5-6 turns in.
With Russia, I acted like I was pulling back initially and Japan dispersed. I stepped back in and took the neutral Mongolian territory that touches 3? Chinese ones as well as Manchuria. I instantly threatened several territories and had a northern Chinese Army “Spring up.”
Since Russia was kept neutral so long for Sea Lion on G4 (friend prepped by dropping in Scotland G3 and then landed and attacked G4 with overwhelming odds) . I poised near Finland and took it. Then assaulted Sweden from land and sea leaving one “enemy” true neutral convert. The same turn, I also rushed into Turkey and took it with a large mechanized Russian force (germany was occupied in UK).
Later the same turn, I swept into Spain with the US amphibiously. This approach opened up many new approaches. However, it is predicated on a quick takeout of neutral so as not give the Axis free standing armies. It had to all come down very quickly.
My question: This was novel and unexpected. Has anyone had any success with this in a long game, or was this a fluke? I note that my opponent is very, very good. He has meetup groups (many opponents) and studies the game and boards on his own to the exclusion of other hobbies. Thanks for any info. Please refrain from the infantile “you are a douche” for trying something different. Feel free to use “you are a douche” comments if you have something concrete to back it up other than general “that is dumb, you will get crushed” retorts. I am actually interested in getting insight into the game so support any negative or positives. If you have never tried it, please make this clear.
-
Italy and/or Germany could possibly get some free South American infantry, but not too many (considering the US could easily stop them and it’s probably not worth the expense). Germany would get infantry from Switzerland and Sweden. Aside from that, I don’t know if the Axis could do anything else.
-
Sweden worried me so I hit it and reduced it…southamerica was still open…
-
Yeah, its a good strategy, especially for the Allies. The Axis have MUCH less maneuverability than the Allies do, and the way the True Neutral rules work currently its almost always in the Allies favor to break neutrality. How many games have you played where Japan was in position to attack S. America when the Allies break neutrality, EVER? Meanwhile, the Axis have the most to gain from attacking the True Neutrals in Europe through Turkey and Spain, yet to do so gives the Allies +8 and 10 free INF in S. America! It’s laughable, man, its like why do we even have the neutral countries in the first place, if its suicide for one side to invade them at all?
Sgt. Wonko, TITANS, Jercules, gh2 and I have been playing some variant where we’re instituted a True Neutral Block house rule, where invading a T. Neutral country only activates the other countries JUST in that region of the world. Such as if you invade Spain as the Axis, only Portugal, Switzerland, and Sweden territories get turned pro-Allied (example of European T. N. bloc). Works much better and makes more sense historically, (as WHY would the ENTIRE WORLD change sides if Germany invaded Turkey???).
-
Very interesting strategy. I have attacked neutrals before, but only as the Axis. Usually, the Allies leave the neutrals alone unless the Axis already attacked them. In the majority of our games, both sides usually leave the strict neutrals alone.
Have you thought of using neutral “blocks”? Basically, that divides the strict neutrals into blocks of certain areas. All the South American countries would be one block. All of the European countries (Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweeden) would be a block. This way, if you violate neutrality on one of these countries, it only changes the other strict neutrals in that block to pro-other side and not ALL strict neutrals on the board. Some of us think that makes more sense because if say Sweeden was overrun, what would Mongolia, Saudi Arabia or Argentina care?
-
Thanks for the feedback! It actually sounds like I am not alone in seeing the potential of hitting neutrals with the allies! I thought I was way out there! Have you guys won this way?!
-
if you work with blocks, US will always conquer south america with hardly any consequences
but map based, perhaps (but that would leave just mongolia in pacific)
ps: i support neutral attack
but i’m always worried bout turkey… -
Historically, the Allies would never invade true neutral countries (and this game was designed with a desire to be historically plausible). And the Axis had no problem doing so (and doing so did not make other neutrals want to join the other side). I think the rules should be changed somehow to reflect that, because with the two most popular rules (normal and geographic blocks) the allies have an advantage. Really, making true neutrals unattackable would solve all the problems.
-
Historically, the Allies would never invade true neutral countries (and this game was designed with a desire to be historically plausible). And the Axis had no problem doing so (and doing so did not make other neutrals want to join the other side). I think the rules should be changed somehow to reflect that, because with the two most popular rules (normal and geographic blocks) the allies have an advantage. Really, making true neutrals unattackable would solve all the problems.
Indeed! The Allies were supposed to be “the good guys” in WWII, and they (at least superficially) played by the rules most of the time. The Axis powers, however, ought to be able to run rampant over True Neutrals, at least until the US enters the war on US3, IMHO. The US entering the war was what really solidified the world opinion on what side was going to win, before that a LOT of neutrals were actually favoring the Axis. Read up on Portugal in WWII, that supposedly “True Neutral” switched sides like 3-4 times during the war, depending on what sides were nearby.
In fact, over HALF of Germany’s original territories that it STARTS THE GAME WITH are frigging conquests of essentially True Neutral countries already! Poland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway had ALL signed non-aggression/peace treaties with Germany, which were so much scrap paper when the war actually started! Why in hell would Hitler stop there in 1940?!?!
Here’s a WWII propaganda cartoon that was made in 1940 before the US entered the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ntLZTqcMlI
There are SO many other strategies and what-ifs you could try if Hitler invaded Spain and/or Turkey too! Too bad Larry straitjackets the game with his current idiotic rendition of True Neutrals…
-
@Frontovik:
if you work with blocks, US will always conquer south america with hardly any consequences
but map based, perhaps (but that would leave just mongolia in pacific)
ps: i support neutral attack
but i’m always worried bout turkey…Well if the US wants to invade South America they have to divert resources in order to do it. There is an additional 6 IPCs down there but you have to kill 8 inf to get it.
I’ve played 4 games with neutral blocks so far and have found it to be fairly balanced. There might be a slight Allied advantage but it’s harder to effectively take the Neutrals then you might think.
The best part about neutral blocks is that it opens up a ton of interesting strategies. My gaming group tried it out for the first time in a “real” game this weekend and everyone agreed it made the game better without unbalancing. Mind you no one ended up taking any strict neutrals, but that can happen.
Say Germany wants to invade Turkey. Any forces you dedicate there are diverted from the Russian front. And if you don’t have enough units left over after the battle for Turkey there’s another front for the Allies to come in. I was surprised by how evenly everything balanced out with blocks.
The one addition you could implement would be that if a power attacks a strict neutral, any neutrals that were allied with the power’s side would switch to being allied with the other side.
So if USA attacks Venezuela, then Brazil is now Pro-Axis. That would prevent the US from launching massive attacks against South America as soon as it is at war without any consequences.
-
I guess the US could take Brazil first, THEN use those INF to go after the remaining Neutral powers in S. America. So it wouldn’t be all bad (though hypocritical). Plus, they wouldn’t be able to invade them until they were at war, so they still have to wait until US 3 or 4. Still a large diversion, though, for only 6 IPCs. You could get that much by taking islands in the Pacific, with the +5 NO.
If it really came down to it, I’m sure the US would have had no qualms about invading S. America to guarantee the US’s “Monroe Doctrine”, if it came down to an end-game Axis all-out attack on the US itself.
-
I guess the US could take Brazil first, THEN use those INF to go after the remaining Neutral powers in S. America. So it wouldn’t be all bad (though hypocritical). Plus, they wouldn’t be able to invade them until they were at war, so they still have to wait until US 3 or 4. Still a large diversion, though, for only 6 IPCs. You could get that much by taking islands in the Pacific, with the +5 NO.
If it really came down to it, I’m sure the US would have had no qualms about invading S. America to guarantee the US’s “Monroe Doctrine”, if it came down to an end-game Axis all-out attack on the US itself.
Yea, it wouldn’t prevent the US from taking all of South America, it would just slow it down a bit. And if the situation demanded it I’m sure the US would have considered taking over countries if it had to. If the Axis were doing really well it’s conceivable that Argentina would have become openly pro-Axis, then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that there would have been combat in that region that would have forced the US to intervene.
It’s not the same as an unprovoked attack from the US I know, but this is a game that should primarily be fun to play. Neutral blocks can get my vote for that reason alone!
-
Same here. I miss my “Spend 1000 Prestige to invade Spain and get the Italian fleet to assist in Sealion?” option from the original Panzer General. That game was hella fun.
-
Historically, the Allies would never invade true neutral countries (and this game was designed with a desire to be historically plausible). And the Axis had no problem doing so (and doing so did not make other neutrals want to join the other side). I think the rules should be changed somehow to reflect that, because with the two most popular rules (normal and geographic blocks) the allies have an advantage. Really, making true neutrals unattackable would solve all the problems.
Indeed! The Allies were supposed to be “the good guys” in WWII, and they (at least superficially) played by the rules most of the time. The Axis powers, however, ought to be able to run rampant over True Neutrals, at least until the US enters the war on US3, IMHO. The US entering the war was what really solidified the world opinion on what side was going to win, before that a LOT of neutrals were actually favoring the Axis. Read up on Portugal in WWII, that supposedly “True Neutral” switched sides like 3-4 times during the war, depending on what sides were nearby.
In fact, over HALF of Germany’s original territories that it STARTS THE GAME WITH are frigging conquests of essentially True Neutral countries already! Poland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway had ALL signed non-aggression/peace treaties with Germany, which were so much scrap paper when the war actually started! Why in hell would Hitler stop there in 1940?!?!
Here’s a WWII propaganda cartoon that was made in 1940 before the US entered the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ntLZTqcMlI
There are SO many other strategies and what-ifs you could try if Hitler invaded Spain and/or Turkey too! Too bad Larry straitjackets the game with his current idiotic rendition of True Neutrals…
saw nazi donald duck too? ^^
-
Oh, yeah, “Der Fuehrer’s Face”, priceless. There’s also “The Ducktators”, not as good but still has some funny bits in it.
There’s some pretty racist ones out there with Popeye and the Japanese as well.
-
Oh yeah, and isn’t INVADING RUSSIA!!! actually an invasion of a True Neutral country by Germany due to their NON-AGGRESSION PACT they had signed with them in 1939???
HERP. A. DERP.
Dumb rule is dumb.
Suggested Topics
