Yes, and the turn after you land in force, you build an airbase… your navy is locked down and your air power gains some range…
Because you’re proposing to activate neutrals on I1, I’d give some thought to Turkey, and how the UK may be able to activate it on UK2. It would be a dangerous foe.
I really like your outside-the-box thinking.
I’ve attacked neutrals (specifically Spain and Turkey as the centerpiece) twice - once as the Allies, once as the Axis. As the Allies, I did it out of desperation in a losing game just to playtest, and found it to be quite fun and effective, though I lost. As the Axis, I used it as the coup de grace and my opponent gave up, as Turkey was a flanking maneuver to go south and kill Egypt. He saw the writing on the wall and surrendered.
I also had a Turn 3 Axis neutral crush used against me, to amazing effect. The only reason I won the game was dice. My opponent hasn’t used it since because he’s gunshy now. I plan on keeping it in my bag of tricks.
I’ll tell you what - Germany/Italy strongly rooted in Spain is a nightmare for the Allies. The trick for the Axis is keeping the edge on defense.
So Dany - a nice thought, and keep tweaking to bring the other neutrals into consideration.
Thx for the feedback. Turkey is the hard nut to crack, the Germans wont reach it until turn 3 (Bulgaria-Greece-Turkey). The UK:s options depends on what they did in UK1. If the inf in Jordan stayed put or walked south and if the TRS in the easten med went south or followed the rest of the fleet to Gibraltar the UK wont be able to activate Turkey before the Germans can hit them. If they went for an attack on Iraq turn one tho they can activate them in UK2 and maybe get the troops they need to hold it against the Germans in G3. If they do this tho i have a hard time seeing how they could hold on to Egypt and with the Japanese coming for India they wont be able to reinforce.
The French on the other hand can activate Turkey on F1 and get the inf out of there before the Germans get there. That could get very annoying and turn Egypt into a very hard nut to crack (or Iraq) as the Britts could prolly put up a minor once they see that no sea lion is coming.
I think a major in Romania would be a nice part of this strat as it could both be used to get inf to the eastern front and to get mecs and tanks into the middle east.
Good point about the French Infantry - they’s become a defensive backbone (9 Infantry never hurts…) for the Brits in the Middle East, even though France would never collect on Turkey.
I think solving the Turkey issue becomes your biggest issue with an early neutral crush. From ehat I’ve seen, turn 3 works well, because it immediately creates an opportunity to attack the Caucasus on a turn 4 Barbarossa.
As far as the Romanian factory goes, think about it this way - for the 30 IPCs you’d be spending to build it, you could buy 5 Armor in East Germany, and they’d be in Romania the same turn you start building. I believe Germany has all the infrastructure it needs, unless you’re going to do something strategic with the IC. For sheer building ability, you already have what you need, and the Romanian IC doesn’t really buy you any speed on the front, IMO.
I might have to think about the IC a bit. The problem is that without the IC i need to plan my builds a round extra ahead and that can also compromise my flexibility. I also like being able to spend german IPC:s in the med when i take so much IPC:s from them (Bulgaria, Greece and S France) and w Turkey gone that can be done. A minor in Greece might also be an option.
A minor in Greece might also be an option.
I too have been thinking on trying that some time. Take Greece in G2, build minor IC next turn, and build an Airbase the turn after. The AB can protect 3 different seazones, and with a couple trannies in the Black Sea you can shuck shuck to Caucasus.
I’ve commented on the IC in Greece in multiple places - check my history of posts.
It’s a really solid move - I borrowed it from an opponent and improved upon it… like most good ideas I have, I stole it… :)
All the money is , or WAS in the middle east.
Turkey is a pivitol territory.
I like to attack on I2 or I3 depending, Allowing German tanks to blitz right into 2 of the Middle east oil territories for 6 IPC’s.
Sometimes… a German IC in Iraq kicks alot of ass… but it’s a BIG committment.
Regardless… Be aware, any axis plan to attack true nuetrals, must include attack plans for SPAIN, SWEDEN, TURKEY, and sometimes SAUDIA ARABIA. If you do it, keep the americans entertained, or they’ll make you pay once they activate South America…
In a recent game where we were trying out Alpha +3, our German player put a Major IC in Romania G1, then an airbase on Romania and some transports in the Black Sea G2. On G3, landed 6 units in Caucasus along with invading along European front. Our Russian player was just stymied with so many German attacks and couldn’t get a decent defense mounted. Germany ended up in Moscow by round 6.
Maybe it would be worth it to go through Turkey if UK takes Persia/Iraq and builds an IC there. You would be denying UK those 4 IPCs, getting them 4 for Germany (+ up to 6 for the oil), a good way into Caucasus (another 7), and a free minor IC. That’s a pretty nice package of incentives.
All the money is , or WAS in the middle east.
Turkey is a pivitol territory.
I like to attack on I2 or I3 depending, Allowing German tanks to blitz right into 2 of the Middle east oil territories for 6 IPC’s.
Sometimes… a German IC in Iraq kicks alot of a**… but it’s a BIG committment.
Regardless… Be aware, any axis plan to attack true nuetrals, must include attack plans for SPAIN, SWEDEN, TURKEY, and sometimes SAUDIA ARABIA. If you do it, keep the americans entertained, or they’ll make you pay once they activate South America…
This is generally true- finally tried this in the last game and it backfired on us big time. We really need to wait a round or two before doing it- which would have been round 9 or so. I like the rules the way they are with this. There are good and bad consequences to this move. I think its a really good endgame tactic if you need to seal the deal for a probable win. Not a good overall tactic though.
Garg makes a point, but I find it is usually the allies that make those attacks he listed. (Saudia, Spain, Sweeden and Turkey) and not the axis.
As the Axis, you have to attack Sweeden if you attack other allies, or it becomes pro Allied and you lose the NO. Something to consider.
I have often wondered what an IGNORE Russia strategy would look like. Russia is not strong. She does not have the capabilities to become strong. Those that speak of the Russian Bear only speak of it when Germany collapses against her iron walls of infantry somewhere between Moscow and Poland. Why step foot into Russia in the first place? Certainly, border nations are worth disputing, but a solid push into foreign territory? An armored wall of planes and mobile equipment is more than enough of a deterrent for a Russian advance.
What if Germany (and thus Italy & Japan) ignored Russia and went a True Neutral Crush? Japan would not be crippled pushing resources against Russia, besides the neutering of the Russian infantry stacks should the opportunity present itself. Free to expand south, free to grow, free to show the world, including America, her prowess.
Everyone’s Axis Europe victories have been credited to a Russian Fall that could only occur with Japanese intervention. I say, who needs Russia? A Japan that forces America’s hand into the Pacific, especially since common strategies today have a strong American presence in the Pacific, could allow Germany the oomph to focus its energies on other forces, like the neutering of Britain.
Should Africa fall, the Isles are subject to convoy raiding and strategic bombing. Great Britain could be knocked out of the game without a Sealion.
Everyone speaks of Axis strats as revolving around a Barbarossa opening or a Sealion opening. How would you react if you saw neither?
We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.
Germany needs 8 VCs to win. It starts with 4 (if you count Paris, which they should always get quickly), and Russia has 3 more. Then there’s Cairo, London, Ottawa, and DC. If Germany ignored Russia it would have to take every other VC on the Europe map, which includes two capitals (no easy feat) and crossing the Atlantic (also rather difficult). It can be done, sure, but it’s a lot harder generally than just taking the ones in Russia.
Germany needs 8 VCs to win. It starts with 4 (if you count Paris, which they should always get quickly), and Russia has 3 more. Then there’s Cairo, London, Ottawa, and DC. If Germany ignored Russia it would have to take every other VC on the Europe map, which includes two capitals (no easy feat) and crossing the Atlantic (also rather difficult). It can be done, sure, but it’s a lot harder generally than just taking the ones in Russia.
Agreed.
The common tactic used to be to take Paris on G1, London on G3 and then get the 3 in Russia. I propose the new tactic be get Paris G1, get Moscow G8 and then drive down and get Egypt.
As for crossing the atlantic, there is one example at least of where Germany got Washington DC and Japan got San Francisco in the same round. There used to even be a kill america first strategy, until Larry killed it in Alpha 3. (Since you cannot sail within striking distance of the United States anymore.)
@Cmdr:
We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.
I was not advocating a KAF. Besides, that’s not really feasible anymore, given your quote. I was talking about a True Neutral Crush, hence the topic :)
Really, how many opponents have expected a true neutral crush before? Especially one that transitions into a late invasion of Russia from 4 directions… Norway/Sweden, the Eastern Front, Turkey and the Middle East. Up to 12 Russian territories can be immediately exposed for the preliminary invasion by Germany & Italy, and Japan can up that to 17…
cts17:
Yes, I get it. I am stating, in a round about fashion, that the only time I think (my opinion) the Axis are in position to attack Neutrals is during an Alpha 2 attack of America. Since on round 4 they can take both E. USA and W. USA and possibly, C. USA.
Meh, it’s a novelty idea that might work once, but never again on the same opponent. Face it people - you need to attack and defeat the USSR the conventional way to win, so I just don’t understand why everyone wants to avoid it - it is inevitable.
Meh, it’s a novelty idea that might work once, but never again on the same opponent. Face it people - you need to attack and defeat the USSR the conventional way to win, so I just don’t understand why everyone wants to avoid it - it is inevitable.
In most games, yes.
Neutral attacks COULD achieve that faster, in some instances. Italy takes Turkey, Germany blitzes through for instance. The allies, in most of my games, generally end up taking Spain and Turkey anyway.
Im going to try and incorporate it in my play now and then to give the allies one more thing to think about. OFC it depends on the positioning of the allies but they cant position themselves against everything.
