Carnage,
Yes. I am including Alpha 2 games as well as Alpha 3 games.
I’ve wondered if there was a way to dissuade a British or American attack on a true neutral. It just seems out of character to allow these two nations to wantanly destroy neutral nations and oppress the locals. Personally, I’d just say out right ban the attack, but perhaps a -10 IPC penalty for one round due to needing to send soldiers into the streets to stop the riots would be more effective? (Applied to BOTH nations if EITHER nation attacks a true neutral.) At least then it won’t happen on round 6 or 7.
@Cmdr:
Carnage,
Yes. I am including Alpha 2 games as well as Alpha 3 games.
I’ve wondered if there was a way to dissuade a British or American attack on a true neutral. It just seems out of character to allow these two nations to wantanly destroy neutral nations and oppress the locals. Personally, I’d just say out right ban the attack, but perhaps a -10 IPC penalty for one round due to needing to send soldiers into the streets to stop the riots would be more effective? (Applied to BOTH nations if EITHER nation attacks a true neutral.) At least then it won’t happen on round 6 or 7.
So, many of your games have had strict neutrals attacked on a regular bases, but I on the other hand, have never seen this done in any of my games. Am I missing something? Have I been playing it right all along, or is there a sensibility when attacking strict neutrals that myself and my experienced opponents have failed to realize due to our unwillingness to try new things?
Somebody please tell me if I have been short changing myself in this game by avoiding strict neutrals. Please tell me if the risk vs reward of Jen’s decision to attack strict neutrals is valid or if Jen’s games are an “out of the box exception” and shouldn’t be regarded as “a standard strategy”.
@Young:
So, many of your games have had strict neutrals attacked on a regular bases, but I on the other hand, have never seen this done in any of my games. Am I missing something? Have I been playing it right all along, or is there a sensibility when attacking strict neutrals that myself and my experienced opponents have failed to realize due to our unwillingness to try new things?
Somebody please tell me if I have been short changing myself in this game by avoiding strict neutrals. Please tell me if the risk vs reward of Jen’s decision to attack strict neutrals is valid or if Jen’s games are an “out of the box exception” and shouldn’t be regarded as “a standard strategy”.
That’s basicly what I was wondering. Given the choice between landing directly in Normandy or landing in Spain, Normandy has always made more sense, miss the bombard, planes just have to fly back when you press on into France anyway… The only Neutral that has a bonus to taking is Sweeden because it takes away a German NO. But the only way to do that is through Finland, so why not just take Norway (either through an amphibious assault or via Finland) and be done with it? Prior to this Russian NO I don’t see any upside to violating a countries neutrality until very late game when 9/10 the game has already been decided.
That’s my read of it anyway.
@Young:
So, many of your games have had strict neutrals attacked on a regular bases, but I on the other hand, have never seen this done in any of my games. Am I missing something? Have I been playing it right all along, or is there a sensibility when attacking strict neutrals that myself and my experienced opponents have failed to realize due to our unwillingness to try new things?
Somebody please tell me if I have been short changing myself in this game by avoiding strict neutrals. Please tell me if the risk vs reward of Jen’s decision to attack strict neutrals is valid or if Jen’s games are an “out of the box exception” and shouldn’t be regarded as “a standard strategy”.
That’s basicly what I was wondering. Given the choice between landing directly in Normandy or landing in Spain, Normandy has always made more sense, miss the bombard, planes just have to fly back when you press on into France anyway… The only Neutral that has a bonus to taking is Sweeden because it takes away a German NO. But the only way to do that is through Finland, so why not just take Norway (either through an amphibious assault or via Finland) and be done with it? Prior to this Russian NO I don’t see any upside to violating a countries neutrality until very late game when 9/10 the game has already been decided.
That’s my read of it anyway.
Well, i can see the tactical advantage of Spain over Normandy in certain cases.
Suppose Normandy and S.France are left empty, with an inf/art force in Paris and tanks + air in W.Germany. This will probably kick your landed troops out.
But, that makes Spain out of Axis reach for a turn, which (in case of a weak UK, for example) can make a big difference. That plus being within range of USA in 1 turn can make Spain a solid base for the USA to work from.
Does that make it worth triggering all neutrals? That is another question!
@special:
But, that makes Spain out of Axis reach for a turn, which (in case of a weak UK, for example) can make a big difference. That plus being within range of USA in 1 turn can make Spain a solid base for the USA to work from.
I hadn’t really considered the distance between Spain and the US before, that would be very useful, provided you were able to keep ahold of it for a turn.
But the risk would definately be pretty high, unless of course your doing it when you’ve already dropped Germany and Italy (I don’t include Japan because in most cases it’s locked inside the Pacific) a few pegs.
First off I want to say it is NEVER a good idea for the Axis to attack Strict Neutrals. For one, you give the allies all of S. America and the neutral armies in Africa for sure, if not some of the middle eastern and Afghanistan armies.
Secondly, the allied attack of Neutrals is pretty much the only GOOD strategy for breaking into Europe. But you need to do it wisely.
A) Control the Atlantic. Without this, you will give the Germans more income.
B) You need to take Turkey AND Spain simultaniously, to prevent the Axis from annexing one and getting a large army boost.
C) You want control of Norway/Finland, again, to prevent an army boost and also because it’s just plain easier on you if you have it.
Attacking the true neutrals gives you advantages.
A) Spain is in range of E. USA via SZ 91, and you can move your transports all the way back to SZ 101 with the naval base in Gibraltar.
B) Spain is defended by 6 Infantry, W. France and Holland might be defended with more.
C) Armies in France cannot hit Spain due to W. France and S. France (Tanks can, but I am talking infantry/artillery here.)
D) Spain is worth 2 IPC and thus you can build a factory there. (If you plan to ever liberate France, and I don’t know why anyone would be that stupid, this factory might come in even more handy than it normally does!)
Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys. Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.
@Cmdr:
Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys. Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.
And also a possible location for another US IC.
… although Saoudi Arabia may be a better (and safer) place for that. Easy to take and good strategic location (plus there’s the Egypt NB they can use in sz81).
One other thing about Sweeden and the German NO, it says Germany has to control Denmark and Norway with Sweeden not being Pro-Allied or Allied controlled. So, if the Allies manage to take Norway and keep it, that ruins the German NO for Sweeden and you don’t have to attack it, unless you just want those extra 3 IPCs.
@special:
@Cmdr:
Turkey is not something you really need to worry about “holding” it is more an attack to prevent Germany from getting 8 more guys. Once you “clear it” it’s a matter of a British complex in Iraq to keep it cleared so that the Germans cannot use it as a short cut.
And also a possible location for another US IC.
… although Saoudi Arabia may be a better (and safer) place for that. Easy to take and good strategic location (plus there’s the Egypt NB they can use in sz81).
Later in the game, perhaps. But if you lose Turkey and liberate later and want to put a complex there, maybe a British one is better?
One other thing about Sweeden and the German NO, it says Germany has to control Denmark and Norway with Sweeden not being Pro-Allied or Allied controlled. So, if the Allies manage to take Norway and keep it, that ruins the German NO for Sweeden and you don’t have to attack it, unless you just want those extra 3 IPCs.
Again, more worried about the free infantry for Germany, less about the actual territory.
@Cmdr:
Later in the game, perhaps. But if you lose Turkey and liberate later and want to put a complex there, maybe a British one is better?
It is probably too close to the front for an early IC there, i suppose. Personally i would prefer a US IC over a UK IC for obvious reasons (USA being rich and faraway, with less building options). Chances it is safe to build one and not lose it are probably rather small anyway.
That said, i am liking the idea about Saoudi Arabia for a US IC more and more (if i ever get to actually attacking neutrals in a game…), unless there’s a huge japanese fleet closeby ;)
I mentioned British because I usually pressure Germany with America and build complexes in Egypt, Iraq and C. Persia for England. If I was trading Turkey, then it is probably more likely that it is taken by Montegomery staging an attack from Iraq than it is the United States landing troops after skirting the southern coast of Italy.
A scary thought would be minor complexes for England in: Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, C. Persia and Saudia Arabia. 15 ground units a round. eek! (I’m sure if they have all those complexes, they are probably earning in the mid 40s anyway so they can use them all.)
Now I know how Charlton Heston felt at the end of Soylent Green! This is not srtatgey but abuse and minipulation of the rules to achieve some inane end result (like russians in ireland) just for its own sake. You spend 45IPC on infrastructure(IC) to do what excatly? Is Germany or Italy really threating the middle east that much? Think of what you could do with that money spent on units and launching attacks on western Europe. This sounds like just faffing about for the sake of it.
Any scenario may be possible, but not necessarily probable. The Russian NO might motivate me to try and take Finland and Norway but that would be a real stretch. Islands? no way.
Now I know how Charlton Heston felt at the end of Soylent Green! This is not srtatgey but abuse and minipulation of the rules to achieve some inane end result (like russians in ireland) just for its own sake. You spend 45IPC on infrastructure(IC) to do what excatly? Is Germany or Italy really threating the middle east that much? Think of what you could do with that money spent on units and launching attacks on western Europe. This sounds like just faffing about for the sake of it.
45?
5x12 = 60 IPC. wink
No, it’s an end game tactic to open a second front into Europe and convince your opponent to surrender. Up until that point, you have maybe the complex in Egypt and MAYBE a second one in the Middle east to support it, but the second one is probably not needed. (I like Iraq, it means you can walk infantry to Egypt in 2 rounds instead of 3 and if you are not doing well in the Med for whatever reason, that means more defenders faster.)
Towards the end of the game you might drop a new complex a round and then start amassing an army to walk through Turkey into Greece and threaten the SE European theater, just to put some nails in the coffin. I never intended to imply that 5 or more minor complexes in the Middle East was something standard!
@Vance:
Any scenario may be possible, but not necessarily probable. The Russian NO might motivate me to try and take Finland and Norway but that would be a real stretch. Islands? no way.
Ireland is guarenteed. Why not take it? Cost: 7 IPC, gain: 7-11 rounds of 3 IPC each round for 21-33 IPC. That’s probably the best return on investment that Russia can EVER expect to have!
Crete, Sardinia and Sicily are just a little harder and requires getting the Americans into the Med to guarentee. By then that one Russian you walked to Egypt early in the game might not be there anymore, but probably will. Then it’s just a matter of not losing it and loading it on an American transport to offload at will anywhere you want.
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland. If Germany has the means to take Sweden, they could activate those 6 infantry and also earn 3 IPCs per turn (which cancels out what USSR gets for Ireland). I can only imagine it being worthwhile if USA is going to violate the neutrality of Spain or some other strict neutral anyway, and if USSR solidly owns Finland and Norway. That latter condition is hard to guarantee.
@Vance:
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.
I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?
@Vance:
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.
I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?
Correct, Ireland is pro-allied, so Sweeden is unaffected by Russia annexing it.
Oh look, so it is! Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA). So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111. Hmmm nope.
@Vance:
Oh look, so it is! Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA). So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111. Hmmm nope.
All it takes is 1 turn of the transport being alive. Transport is dropped in SZ127, next turn it can move to 111 (and potentally protected by any UK Navy and Scrambled Fighters) and drop the infantry off in Scotland. Losing the 7IPC’s the transport costs is worth the recurring 3IPC bonus. Keep a few Russian fighters Novogrod (can’t remember if that’s the name of the Russian Territory there or not) to scamble against any German planes sent the turn that it’s vulnerable. If Germany sends several planes to try and destroy it than you’ve diverted a fairly large amount of units that could defnately have been used in other places that turn.
For the pros definately outweigh the cons in my opinion for Ireland.
As for the middle east debate you guys have going on I think it’d be a waste of resources for Britan to build that many IC’s in the area (excluding Egypt, I build one there myself when I play as the UK). You’d be much better off just buying the units and moving them through Tranz-Jordan.
