That’s the point though. Sea Lion is an objective for Germany but there is no justification for doing while the USSR is still a credible threat because once you capture London, there is no way in hell you can defend against the US liberation and the Soviet invasion. Hence, just don’t do it. I am only suggesting that if one wanted to do an early Sea Lion, you will need Japan to put so much pressure on USSR that Germany can focus completely on US thus Japan will lose in the Pacific. I agree Sea Lion isn’t a wise move.
What if japan attacks Russia and Mongolia simultaneously?
-
Does it turn all neutral-neutrals pro-allies in Alpha 3? (BTW, is anyone else surprised they haven’t dropped that silly rule about neutrals yet?)
-
pretty sure Japan and the Axis get screwed in this scenario.
If you want more realistic neutral countries that don’t upset the game, go to the ‘house rules’ forum and check out the delta1 thread.
-
Yes and Yes.
-
It depends on whether or not you use “Neutral Blocks”. My group does and Mongolia is basically in it’s own block. So, if Japan attacked Mongolia, it would only turn the other territories of Mongolia to Pro-Allied.
Your scenario is interesting. If Japan attacked Mongolia and Russia at the same time, would Mongolia turn Pro-Allied or simply turn Soviet? Of course, JimmyHat and Gargantua are right, if you don’t use blocks, then all other strict neutrals would become Pro-Allied and the Allies would get a big boost in men and IPCs.
Russia would probably get Turkey for 2 IPCs + 8 more men. Maybe even Sweeden for 3 IPCs + 6 men if they could get through the Germans in Finland.
England would get those two small territories in Southern Africa for 2 IPCs + 4 men, Saudi Arabia for 2 IPCs + 2 men and Afghanistan for 4 men.
USA would probably scoop up all of South America for an extra 8 IPCs + 11 men.
Spain and Portugal could go to either USA or England, depending on who has transports and land units at the time. -
It depends on whether or not you use “Neutral Blocks”. My group does and Mongolia is basically in it’s own block. So, if Japan attacked Mongolia, it would only turn the other territories of Mongolia to Pro-Allied.
Your scenario is interesting. If Japan attacked Mongolia and Russia at the same time, would Mongolia turn Pro-Allied or simply turn Soviet? Of course, JimmyHat and Gargantua are right, if you don’t use blocks, then all other strict neutrals would become Pro-Allied and the Allies would get a big boost in men and IPCs.
Russia would probably get Turkey for 2 IPCs + 8 more men. Maybe even Sweeden for 3 IPCs + 6 men if they could get through the Germans in Finland.
England would get those two small territories in Southern Africa for 2 IPCs + 4 men, Saudi Arabia for 2 IPCs + 2 men and Afghanistan for 4 men.
USA would probably scoop up all of South America for an extra 8 IPCs + 11 men.
Spain and Portugal could go to either USA or England, depending on who has transports and land units at the time.Should always be USA that takes Spain, not UK. The advantages for them are much much higher than for the Brits. (same for Saoudi Arabia, btw)
I think, in official rules, that attacking Mongolia is about the worst reason for Axis to break neutrality…
-
@special:
Should always be USA that takes Spain, not UK. The advantages for them are much much higher than for the Brits. (same for Saoudi Arabia, btw)
I think, in official rules, that attacking Mongolia is about the worst reason for Axis to break neutrality…
Yeah, you are right that it would be better for USA to have Spain. That would be best when the Allied players are really playing as a team. In some of our games, particularly if the Allies get the upper hand, the players start to kind of compete with each other. While the MAIN goal is to defeat the Axis, sometimes they also try to out-do each other, like trying to see who can grab the more expensive territories first. Also, this sometimes will screw up their plans against the Axis. For example: ANZAC, India or Russia takes Korea instead of USA. This ends up making it harder for USA to invade Japan while ANZAC, India or Russia don’t have the means to take Japan so it ends up being a kind of useless territory grab.
-
@special:
Should always be USA that takes Spain, not UK. The advantages for them are much much higher than for the Brits. (same for Saoudi Arabia, btw)
I think, in official rules, that attacking Mongolia is about the worst reason for Axis to break neutrality…
Yeah, you are right that it would be better for USA to have Spain. That would be best when the Allied players are really playing as a team. In some of our games, particularly if the Allies get the upper hand, the players start to kind of compete with each other. While the MAIN goal is to defeat the Axis, sometimes they also try to out-do each other, like trying to see who can grab the more expensive territories first. Also, this sometimes will screw up their plans against the Axis. For example: ANZAC, India or Russia takes Korea instead of USA. This ends up making it harder for USA to invade Japan while ANZAC, India or Russia don’t have the means to take Japan so it ends up being a kind of useless territory grab.
Those ‘Allies’ forgot the meaning of the word ;)
-
I love it when RUSSIA captures Korea, and Gets a factory there…. long enough to throw 3 subs into Sz60! Wham!
-
Sounds like a good weekend war game for ya Gargantua
Suggested Topics
