Why isn't Mexico pro-allied neutral?

@Caesar-Seriona said in Dutch Neutrality Question:

Because the creators thought it was enough to put their colonies in but not count it as an independent faction hence why you can’t liberate their homeland because it’s marked as German Grey and how it lacks units, income, and turn. So they make it under this stupid exile in govern status.

Sorry, I don’t get that in the context of an argumentation for your previous statement:

@Caesar-Seriona said in Dutch Neutrality Question:

The game actually treats Japan already at war with the Dutch on turn 0.

As clearly stated by the rules Japan starts the game being at war with China only.
There is no state of war between Japan and the Netherlands.

In order to attack Dutch colonies Japan needs to establish a state of war with UK/ANZAC instead.

Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 37:

Japan may attack Dutch territories only if a state of war exists between it and the United Kingdom and ANZAC.

Selection of casualties could also come into play if AAA and/or air units controlled by another player have moved into the territory.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

With a J1DOW and Japan taking Calcutta meaning to swing back and take Hawaii as well ~J8, the allies can follow 1 of 2 basic strategies in Europe:

USA invests heavily in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard. This forces the UK to go heavy into the ME with 2 ICs in Egypt/Iraq/Persia (3 ICs is perhaps no unnecessary luxury in this scenario). This is because Calcutta needs to be taken back once Japan grabs Hawaii. A little bit from what comes out of those ICs can maybe get into Moscow as well to aid Russia in keeping it. The UK will have only minor bits of IPCs left to assist the USA in Western Europe (~10/turn, TRS as best buy).

USA invests only mildly in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard with massive UK aid (not such heavy UK presence in the ME as above). Typically USA serves only as a can-opening threat for UK-follow up. Example: USA takes Norway + Denmark, UK takes Berlin (If Germany ignores the allies and keeps throwing everything at Russia).

Whatever strategy is followed, the Wallies must somehow make sure their threat is in place G5, so that Germany will loose either WG, Rome or Berlin if it builds all aircraft for a G6 assault on Moscow (depending how many investments the USA made and thus, how many the UK was able to assist).

Typical forces USA can expect in Europe with heavy investments: 2DD, 2CV, 5FTR, 1TAC, ~4STR and 2TRS per turn (fully loaded). Early TRS can ofc be filled with Brazilians and other starting units. Once Normany and SF are taken (and/or WG), USA also produces from those factories. US6 should see 27US and 8UK land units and 9 USAF in or approaching Western Europe. A bit too much for Germany/Italy if they focused everything on Russia all the way into G5 and only start building troops against the wallies G6 (10 in Berling and WG each can be overrun -one of them if not both), so if this doesn’t arrest German flow of reinforcements into Russia I don’t know what does…

Investing ‘mildly’ still sees the USA with 2DD, 2CV, 3FTR, 1TAC, 3STR, 6TRS fully loaded.
Because the USA should be able to keep Japan out of Hawaii/Sydney with the extra IPCs put into the Pacific, the UK can put more effort in Western Europe at the cost of the ME, starting a war of attrition with Germany. The few troops the USA has should not be ‘kamikazed’ but used as a can-opening threat (Berlin, see above) and to capture areas Germany cannot recapture (Norway, for example).

On a sidenote: a couple of RAF-FTR really enhances Russian defenses in Moscow. The more ships/early bombers Germany builds, the less RAF the UK needs to send. With Max German land production (i.e. no ships/early bombers at all), Moscow may need 10-12 Spitfires/Mosquito’s to withstand the assault.

These are only the basics of what I know the allies can do. They must be adjusted whenever the Axis adjust… If, for example, the USA invests heavily into Europe and Japan does not look likely to swing back at Sydney/Hawaii but rather continues to invest heavily in Mainland Asia/Russia, the UK may ease their spending in the ME a bit and assist the USA a while in spending much more for western Europe for a couple of turns…

@AK_Grown:

The country that controls the territory controls the troops.

Germany takes Bulgaria, gains 4 infantry (+whatever was moved in there).  When Germany goes again, those troops can now move, whether it be combat or non-combat.

Ok, that is what I thought. Thank you so much! :-)

John Brown

@knp7765:

@kcdzim:

And Allied units that enter original USSR territories should be “interned” - removed from the board with infantry (and infantry only) showing up back in their home capitals a couple rounds later in equal numbers to the units interned   :wink:

In the original Europe game, they had a rule if UK or US planes landed in a Soviet territory with an IC, on the Russian Mobilize Units phase, they could be turned into Russian planes.

I always wondered about something like this.  Considering the equipment lend lease that USA had with USSR I would of thought “gifting” units to Russia should be acheived in someway.  Of course who knows what that would do to balance.  I guess the the Archangel NO is their to represent the Lend-lease activities.

@Axisplaya:

@theROCmonster:

Possibly even T3 if mistakes were made.

Anything is possible with enough mistakes from one side…

@theROCmonster:

Japs only need Hawaii, hong kong, phillipines, and calcutta. I can see Japan taking all these by T4

I can’t….If Japan can get Hong Kong, Phi, Haw and Ind by T4 when Allies don’t commit huge mistakes, then the game is completely broken.

I’ve not only seen it, I’ve done it.  The game is not completely broken - however.  America just has to keep investing in the Pacific, the allies lose if there is not a HUGE investment by America in the Pacific EARLY.

I am always tempted to use this strategy with the allies. There is however always one thing which holds me from doing so: the Mongolian forces - if Japan can activate these units, I think this will tip the balance on the pacific board in favor of the Axis.

Nevertheless, It would be a disaster for Germany to defend another border, which is so close to france and the US at the same time…