Friendly neutrals: multiple territories

No, it wasn’t on my list.  I just added it as 16e

It is in the Triple A list in the program, though.  If you look down the description of the G40 map, one of the things is “rules Triple A engine doesn’t recognize” or something like that.  That’s the list I meant it was already on

What I thought… just hoping against hope because you don’t take the territory by force.  thanks!

what about from an allied POV though?

Allied POV might work if Germany is on the defencive (not very common), but Japan has outgrown US economy but not taken India. (happends alot, especialy with kgf or balance)

Allies need to keep Germany from activating Sweden (might be the easiest to isolate), Spain (easiest to attack) and Turkey (big UK army from 2IC in Egypt and Persia?). Goes without saying that allies attack land in africa and south america to boost their economy.

Im not saying its usualy a good idea, but it might be a plausible strategy to get that little extra IPC that stops Japan from winning pacific side. (Japan gains nothing if allied DOW neutrals, unless they pick up Afgahnistan.)

Now Cow sure is comming to trollpost me, no dubt :P
Trow in your best comment.

@Kreuzfeld:

@Omega1759:

@kcdzim:

Ghr is incorrect.� � Germany and Italy are not diplomatically tied like Anzac/uk and Germany is free to reinforce any Italian territory regardless of who originally controlled it, just like any other friendly territory.

Great, it’s a good option to have. If Italy can opens Eastern Poland and Baltic States on I3, I don’t see why I would declare war on the Soviet Union and lose 5 IPC in the process (the Russian fleet is stuck, the Vyborg / Karelia route is subject to counter attack), there would probably be no sizeable territorial gains to obtain anyway.

the russians can still counterattack, the russians can declare war on germany on the next ussr turn, the only advantage you do get as germany is that you get the NO, BUT you lose the ability to attack russian troops and landareas, so not always a good choise

Always good to have the option to do it though…

I think the rule would be more clear if scrambling only applied to island airbases (including England and japan). If sealion is more difficult then so be it. Sealion seems like it is a little too easy anyways.

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.

To put it another way, once the battle is over, you no longer have the option of retreating.

Look at rule book page 20. If you made a combat move into the tt(territory) and won, it is yours. If it was French to start with, then there was no combat move into the tt, and is still French. Liberate France if you want to collect income from it. The dutch are not a power, and are a different deal.