There are not enough Italian Roundels!!!

@freh Ok, I see it now. Pretty sneaky :)

If the Japan isn’t aggressive enough the UK-East can send resources stalling or completely stopping that Italian advance in Africa/Middle East. If America decides to send a fleet into the med the same thing can happen. Germany, Italy and Japan need to plan together. I’ve played far too many games with a conservative Germany while playing an aggressive Japan or conservative Japan while playing aggressive Germany.

I’d gladly sacrifice a large UK navy and some planes if it means the Luftwaffe taking heavy losses.  As far as I can see, mutual annihilation usually benefits the Allies

I hate to break this to you but the term ANZAC actually doesn’t apply to WWII era Australia and New Zealand. It goes for the term in WWI, however to somewhat contradict this statement; there was an ANZAC corp giving by the UK to a combine unit in Greece. So it did exist in small numbers but as far as the strategic use of it, Australia and New Zealand never combined their arms into one military in WWII. With that said, I don’t think you can find an ANZAC roundel for WWII as I am guessing each nation would use whatever their roundel would be.

Indeed exactly my point!

This seems to be the axis paradigm.
Axis must choose a theatre where they want to win: Russia, London/Atlantic or the Mediterranean/Africa. I guess attacking the neutrals falls in all 3 theatres at the same time, so if the axis want to go for the neutrals they still must decide which 1 of the three above theatres they want to be winning in.

Axis should realize that against good allied opposition they can win in 1 area but expect to loose in the 2 other areas. Perhaps not immediately, but still inevitable.
For example: after a ‘successfull’ Sea Lion, Russia might not be able to immediately take Berlin, but Germany taking Moscow should be out of the question as well. Which is an allied win already if the USA can either liberate London or neutralise  Japan (isolate a must, no need to conquer Tokyo).

Same story in the Pacific.
In short: The axis can win anywhere, but not everywhere (at the same time)!

No neither is gamey in my book, it’s part of the game that can lead to a victory (should be a 1 or 2 trick pony). Once your group see’s these moves, it’s up to your opponent to do something about it. Our group see’s a couple Italians at the Russian front often, which can help the Germans to push deeper into Russia. So if this is happening the Russians might need to picket with 2-3 inf in key territories, so you have a chance to kill off the Italian ground unit(s). A few Italians can allow you to sack some Russians, or simply bring your German air to the front so the Russians can’t strafe your German stack w/o air cover. Can also get you to Stalingrad or Caucasus faster, but often times it risks your German mech/tanks if the Russians see it and set up a counter. Sometimes Russia has to deal with a 3 ring circus if both Italy and Japan are knocking on the door w/Germany, it is up to the other Allies to even up the score. Even if Moscow falls, it’s all about what they can take with them, and if the western allies are in position to put the hurt on. Besides, if those Italian bombers are picking off Russians, they aren’t helping much in the Med (although the range allows them to threaten both theaters through the Black Sea).

I always liked the Bulgarian addition to Italy.  Those 4 Inf are useful, but it sort of commits Italy to covering Romania for German advances in the North which generally means a stream of Mech coming from N.Italy to Romania.

And to answer your question, a lot of people don’t do SeaLion b/cuz it’s not always a guaranteed thing. Depends on what the UK does. If the UK makes it as difficult as possible, then most likely the Germans can take it still but it might be a little dicey and leave them vulnerable to the Russians. If the UK makes it easier then the Germans will be more likely to do a SeaLion. I don’t think a successful SeaLion always means an Axis victory.