Russian Neutrality

@nebnworb yea they get the bit in their mouth and they can run all over the place. Little annoying things that if they don’t react and you can support, can really be irritating. Of course they can kinda do the same thing, depending on USA strategy : )

The Med is controlled by the USN with no real threat so the US can take its units in France and dump them to support UK.

Just to add to wittmann, the Russians are played with different political rules on each map (Europe/Pacific). They are still one power though, so you can send units from the Euro side to the Pac side if you want. For example if you are at war w/Japan you can send Russian ground and air units that start on the Euro map into China to help prop them up (because the Chinese are also at war w/Japan). You could even send those Russian ftrs to Burma or India (via China) once the UK Pac is at war with Japan (but just because you can doesn’t mean you should LOL)

@Black_Elk:

Again, it’s not the be-all end-all by any stretch, granted. But still the option for a base in 87 is better than no option. Or that was my thinking when I called it a potential game changer.
:-D

Absolutely, and I agree -
I know the game would be improved and not diminished in any way if Sierra Leone were made to be a British territory at game start

I did read somewhere a post or repost where Larry agreed with adding the Rus bomber to the G40 starting set after the 2nd edition was released. He was just concerned how the rest of the world would know about the bomber. Could anybody confirm this and/or post a link?
Thanks.

Thank you Calvin and Kreig.

Well atleast the reds tried to escape.

@Flashman:

If both sides are all killed in the battle, you have to improvise some sort of “pro-Axis” marker for Sweden until it is occupied.

No, you don’t, because all strict neutrals are now pro-Axis.  However, until a power claims the territory, you do need to indicate somehow that the Swedish army has been used up.  An upside down control marker works well.