Violating neutrality

@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)

Well, the 3°ed rules (PC GAME 1998) still permit you to put a industrial complex in a neutral, but you can only make one unit on it.

This isn’t so crazy but I think it would work best in lieu of fleet purchases and not with them.  I’d say one should either commit almost completely to a naval approach to supplying guys or an IC approach, and one can start building ICs on Japan1.  If for example Japan builds an IC in Manchuria on turn 1 they are no worse off than if they bought 2transports and 3inf since on turn 2 Japan will have moved a total of 10inf arm to Asia or will have moved and built 11inf into Asia.  Turn 2 you can build a factory in FIC or Manch depending on where you built one on turn1 and turn 3 in India.  From there you would want to probably wait and a little and build some in either Sinkiang, Yakut or China as a less desirable option.  Japan should be able to crank out 13+inf which is where they normally would be, but also don’t have to worry about the lag between Tokyo and the front and don’t have to invest 40ipcs in boats.  While 4 factories would cost 60ipcs it should be remembered that 7trns don’t actually achieve full mobilization which is very hard for Japan to do with a naval approach.

Downsides of this are as follows…First since India becomes necessary to produce and will build guys it also becomes a nice target and its not too hard for the allies to slip guys into Persia so this with armor in Syria/Cauc can threaten to take it or strafe it, and since you’ve invested heavily in India you can’t afford either.  Secondly, as alluded to it does cost a little more, but this comes with the gain of quicker mobilization.  Also this approach necessitates that you leave these factories vulnerable to SBRs since you are building so many that it will be cost prohibative to cover all with AA guns.  On the flip side the free SBRs will be tempting for the Allies and will reduce pressure on Germany which is what most say a good Japan strat will do.

Upsides as follows…Quicker mobilization=more pressure on Russia, as well as double stacking infantry and armor.  Usually with Japan under such aproach I only build infantry for a few turns say up until turn 4 and then switch to all armor.  This means units build on turn 4 would move to pressure Novo on the front while the build is placed into FIC/Manch,India.  If you have factories in Yakut or Sink they can build guys and depending on how many transports Japan has you can dump 2-3 armor from Tokyo.  In otherwords this allows you to take and hold Novo while creating and maintaining longterm pressure on Russia, even without a lot of fresh infantry purchases.  Ultimately with this approach the game can be forced into a battle over Karelia/Russia, and the Allies must keep all their troops here while still risking getting hit too hard in a strafe of either.  Should one happen then the Axis can take Moscow whether it is by Germany or Japan.

I would not spend the 3 bucks with Russia if I did it, but UK bucks… But the German fleet shouldn’t exist anymore after R2-R3 so actually unrelevant…

Germany taking England!??? :o Care to explain?

As for using Spain to take Gibralter, I much rather use the transport instead. Remember, all units must stop after taking an Neutral. There’s no blitzing.

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute! :-? We’re starting to make sense here. Have I slipped into an alternate universe!?!

columbia is also good if you have an IC in brazil and want to invade the us through panamaa

Screw the 3 IPCs for INF–spend 12 IPCs for some FTRs!!! :grin:

Good ol’ Swiss-built “Zeros” for use by the Fatherland…

Ozone27