Does taking Spain with USA spell doom for the Axis?

@Tolstoj:

Well usually the Japanese forces converge to Yunnan, and maybe one or two units in the north.

Would you trade say 22 Japanese groundunits and 3 aircraft to 35 allied units, including the Indian airforce?

The Soviets can make a contribution as well.

You don’t have to hold Yunnan but it’s very important to always retake it.

@teslas:

My guess is that this whole American fighters in Moscow thing, either going through the Atlantic or Pacific, is an alternative strategy that is non-optimal. Very possibly somewhat effective since you’ll be shaking up your opponent who isn’t used to it, but at the end of the day, non-optimal. But fun wins out over “perfect” play any day.

It sounds like a plausible curveball against someone who prefers to run a general script / perfect play to get them out of their comfort zone.

Nothing more rewarding than taking advantage of mistakes because someone had their strategy rattled.

@IKE:

@theROCmonster:

I don’t know how you guys are attacking the true neutrals with the allies in Global. The problem with attacking the Neutrals is that you need US to invest heavily in the attack to make it pay off, while this is great on the Europe side of the map, Japan is surely going to win if you invest that heavily with US in Atlantic. 20 ground troops a turn is Amazing for America landing in Spain every turn, but 60 dollars worth of infantry means nearly nothing is going towards Japan. Sounds great, but as usual I think people really underestimates Japans ability to win. India is a sure thing, and if Japan is building fleet, then Hawaii would be a sure thing as well.

I think it depends on how the game is going in Europe.  US might not need that many ground troops to land in Spain and hold it with UK reinforcements/air.

To make Spain worth taking US needs to constantly be shucking 20 guys over. This is because when you take Spain you give Afghanistan, Sweeden, Switzerland, and Turkey to the axis powers. Also the Mongolian troops. The whole point of landing in Spain is that you now give UK and US a place to land in Europe. This is why I don’t think attacking Spain is worth it in Global because you have Japan to worry about.

@Vance:

or take carolines.

Right, that’s the best place to stage the USN . . . but there’s already a naval base there silly.  :wink:

As Japan I like to stage the IJN off of phil, put a blocker to prevent Korea/Japan invasion, and stack the carolines with as many ftr/tac as I need or can spare. Usually US doesn’t have more then 1-2 transports, so it should be safe from an amphib assault with 3-4+ air there.  Keep the mainland air on kwansi/FIC to land on carriers and you’re set up for a very heavy counter to any US moves in that direction.

I don’t like to trade ships with US when I can help it and if I have to fight a naval battle I’d rather be set up to hit him as hard as I can with the strength of my powerful airforce. Most of the times the threat is enough and the USN stays away.

A lot of this depends on the UK.  If Germany pulls off a successful Sealion, then the US should spend primarily in the Atlantic so they can liberate England.  You don’t want to totally ignore the Pacific, but just spend enough there to keep Japan from going wild all over the Pacific.  With good strategy and some luck, a smaller US presence, ANZAC and India should be able to keep Japan busy long enough for the US to get England back in the game before Italy and Germany get too strong.
However, if Sealion fails or is not attempted, and the UK stays in the game for a while, then I would say US should spend primarily in the Pacific.  Again, you don’t want to completely ignore the Atlantic.  Perhaps a few destroyers to hamper German sub activity, some troops to help take back/keep Gibralter, maybe even a small invasion force on Normandy that can be backed up by British troops and open the way to liberate France.  With a small US presence, the Brits should be able to keep Italy in check in Africa and the Med while also harrassing the Germans enough so the Russians can better keep them from taking too much of Russian territory.  Meanwhile, a much larger US presence in the Pacific can pound the Japanese navy out of existence while steadily driving them back to Japan.  The US should be able to replace it’s naval losses better than Japan, especially since Japan will also have to support the land offensive against China and India.  Japan will keep losing valuable units while the Allies grow stronger.

@Krieghund:

Yes, but I don’t know why it would want to.

It might be usefull to get past some of japans navy.  It’s always good to know what options are avaiable.

If USA is not netrual in this case I guess movement restrictions dont apply!?

See the thing is it still doesn’t matter Germany is crushed and the game is all but over as Italy falls soon after. Then Japan can be ganged up on no matter how many ipc’s they have.

In my first Europe game, the Allies won after 16 rounds.  When the US liberated France, giving them 4 extra men and their economy back, they did help by attacking and taking Western Germany.  The next round, USA was able to move through Western Germany and take Berlin.  Germany was not able to properly defend it’s territories, even Germany itself, because of so much stuff committed to the Eastern Front.  Moscow did eventually fall, but it took Germany a long time to get there and cost them a ton of units in the process.  Plus, the very round Moscow fell, the US took Berlin.
One strange thing about this game was that London was never liberated.  Once Germany took London, they built a strong force of infantry there and the US decided to bypass that to take Rome, liberate Paris and go after Berlin.  The German navy was decimated and the Atlantic was totally controlled by the US so all those troops on England were pretty much stuck there.  On the very last round, after taking Berlin, the US had enough forces left in the area and they liberated London.  Technically the game was over though because the final German round to see if they could retake their capital had passed.  It was really impossible for the Germans to retake Berlin because what was left of their forces were way east in Russia.
In my second Europe game, the Axis won in 8 rounds.  So with those two games, it kind of goes along with history.  Shorter game/war, Axis victory.  Longer game/war, Allied victory.  One big thing that did the Axis in was that they were planning on a short, quick war to achieve their goals.  When the war dragged out, the greater Allied industrial and mineral resources told.