Has anyone planned to attack the true neutrals?

In a recent game where we were trying out Alpha +3, our German player put a Major IC in Romania G1, then an airbase on Romania and some transports in the Black Sea G2.  On G3, landed 6 units in Caucasus along with invading along European front.  Our Russian player was just stymied with so many German attacks and couldn’t get a decent defense mounted.  Germany ended up in Moscow by round 6.

Maybe it would be worth it to go through Turkey if UK takes Persia/Iraq and builds an IC there.  You would be denying UK those 4 IPCs, getting them 4 for Germany (+ up to 6 for the oil), a good way into Caucasus (another 7), and a free minor IC.  That’s a pretty nice package of incentives.

@Gargantua:

All the money is , or WAS in the middle east.

Turkey is a pivitol territory.

I like to attack on I2 or I3 depending,  Allowing German tanks to blitz right into 2 of the Middle east oil territories for 6 IPC’s.

Sometimes… a German IC in Iraq kicks alot of a**… but it’s a BIG committment.

Regardless…  Be aware, any axis plan to attack true nuetrals, must include attack plans for SPAIN, SWEDEN, TURKEY, and sometimes SAUDIA ARABIA. If you do it, keep the americans entertained, or they’ll make you pay once they activate South America…

This is generally true- finally tried this in the last game and it backfired on us big time.  We really need to wait a round or two before doing it- which would have been round 9 or so.  I like the rules the way they are with this.  There are good and bad consequences to this move.  I think its a really good endgame tactic if you need to seal the deal for a probable win.  Not a good overall tactic though.

Garg makes a point, but I find it is usually the allies that make those attacks he listed. (Saudia, Spain, Sweeden and Turkey) and not the axis.

As the Axis, you have to attack Sweeden if you attack other allies, or it becomes pro Allied and you lose the NO.  Something to consider.

I have often wondered what an IGNORE Russia strategy would look like. Russia is not strong. She does not have the capabilities to become strong. Those that speak of the Russian Bear only speak of it when Germany collapses against her iron walls of infantry somewhere between Moscow and Poland. Why step foot into Russia in the first place? Certainly, border nations are worth disputing, but a solid push into foreign territory? An armored wall of planes and mobile equipment is more than enough of a deterrent for a Russian advance.

What if Germany (and thus Italy & Japan) ignored Russia and went a True Neutral Crush? Japan would not be crippled pushing resources against Russia, besides the neutering of the Russian infantry stacks should the opportunity present itself. Free to expand south, free to grow, free to show the world, including America, her prowess.

Everyone’s Axis Europe victories have been credited to a Russian Fall that could only occur with Japanese intervention. I say, who needs Russia? A Japan that forces America’s hand into the Pacific, especially since common strategies today have a strong American presence in the Pacific, could allow Germany the oomph to focus its energies on other forces, like the neutering of Britain.

Should Africa fall, the Isles are subject to convoy raiding and strategic bombing. Great Britain could be knocked out of the game without a Sealion.

Everyone speaks of Axis strats as revolving around a Barbarossa opening or a Sealion opening. How would you react if you saw neither?

We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.

Germany needs 8 VCs to win.  It starts with 4 (if you count Paris, which they should always get quickly), and Russia has 3 more.  Then there’s Cairo, London, Ottawa, and DC. If Germany ignored Russia it would have to take every other VC on the Europe map, which includes two capitals (no easy feat) and crossing the Atlantic (also rather difficult).  It can be done, sure, but it’s a lot harder generally than just taking the ones in Russia.

@Ruanek:

Germany needs 8 VCs to win.  It starts with 4 (if you count Paris, which they should always get quickly), and Russia has 3 more.  Then there’s Cairo, London, Ottawa, and DC. If Germany ignored Russia it would have to take every other VC on the Europe map, which includes two capitals (no easy feat) and crossing the Atlantic (also rather difficult).  It can be done, sure, but it’s a lot harder generally than just taking the ones in Russia.

Agreed.

The common tactic used to be to take Paris on G1, London on G3 and then get the 3 in Russia.  I propose the new tactic be get Paris G1, get Moscow G8 and then drive down and get Egypt.

As for crossing the atlantic, there is one example at least of where Germany got Washington DC and Japan got San Francisco in the same round.  There used to even be a kill america first strategy, until Larry killed it in Alpha 3. (Since you cannot sail within striking distance of the United States anymore.)

@Cmdr:

We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.

I was not advocating a KAF. Besides, that’s not really feasible anymore, given your quote. I was talking about a True Neutral Crush, hence the topic :)
Really, how many opponents have expected a true neutral crush before? Especially one that transitions into a late invasion of Russia from 4 directions… Norway/Sweden, the Eastern Front, Turkey and the Middle East. Up to 12 Russian territories can be immediately exposed for the preliminary invasion by Germany & Italy, and Japan can up that to 17…

cts17:

Yes, I get it.  I am stating, in a round about fashion, that the only time I think (my opinion) the Axis are in position to attack Neutrals is during an Alpha 2 attack of America.  Since on round 4 they can take both E. USA and W. USA and possibly, C. USA.

Meh, it’s a novelty idea that might work once, but never again on the same opponent.  Face it people - you need to attack and defeat the USSR the conventional way to win, so I just don’t understand why everyone wants to avoid it - it is inevitable.

@shadowguidex:

Meh, it’s a novelty idea that might work once, but never again on the same opponent.  Face it people - you need to attack and defeat the USSR the conventional way to win, so I just don’t understand why everyone wants to avoid it - it is inevitable.

In most games, yes.

Neutral attacks COULD achieve that faster, in some instances.  Italy takes Turkey, Germany blitzes through for instance.  The allies, in most of my games, generally end up taking Spain and Turkey anyway.

@Cmdr:

We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.

I dont think he outlawed it, he just made it harder. The text now read - Japan can not end naval movement in sz within 2 spaces away from US territories and islands, when US is not yet at war. If they do, that is a DOW. Japan is still allowed to attack USA, they just cant park a big fleet next to it when at peace.

@Razor:

@Cmdr:

We called that Kill America First and Larry outlawed it, cts17.

I dont think he outlawed it, he just made it harder. The text now read - Japan can not end naval movement in sz within 2 spaces away from US territories and islands, when US is not yet at war. If they do, that is a DOW. Japan is still allowed to attack USA, they just cant park a big fleet next to it when at peace.

The KAF strategy used to be to station yourself 2 spaces away from Panama/W. USA so that when you attack you can hit both places before America has time to build up.  By dissallowing you from getting that close, America has an extra round to build counter-units that should make it too costly to even try a Kill America First strategy.  It was glorious when it worked.  Effectively gave the Axis all the time in the world to win since the biggest power house was removed. (I still think it’s ridiculous how much America earns compared to everyone else.  That 10 IPC NO in my opinion should be removed or changed into +5 if Calcutta is free and +5 if Sydney is free, as both of those are actually taken in some games, W. USA will probably never fall with the changes to the Japan rules.)

My opinion, of course.

From my perspective, having actually pulled off the attack a few times against decent to moderately skilled opponents, is that the whole thing rests on a J3 attack on W. USA and Panama.  The German attack on E. USA is just the coup-de-gras and the icing on the cake was a hit on C. USA if America had not prepared well enough.

It is a theoretical strat to kill US first.

Japan must take Sovjet Far East and build a Naval Base there, and move a big fleet to sz 4. Then Germany must move some Bombers there, and clear the path in G4.

At the same time Germany must take Iceland and build a Naval Base there, and move a big fleet there. Then Italy must move some Bombers there, to clear a path in I3.

The original strategy was no secret what Japan was doing.  It was hauling units back and dropping serious money on transports.  The idea was to get them next to W. USA/Panama or one space away so you could close the Canal and take W. USA before America could build enough to stop you.  Meanwhile, the Germans had to be in SZ 91 with some transports of its own, it was like 10 transports and units in Gibraltar./SZ 91 so they could attack E. USA or E. Canada.  That made it so America lost Panama and W. USA but could build enough to stop an E. USA attack but not enough toliberate W. USA and E. Canada.

It was almost unstoppable.  Or rather, I have never seen anyone stop it.  (Putting that disclaimer on so that Jimmy/Jim dont start threads about how to stop Operation American Eagle, etc.)