Japan/USA neutrals

@Imperious-Leader
Sure - I was addressing the specific scenario.

Thanks man.

@J-o-C I’ve been considering trying attacking the neutrals, mostly for the helluva it. Thanks for laying out thoughts. As far as multi-national forces sequenced, I’m considering sending in U.K. forced into Saudi’s Arabia if conditions permit. Also, ANZAC on Argentina As a capper, maybe Chile also but Argentina first.

Sweden would be tough to get as Allies unless already in Norway so might Axis taking it might the cost of opening Spain and Turkey and make you commit to invading Europe form the south, not necessarily a bad thing.

If you NoDOW, this usually means you are after Russia and defeat China and stall the US in the Pacific.
UK will likely grow strong and a Calcutta Crush (CC) is almost not doable.

This helps out Euro Axis alot.
BUT!:
If anything goes wrong with the german march on Moscow, you are screwed on both sides of the Map.

I tried it over and over with minimal success.
Now i prefer a solid J1 in BM and Vanilla since the impact on both Theaters are enormous.
The US has to choose a side and need to quickly balance out the whole board.
UK has all hands full as well.

A J1 is putting a lot of pressure to the Allies.

a CC is very likely stabilize J’s income arround 70-80 ipc creating many Threats at once by better pistioning your self in the Pacific.
-better odds on achivieving all 6 VC’s

MakeMaps,

@Gargantua:

–Taking Australia is all about Bankrupting Australia.
–Take away their NO’s, get subs into the convoy zones, and land more troops than they can produce.
–Usually this is done -after- India/China have capitulated.

––I’d say,…YES, it’s possible to subjugate the entire Anzac command.
----But, like Gar has said, you should weigh all of the pros and cons first:

–By DOW against Anzac you also bring UK-Pacific and America into the conflict immediately thus allowing UK-Pacific to assist China in it’s struggle for survival.
–Also, you loose the 10 IPC NO for not being at war with UK-Pac, Anzac, & having not entered F.I.C.
–Also, you allow China to attain it’s NO of keeping the road open(with UK-Pac help). IMHO the bonuses YOU ATTAIN and the bonuses you DENY YOUR ENEMY usually add up to the difference in who wins the victory.
–I don’t mean to state the obvious,…and I absolutely love entirely new strategies,…but IMHO it’s an easier win to NOT DOW while beating up China and the road while building your forces to take Hong Kong, Phillipines, the Dutch East Indies, and eventually India.

----Just remember, It’s all about FUN, and the only thing that matters is having Fun while you WIN the game(more fun)!

“Tall Paul”

He meant to say that UK can declare war, as it always can, but the consequences (USA not stepping in) stay the same. Russian-japanese situation doesn’t influence UK.

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.

@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.