Thank you ItIsILeClerc. I too also agree. This strategy is risky. Its a change form the normal and it can work if your allies don’t work together quickly. If you lose too many planes (due to scrambling) on round 1 you probably should abort the “Angry Bird”. Nothing is certain in this game if it was then it would not be so popular, hehe. The first round really does nothing new and one can easily switch to Barbarossa, Sealion, etc. You also need to evaluate what happens on Italy’s first turn. But… If you have 90% of the Luftwaffe intact and Italy still has some navy left then you are free to wake up the bird. ANother thing to look for is to see if Russia backed their units up from the front line. If they reinforce the front line then I also would abort the strategy.
I love the way you broke this down ItIsILeClerc. very good job. One of the experiences I have had with this strategy is that it allows Germany and Italy to gain a higher economy without taking any Russian lands. Even if your defending with Germany while sending other units to the coast or through Turkey; Russia has to make that long walk to Berlin. The closer they get the less units they will have. They don’t buy much Mech like Germany does and their economy cannot support it for too long. Also Germany can support buying more infantry because Russia is coming to them. They have to guard Leningrad, Stalingrad while pushing down the center. That’s not as easy for them to do. Again these are just experiences I have had with the strategy. Nothing is set in stone.
It also buys time for Japan to really get a good hold on Russia. It really helps if Japan declares war on Russia and destroys the Siberians before they reach the capital on turn 6. Â Now if Russia is attacking Germany they have to bring everything plus the kitchen sink while defending their capital and Stalingrad. I have played the “Angry Bird” strategy only a few times but have been successful in each game. Maybe that comes from the strategy or maybe its me or the dice, lol. One thing is for sure its very difficult for Russia to attack Germany even though they have an ICP advantage. I will post a pic of one of the games I played with this strategy.
I welcome your comments :)
I am assuming that while you guys are discussing the strategy of attacking strict neutrals, that you all use the OOB neutral rules – if you attack one strict neutral they all turn against you.
When we tried the Germany Turn 3 “Neutral Crush”, we were also using the OOB neutral rules.
Since then we started using Neutral Blocks, basically dividing the strict neutral territories into geographical blocks:
South America : all South American countries
Africa : all neutrals in Africa. (Yes, I know some of them were European colonies but it was easier for gameplay to do it geographically)
Europe : Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Sweeden.
Middle-East : Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Mongolia : all Mongolian territories.
We put Turkey in the Middle East block to make that block a little bigger and worth more. We did this to give all players a little more flexibility in case anyone wanted to take a neutral territory as part of their strategy without turning ALL of them to the other side. Also, there was the practical argument: If Sweeden was invaded, why would Chile or Mongolia care? However, Switzerland or Spain might just take notice of that.
Funny thing is, even with adopting this HR into our games, we haven’t touched the strict neutrals in many games.
Anyway, it seems to me like this would make a “neutral crush” even easier. Say Germany takes Sweeden, Spain and Turkey. That would just leave Portugal and Switzerland in Europe. The US or UK might grab Portugal for 1 IPC and a couple of guys, but Germany could smash that quick and Switzerland will only fall to the Allies if things go really bad for the Axis.
As for the Middle-East block, I guess UK would pick up an extra 4 guys in Afghanistan and 2 guys + 2 IPCs for Saudi Arabia, but that wouldn’t be a big problem for the Axis. The worst being those 4 guys from Afghanistan could end up helping defend either Calcutta or Moscow.
One thing you wouldn’t be doing is giving 8 extra infantry and 6 more IPCs to the US from South America. Although, it might be as much of a hindrance as a help since they have to send transports down to get those guys and it would take a while to get them up into Europe.
So, what do you guys think? Is using my Neutral Blocks HR a good idea with this Axis strategy? Or does it tip the favor too far to the Axis?
One other thing. I think this has been brought up before. Anybody consider making Argentina Pro-Axis?
@knp:
I think your HR will make angry bird easier for the axis.
To a gamebreaking level? Maybe yes, maybe no, I don’t know. The way I see it, grabbing Turkey is the strongest point of this strategy because it gives quick access to all the axis oil-oriented NO’s and to the shortcut into Calcutta. Or Africa. The HR takes away I think the main downsides for the axis to attack Turkey: extra troops + income for the allies coming from Spain and African neutrals, plus the cancellation of the Swedish NO for Germany (and extra income for the allies later on when Sweden is taken).
@Cyanight:
You are welcome. I love this way of ‘exploring strategies’ with like-minded people  :-). Give and recieve feedback. Yummy!
While we’re at it, maybe it would be a boost to your strategy if you accept that Spain/Gibraltar  cannot be held.
You could attack spain just to deny the US those extra troops and then get the hell out of there, returning the ARM/MECH/AIR to the ‘eastfront’, reverting to the standard western defense.
Really like the idea of taking the time to take on Russia/China with Japan. Done that myself couple of times. Only downside of delaying the US till round 4, is India + ANZAC DOW Japan round3 gaining massive economies. Those two will become very angry birds themselves. Let alone the US who can perfectly see on beforehand what is going on (moving after Japan) and focus a ‘bit’ more on Germany. Caveat emptor! Every advantage has a disadvantage in this game  :wink:.
Knp: I agree with ItIsILeClerc with those added rules I would just attack Turkey. It is nice to be able to control Gibraltar without ships but I agree that oil you get from moving through Turkey and the fact that it puts another border on Russia to guard is the major strength of this strategy. I would love to play with those rules and I agree with you. Why would any countries in South America care if neutrality was violated in Europe or the middle east. Its too bad that Bulgaria doesn’t touch Turkey like Razor said it did.
Thanks again ItIsILeClerc. I enjoy discussing these strategies. The games that I played Angry Bird I did exactly what you mentioned. As soon as I took Spain back from the Allies I would try to get out of there and leave it as a buffer zone. Im sure I could also change what I purchase each turn also. Sometime you have to wait to see how a round went before you can decide on what to buy. I honestly believe that on round 1 Germany could buy about anything though. For the Angry Bird though you need to get some tanks down to Romania quickly and it helps to transport 1 or two to take Sweden.
Its too bad that Bulgaria doesn’t touch Turkey like Razor said it did.� Â
It is my atlas that says Bulgaria is adjacent to Turkey. Just look at google maps, I bet they are still adjacent, even today. I figure the designer made the A&A map with Greece between Bulgaria and Turkey just to add one more space between Germany and the Middle East oil, even if it is historically wrong. I wish he had split Turkey in two territories instead, that would have been more smooth. But with that said, I still love A&A.
I also think the true neutral mechanic, where all other true neutrals join the war if another true neutral is attacked, is far away from how neutrals act in the real world. Neutrals is exactly that because they don’t care. Why didn’t the true neutrals in South America declare war against Germany when they attacked neutral Tzcechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway etc etc, why would they wait until Germany attacked neutral Sweden …uh…
I believe the current rule act opposite of how the real world neutrals would. All history show that minor neutrals will join the stronger part, not the weak. When neutral Finland was attacked by Russia, neutral Sweden did not go to war against Russia, on the contrary Sweden would help Russia with the blockade and weapons embargo against Finland. And when Germany attacked neutral Denmark and Norway, then Sweden would not go to war against Germany, but help Germany, sell them high grade steel, and let them use the Swedish railroad. And when Germany lost the war, then neutral Sweden would again help and support Russia. And Swedes, Finns, Danes and Norwegians are brothers, and used to be united. So threat are stronger than blood. Even true neutrals like Brazil and Turkey would declare war against Germany in 1945, just to join the winning side, and be allowed to plunder the loser. That is how real world works.
So I guess the rule should be, that if you attack a true neutral, then nothing happens.
Well said Razor. In HBG’s Global 1939 game, strict neutrals are all alone. If you attack one, it ONLY affects that country. None of the others change status. The only time it can sort of go against you is there are a few of the neutrals that are more than one territory. So if you attack one of the territories, whatever units happen to be in the other territory will turn against you and could possibly be picked up by the other side, but those are few and far between. Plus, I think in the case of the neutrals, the only forces they have is on their “capital” territory.
Perhaps we should adopt that rule to Global 1940.
I agree well said Razor. I think the mechanic for true neutrals is there to provide a consequence to attacking one. Not necessarily historical.
I like your idea of breaking up Turkey into two territories and having it border Bulgaria.
I like this “Angry Birds” strat, if nothing else it’s away from the norm (can get boring). Yea, it will have some pro’s and cons but it would be fun to attempt a few times to perfect it, and see how the other side handles it. Japan laying off would have to be part of this strat IMO so the US couldn’t get to Spain turn 2 (right after the Germans take it). The Japanese can be plowing through China, threatening India, and attacking Siberia etc….and be ready to ponce on the Mongolians when they activate (or break the NAP turning them to Russian so they can attack them).
Looking at house rule;
I also think that neutral blocks could make this too strong unless you bulked up each of the true neutrals so there is more risk in attacking them individually. Both Turkey and Spain (maybe even Sweden) could be broken into 2 territories if using a neutral blocks as well.
Spain could add Madrid territory to the center, allowing all the Spanish coastal territory to remain one territory. The Capital would be surrounded by Portugal to the west, and outer Spain on the rest (be kinda like France). Turkey broken into 2 territories (west/east) would be ideal with the divider following the Syrian coast line. The standing armies would be split up, but bulked up. That way if you attacked either Spain or Turkey you couldn’t kill their entire armies in one turn in most cases. Wouldn’t mind seeing art, and maybe a tank or ftr being mobilized as well (some would even like to see a DD).
I agree well said Razor.�  I think the mechanic for true neutrals is there to provide a consequence to attacking one.�  Not necessarily historical.
I like your idea of breaking up Turkey into two territories and having it border Bulgaria.
Yes its obvious that the true neutral rule is designed that way to keep players from attacking them. But I would rather give Spain, Sweden and Turkey a much stronger army so they could defend themselves, without dragging neutral South America into the war. Based on the numbers of units that France and Italy start with, I figure that Spain should get at least 10 infantry, and maybe even a tank and a fighter. That would be a bigger discourage than the possibility of getting neutral Chile against you.
Yes, when considering the size of the countries both Spain, Sweden and Turkey should be cut in two territories, Turkey maybe three. Maybe in next edition
Spain is also adjacent to 5 different seazones, so an airbase or port here will unbalance the game, so there is no doubt that Spain need to be cut in more territories, if only just for balace
Spain is also adjacent to 5 different seazones, so an airbase or port here will unbalance the game, so there is no doubt that Spain need to be cut in more territories, if only just for balace
Excellent point Razor.
