We were both good in defence and avoiding risky battles, building our path to victory patiently.
U offered very little to exploit during the game (minus those straffe and maybe Volgograd a bit in the end). So i must aplaud U , it is so many turns and moves with facing so much allied units on air, sea and land.
I think that simbolically those lads in Volgograd that survived (UK Europe aa guns, UK Pacific land and ANZAC air units) are like a simbol that altough criplled in the Med, with advancing to European theatre were able to change the course of the game + UK Europe aa guns.
As for USA, i had so much problems with Ur German air, i should have bring more air and sea units, and not so much focus on land, since i could not break through ur defences.
But i was afraid to loose Spain or Gibraltar, and I had to watch out for Sea Lion too.
On the other hand I agree with U on France. I lost a lot there, but it took Germany s attentions, and key resources (like some fighters and a bunch of land units which could be on the Eastern front instead).
With my Soviet lads my plan was to attack Novgorod and stack there, and if threatened , move towards Norway to spread Germany s forces and take Germany s money.
Maybe even later USA could take norway, russia move land troops, and allies there air, and it could be a new fortress in the North.
Norway is the thing i couldnt pull with USA and UK since i had so much work in the Meditereanean.
I had to sacrifice it.
Overall, i am glad i attacked the neutrals, but it had its disatvantages (German air can easily reach almost anything - especially bombers).
Main advantage is making it simple for USA to bring masses of units to Western Europe.
I had to do it, because i would loose a big stack, maybe in other conditions, I would be pulling it out later, or even not to (depending on the axis play).
