Neutral countries

@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)

Well, the 3°ed rules (PC GAME 1998) still permit you to put a industrial complex in a neutral, but you can only make one unit on it.

When I played it was almost always with the same two people so I usually got stuck with Germany. I got to play the US once and that was a lot of fun.

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

“The race for quality has no finish line- so technically, it’s more like a death march.”

That’s hilarious LT!!

I got all of these quotes from here:    http://despair.com/

They have a line of “demotivators.”  The creator modeled them after the successories you see in fancy offices.  He says that true motivation comes from within so only companies with a band-aid fix it approach and disposable income use them.  (like large US car companies and banks  :lol:)

This isn’t so crazy but I think it would work best in lieu of fleet purchases and not with them.  I’d say one should either commit almost completely to a naval approach to supplying guys or an IC approach, and one can start building ICs on Japan1.  If for example Japan builds an IC in Manchuria on turn 1 they are no worse off than if they bought 2transports and 3inf since on turn 2 Japan will have moved a total of 10inf arm to Asia or will have moved and built 11inf into Asia.  Turn 2 you can build a factory in FIC or Manch depending on where you built one on turn1 and turn 3 in India.  From there you would want to probably wait and a little and build some in either Sinkiang, Yakut or China as a less desirable option.  Japan should be able to crank out 13+inf which is where they normally would be, but also don’t have to worry about the lag between Tokyo and the front and don’t have to invest 40ipcs in boats.  While 4 factories would cost 60ipcs it should be remembered that 7trns don’t actually achieve full mobilization which is very hard for Japan to do with a naval approach.

Downsides of this are as follows…First since India becomes necessary to produce and will build guys it also becomes a nice target and its not too hard for the allies to slip guys into Persia so this with armor in Syria/Cauc can threaten to take it or strafe it, and since you’ve invested heavily in India you can’t afford either.  Secondly, as alluded to it does cost a little more, but this comes with the gain of quicker mobilization.  Also this approach necessitates that you leave these factories vulnerable to SBRs since you are building so many that it will be cost prohibative to cover all with AA guns.  On the flip side the free SBRs will be tempting for the Allies and will reduce pressure on Germany which is what most say a good Japan strat will do.

Upsides as follows…Quicker mobilization=more pressure on Russia, as well as double stacking infantry and armor.  Usually with Japan under such aproach I only build infantry for a few turns say up until turn 4 and then switch to all armor.  This means units build on turn 4 would move to pressure Novo on the front while the build is placed into FIC/Manch,India.  If you have factories in Yakut or Sink they can build guys and depending on how many transports Japan has you can dump 2-3 armor from Tokyo.  In otherwords this allows you to take and hold Novo while creating and maintaining longterm pressure on Russia, even without a lot of fresh infantry purchases.  Ultimately with this approach the game can be forced into a battle over Karelia/Russia, and the Allies must keep all their troops here while still risking getting hit too hard in a strafe of either.  Should one happen then the Axis can take Moscow whether it is by Germany or Japan.

Example: huge trade off in round 1 and 2 between Russians and Germans, both lose their arm. Spa landings are interesting once Ger hasnt got any arm.

Yup when Germany hasn’t got much or any armor they should not expect to hold both EEuro and WEuro for long. Conversely, if Russia doesn’t have much armor walk throughs in the Cauc should be expected.

Yeah, but you have to have the cash to buy HB.

Or have built up a nice stockpile of bombers prior to rolling tech. 3-4 can be enough to have a big impact on the game. For example, I love to sometime build a few British bombers just so when the Japs decide to lurch into Africa(after the Allies push Germany out). I get two rounds to roll for heavy bombers, and if I get a little bit luck those 4 bombers could kill 8 ships which should be enough to kill all or almost all of the Jap Fleet there including capital ships. Once that happens the game is usually over for Japan as their remaining fleet can be hunted down, or at least pushed out of position to be a factor.

Also depending on who you are, you can surround yourself with aa-guns, or just place them in all your countries. I just think HB are very defendable, provided of course you know your oppenent has them to start the game and you can prepare for it. Say you play a game where one side has HB and the other has IT.

No this is a red herring because all powers are susceptable to Heavies at some point and regardless of how strong you are you will have to figure you can’t prevent them. For example, if Britain or America gets HBs they can always bomb Germany without flying over 2 AA guns, true they can’t necessarily hit Japan, but with LRA they can. More importantly though with Heavy bombers the Allies can afford to give up Moscow if they need to as it opens Japan up to SBRs making them have to be able to win with what they have, if they don’t have enough to crack through the wall you’ll put in Karelia then they can’t take Moscow, and Russia gets the benefit of holding Moscow with no units! Because of this I think tech represents an enormous Allied advantage. However, should Japan get HBs they can SBR Britain as long as Germany survives without flying over two AA guns, and they should be able to do the same to Russia, if they position themselves right. The Americans too should be susceptable to SBRs unless they too get HBs before you can get to Hawaii with enough bombers.

Yeah, I totally agree with that! That’s one reason I don’t like tech, and you precisely laid out why. If you play someone who you know will tech later, then I say just get it out of the way and start teching early on, like you suggest, and your bound to get a tech. But if you tech, your opponents my tech earlier (or should), then it becomes a ‘luck’ race for tech and the first side which gets a meaningful tech or 2 then they are likely to win. Once and a while that’s okay, but I don’t want all my games to be like that.

But if you look at tech as a necessary investment you will not hate it as much. What I hate is when I spend 20ipcs a turn for several turns with an overall investment being 60-80ipcs without getting HBombers. Then once my opponent realizes I will get it eventually decides to roll 20-30ipcs of dice and gets it right away. That tech doesn’t require an equal investment for equal results IMO results in too much luck, but LowLuck/NoLuck variants attempt to rectify this.

Germany taking England!??? :o Care to explain?

As for using Spain to take Gibralter, I much rather use the transport instead. Remember, all units must stop after taking an Neutral. There’s no blitzing.

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute! :-? We’re starting to make sense here. Have I slipped into an alternate universe!?!