@taamvan:

If you leave Russia completely alone, it will turn into a massive, 50 income monster by turn 4 and destroy you.

A lot of people seem to be discounting the possibility of doing a invasion round after round, attacking with all your air but withdrawing from each rounds battle after your cannon fodder is lost.  Â

If the UK builds up properly (men and a few fighters) however, the odds don’t look great on this one and feeding round after round of ground troops into a suicide mission drains too much of your starting forces that should be fighting on the eastern front.    With a 100% sacrifice of Ger resources, the battle is almost certain to be won at some point, but the war will be lost because of the investment of so much of  Germanys money and time

Destroying Moscow then using that money to turn around and push off the Western Allies is much more optimal than doing it the other way around, because taking London is less rewarding, more costly, and Russia has so many NO takeover targets that it has a chance to stand as equals against Germany.

The USA is usually too weak to cross or stuck out of the war for too long to intervene directly in the UK Ger battle but they are optimally positioned to liberate UK if it did fall, after reviving it the Germans may be weakened enough to succumb to the 3 power crush.

I completely agree that Sealion is usually a losing strategy in Europe as Russia becomes too much of an opponent. However in my experience Sealion is often used to achieve a victory in the Pacific, by forcing the Americans to spend in the Atlantic. So do you think it would make more sense for the US to completely ignore a Sealion and continue to go full Pacific?

If Germany decides to go Sealion the US often responds by building some sort of fleet in the Atlantic. However this usually leads to success in the Pacific as American IPCs are not being being used there. My question is would it make sense for America to not respond to Sealion in the Atlantic at all? It seems as though Germany could be contained by Russia after Sealion and America is desperately needed to stop Japan. Thoughts?

Well it is certainly possible to have 7 battleships if war was not declared on UK considering that would cost 100IPCs (Japan starts with 2) and if Japan averages about 40-45 a turn with the NO and Chinese/Russian territories they will definitely have enough money. Did it look like he purchased much else besides BB?

Also it is definitely possible to take China and Russia by J4 if no resources are used in the money islands and the Air Force is being used. So it is certainly possible even if not too likely. It is impossible to be sure though without seeing the board.

Although it may look like Japan is dominating this scenario does not sound very good as India should have a large army by now and the Japan should be low on land units after buying so many BBs.

Just to clarify u cannot move the units or replace them but they instead turn into IPC that could be spent on the first turn so putting artillery on Amur would not work. These IPCs would go to the power who’s units were removed

If u could have all the units on any one territory (or sea zone) from the starting setup be removed and instead be replaced with their IPC value that could be spent on the first turn, which territory would you use this on?

If the med is secure and Rome is too heavily defended than yes, Greece is a great landing spot for the reasons you mentioned. Otherwise it is really just a waste of resources as the Italians can easily counter it with a lot of force.

Can anyone think of a possible situation in which it would be beneficial for the Axis to attack a strict neutral? Attacking turkey to get in the ME seems like an option but that would take a lot of units that could be used against Russia. Anyone have any ideas?

I usually threaten to make Britain spend at least some money on land units rather than air or units in Africa.

I think overall convoy disruptions hurt the economy more (obviously not for some powers like Russia) because instead of forcing the IPCs to be spent repairing damage they are never given to the opponent. This mean the opponent can’t just choose to ignore the damage and spend the IPCs elsewhere. Also convoy does not hurt you if you conquer the terriotry and there is no risk of losing a unit.

Thanks for the response wittmann.

I have one more question regarding submerging subs. If a fleet with no destroyers attacks my fleet which contains subs I may choose to defend with them or submerge them, correct? If this is true then the subs would be able to surprise attack if I read the rules correctly. Thanks in advance for any response