Morning Knp.
The Italians had no inclination to fight the British and even less the Americans, when they joined the war.
There was also a massive class divide between Officers and the enlisted man. This made morale very low and did not help create a fighting force. Italians were happy to be left alone.
The Italian army was also a foot one. Hardly any units were motorised and that would prove a problem in the vast expanses of desert and the seesaw nature of the campaign.
The British were lucky when they attacked in Dec of 1940 as they had only had limited objectives. The advance was so uncontested, that they kept going until they had Benghazi and Tobruk.
Being Italian, I love to laugh at my WW2 army’s dismal performances and unwillingness to throw their lives away for someone else’s glory.
When the Italians switched sides, however, things got very bloody as civil war broke out amongst the Fascists and Communists. Many Italians proved they were not afraid of dying once they had a real cause and future in which they believed.
My dad’s dad was in Africa, Russia and later ran and hid from the Fascists in Tuscany.
Political Situation Question…
-
The Russian declaring war on Germany if attacked by Japan thing is not quite clear to me. The text can be explained in two directions.
I absolutely agree. Its not clear to me either - in fact when I first read it, I came to the opposite conclusion as the earlier posters.
When I read “May not declare war on an Axis power in Europe until turn four unless an Axis power declares war first” I read that as saying if Japan (an Axis power) declares war on Russia, then Russia is then free to declare war on any remaining Axis power (Germany or Italy) - in effect, circumventing the 4 turns rule.
I do not read it to mean a that Japanese DOW on Russia means that Russia is automatically at war with the other Axis powers. Just that Russia is free to then DOW the remaining Axis powers in Europe if it chooses.
Maybe this is incorrect - but the way this was worded in the preview definitely leaves the issue ambiguous.
-
The Russian declaring war on Germany if attacked by Japan thing is not quite clear to me. The text can be explained in two directions.
I absolutely agree. Its not clear to me either - in fact when I first read it, I came to the opposite conclusion as the earlier posters.
When I read “May not declare war on an Axis power in Europe until turn four unless an Axis power declares war first” I read that as saying if Japan (an Axis power) declares war on Russia, then Russia is then free to declare war on any remaining Axis power (Germany or Italy) - in effect, circumventing the 4 turns rule.
I do not read it to mean a that Japanese DOW on Russia means that Russia is automatically at war with the other Axis powers. Just that Russia is free to then DOW the remaining Axis powers in Europe if it chooses.
Maybe this is incorrect - but the way this was worded in the preview definitely leaves the issue ambiguous.
I think since it says “axis power in europe” it refers only to Germany and Italy
-
Calvinhobbesliker is correct.
-
Calvinhobbesliker is correct.
I have a question about invading a pro-enemy neutral. The preview says that if you fail to take it, then it acts as a pro-enemy and can be claimed by the opponent. This just means that the enemy can take over the neutral, but they only get the infantry left over after the battle, right?
If the allies take Crete in non-combat, does Greece become theirs(with the infantry)? If Portugal became pro-allies, would activating Angola(taking it in noncombat and getting its infantry) also activate Portugal and Mozambique?
-
I have a question about invading a pro-enemy neutral. The preview says that if you fail to take it, then it acts as a pro-enemy and can be claimed by the opponent. This just means that the enemy can take over the neutral, but they only get the infantry left over after the battle, right?
Correct.
If the allies take Crete in non-combat, does Greece become theirs(with the infantry)? If Portugal became pro-allies, would activating Angola(taking it in noncombat and getting its infantry) also activate Portugal and Mozambique?
No. Each neutral territory is treated independently.
-
I have a question about invading a pro-enemy neutral. The preview says that if you fail to take it, then it acts as a pro-enemy and can be claimed by the opponent. This just means that the enemy can take over the neutral, but they only get the infantry left over after the battle, right?
Correct.
If the allies take Crete in non-combat, does Greece become theirs(with the infantry)? If Portugal became pro-allies, would activating Angola(taking it in noncombat and getting its infantry) also activate Portugal and Mozambique?
No. Each neutral territory is treated independently.
I see. So Angola may as well be an independent country
-
Thanks for the clarifications Krieg. :-)
-
Krieg, can Russia take over pro-allied neurtals like in mid east before they are at war with Euro Axis? Can they invade Iraq, while not at war?
-
Krieg, can Russia take over pro-allied neurtals like in mid east before they are at war with Euro Axis? Can they invade Iraq, while not at war?
I don’t think so. A neutral power can’t move into territories that don’t belong to it.
-
Well, the rules clearly state that any neutral nation may not move any of their units into or over any territory that they do not control (including neutrals), so if Russia is not at war at all they couldn’t move into Persia.
What I’d like to know though is if they can move into Persia if they declare war on Japan. How about that one, Krieg?
-
I think they can, but that would be cheap
-
As long as the USSR is at war with someone, it can claim/invade neutral territories.
-
Clever. Thank you, Krieg.
They may simply declare war on Japan however without actually having to attack any Japanese territories, leaving the Amur/Manchuria stalemate as is and simply allowing them to occupy pro-Allied Persia and possibly attack pro-Axis Iraq (or Finland and Bulgaria if Germany is silly), correct?
I also wonder if their At War NO also applies to being at war with anyone or if that will only apply to being at war with European Axis nations. Otherwise I can see a R1 DoW against Japan being standard simply for them to get the NO and be able to move into neutral territories.
-
@SAS:
They may simply declare war on Japan however without actually having to attack any Japanese territories, leaving the Amur/Manchuria stalemate as is and simply allowing them to occupy pro-Allied Persia and possibly attack pro-Axis Iraq (or Finland and Bulgaria if Germany is silly), correct?
Yup.
@SAS:
I also wonder if their At War NO also applies to being at war with anyone or if that will only apply to being at war with European Axis nations. Otherwise I can see a R1 DoW against Japan being standard simply for them to get the NO and be able to move into neutral territories.
It only applies to European Axis powers.
-
Thanks Krieghund, Russia being able to invade neutrals (and how to do it) before its at war w/Euro axis will be a great tool.
One other thing, is Russia (when not at war w/Euro axis) able to pass through Denmark straight?
-
Yes, if Germany gives its permission.
-
-
Yes, if Germany gives its permission.
Which it won’t
Funny guys, does it have to be in writing?
-
Another political situation question for global
“Japan. At war with China. Movement of Allied forces into China is an act of war against Japan. May declare war on UK, ANZAC, USA, France, or the Soviet Union per the normal rules. Declaration of war against either the UK or ANZAC immediately results in a state of war with both. Being at war with France, the Soviet Union, or USA are all mutually exclusive meaning being at war with one of these does not affect relations with the other two. Japan may only attack Dutch territories if at war with UK and ANZAC.”
So unlike Pacific, if Japan attacks UK/ANZAC, they are still not at war with USA?
-
Another political situation question for global
“Japan. At war with China. Movement of Allied forces into China is an act of war against Japan. May declare war on UK, ANZAC, USA, France, or the Soviet Union per the normal rules. Declaration of war against either the UK or ANZAC immediately results in a state of war with both. Being at war with France, the Soviet Union, or USA are all mutually exclusive meaning being at war with one of these does not affect relations with the other two. Japan may only attack Dutch territories if at war with UK and ANZAC.”
So unlike Pacific, if Japan attacks UK/ANZAC, they are still not at war with USA?
Yes, they are.
Suggested Topics
