Attacking neutral when by power not a war

If I understand your question, you would like to have distinct replies to each point somebody made in a statement.  Since everything in between the [qu0te][/qu0te] tags is going to show up in a box, if you want something like this-

[qu0te]My comment #1[/qu0te]
Your answer #1

[qu0te]My comment #2[/qu0te]
Your answer #2

-what I end up doing is copying the entire comment block, and pasting it into my reply once for each individual point I am going to reply to.  Then I just delete out the extraneous bits from each section.  This seems faster to me than going in and adding the extra [qu0te][/qu0te] tags in the original text to make room for your comments.

Nine transports is a huge waste of IPC in the russian theatre, if you going to attack russia i would rather just split the IPC between Tanks and Mech. Infantry. The only reason I would ever do this, would be too for-stall russia and ready troops and next turn come back and the fallowing turn drop on England with favorable odds based on the units one would buy in those turns. This also only applies to a Global game of Axis an Allies…

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

In the original game, it was thought (by players I spoke with and myself anyway) that a carrier unit represented a carrier, a couple escort carriers, a few destroyers and a cruiser or two.  A battleship represented the same, but with the battleship replacing the carrier in the line up.  Submarines represented 3 submarines and transports represented 3 troop-ships.  or whatever.  Infantry represented mechanized units (Jeeps, Halftracks) and Artillery.

After years and years of play, with the board growing more and more complex and with the prices of things changing with the addition of other things, my assumptions at least, have changed.

Carrier = Carrier, 2 Escort Carriers
Battleship = Battleship
Destroyer = 3 Destroyers
Submarine = 5 Submarines
Cruiser = 2 Cruisers

Infantry = 1 Battalion or Company
Artillery = 1 Artillery Company
Mechanized = Crap on the field (jeeps, Halftracks, Meat Wagons, whatever the trash is the Infantry is using that they might be able to strap a gun too.)

Fighter - Fighter Squadron down from Fighter Wing
Tactical Bomber - Some unknown fighter type, in squadron form
Bomber - Bomber Wing

As for the Carrier having no defense, I still claim they should have AA ability on Round 1, before combat starts.  Give them no defense or attack value otherwise is fine with me.

Krieg’s response to this question on BBG agreed with Wild Bill. (See link below.)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/570516/tanks

@reloader-1:

Imp Games EAST & WEST is the best game for this type of conflict.

How is that game reloader I was thinking of ordering it.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

I’m guessing that most of us are guessing about most of the rules about this game since it hasn’t come out yet and all Larry said that I know about ends in “Get my drift?”, but other than that, you’re right. :roll:  It only seems logical, but I’m not claiming that my logic will be followed.  If you have a better idea, be my guest to share it; or if you want an “official” answer, try Larry’s own board (Flashman provided the link) or just wait for the game to come out, since most of the stuff on Larry’s board seems to be speculation as well. :-P

Okay, your guess is a good as mine, in fact it’s better cause I didn’t even hazard a guess. I guess we will all find out soon enough.

@WILD:

This came from Larry in a Q&A Feb 4th, I thought that’s what this topic started with.

[Q1]: What is the ‘pro-axis’ and ‘pro-ally’ mechanic for neutrals and how does it work?
Let me say this… rules related to Pro this or pro that will be consistent with AAP40. However, neutrals will play a MUCH greater role in Europe than Pacific.

[Q3]: Will there be any nation-specific ‘boosts’ in Europe (like Kamikazes are for the Japanese in Pacific '40)? No. I did not see the need.
I probably should point out that when a power enters a friendly neutral during a NCM the neutrals standing army converts and the actual units are placed on the board. This can make for some interesting developments in Greece and Finland as just two examples.

The true neutrals being linked together (or some of them) and all going pro the other side if one is attacked was mentioned by Larry very early on, but he didn’t confirm it to be the case for sure. I think they were still working it out back then. He hasn’t said anything more about true neutrals as far as I know

I still don’t like the idea of simply moving in and gaining allegiance.

It seems to me WOTC didn’t take into account a free India, a possible repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution in WW1 or NAFTA.  Why are you just limited to having the same countries throughout the game?  Where’s the army for the Vatican?  Why is Somalia worth 1 IPC as opposed to being a unique “-3” territory?  Such a waste of $100, where do I get my refund?