Can a non-belligerent attack a neutral-axis?

@Soviet-Steamroller I’ve always found the Stalingrad strategy to be a difficult one, as it’s just too far from Germany’s industrial base. Couple that with the fact that the Soviets can reach both Ukraine and Stalingrad in one turn with mechs and tanks, and it seems like Germany just runs out of steam. They’re not able to effectively crush the Soviets before the US is knocking on their door. If Italy assists, that gives it a much better chance of success, but my Italian strategy is usually focused on Africa and the Middle East.

By contrast, Leningrad is much closer to Germany’s power base, and with transports in the Baltic, it’s generally a simple matter to capture and hold it, using it as an industrial base for the assault on Moscow. Because it takes the Soviets two turns minimum to reach it, it is nearly impossible for them to mount a counter-attack and take it back. Furthermore, the air base allows Germany to keep their air force in play to defend the homeland, while still menacing the majority of Soviet territory.

I also like to wait until G2 to declare war against the Soviets, just to keep Britain guessing. I can see why you’d go with a G1 attack on the Soviets, though, since as you say, it definitely puts them back on their heels. For my tastes, I just find it allows Britain much more freedom and clarity. Without any pressure against Britain’s capital, they can usually build enough navy/air force to make your life miserable.

Again, just my two cents.

I generally favor a G2 attack as there are very little Russian units on the board, the more rounds you wait to attack the more infantry they can stack in Moscow, Ideally on a G2 attack you can be attacking Moscow or on the brink of attacking when the allies threaten to land. The longer you wait to attack the longer you will have to fight a 2 front war.

If you haven’t found it yet, go to HistoricalBoardGaming.com (sponsor of AAA.org!).

They have copies.

yea its pro-allies my bad.

When I play test, I set up the board and try to find counters to an idea as I work though the turns, so no opponent. Obviously, that will not mean the idea works until I try it live. Its just to test the concept. If the concept is sound, I use it in a live face to face game and see how the other guy(s) respond.

This first game I focused on the subs for blockading. That part does not seem reasonable at this point. Its still interesting that it delayed the US transports and gave Germany a nice income, but I don’t think the axis will pull a win out of the bag. By the way, when I meant to blockade I would leave the surface fleet back in the face of a large air force and wait for additional subs, you could then counter attack a DD build with air and sea, taking the air units off so that the carriers can stay back. Even convoy raiding for 22 IPCs would be nice.

Next test, I want to build a G2 transport wave as well, this will force UK to keep with Infantry making Italy’s job easier, and give me the resources to secure S. America while the US is neutral, with enough, I hope to divert 3 towards West Africa again, as having the German land unit in Egypt is a nice thought. I realize UK is the same amount of IPCs as S. America, but I’m testing the concept of taking an area out of America’s way plus they have multiple factory sites if it seems possible to use them.

There are some early risks I discovered. The G2 move to Gibraltar in the first game put the German Fleet of CV,BB,CA,2FTR in range of a UK CA,3 FTR and TAC…a bold player might take that shot. I also had UK do a weak attack [CV+FTR+CA] on the Italian fleet, it worked [damaged CV with a CA] while leaving the Tac for London.

Turkey was a tight fight G3, as I only had 5 inf, 3 arm, 1 tac, 1 bomber in range…I ended with 1 inf, 3 arm and the 2 air. Losing 2 units in Greece could have made it 4 inf for the assault. Turkey missed a lot, I could see losing armor in the future as an outcome.

Other concerns are if Russia stages north and drives on Norway, Germany’s income would plummet. With many transports, I hope to discourage that option.

I had UK protect Quebec, but I’m curious about how many players would suspect a G3 three transports full landing on Quebec? The potential to send planes staged in Gibraltar to sz 101 has merit as building carriers in 106[Quebec] would allow them to land and enable a weak looking axis force to “surprise” the US navy round 4. The transports can then hit Venezuela, West Indies and/or Central America turn 4. [This may prove to be a great move for a failed Sea Lion as sinking a US fleet would delay the US a round or more.]

The South American concept seems crazy since the US can just build large amounts of land forces. However, the US must choose fleet or land, and typically will go fleet, meaning there is “some” time for early gains and possible factories. I’m trying to limit the investment to two German productions as I want turn 3 and 4 builds to prevent Russia from getting their foot in the door.

If you build a factory in Cairo as UK, its great!!  If you can get away with it, which is hard.  The best way to do this is to save your transport, not worry about Greece, combine your fleet, bring up some reinforcements from south Africa, and land as many allied aircraft there as you can by turn 3 or 4.  If you throw down a factory there by turn 3 or 4, then you have Africa and a sizable fleet to help protect India one the good ole USA puts the vice on Italy.

Numbers of inf
Chile:2
Argentina: 4
Brazil: 3
Venezuela:2
Spain: 6
Portugal: 2
Switzerland: 2
Sweden: 6
Finland: 4
Yugoslavia: 5
Greece: 4
Bulgaria: 4
Turkey: 8
Iraq: 3
Persia: 2
Saudi Arabia: 2
Afghanistan: 4
Angola: 2
Mozambique: 2