G1 Attack on Russia?

From many games of trying both J1 and J2, I have found that the former is more advantageous if you have average luck.  The latter is a better choice if you are worried about getting diced by a stubborn UK battleship that never misses while your blind Japanese pilots circle around hopelessly.  J3 just plain stinks and is usually a sign of a novice Axis player.

As for Russia, there’s not much you can do against a good player.  Don’t spread yourself thin and don’t let your forces get divided and conquered.  For the most part buy inf plus art as needed.  In order to maximize Russia’s income (and especially if your opponent declares on G2), think about trying to capture as many +3 NOs (Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia, and there’s 2 more in Africa) as possible.  To achieve this, it’s a good idea to buy some additional mech/tanks on Russia 1 and take NW Persia on R2, Iraq on R3, and so on.

The only scenario where I would consider attacking neutrals is if I had a big army (either Axis or Allies) that needs to go through Turkey and isn’t mobile enough to go around Turkey.  I’ve never actually seen that scenario though.

In general the downside to attacking neutrals is way more significant than any perceived upside.  It’s hard to justify a move that is going to gift 15+ infantry to your opponent.

I like the airbase + transports in sz100 idea, can’t wait to see your game going.

My two cents says - if Germany attacks G1, then builds armor repeatedly, they’ll see a shortage of infantry soon enough. Their entire western flank, as said by others, will be eroded quickly. Killing tanks with infantry/artillery and a couple planes will be a nice laugh.

Don’t forget the power of the strafe to whittle down your opponent’s fodder, then fall back into reinforced positions.

As far as infantry vs. aircraft, oh yes. Most of my early games saw me buy an aircraft for the first three rounds - I like 4 fighters/2 tacs with Russia - but I’ve abandoned that over my past 3-4 games in favor of the all meat and potatoes purchase… land units only. After all, this isn’t a trade war we’re interested in, but a game of taking and holding key positions. The days of trade wars are over, imo. They were left behind in Anniversary. Aircraft can’t take a piece of land… all it can do is kill and retreat. I now prefer to set up overlapping defensive structures with a slowly growing mobile reserve, to be able to threaten multiple places.

Russia has to learn that they don’t have to fight for every IPC. Some are ok to let go. A trade war will result in a gradual erosion of Russian land units, and death.

We haven’t tried this in global but my dad tried it in Europe. It worked really well against russia but the lack of pressure on Britain let them take all of Italy’s land in Africa. After that I build a minor in Egypt and started send tanks to Russia who had fallen back to Moscow and Stalingrad 3 turn after Britain sent tanks there was British armor in Moscow after that the German lost there hope of wining.

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

@kcdzim:

The rest of your analysis may be true, but the bolded assumption is false.  Control of Morocco does not influence movement into or out of the Med.  Only Gibraltar has that value (similar to control of Denmark to the Danish Straits).  Unless Germany can take Gib (not Morocco), Britain remains able to move back out to SZ 91.

Really? I thought they had to hold control both. Well I suppose with two transports and a bomber in range Germany might be able to take Gibraltar but it seems unlikely.