Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

That I know but just try giving Stg Bombers a d8@1 and figs a d8@3 for dog fighting only.

thank you Zhukov44

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

@barney:

I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.

I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves

We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.

In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.

The NO should really be restricted to europe only, not middle east of afrika, the allies would have never helped russia get those countries ( except for the invasion of neutral Iran )

In historical context, Iran was the only Neutral country. It traded with both germany and the allies. In contrast to the US which was waging an illegal war against germany at that time.
The allies wanted iran to join them, and hand over german nationals that where living peacefully in Iran,  when iran wanted to stay neutral they invaded the country to force them to join them.

Irak was anti-UK because they where oppressed by the british since WW1.

The problem with Spread of Communism is that it technically make sense for Africa and the Middle East. Stalin wanted Europe to see USSR as a European nation. However he wanted to take an advantage any where he gets, he knew that Japan was going to be a thorn in his side which is why he invested interest in Japan true enemy, China. However as history has shown, he willingly joined UK in an invasion of Iran. So it makes sense he can get Communist bonus out of Iraq and Africa. However the African bonus is the bigger issue. I try very much in the early games to get Italy to leave its colonies and destroy there military just to get USSR to take all four of them in Africa for a total of 12 dollars plus 2 for the territory value.

The allies would have never allowed russia to invade or occupy any neutral country ( except iran but they promised to leave once Iran surendered and lend-lease materials could go through )
For the NO bonus in Irak ( which was a british colony at that time ) or afrika the allies have to make way for the russians to invade areas that they wanted themself and not invade them.
For sicily its even more silly as russia needs to get on a US or UK transport do invade those spaces. Russia should never be allowed to go on any persons transports.

If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.

And besides we all know what really happened. And that was UK who wanted to do that and that is ALSO what Germany assumed the allies were going to do. This is actually why Turkey wanted to join the allies sooner than it did but US wanted them to stay neutral as it didn’t give Axis forces in Greece an excuse to invade another nation. US wanted to go right into Southern France from Africa but the agreement was knocking out Italy right then and there.

And as for the USSR being on transport, that is something I never thought of however if I am going to do that, I’d just have the Red Army land on Rome.

@aequitas:

1 or 2 Strat.bmbrs are allways good on Pac.Theatre.
Their present def. kills the gameflow fpr the Allies.
But it is sure an Investment you have to take on Euro Axis side.

This!

I take this idea further and use my bid to add 3 artilleries to the Russian stack.

It makes it a serious offensive force and a harder defensive force to deal with.

It allows US to project more power in the Atlantic because it shows Japan down.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

retreating from the med isn’t good.  ur basically saying “here ya go dude. do whatever you want.”  the biggest thing holding italy back is the time it takes to secure the med.  pulling back speeds up the process.

let america/anzac deal w/ japan.

I usually buy 1 fighter per round and fly it over to help out the Brits in Egypt against the Italians.  That is usually really good for keeping the Italian navy in check.  The rest I usually spend on inf and art to try and defend Calcutta when the Japs get there or if Japan’s land force is not doing so well, send them up to help the Chinese pound them even further.
I also try to land at least 2 inf each on all the DEI islands so Japan has to at least fight to get them.  Depending on what the Jap Navy is doing, I sometimes buy a destroyer or two to use as blockers just to delay Japan’s invasion one extra round.  Sometimes that is all it takes.