If Japan attacks Russia J1, can Russia attack Pro-Axis Neutrals?

You might be able to fly some US fighters to India via sub-Sahara Africa to India. If Japan cannot get India until J5, they may get there in time to save India.

Also, on turn 2 maybe the French fighter can start flying to Moscow from Scotland, than maybe get to India in time to help defend it. Or have it fly on turn 1 to sub-Sahara Africa route.

This is not a winning solution but it might buy some time.

thanks again

I think not, because a G1 attack is pretty much (read: basically always) a bad idea.

Whatever you manage to put into those first border territories will die immediately, Germany is making less money (no peace NO), Russia is making more money, Russia can go into the Middle East, and UK has no Sealion threat at all, and can plow into Italy and France starting round 1.

You’re right in that a G2 attack is a much better idea.

Let Japan die and go for the Europe Win.

I don’t have the patience of IL , so i won’t engage in an endless arguing contest with you.

No, IL doesn’t have patience. In fact, he believes to know everything so he loved to arguing.  :mrgreen:
Mantlefan got his point of view and you got yours but i’m not suprised you won’t engage because you’re not
able to reply when some one send you a message!

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

Airbases should just be able to scramble to adjacent Seazones, thereby eliminating the island rule mumbo jumbo while allowing the UK to have SOME control of the English Channel.

AGREED!

@Final:

I usually do this in conjunction with Italy/Germany fleet coming from Gibraltar that feigns a sea lion.  Forces the allies to just sit on their capital while denying their NO’s. Then the Axis fleet can move into the pacific to Hawaii to attack ANZAC. Such a strategy usually gears the Axis up for cheesy Pacific win unless the U.S. player completely reads the Axis intent from round one.

Definately seems like you got to catch the allies off guard.

Gotta turtle HK and Shanghai.