A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.
Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.
Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.
Hi PainState,
From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.
There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â
Building mIC's in both Egypt and Persia?
-
If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
In order to make it work: (1) the USA must spend heavily in the Atlantic on rounds 1 and 2 (like 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, and transports for USA r1, and additional transports and subs for round 2); AND (2) UK’s r1 purchase must be heavy on sealion defense (e.g., 6 infantry, 1 fighter for UK)
Axis players may one of several ways:
(1) Pursue a costly Sealion against a fortified UK, in order to neutralize the factory;
(2) Attempt to take the factory without Sealion (this will require that the Axis avoid USA involvement in the war for the first three rounds, since the US’s presence in the atlantic would make controlling the med difficult to impossible. Japan’s hands are tied as well, since it can’t DOW against UK/Anzac without getting USA involved.
(3) Simply ignore the factory, forget Africa, and just focus on Russia.
All of these outcomes seem strategically advantageous for the allies :)
-
If I get a bid of 12 or more for allies, i definitely think an IC in Egypt is worthwhile.
I think bids are far outside the scope of this specific conversation, but since you mentioned it, I think that the way you use bids by adding extra units to the initial set up, ruin the game balance in earnest and are both moot and lame. At the same time. In a slightly derogatory way. Now if you play against real men, they will probably offer the US NO bid, which gives US extra NO money, distributed each and every turn. This money will not come to effect before Turn 3 or 4, so they will not ruin the first Turn set up balance. IMHO anyway, not alway but sure in Norway.
And in this case, the Persian factory is more worthwhile
Suggested Topics
