Attacking through a neutral powers sea zone

Of course it can. It makes no difference that originally it was a neutral territory. Its current status is a territory of the United States and therefore, with an IPC value of two,it can be a location where a minor industrial complex can be placed.

@marshmallowofwar thanks to both you and @AndrewAAGamer for clarifying. Thought I had a sneaky way to slow him down, but will have to give it some more thought!

Germany will have nothing to worry about since all those ships don’t land and the expensive planes will be dying to fight infantry and tanks.

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

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

Larry Harris has confirmed that there should be around 20 units defending Russia’s eastern front.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

I’m guessing that most of us are guessing about most of the rules about this game since it hasn’t come out yet and all Larry said that I know about ends in “Get my drift?”, but other than that, you’re right. :roll:  It only seems logical, but I’m not claiming that my logic will be followed.  If you have a better idea, be my guest to share it; or if you want an “official” answer, try Larry’s own board (Flashman provided the link) or just wait for the game to come out, since most of the stuff on Larry’s board seems to be speculation as well. :-P

Okay, your guess is a good as mine, in fact it’s better cause I didn’t even hazard a guess. I guess we will all find out soon enough.

@WILD:

This came from Larry in a Q&A Feb 4th, I thought that’s what this topic started with.

[Q1]: What is the ‘pro-axis’ and ‘pro-ally’ mechanic for neutrals and how does it work?
Let me say this… rules related to Pro this or pro that will be consistent with AAP40. However, neutrals will play a MUCH greater role in Europe than Pacific.

[Q3]: Will there be any nation-specific ‘boosts’ in Europe (like Kamikazes are for the Japanese in Pacific '40)? No. I did not see the need.
I probably should point out that when a power enters a friendly neutral during a NCM the neutrals standing army converts and the actual units are placed on the board. This can make for some interesting developments in Greece and Finland as just two examples.

The true neutrals being linked together (or some of them) and all going pro the other side if one is attacked was mentioned by Larry very early on, but he didn’t confirm it to be the case for sure. I think they were still working it out back then. He hasn’t said anything more about true neutrals as far as I know

I still don’t like the idea of simply moving in and gaining allegiance.

It’s the French connection 8-)