Question about neutrals and powers at war with each other

Appreciate all the help. Lots of great explanations and clarifications of the rules.

Here’s a thread with a few pages of people talking about this very thing, and then also a lot of blah blah blah about various house rules:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36131.0

And here, specifically, was my take on the matter:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36131.msg1425375#msg1425375

But yes, doing a “netural crush” definitely has its place in the game for both sides.

.tsgv file???  What do I need to open it?

@Young:

How did long range aircraft “save you”?, I might understand if you got heavy bombers, but you must not have been that bad off if you liked the 1 extra movement point on planes.

My window to take Moscow was originally planned to be G8-J9. My Atlantic Wall was a complete failure in this game, though, so the Luftwaffe was decimated and whatever was rebuilt was needed to hold WGer, as western Europe was getting swamped by Allied ground troops. The Soviets were earning well, so every turn was decreasing my odds.

I had to rely on a no-air 0% G7 suicide against Moscow with a J7 follow. The G7 went better than expected in number of units killed but I couldn’t hold the landing spots (and he eliminated all Japanese ground units within striking distance of Moscow) for the Japanese planes on R7. J7 I spent my only 20 IPC (Japan was getting convoy-raided into the stone age) on rolls hoping for long-range aircraft (11% chance of hitting).

Then I eliminated all the defenders in Moscow with my Japanese air while I swept out the one territory I could with my Japanese ground forces, forming a cute little spot for my one remaining German tank left on the board to take a now undefended Moscow.

Without sucking out on that 11% chance, it was time to concede.  As it is, it’s still a battle to hold the 8th VC for a turn. But the Axis have a chance now, and they didn’t before.

@RedHunter:

@soulfein:

@Zhukov44:

Why bother if I’m not serious about the Sea Lion bluff and USA can buy bombers to reinforce London anyway?

to deny uk investing early in middle east, thus giving ita a real chance to make 30+ early on, instead of getting convoyd out of the game without doing anything at all.

plus the initial naval investment (ac+trans) actually helps ger against barb, enabling ger to have a solid stack drinking in novgorod g3.

Invest with what fleet lol? UK fleet should be gone turn 1. Its not that hard to sink it. Just use fighters and fleet correctly. And if you want to annoy the UK take Scotland turn 2. But build armor for Russia. 1 tech token and 4 armor…best German 1 build I have found for Alpha 3. You are not going to be able to pull off Sealion unless the UK is stupid and even if you pull it off you bring USA into the war a turn early for which Japan is not thankful to you. You won’t normally be able to hold the UK and build enough for Russia, depending on turn 1 USA builds. If they think you are going to sealion you can bet they are going to build to counter turn 1.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If France doesn’t fall and the UK has fleet left you can pretty much call the game turn 1. It digs Germany into a huge hole they have a hard time recovering from.

sigh those transports plus ac built in g1 is not for sealion it s for reinforcing barbarossa… with that build u can stack novgorod in g3 - fastest way to make money from barb with ger.

meant uk can invest in middle east (factories + newly purchased land/naval units), ofc ger should hit uk navy in g1 that s a no brainer.

taking scotland on turn2 doesnt help barbarossa at all.

slightly off topic, usa is already in war in 2nd round max if u want to threaten a pac win, so sealion doesnt interfere with that.

if allies think ger s going for sealion and build to counter it, that s all the better for axis, since it means barbarossa will be much stronger, because allies built against sealion, not barb.

@BadSpeller:

@ThomasJefferson:

does the sun rise in the morning?

Poor answer, in some locations on this planet, that answer is no.
The sun is up for months, or the sun does not rise for months.

:-D :lol:

@rockrobinoff:

@nutbar:

I want to see a list of the countries grouped into the following categories:

Playing strategy and typeWhich coutntries should play Offensive?..…

simply put: A&A success, and the type of generalization you are looking for, do not go hand in hand. like any complex game, the better the player the less likely you are to look at any given situation through a ‘rule of thumb’ type of lens. “Russia should play defensive?” What does that even mean? Russia should play well, end of story, and what that means depends on so many different factors it is impossible to meaningfully generalize.

Well of course, but the idea is that most of the time, the Soviets are focusing less on capturing German territories, and more on preventing the capture of their own, thus being defensive play. Granted, it’s not to say “Russia should never attack someone” but generally, they’re fighting more for protecting themselves than harming Germany.

@Flashman:

If both sides are all killed in the battle, you have to improvise some sort of “pro-Axis” marker for Sweden until it is occupied.

No, you don’t, because all strict neutrals are now pro-Axis.  However, until a power claims the territory, you do need to indicate somehow that the Swedish army has been used up.  An upside down control marker works well.