Posts made by Chris_Henry

@vondox I think the biggest takeaway is that there isn’t a whole lot that the UK can do to help France.

As is pointed out, the UK and France are technically not considered on the same side until they are at war/wartime income. So no, they can’t lend-lease to each other before that point, and can’t move units into each others’ land either.

The only way to help France would be if both reach wartime income and assuming Germany as attacked another nation to that point, which they should have done by then haha.

To me, if it gets to the point where the UK is reinforcing France, Germany has done a bad job opening the game. France should be dealt with before they reach their wartime economy to stop this very thing from happening (plus, the longer you wait, the more France can strengthen itself against an attack).

@bretters Oh true! Sorry, wasn’t thinking about that part of it!

@bretters Very true. I just meant if like maybe the Soviets had already attacked Finland or something, and lost too many troops and were now worried about the Germans. Something like that. But yeah, I think there’s a lot of instances where attacking a neutral Romania early on can make a ton of sense!

@bretters Totally agree! It’s something I would need to debate in game if I want to risk however many troops it might take to defeat Romania. But just as you said though, taking it at the very least robs Germany of those units to do with as he pleases, and it does give a small economic boon for a while there!

@bretters That surprises me a bit! I think when I first got the game I would have balked at making that move. But the more we’ve played, and I’ve read strategies on the boards here, I think it’s a very viable option. Maybe not necessarily a guarantee you have to do it every game in order to do well, but I think it’s one that should totally be on the table by anyone playing them!

@vondox I’d agree with @bretters first and foremost, than one of Italy’s VP’s is not so easily achieved, for the reasons he stated. Yes, it’s possible to achieve it while neutral, but probably unlikely.

To historical realism, while I get your point, also realize the starting point of 1936. There was no guarantees at the time that Italy would join a future war. Italy wasn’t thrilled about fighting France and England, and were in fact on some what friendly terms to that point. England and France also were trying very hard to ensure Italian neutrality. So if we go off of the time frame, it’s not so unrealistic that Italy would stay neutral.

But I do get the point that it can make Italy boring. That’s somewhat a given if they stay neutral for sure. It’s probably hard to house rule something like that. I wouldn’t necessarily say it would “break the game”, but I think they designed it this way for a reason. I think in a perfect world it would be fun to have to “guarantee” Italian entry into the war, but that’s just not the case here!

I think your idea of penalizing the Allies is as close as you might get to finding a house rule that might work, though I think you need to make it a steep penalty. -10 IPP is what they suffer for attacking minor power neutrals. Attacking Italy would have to hurt more than that. You’d have to make it where the Allies are really desperate to want to do the thing that they are willing to pay the steep cost of doing so.

@bretters said in Is it best for Italy to stay Neutral?:

@chris_henry lol I totally agree with you and I fee you summed up why I feel Italy should stay neutral but while staying neutral keep the threat alive even if the threat is small!

Haha for sure! After the last few messages, we might be more in line than we thought. I think my biggest issue is Italy trading away all their money and so not making themselves stronger. That’s where I think the Allies can then redistribute resources to other theaters and it might hurt the Axis more. But if Italy is spending on itself, even if staying neutral, that still forces the Allies to have to respond. They might not have to respond quite as powerfully, but any resources to be used elsewhere is a lot smaller at that point!

@bretters Oh got it, just curious!

Sounds like the Balkans are a hot spot right now!

@vondox I don’t think there’s anything to fix really, or that there’s an issue. I think it’s just the way the game is set up, and from there it’s just a matter of deciding what the best strategy is for you moving forward within the parameters of the game!

I will say though, GW1936 is not A&AG40. I think an argument can be made that Italy has a much larger chance of running wild in A&A than they do in GW. They just don’t have the power to do that in GW, nor the means via bonuses or anything else to reach that point!

Trying to go toe-to-toe with the UK in Africa seems like a large mistake to me. I think the best Italian use is projection of power, and not really power in practice. Once you give up that projection by actual conflict, the jig is largely up, as Italy will have a hard time replacing losses quickly enough to stave off the Allies!

@bretters Hitting Romania in that way is definitely something I was wanting to do as well! I know it’s not an uncommon thing to do, but I think it still catches the Axis a bit off guard when it’s done haha.

@bretters

If a 1 or 2 isn’t rolled for LAW (these rolls only happen once a year btw) no action is happening , expansion or not lol.

Haha while very true, to me it’s better than no possibilities of anything happening!

@chris_henry yea you gotta get a chance to play as every nation for sure!

I really have been wanting to play them! The general consensus from these boards have been to have your weakest/slowest learning player play as the Comintern for a while until they are comfortable. So that’s what we’ve been doing haha. We typically play with my dad and my brother and myself. So my brother and I have basically flipped between being the Axis or the Allies, and have left our dad to be the Comintern until he gets it down a bit better. But I just think it would be a lot of fun to be the Comintern and try some things!

@bretters Haha fair enough! I just like to have something happen down there rather than nothing!

I actually have yet to be the Comintern in any of our games, but I would love to try some of these things with them when I get the chance!

@bretters Yeah, there’s definitely different wants from different players for these!

I like Latin America because basically nothing will ever happen there otherwise. It’s certainly a sideshow, but I think one that adds flavor somewhere where there wouldn’t be an otherwise. Gives the Comintern some possibilities their too.

China at War I like so that the CCP has more fun too.

Netherlands I like for what I said above, I enjoy getting another smaller playable power in there!

Canada you make a good point on the added units. I’ve contemplated house ruling some of that a bit. But same as the Netherlands, I just like having the playable Commonwealth nation on the board!

Partisans definitely adds time, but so does every expansion if you use it! That was to my earlier point too. The game already takes forever to play, may as well add some more spice haha.

I like the Winter War because it lets the Allies get involved a bit as well. I like to see things where all three alliances can try and influence the play in the area. But I tend to not use the aerosani unit, just seems extra for no reason to me as well.

SCW I like because from what I’ve seen from others, the OOB vastly favors the Axis, but the Expansion vastly favors the Comintern. I haven’t played Admiral just yet, but it sounds like it helps to balance out the two. But kind of like the Winter War, I just like that the Allies can get involved to influence if they so chose!

Afrika Korps is really basic. To me it’s just a fun boost to get some Germany units in Africa when I think without it you wouldn’t see it a ton.

I like Manchukuo since it allows the CCP to potentially do more. I like that Mongolia can get involved too. But I don’t tend to use the patrol boat unit.

I liked Croatia because it divvy’s Yugoslavia into more territories in the game. This expansion also came out before Partisans expansion did, so I was really intrigued by the partisan units in that expansion at the time too haha.

I’m actually only so-so on the Diplomacy expansion personally. True, it adds possibilities for all the neutral powers to be influenced. But for me, I like what some other expansions do for more of these. I like the Latin America Expansion rules more than I like the Diplomacy rules for that area. I like the Turkey at War Expansion more than the Diplomacy ones too. That just leaves the European countries and Siam. Siam, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary are all going Axis anyways. And from there I just think the Axis might prefer to take Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece whenever they can as opposed to trying to influence them. To me, this one adds a lot of time to do when you already know the outcome of a lot of them later on. But that might just be my thoughts.

All reasons why I actually tend to like the Expansion concept though! Everyone can make their games unique to their personal desires!

@bretters Well that’s a whole different scenario altogether than what was being said before! So the plan isn’t to stay Neutral and send all money to Germany then?

It sounds like what you’re describing in your game aligns more closely to my thinking than before. If Italy is spending it’s own money on itself, even though Neutral, then that forces the Allies to have to stay prepared.

Sounds like the USA made a grave mistake with their transports!

Also, did you mean to say your goal is to hold Albania and Cyprus, instead of Abyssinia? You mentioned you abandoned Africa, so I’m assuming you meant Albania. Just curious what your plan was/is if you did mean Abyssinia though!

@bretters To me, anything meaningful means tying up Allied resources to help the Germans. This doesn’t necessarily mean declaring war right away. But picking a spot and tying up resources is helpful, in my opinion. If I’m the Allies and see all Italy IPP going to Germany, I know there’s now zero threat from Italy (who don’t even have a transport anyways). I can focus my units and money elsewhere now. To me, that is more detrimental to the Axis cause than trying to ensure Allied resources stay in the Med!

But yeah, sounds like we won’t convince each other haha.

@bretters Can opening was meant specifically for anything to be done in Yugoslavia, Greece, or maybe even France. Certainly not any further than that, like to the USSR or anything. My point on Yugo and Greece is just what you said. Yes, they can remain Neutral if Germany doesn’t touch them. My point was merely on potential IPP’s for the Axis that they won’t have, which furthers the IPP swing advantage even more towards the Allies, in my opinion, on top of the other parts I laid out. Same with my point on convoy lines. I’m very aware it’s easy to protect. But the point was that they don’t have to spend any resources of any kind protecting now, let alone risk losing any IPP from raid attempts. With Italy Neutral this threat is literally 0%. Resources spent on convoy protection can now be spent elsewhere instead!

Just to be clear, I have no thoughts of Italy being some powerhouse. Quite the opposite in fact. We seem to be in agreement there. But a Neutral Italy doesn’t hold much Allied resources in the Med, making a lot more available in other active parts on the map!

To me, a non-Neutral Italy, who focuses on a defensive effort to tie up Allied resources in a smart, efficient way is more beneficial than letting the Allies focus everything elsewhere. To you, it seems a Neutral Italy is best and you just deal with extra Allied resources elsewhere as they come and worry about that then. I certainly get why you might want to try that route, I really do! I just think we’re on different pages on what is ultimately helpful to the Axis cause!

Like I said in the other thread, we may just have to agree to disagree on what makes the most sense! haha

@bretters I think you greatly misunderstand me haha. I in no way, shape, or form think that Italy can do all these things. In fact, I was merely just commenting on the scenario you laid out where you said Italy took over a ton of Africa! That should never happen, so my comment was based on what you said happened in your game!

My main point is that this frees up a lot of money for the Allies to be used elsewhere, more than the 10 IPP Germany might get from Italian lend-lease. And I think that would be detrimental to the Axis in the end. That’s my thoughts.

Seems to me you don’t think the Allies gain an advantage with that, while I do think it is an advantage. If we disagree fundamentally on that, then we might have to just agree to disagree! haha

@bretters I feel bad we’re having basically the same discussion in two threads haha.

I definitely get Germany gets Italy’s 10 IPP without having to protect them, that is certainly a positive. And it’s certainly a positive that they wouldn’t have to worry about bailing Italy out. But from the Allied perspective, their Med convoy line now basically can’t be touched for convoy raiding, so that’s basically money gained. No territory can be lost, that’s money gained. No wartime bonuses can be lost, that’s money gained. Plus, I think the Allies can recover more than 10 IPP a turn of expenditures that would have gone to the area otherwise to be used elsewhere.

To your point on leaving Africa too lightly defended, I guess I’m obviously assuming a competent defense of the area too haha! Just build defenses in North Africa for 2-3 turns, and some miltia/infantry in Trans-Jordan, Gibraltar, with maybe a couple spare ships in the right places. The Italians will have to attack/amphibiously assault defending/maybe even fortified areas. Italy only starts the game with 15 ground/air units that can make offensive attacks somewhere. If Italy trades their money away every turn, that won’t be made any stronger! It won’t take much of a defensive effort to block whatever these 15 units might accomplish, and that would also mean only 4 Italian militia left to defend the entire home country in the event they did try something!

Just since I’m curious, what makes you think the Allies won’t be able to put “added income” in other theaters to good enough use to overcome Germany’s added income? Or, alternatively, why you think the Allies won’t have that “added income” available?

@bretters Got it, sorry! I was definitely misreading your thoughts before haha!

But yeah, seems we have different thoughts on the overall strategy on this as it pertains to the other members of the Axis alliance haha!

My thought is this, which I know I’m belaboring: If Italy trades all 10 IPP to Germany/Japan every turn, they are also not making themselves any stronger. I guess to me, that means the Allies can divert almost all money to other theaters and not have to worry about the Med remotely as much. I just think the extra money here might hurt the Axis in the long run. This seems to be a bigger difference of opinion here, but I have a hard time believing the Allies won’t be able to divert resources elsewhere that they normally would have used in the Med, especially if they see Italy Lend-Leasing all 10 IPP away every turn! The Italians will have to attack defending units if they ever chose too. Just build militia/infantry in some places, with a few more ships if worried about it. But it won’t take more than 2 maybe 3 turns of shoring up defenses before you might even be able to stop using IPP there entirely.

Plus, Italy’s units are now not being used to hurt the Allies directly. Also, and I guess this depends on how the Axis players typically play in different games, the Germans are going to have to be responsible for taking more minor nations alone when they may have had can opener affects from Italy before. I’m thinking of Yugoslavia and Greece specifically here I suppose. Now Germany will have to divert enough resources and lose men taking those nations alone, without any prospect of support from Italy, and thus losing more men that might be needed elsewhere! Not only that, but the Allies will still have a way into Europe via Greece/Yugoslavia that Germany will now have to defend alone, or the alternative is Germany not taking those minor nations and thus not having income from them.

I guess to me, Germany is gaining 10 IPP a turn in Italian Lend-Lease, and won’t need to worry about propping Italy up. But the Allies are going to gain more than 10 IPP in resources to combat this German influx. No Allied territory in the Med will be taken, and no wartime bonuses threatened to alter Allied income at all, not to mention the Med convoy line being impervious to Axis raid attempts.

@bretters I meant Italy staying Neutral hurts more in the long run!