But when you attack the island along with the Sz not only do you threathen the USA. You also have a extra trn to sack in a possible counter when the SZ battle went poorly. The ftrs can land on the Islands now in a counter too so your AC can be sacked.

And on J2 i want to attack Australia and prevent that 2 inf from ever reaching India. (My opponent counterattacked AES on his first move)

But my China attack went poorly so those 2inf could have made a real difference in Asia. (J2 strafe Yakut or attack Mongolia) I will try to put everything in Asia another time and see how it works.

Attacking Alaska i wont do that on J1 but later. with a BB support shot you can kill the resistance and the US wont have ftrs or BB’s to do that and must commit more and lose more. (if they do have them around thats 1 less against germany)

since the population has little fear of war compared to Europe, the people would undoubtedly support such a war by a majority or at least 50/50.

i didnt read every post but this comment just makes me laugh.
Japan doesnt want to go to war. The state in their constitution that they will never attack only out of selve defense. The 100 Japanese military are there just to do reconstruction and are portected by the dutch in the region. Only This has caused an criticism. I dont know why you think Japan would gladly go into a war and double their army? Yes some politicians want to lose that law. but i dont see this happening any time soon. They may alter it to assist in peacekeepers, but joining a war i dont think so.

They can withdraw men from S-Korea, Germany, Japan but i think this is already done.
oh and if the US doesnt attack unilateral all the time it wont need this much troops.

the germans split their forces too thin in Russia i believe. I mean northern army goes to leningrad (and starves it instead of sieging) one army to moscow one army stuck in stalingrad and one in the caucasus.

This and the bad weather and circumstances prevented the blitzkrieg to continue. They should have focussed on Moscow and then rush to the caucasus.

Forget the V2 and just build planes. Don’t bomb London with little fighter cover losing too much planes. They should have copied the RAF defense when defending against the air raids which costed them so much industrial damage.

Production was one of the downfalls of germany too. Too little fuel and resources on any given time.

i agree the allies would be very hard to defeat easily. It would end up in a stalemate if germany had luck and good tactics and strategy on their side.

V2 rocket project and other of these projects were costing extreme amounts of production while germany needed every plane to protect their factories and tanks.
Winter clothing and other adaptions to russia’s extreme weather.(whole armies froze to death). They crushed the russians in the first year but were halted by the weather and other conditions which made progression really slow and favored defense.
Japanese attack on Russia
and better strategy concerning Leningrad, stalingrad and Kursk.
Oh and dont go to war against three superpowers at the same time.

but thats a lot of: wel if they did this then they could have……

The allies made some stupid moves too its part of warfare. But lets say if germany did all things the right way. Russia would move its factories and still fight on and invasion of britain and USA were out of scope yet.

But if germany managed to stabilize the russian front after taking much of russia. They could switch to divert attention to Africa and fight for control of sea and air. Though neither side would fully get this (germany vs Brittain/USA) to have an oppurtunity to launch a succesful invasion.

So fortress Europe. Everyone says resistance would prove a problem but i doubt this. The nazi’s didnt have reserves killing anyone which only vaguely came in their way. They would cleanse entire russian territories and would act in a similar destructive way wherever resistance would spring up. They now have resources and time diverted from the russian front mind you.

Look at North Korea, once propaganda and force sink in at young age and you blame all bad things to a common enemy you get a reasonable stable situation. You see germany never showed its full capacity. The hitler children were still young. Give this 20 years more and you would have generations of fanatical nazi’s each having 8 to 10 children (which was the fascist ideal, enough new soldiers in case of boys to keep fighting and dying and enough breeding machines and housewives in case of girls)

So a war could then drag on and on. But the americans would finally win when they make their nukes. (would need a lot but they were a huge leap ahead of competition here if used fast and in masse)

And eventually these totalitarion regimes start to crumble anyway.

so there wasnt a real chance of victory once they started waging war with USA russia and britain. And even if they had stabilised the situation they wouldnt get their 1000 year reich.

i too like the more “think about your own power and country instead of becoming a mindless slave for the greater good” funnier. Its less effective but makes it more “real”

oh if the trn in suez survives you can ferry 2inf from Australia to India.

The weak point of your tactic is that i cant see how you can hold an fortify India, retake Africa, Threathen Europe and help out Russia all at once.

if the germans have a mediteranean fleet in place any attempt to retake africa from India wont get you far. Italy isnt threathened either.

so either you try to sink the nazi fleet at high ftr cost which you desperately need for defence and flexibility or you move with your fleet in which case i would gladly sack the german fleet with yours at a much higher cost for the brits because i can use my full airforce.

ok german turn ferry 2inf to libya. build 1 or 2 trns. then on german 2nd turn i can attack Egypt with 7inf arm and airforce.

Im not saying tactic is bad, an agressive approach helps. But i think its too much for the brits and you spread yourself too thin. I would focus more on India. You can still annoy the germans by landings in algerya though, forcing them to set up defences in order to stop you from blitzing back africa.

But if the west US fleet retreats to panama and he builds in East US new fleet how will you stop that its a bit of a waste to start chasing them around.

I will attack pearl cause in usually play germany and am traumatised by the damned shuck shuck. with that entire fleet alive allies will not need to build any fleet extra and just start pumping men into africa karelia and attack western Europe very fast (US 2/3). While the Jap fleet can get some BB shots and protect the Japanes transports which dont need THAT much Defence. (6 trannies are and an AC w ftrs and mainland holdings preventing ftrs to attack because of range)

No its my opposite too. I think a democracy with a social safetynet would probably be the best.

I just meant that its possible for an non-utopian regime to make its citizens believe its an utopia and that all bad things (which makes life far from utopic) isnt there fault, but from some outward enemy.

But it doesnt really depend on the system moreso the ppl. If they change into utopian like human beings most of these systems would work and the opressive ones wouldnt occur.

If the humans would not change none of these systems would be really an utopia as we all know from real life experiments. The system thats fairest but resilient to parasites and dictators should then be chosen.

I mean communism is a great idea with good intentions. two problems, it never made it past the, all powerfull party who needs to start revolution and change the world and then give up all its power to the people (yeah that really happened) and if everyone gets the same, ambition and self initiative is down the drain while lazyness and other bad traits are encouraged. I find it just funny that some humans can corrupt even the best intentions.

Like with all those ppl saying religion is evil. It isnt. Its clearly with best intentions and tries to stimulate people into good humans beings. I mean, thou shallt not kill and you think its your holy duty to slaughter entire villages, man, woman, child to even the dogs? (some crusader hardline order called the slaughters or something)

Mutha Russia is right so far in that fascism and other repressive regimes could give their populace the feeling it is an utopia and that all bad things comes from enemies outward. Anyone disagreeing would just “disappear”

the book 1984 gives a bit of an explanation.
Propaganda, keeping the people dumb and creating a common enemy who is to blame for all the bad things would be a stabile regime no matter who evil. If those indoctrinated hitlerjugend ever would grow up in the reich and gain power they wouldnt think wrongly of fascism.

I’m not supporting the nazi’s or anything i’m just saying that it is easy to corrupt and distort people into believing and rooting for a wrong regime. One of the reasons i believe we have to be extra alert and not afraid to use force when confronted with such a thing, instead of thinking, well the people of those country will surely rebel in a matter of time no need to do anything.

well if we would say which government typr would have the best chance to lead to utopia i huess it would be a democratic socialism.

There are always two questions you need to ask

1:is this system safe from parasites? (with communism and socialism you have to worry about this)
2:is this system safe from dictators or other ruthless power hungry people?

as humans are imperfect there can be no utopia, but the democracy with a social safety net is probably one of the better.

A enlightent supreme ruler would be good too (as in most fairy tales with the good king, arthur and his knights etc.) but as soon as his son turn out to be hitler you go wrong. so it isnt save from scenario 2