Take Spain

[morten200]

My brother and I played a couple of games before he had to go to UK to work, and he came up with what I think is an interesting strategy:

The US "buys" Spain (drops troops into it and pays 3 IPC) and uses Spain instead of Norway to drop off troops.

Has anyone else tried this?  It seems a good strategy, since I can´t get G to build enough troops to take Karelia (where the US reinforcements aren´t) and G has to contend with a building force on the mainland not as easily refuted as an amphibian assault on WG.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

This is a good idea, but I don't know if you can drop them there the same turn.

[guest]

That is a dumb strategy, why do that when you can land in GB!

[Anonymous]

Taking Spain is a fairly standard Allied move.  The only question is timing.  Normally you don't want to go there too early...first establish the pipeline.  But often, in the mid-game, you can go to Spain with full loads and squeeze WE, which eventually causes WE to fall...and the Allies are in Europe.  Timing is everything though.

SUD

[MistaBiggs]

Agreed -- it's all a matter of timing and circumstance.  Taking Spain is an excellent idea if you don't have much attacking strength (i.e. loaded down with infantry, but no tanks or planes).  If you can place a good number of infantry into Spain ... this will force Germany to either attack Spain or heavily fortify W. Europe.  Another good reason to take Spain is to avoid the aa gun in W. Europe.

[haxorboy]

If you are in the position to throw 8 troops on the Europe mainland and want them to count, then Spain is an excellant option esp. if the UK can't hold the waters around them for a landing in Norway. And you would be surprised how much this throws the Ger. strat all to the way side if the US starts up a train of 8 troops per round landing in Spain, WE falls pretty quick and then it is just a matter of time.

[EmuGod]

If you are in the position to throw 8 troops on the Europe mainland and want them to count, then Spain is an excellant option esp. if the UK can't hold the waters around them for a landing in Norway. And you would be surprised how much this throws the Ger. strat all to the way side if the US starts up a train of 8 troops per round landing in Spain, WE falls pretty quick and then it is just a matter of time.

And if the UK cannot hold out for landings in Norway, what stops the Germans from pounding the transports used to attack Spain when the troops land into nothing and forcing the Allies to completely rebuild the transports they need to funnel troops to Europe? If the Japanese are advancing in the east, Germany can just being to build up for an invasion of Spain while the US and Britain have to rebuild those transports (losing 4 of them is quite a bit of troops lost).

[haxorboy]

The US can plant 6 INF and a ARM on US2 if they want...causing G2 turns to focus on not only sinking the tranny's but removeing those troops. In doing so would leave the UK navy that was rebuilt to be added to..you could try to attack both but the focus clearly would be on sinking those 4 US trannys. Since you gave the UK a turn to beef up, it could have a carrier and maybe BB depending upon money. US3 lands 2 fighters on that carrier, and buys 4 trannys....the tactic was a huge success even though a money loss for US as UK has a defending navy, germany was forced to turn it's attention eastward giving the USSR some help in setting up defenses on both sides and putting Germany in the hole offensive wise. And if I have errored in any math here please make corrections as needed...

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

I agree with your overall assessment of the situation...while it would still take a while for Germany to go down, after G2 there will likely be nothing but inf. in WEu, and they will have to reinforce, so Russia would soon be able to make some attacks in the against East Europe.

[kyrial]

The more fronts one can open against Germany, and the sooner one can open those fronts, the better (hence my earlier arguments in another post about the viability of threatening SEu, even if minimally). Although Germany is strong enough to deal with multiple threats, at least in the beginning, having an attack ready for WEu by T3 can change the situation on the Eastern Front, perhaps relocating even 2 fighters to the west.

Usually with US I'm busy sending troops into Africa, but this is an alternative that seems creative enough, and within a few turns the US can afford to both send troops to Africa and land in Spain simultaneously.

[El Jefe]

If I do the Spain takeover it's UK then US reinforcement including ftrs.  Germany ain't gonna beat that combination often, but if it tries then the pressure is off USSR.

The advantage to it is that you don't have to commit everything "to the death" as in an amphibious invasion.

[MistaBiggs]

If I do the Spain takeover it's UK then US reinforcement including ftrs.  Germany ain't gonna beat that combination often, but if it tries then the pressure is off USSR.

The advantage to it is that you don't have to commit everything "to the death" as in an amphibious invasion.

I agree with El Jefe.

[El Jefe]

Oh my G-D!  


 

[morten200]

All good points!  It´s weird that taking Spain isn´t discussed more often considering how many people think it´s a good strategy.

Having another front against G is great - especially when it isn´t coming from the seaway.  G ends up having to defend against three contries at the same time early on.  Bad news!

[El Jefe]

I think it has something to do with that 6 in the little circle on the WEu territory.