Neutral Invasion

@Black_Elk:

Again, it’s not the be-all end-all by any stretch, granted. But still the option for a base in 87 is better than no option. Or that was my thinking when I called it a potential game changer.
:-D

Absolutely, and I agree -
I know the game would be improved and not diminished in any way if Sierra Leone were made to be a British territory at game start

@SJS063:

Why not build a naval base in Greenland  then? get some men into uk fast in case of sealion, especially if a J1 happens?

I assume you mean if a J1 DOW happens, but in that case the US isn’t restricted to staying at East US, and I’d argue that stationing at East Canada makes a ton more sense than Greenland.

@Frank:

I am starting to think there is not a convential road to victory for the Axis in Global Alpha +2 like in say Spring 1942.  That game was all about killing Russia.  While killing Russia is certianly nice and mostly still neccesary in Alpha +2 it in and of itself will not win you the game. If France is liberated in the meantime or Italy is defeated in Egypt then getting that last victory can be out of reach if Axis timing in finishing Russia is off even a little bit.

Yeah, I think Global 40 is the first game where defeating Russia is not a game winner for Germany.  In previous games, it seemed to me that once Germany took out Russia, it was just about over for the Allies.  Germany just had too much money for the Allies to stop them.  There are exceptions, like if Germany concentrated so much on taking Russia that they left Berlin absurdly weak and UK or USA slips in with a relatively small invasion force and takes it.  I have seen this happen.  UK takes Berlin, USA lands troops to back them up and most of Germany’s hardware is too far away trying to take Moscow.
Still, in Global 40, there are a lot more variables.  Even if Moscow falls, so could Rome and Germany has Allies right on their doorstep, not to mention losing a precious victory city.

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense now

I tried it already:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20754.75

It wasn’t one of my better games and I doubt it should be used as a guideline (think it was my third Global?)

I wouldn’t recommend it under the current True Neutral rules unless Germany or Japan seriously sends some loaded transports and a carrier group to contest S. America (and be willing to invest in a minor IC as well).  It’s just too much bonus to the US with all those extra free infantry produced.  Japan could send a loaded transport(s) to take Chile on J3 in conjunction with an attack on Pearl Harbor; if Germany is threatening a Sealion and the US is built heavily into the Europe theater, it might work.  You could also try a combined assault with Germany attacking from Gibraltar on G3 to seize Brazil or Argentina while Japan invades Chile; if you combine both carrier groups together and both powers built minor ICs, it could tie up the US for quite a while.  It will also be a huge drain on the Axis war effort too, for a measly 8 S. American IPCs, but it might be worth it if it takes the US out of the war for another 4-5 turns.

I just want to say, that in real life in 1944 the US produced 3x more planes than all other world powers combined. If you make it historical, you have to give the US an income of 200/turn. The idea is that it be an entertaining game and that it jog your memory of history class.

True.^