I assume you mean Axis and Allies 2nd Edition not revised…
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis.pdf
GG
Most Important Neautral in Axis and Allies
-
With all due respect your last post made it sound like going directly to WEuro was as good as going to Spain first.
-
The Spain strategy costs you 1 IPC LESS,and you get to attack in the same time frame with 4 additional INF–a total cost savings of 13 IPCs.
Ozone27
I’m sorry if I was somehow unclear. My point was that you are correct.
Ozone27
-
no doubt…. SPAIN
-
Spain is the most Important because it blocks Germany from the British Gibraltor. It is a airfield for alot of allied planes and with the neutral spain blocking Germany, Germany either has to make a full-total commitment to capturing Gibraltor, or let it stay there under British control.
-
I believe turkey is, because if germany takes it, its an open path to africa from europe…
my second choice would be spain! -
Good point MR. Sgt Slice I have found Gibralter to be completely worthless to both Germany and the Allies, therefore I would never bother with it as either side.
-
Spain. I love amassing a huge army in Gibraltar, then move into Spain when I feel ready to confront the German forces in Western Europe.
-
I believe turkey is, because if germany takes it, its an open path to africa from europe…
my second choice would be spain!So you play as if there were a bridge over the Black Sea? I’ll need to check my rules again. I’ve always thought you couldn’t send troops across this as its the outlet of the Black Sea.
-
You can’t send troops from EEuro to Turkey, but the way Turkey is used is to take Cauc on G1 and overfly Turkey with the German bomber en route to Syria, the EMed or AES. Since both Cauc and Turkey are now in German hands in noncombat they can move 2arm f/Ukr to Turkey.
-
Exactly Agent smith, thanks for explaining that for me!
-
:D I get it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
Spain is the only one I’ve used. All others are a waste of 3 IPC’s, IMO.
-
Based on what 3ipcs is not a big deal consider there is a risk involved with most trading battles like 2inf ftrs versus 2inf. There is a chance you won’t take the territory and have thus wasted units for Germany. 3ipcs is never too high a cost if it will gain you something tangible in return, and as I have stated before all the neutrals I listed have at least some gain to be had for taking them.
-
3 IPC’s isn’t much for the allies esp the US, but I doubt I’d ever spend the 3 as Ger or Japan. I’d rather have the extra inf, esp for Ger. With a bid maybe Ger could afford it but again, I think I’d rather have the inf. Then again I like to buy an occassional ftr with Ger. So heck, maybe it is worth it.
-
Well IMO without a bid in either RR or no RR you should have little chance to win as the Axis. That being said there are really only two neutrals the Germans would likely ever want to take Turkey, and Sweden.
-
I can see Germany taking Spain. If the allies land a fighter in Gibraltar (perhaps after taking out the German Med. Fleet), I will consider blitzing a tank through Spain and attacking with one tank and all available fighters. I would be happy to trade a tank + 3 ipcs = 8 for a fighter = 12. I might even be able to retrieve the tank back from Gibraltar if the Allies don’t counter attack right away.
-
I don’t think you can do that in one turn. I’m pretty sure when you blitz a neutral you must stop there.
-
@221B:
I can see Germany taking Spain. If the allies land a fighter in Gibraltar (perhaps after taking out the German Med. Fleet), I will consider blitzing a tank through Spain and attacking with one tank and all available fighters. I would be happy to trade a tank + 3 ipcs = 8 for a fighter = 12. I might even be able to retrieve the tank back from Gibraltar if the Allies don’t counter attack right away.
The allies nearly never land a plane on Gibralter. Further, I can never see Germany taking Spain. In fact, i can rarely see an Axis taking a neutral country. The fact is that this costs in effect 6 ipcs. Why? Well, not only have you taken Spain (3 ipcs), but you also have removed the need for the Allies to pay to take Spain (also 3 ipcs). Further you have made Europe more desirable to invade as that “neutral 3 ipc cost” thing is often a psychological barrier to the landing on Spain (and i love landing Spain as the UK, and then Shuck-shucking from the US - i can have as many as 14-18 inf before Germany can shake its head this way).
Also 221b - i do like your idea of taking Peru. I think that this is a worthy use of 3 ipcs as not only does it allow you the acquisition of Brazil, however it also may distract the US, allowing Germany a little more liebensraum (did i spell that right?).
-
more love space for the germans? :)
i am sorry that i have to destroy your hopes on correct spelling ;) , the “i” changes Leben (Live) to Liebe (love)…. i don’t think that that had any role in the Nazi doctrine ;)
-
Again lets dispell the whole cost argument for not taking a neutral once and for all. There is always risk when making a trade say 2inf ftrs versus 2inf, and this risk is especially true when 2inf defend because on the opponents last turn they got lucky and didn’t take a loss. In this case there is at least an 11% chance you fail to take which in effect costs 3ipcs perphaps more if you consider the enemy doesn’t have to put a guy there to retake. So I look at invading a neutral with Germany/Japan much in the same way. Yes losing 1 guy isn’t great, but as long as you don’t do it every turn you’ll be okay, and if this neutral can allow you to preempt or counter a stronger Allied move like Turkey, or divert precious resources like Sweden then it has served its purpose and probably paid for itself. Usually when the Allies start landing troops in Africa on turn2 Germany has a very hard time making any money there and if any bid has been made there it is a financial hit to take because these units won’t make you any money.
Suggested Topics
