• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How does the French southern garrisons look now? What of Gibraltar? Why are those Italians not landing in Marseilles/Toulon to link up the Italian/Spanish fronts and sealing the western Med? Or are you planning some other excursions before you tangle with the Allies?
He's not at war with the Allies. I assume it's because CptEasy wants to extract his navy and (most of) army from Spain first, and get them into good positions to attack the Allies? I.e. line some infantry and artillery up against Gibraltar, and put the fleet into positions where it can hurt the French and British med fleet the most...
 
He's not at war with the Allies. I assume it's because CptEasy wants to extract his navy and (most of) army from Spain first, and get them into good positions to attack the Allies? I.e. line some infantry and artillery up against Gibraltar, and put the fleet into positions where it can hurt the French and British med fleet the most...

Right, my question pertained rather too why he wasn't, or didn't. It doesn't look like the French have the capacity to hold of a Franco-Iberian push into its underbelly..
 
Isn't Suez a greater prize than an earlier fall of France at this point?

I must admit, I'm slightly surprised the Brits have not dowed and sent out the RN to stop Italy ferrying its army back and forth completely unopposed.
 
Perhaps the threat system makes it impossible or to costly(later US entry)?

Yes - Threat/Neutrality and US entry are powerful factors to why we do what we do (or not do). You all saw how important that might be in our last game when Axis lost mainly because of too aggresive opening. And I think Allies actullay can't DoW Italy due to low threat. The beauty with this game is that you mustn't only ask yourself what you can do but what you shouldn't... On the other hand, too passive gameplay is seldom rewarding.
 
Yes - Threat/Neutrality and US entry are powerful factors to why we do what we do (or not do). You all saw how important that might be in our last game when Axis lost mainly because of too aggresive opening. And I think Allies actullay can't DoW Italy due to low threat. The beauty with this game is that you mustn't only ask yourself what you can do but what you shouldn't... On the other hand, too passive gameplay is seldom rewarding.

Strategy games are abstractations of real strategy. The one who's got the initiative has the chance to win. In WWII, when the Wehrmacht lost their momentum in late 1941, the war was over as they never could take over the initiative again. Same in HoI 3. As long as the Axis can pick when and where to fight, they've got the advantage. On the other point, I have to disagree with you. Axis didnt lose last game because of too much aggression, but because Allies could take the initiative with a lot of harassment amphibious invasions that pinned Axis forces in Italy and denied the Axis a fast, decisive victory in Russia.
 
The Axis didn't lose the initiative in 1941. They lost it in 1942, in Stalingrad and at Midway.

I'd say they lost the momentum, the initiative was regained and lost a few times over the next few years, but after the gates of Moscow the balance of industrial output and available manpower would shift steadily in the Allies/Comiterns favour.
 
And in Africa too. In fact Africa was as big disaster as Stalingrad.
As I recall, Italy gets one "free" DOW, anything extra means they can be DOWed by Allies.
Still Turkey is one I would go for, as it opens strategic access to East and Suez.

P.S. In our latest game as USA, Axis are closing Suez as we speak.
 
All in all, 1942 was the key year. The Americans came in force and stopped the Japanese at Midway. The Allies forced the Axis to go on the defensive in North Africa and secured most of it (Operation Torch). The Soviets stopped the Axis in Stalingrad and prevented them from capturing the Caucasus. It's comparable to 1917 during the WWI. The year which decided the outcome of war. If WWII was like WWI, the Axis would surrender in 1943 after the Battle of Kursk (effectively the last chance of retaking the initiative) and we would have another Treaty of Versailles in no time.

Concerning this game, I think that CptEasy should be careful not to overextend himself. Spain is a significant commitment on its own and if he wants to go for Suez, he will have to ship many troops to Africa, too.
 
Spain has a very long atlantic coast. And any UK player will loath loosing Gibraltar like that.

Can the allies declare war on Italy based on house rules after such an aggressive move?
 
Concerning this game, I think that CptEasy should be careful not to overextend himself. Spain is a significant commitment on its own and if he wants to go for Suez, he will have to ship many troops to Africa, too.

It seems like that's his thought too. This is the least aggressive we have seen him in these AARs, perhaps a recognition that Italy can easily get itself into trouble with grand ambitions? Yugoslavia is right there for the taking, but what does it really add? A few months of manpower/IC? That's great, but by the time it really begins to add up the war will likely have been decided. It certainly doesn't compare to closing the Med.

The question is when will the hammer fall on Britain? I imagine Japan and Italy want to DOW at roughly the same time for maximum pressure and to prevent the RN from concentrating. Probably can't do it until close to the fall of France to make it safe for a buildup against Gibraltar. If I were Russia I might think about getting in on this sooner rather than later. Britain is going to be hard pressed in a little while. If you can delay the fall of France a couple months, you'll at least put a wrinkle in Axis plans.
 
I the Axis lost in previous game because they were not agressive enough and were very predictable. They lost the power of the first strike from the begining.


The Spanish move in this was not really surprising too and the Allies always have to consider such possibility especially when Gibraltar became unaccesible from the Mediteranean Sea.
 
But aren't we forgetting the bear? If balkan and turkey is left intact it will roughly cut the soviet/Nazi front in half. Besides the northern half of the whole front (from Leningrad to the black sea) has some good defensive terrain.

Perhaps we will finally see a full blown naval attack over the English channel insted?