Slitherine

Six fatalities from bombings by Japanese in Oregon. Launched by balloon from Japan. Japanese version of the V-bombs.

Schnurri wrote:Six fatalities from bombings by Japanese in Oregon. Launched by balloon from Japan. Japanese version of the V-bombs.

You are correct! Here's the link to information on the Japanese balloon bombs: http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/balloon.html

Oregon deaths: Nevada State Journal, June 1, 1945. An article about the death of six people due to a balloon bomb they found in Oregon. This was the incident that caused the authorities to stop trying to keep the balloon bombs a secret, instead warning people to avoid any suspicious balloons or balloon fragments.

By the way I need to correct the record with respect to who first suggested the name Grand Strategy. It was Paul and the name was voted on by the beta group. Of course, Grand Strategy won out and the rest is history.

Schnurri, you sir now have the initiative.

Schnurri wrote:Six fatalities from bombings by Japanese in Oregon. Launched by balloon from Japan. Japanese version of the V-bombs.

Wow, that's interesting. I know there were fears that the Japanese would invade the west coast, but I didn't think they had the technology to bomb the continental U.S. from Japan. Learn something new everyday.

joerock22 wrote:

Schnurri wrote:Six fatalities from bombings by Japanese in Oregon. Launched by balloon from Japan. Japanese version of the V-bombs.

Wow, that's interesting. I know there were fears that the Japanese would invade the west coast, but I didn't think they had the technology to bomb the continental U.S. from Japan. Learn something new everyday.

even worse they were planning to deliver chemical/biological weapons

I don't know if the Americans were lucky that only 6 died or unlucky that the balloons made it across the pacific in any kind of state. Chemical weapons sure would have been a step up even from the kamikaze (divinewind/godwind) attacks or ohkas (cherry blossoms, the Americans nicknamed them baka which means idiot.)

Ok - what is the minimum number of cites the Allies must capture on mainland Italy in order to force an Italian capitulation?

Schnurri wrote:Ok - what is the minimum number of cites the Allies must capture on mainland Italy in order to force an Italian capitulation?

I assume that mainland Italy is neither Sardinia nor Sicily as they are Isles. Then the minimum number is 0, as it is sufficient to capture five of the following six cities Tripoli, Tunis, Cagliari, Palermo, Messina and Tirana.

Correct. You're up Zechi.

I'm a little bit out of questions, so something easy. Rarely Sweden is invaded by the Axis. Why it is so? And what is the main advantage of capturing Sweden if the country is invaded?

zechi wrote:I'm a little bit out of questions, so something easy. Rarely Sweden is invaded by the Axis. Why it is so?

Sweden is already somewhat friendly with Germany by sending them iron ore income, so there is less reason for Germany to invade for income reasons. I'd imagine Sweden is also useful to Germany as a buffer for the pro-axis Finland, so a neutral Sweden is assisting the axis somewhat just by blocking western allies from Finland.

zechi wrote:And what is the main advantage of capturing Sweden if the country is invaded?

I'm not certain what the italics section part means.

If you mean why Germany would want to invade Sweden after the Allies had taken it, then the answer would be the same as the first answer - income and a western allies buffer for Finland. Additionally, Sweden would give the allies easy bombing access to central Germany and the northern part of the east front, which would be far from ideal for the axis side.

If you mean why the Allies would want to capture Sweden after the axis had invaded, it would be similar reason as listed above, but reversed.

That is likely not the entire answer you are looking for though. There might be a DOW penalty that is nullified after one side invades Sweden and Sweden officially aligns with the other side. That would make 're-capturing' Sweden more tempting than if it were neutral.

zechi wrote:I'm a little bit out of questions, so something easy. Rarely Sweden is invaded by the Axis. Why it is so?

I can add a little bit to BuddyGrant's good answers. The Axis get 6 PPs from the Swedish iron ore by default. Sweden, including the iron ore, is worth 13 PPs. If the Axis conquer the country, I believe they only get half of that, or 6.5 PPs. Even if the iron ore stayed at 6 production instead of 3, the Axis player only gets 9.5 PPs instead of 6 if they do nothing.

Plus, Sweden spawns partisans after surrender, and has many cities to garrison. It is not worth the headache of 0.5 or 3.5 extra PPs per turn, when you add in the reasons mentioned by BuddyGrant.

And what is the main advantage of capturing Sweden if the country is invaded?

Not sure. The extra PPs, maybe? Not much of an advantage when you consider the costs.

I've invaded Sweden a few times. The main advantage is an easy knock=out of Norway if you didn't capture it previously. It is also an easy 2 turn capture so you get the additional PP's and it really can't be invaded by anyone except the Russians - makes it easier to renforce Norway in case of an allied invasion of Axis held Norway. All in all though - has to be garrisoned so probably a negative.

It's probably easier to hold Scandinavia and Finland if you have Sweden under your control, as you can easily rail units to a threatened area as long as you have some units in Finland/Norway/Sweden.

BuddyGrant wrote:

zechi wrote:I'm a little bit out of questions, so something easy. Rarely Sweden is invaded by the Axis. Why it is so?

Sweden is already somewhat friendly with Germany by sending them iron ore income, so there is less reason for Germany to invade for income reasons. I'd imagine Sweden is also useful to Germany as a buffer for the pro-axis Finland, so a neutral Sweden is assisting the axis somewhat just by blocking western allies from Finland.

zechi wrote:And what is the main advantage of capturing Sweden if the country is invaded?

I'm not certain what the italics section part means.

If you mean why Germany would want to invade Sweden after the Allies had taken it, then the answer would be the same as the first answer - income and a western allies buffer for Finland. Additionally, Sweden would give the allies easy bombing access to central Germany and the northern part of the east front, which would be far from ideal for the axis side.

If you mean why the Allies would want to capture Sweden after the axis had invaded, it would be similar reason as listed above, but reversed.

That is likely not the entire answer you are looking for though. There might be a DOW penalty that is nullified after one side invades Sweden and Sweden officially aligns with the other side. That would make 're-capturing' Sweden more tempting than if it were neutral.

Sorry for the confusion about the second part of my question. Of course I meant the advantages of an Axis invasion of Sweden.

I think you answer is good, but from my point of view the biggest advantage is the ability to move units from Finland to Norway and vice versa. However, this advantage becomes even better if also manage to link Finland with the eastern front. For example if the Axis capture Leningrad. Then the Axis can rail units from the northern part of the eastern front up to Norway.

As all of the answers were more or less correct, I think the first who did answer may take the initiaitve.

Some better answers from joerock22, Schnurri, & Cybvep, and an interesting analysis from zechi on his question, but I'll happily take the ball due to fortunate reply timing.

I'd like to highlight one of my favorite GS additions to the game, a design for historic rail conversion in Russia that feels realistic while not burdening the player with any boring micromanagement tasks. Concise & easy to understand, this addition adds a lot of depth to the game and is brilliant in its execution. Anyway, the question...

As the axis side, what is the earliest time you can begin railing to a captured Sevastopol after Barbarossa. This question is assuming you began the invasion on May 13th, 1941, and that you have experienced only summer weather. You can answer by turn numbers since beginning Barbarossa (turn 32) or by game date.
Edit: Added multiple choice to make this easier!
A) Turn 33 - June 2, 1941
B) Turn 34 - June 22, 1941
C) Turn 38 - September 10, 1941
D) Turn 42 - November 29, 1941

I ran a hotseat and could rail on Sept. 30, 41 at the earliest - not one of the choices.

Did you capture Sevastopol on turn 1 in your hotseat game? This is possible with an amphibious invasion, if the Allied does not place units around Sevastopol to block the Axis attacker.

zechi wrote:Did you capture Sevastopol on turn 1 in your hotseat game? This is possible with an amphibious invasion, if the Allied does not place units around Sevastopol to block the Axis attacker.

Good Q - For my hot seat test there was no sea invasion but I think completing a successful sea invasion would have resulted in the same answer. The fastest I was able to rail to Sevastopol after a May 13th, 1941 Barbarossa start was turn 38 - September 10, 1941. That means no delays in the South from Russian units, and is just taking into account the speed the game formula uses to convert the rail gauge in the east.

I wonder...could rail converting from captured Sevastopol link up with rail converting from the west? Does rail convert from a 3-supply city behind enemy lines?

In my hotseat I cleared the way of Russians and let the Panzers get there as quickly as possible and was only able to rail at the end of Sept. Sea invasion would have been 1 turn faster I think.