Russia

@Smack

Rulebook says:

When Germany Is at War with the Soviet Union:
• 5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow).
Theme: High strategic and propaganda value.

The “or” indicates that it is 5 IPC per territory. Be it one , two or three.

Hi ColonelCarter,

Thanks so much for your reply. I will tell a bit about the background of my question. We played Axis and Allies 1940 Europa a number of times, in the beginning the Axis player could still surprise the Allies player with a new strategy now and then, but at the end we had a ‘solution’ for every Axis strategy, and the Allies always won. So, we were looking for ways making the game a little more balanced, and as a result we wondered whether Russia and USA actually have a turn before they are at war. But after reading your response, I must admit that there still Axis strategies to try and hopefully our games with become a little more exciting:)

Ok one year later.

So I’ve tried to attack Russia earlier thinking they’d have less troops in the long run.  Bought mechs to catch up to the front line and some artillery to help in the assault.  I either BARELY win with a very thin Western Europe line (because I’ve sunk a bunch of money into Russian attack) or I lose and pretty much resign.  I also tried bringing Italian mech/tanks to facilitate (which was fun).

Maybe I’m missing something somewhere else on the map but I just can’t seem to hold my own against the Allies when playing Axis.  It’s like nerve-racking trying to make every play count.  If there’s another thread on here with strategies that I’ve missed maybe someone can point me to it?

OK Thank You

since russia cannot hold out until the bloody end, russia should secure as much material as possible.
since infantry is too slow to achieve this, i have been thinking about buying mostly mech inf for russia, too. what helps germany can help russia in the same manner.
mostly it comes down to germany taking leningrad first, then going via belarus, briansk - taking ukraine meanwhile - to moscow, when i am not mistaken.

IF leningrad is threatened by a decent german force, a retreat to belarus is no help, since the same force can be beaten there instead. so a retreat via archangelsk is fine or a faster force which can joy troops positioned in briansk to fortify there.

any mobile troops not lost are better then massive infantry buys lost, imho.
so, just fortifiying cities, makes no sense, except in moscow as a capital city.

greetings

rock`n roll

P.S. Cmdr Jennifer: what do want to express with the attribute “Flottentöterin”? annihilator, murderer, killer, destroyer of the fleets? i guess “Flottenvernichterin” would be better since this means annihilatress or destroyer of the fleets. :D

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

@Imperious:

Well Italy vs UK in Egypt area, slightly favors the Italians.

BUT UK plays before Italy and Italy can lose its fleet on UK1, then UK can move out of Egypt and funnel troops for the counterattack.

Italy is weaker in this game than in AA50. Look at the setup and turn order. If Italy messes up the first turn it can be over for them and like dominoes, Germany becomes more weak.

What do Italy purchase? Fighters get rid of the British navy in the Med or land units to defend and help in Europe.

@LHoffman:

@UN:

Here’s the thing I want to know: when you’re only playing a game of Europe 1940, what will happen to the Soviet Pacific IPCs? Will a Soviet territory in Europe compensate for their absence, or will they simply be added in to the Soviet national income in Europe 1940?

Interesting question… I guess Russia is the only country this would pertain to because, although Britain and the US have territories on both maps, they would not necessarily need more money, if you follow me. Russia should probably get their full income, because they don’t play like a Britain or US and use half on one side of the globe and one half on the other side.

What about France? They have, what, French Indo-China in Pacific right? Would they get the income for that?

Well, we know the UK has a seperate income from its Pacific territories, including India. As for the United States and France…I’m really not sure.

I wonder if Krieg could enlighten us, but he’d probably get mauled by like 50 men in black, so…