Kamikazes for Japan, what for Germany???

@fatal_papercut:

I just realized that I cant invade through turkey unless I declare war on all strict neutrals.  is there a big downside to that??Â

The downside is that, when you invade a strict neutral, every other strict neutral starts to lean in the direction of your opponents: if you’re an Axis power, all the strict neutrals become pro-Alllied; if you’re an Allied power, all the strict neutrals become pro-Axis.  This means that your opponents can walk into those countries and take control of their income (if applicable) and their standing armies (if applicable), without meeting any opposition, whereas you can’t do the same: if you enter a “pro-the-other-side” country, it behaves like an enemy and you’ll have to fight its standing army, if it has one (check for the silhouette of an infantryman on the map, with a number next to it indicating how many infantry units are present).  In essence, invading a strict neutral gives your opponents the chance to pick up lots of free infantry units.  (Incidentally, invading a strict neutral doesn’t exactly involve “declaring war” on the strict neutrals in the same sense as declaring war on a player power; it simply changes the political status of the strict neutrals.)

Not automatically, but it allows Russia to declare war on Germany. Germany may decide not to declare war on its immediate next turn to collect its NO again.

@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.

@Driel310:

They would need to take over Gibraltar first and then sail through the big Atlantic…… Not sure if they can pull this off before the USA kicks them out.

I know it’ll never happen. I just wanted to know for fun

@cminke:

@LHoffman:

Okay… I am going to play IL:

“stay on topic”

So, how’d I do? Good impression?

UR ALMOST AS LAME AS HIM TO! opps did I use my out side voice again?

c;mon man if it becomes a page long than go ahead

Be nice to your elders.

@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…

@purplebaron:

@zooooma:

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

I disagree.  Even if Germany is favored in A&AE:1940, it could be balanced or favor the Allies in the global game.  There are two reasons for this.

The first is strategic swing power.  As discussed in another thread, the Allies (in particular the US and to a lesser degree UK and USSR) have the ability to “swing” their force from one theater to the other, the better to both concentrate their forces (which is why KGF is so disproportionately powerful a strategy in most other versions of the game) and to respond to specific threats as they develop.

The second is small-scale tactical interactions.  To list two specific examples off the top of my head, USSRs Siberia setup (actually not part of the AAE40 setup, but still…) will do a lot to keep Japan “honest” and leave troops behind to defend Manchuria, which will slow Japan down in taking China and India.  Also, UKs Mideast starting forces and African production will have the option (swing power) to help defend India, as will the potential Indian ocean fleet.

That’s true; those extra 18 infantry (or however many Russia gets in total) will not be in either “half-game” by itself, only in Global.  I also doubt E40 will include the couple ANZAC infantry in the Mid-East (though perhaps they will simply be accounted for with UK infantry in the E40 setup versus the G40 setup), so in essence playing Global as opposed to the half-games has the potential (assuming an unchanged Axis setup) to basically give the Allies a 60+ IPC bid!  Because of this alone, Germany/Italy doesn’t have to be weak in E40 for G40 to be balanced.  And that’s not accounting for the “swing power” previously referred to, however the Global game will also be more taxing on the Allied player with the even greater need for coordination between the multiple powers across the whole board, while the Axis player gets theater-oriented powers that require a lesser amount of coordination.