Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, or Finland for Europe Ya with me?

The original AA Europe is fatally flawed.  Germany can win every time by just buying tanks and smashing Russia.  This is a well known problem with that game.  This AA Europe 1940 is much better.

Veqryn rules!

:cry: wasn’t allowed to post links to this thread.  I have a file attached with the links…  if you goto the facebook page I have posted links to my photojournal of my complete match there  as well as the word doc (which I hope loads)

I just love this game and love to share my wars when I can…  I am James Wynn on facebook and my pictures are public for everyone to see and enjoy.

Axis and Allies Europe 1940 links.txt

@Gargantua:

Then you are American.

Give up any delusions of being Indian - you are not.  Unless your parents were from there, and you make a point of getting dual citizenship, you are unfortunately SOL.

My parents were born in India and I do have an Indian passport

It’s rather funny because I’ve been thinking the same exact thing as you. Before I knew the official setup, I though Germany would have close to 20 aircrafts… I managed to work on the setup too and, based on the strength of the airforces in Europe (remember that Germany has only 8 aircrafts), I removed even more aircrafts from the Pacific map than you did. Now Japan “only” has 12 aircrafts (this is enough IMO), US 4, India 1, China 1 and ANZAC 1.  In order to balance things IPC-wise, I had to remove 8 infantries in Russia along with a few other ones on the allied side. (Look on wikipedia: 5 infantries in Malaya is way too much when compared to the armies in Europe.) I’m gonna try this as soon as possible and see if it’s balanced (and fun…).

No.

Like other posters have said, they do give some flavor, but most of them just make the game try to follow the track of the actual war. Say for instance, the ‘Russian Winter’ NA for the Soviet Union. Needless to say when playing Germany, it left me in the cold.

Marines are also not a national advantage, several countries had marine/amphibious assault units. Or partisans, several countries resistanced and conducted sabotage operations, not just people in Soviet territories.

So yeah, adds flavor, but opens up a can of worms too.  :lol:

Meh, really, it simply depends on the Axis’ focus on any particular game.  It looks like Russia only gets a crappy +5 NO once it is at war with the Axis, so compared to pissing off the Americans, war with Russia (only) would be a much more palatable option for Japan.  18 land units, while it is quite a lot, would not be expected to be massed together right at the border with Japan, so they could be picked off a bunch at a time, and definitely doable if Japan gets a major industrial complex in Asia (which it probably will in most games).  Plus, Moscow it so far away that sending reinforcements east is probably not Stalin’s top priority, so Japan could hold onto the Russian IPCs for a long time, gaining back whatever the cost was in killing the units over 3-4 rounds.

Also, it is subterfuge to some extent; forcing the Soviets to respond to threats on their eastern front would pull some attention (and troops) away from the western front, which would help Germany and Italy pull off a successful Sea Lion AND Barbarossa in turn.  Kinda of like not letting your left hand knowing what the right hand is doing.  However, with a Sealion going into action on Round 3 or 4, Japan may be forced to focus entirely on eliminating India so that the UK is incapable of sending reinforcements anywhere else.

I’m wondering what Italy will be required to take in the Med to stop UK air from reaching England.  Definitely Gibraltar and Malta, and all of the African coast, excepting Egypt maybe.  Italy has its hands full.  Maybe it would be best for Germany to ditch Sealion and just go after the Med early and take what it can get?