Germany and Russia

not in 183 games, the fall of moscow means the writing is on the wall.  germanys bonuses need to be reduced from 5 to 3 (except norway) imo to prevent an unstoppable income flop, and bm air interception rules can prevent the easy suffocation of russia.  these two changes make the game a bit more fair

@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.)

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

yes! war of atrition… :evil: :-D

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Interesting about the American landings.  Do you think the Italy first strategy would have gotten better results?

That would have worked better than the landings on France. Italy was earning some 30 IPCs and was preparing to defend S. Italy from the US (it was sending a DD to block the US fleet from moving into the Med) but the US could have gained access easy. Another thing that he should have done would be to force passage through the Danish Straits by taking Denmark with the UK then sending an US fleet through it. Then Norway would be impossible to take back (bye bye Sweden NO).

@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

@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.